politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Newark: The final day of campaigning in a battle so importa

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Newark: The final day of campaigning in a battle so important to both CON and UKIP

Either the Tories break their terrible record of losing every by-election defence while in office over the past 25 years or UKIP break their ongoing losing sequence and actually win a seat.

Read the full story here

AlastairMeeks

Nigel Farage will be praying that UKIP don't lose by only a small margin. If they do, his decision not to stand in this contest will be put under the microscope.

Scrapheap_as_was

antifrank said:

Nigel Farage will be praying that UKIP don't lose by only a small margin. If they do, his decision not to stand in this contest will be put under the microscope.

So important for UKIP and yet he's on the beach in Malta instead????

isam

A poor performance = "anything other than a win" I take it?

Maybe when a by election comes along where UKIP have any sort of record of doing well in the constituency they might have a better chance, and criticism for not winning would be justified.

This was 248th on Goodwins list of winnable UKIP seats

Until then, second from a standing start is a decent performance, and anyone calling it failure is showing their bitterness and bias

kle4

The UKIP wind will still be there with a solid but unspectacular second place, it just won't turn into a gale. I think antifrank is right though that narrow loss will be something they want to avoid, Farage surely has at least a small personal vote which might have made a difference, for all the reasons given for not standing were reasonable (if not for all the standing in other places)

JBriskin

Mon Fils down set - Andy up one

2 hours till football

Quincel

Failing to win a seat when the incumbent party got over 50% last time and you lost your deposit is not a terrible result, it simply isn't. Obviously UKIP would rather win, but this is far from their ideal by-election. Newark is demographically the 250th or something best seat for them, for example. If the by-election was in South Thanet I'd agree, but Newark wouldn't be a target seat is this wasn't a by-election: failure is not a disaster.

TheWatcher

Scrapheap_as_was said:

antifrank said:

Nigel Farage will be praying that UKIP don't lose by only a small margin. If they do, his decision not to stand in this contest will be put under the microscope.

So important for UKIP and yet he's on the beach in Malta instead????

Farage pratting about? Nothing's changed since his time at Dulwich.

isam

There is a twitter account called @enfieldspurs that announces before every Arsenal game that anything less than a 5-0 win would be abject failure, then if they win 5-0 says the other team was injury hit etc

EnfieldSpurs @EnfieldSpurs · May 17
When Arsenal lose today I will laugh so hard and not drop it on here that you'll have to block me #whingelikewenger

EnfieldSpurs @EnfieldSpurs · May 17
It's a worthless cup any way... Wigan won it last year

Mike's analysis of UKIP is becoming similar to that account, which many people think is a spoof written by an Arsenal fan

AlastairMeeks

Quincel said:

Failing to win a seat when the incumbent party got over 50% last time and you lost your deposit is not a terrible result, it simply isn't. Obviously UKIP would rather win, but this is far from their ideal by-election. Newark is demographically the 250th or something best seat for them, for example. If the by-election was in South Thanet I'd agree, but Newark wouldn't be a target seat is this wasn't a by-election: failure is not a disaster.

All of that is true, but in the same way that the local election results were presented as a triumph for UKIP when it was highly questionable whether they did as well as last year, it is likely that a clear margin of victory by the Conservatives would be presented as a wheel falling off the UKIP bandwagon. Given the energy that UKIP have put into this by-election and their poor expectations management, they're not going to be able to pat themselves on the back for getting a respectable second.

isam

antifrank said:

Quincel said:

Failing to win a seat when the incumbent party got over 50% last time and you lost your deposit is not a terrible result, it simply isn't. Obviously UKIP would rather win, but this is far from their ideal by-election. Newark is demographically the 250th or something best seat for them, for example. If the by-election was in South Thanet I'd agree, but Newark wouldn't be a target seat is this wasn't a by-election: failure is not a disaster.

All of that is true, but in the same way that the local election results were presented as a triumph for UKIP when it was highly questionable whether they did as well as last year, it is likely that a clear margin of victory by the Conservatives would be presented as a wheel falling off the UKIP bandwagon. Given the energy that UKIP have put into this by-election and their poor expectations management, they're not going to be able to pat themselves on the back for getting a respectable second.

So a close 2nd is a bad result, and a distant 2nd or worse is a bad result?

Haha

MonikerDiCanio

What a twerpish report by Christopher Hope. He can barely articulate his garbage.

david_herdson

isam said:

A poor performance = "anything other than a win" I take it?

Maybe when a by election comes along where UKIP have any sort of record of doing well in the constituency they might have a better chance, and criticism for not winning would be justified.

This was 248th on Goodwins list of winnable UKIP seats

Until then, second from a standing start is a decent performance, and anyone calling it failure is showing their bitterness and bias

I agree. If UKIP has a decent showing (say, around 10% back), there'll not be much focus on them. Labour, dropping from second to third while the principal party of opposition, may have more questions to answer. Likewise the Lib Dems, dropping from one in five votes to one in - well, pick a number.

But that's still an 'if'.

AlastairMeeks

isam said:

antifrank said:

Quincel said:

Failing to win a seat when the incumbent party got over 50% last time and you lost your deposit is not a terrible result, it simply isn't. Obviously UKIP would rather win, but this is far from their ideal by-election. Newark is demographically the 250th or something best seat for them, for example. If the by-election was in South Thanet I'd agree, but Newark wouldn't be a target seat is this wasn't a by-election: failure is not a disaster.

All of that is true, but in the same way that the local election results were presented as a triumph for UKIP when it was highly questionable whether they did as well as last year, it is likely that a clear margin of victory by the Conservatives would be presented as a wheel falling off the UKIP bandwagon. Given the energy that UKIP have put into this by-election and their poor expectations management, they're not going to be able to pat themselves on the back for getting a respectable second.

So a close 2nd is a bad result, and a distant 2nd or worse is a bad result?

Haha

I didn't say that a close second was a bad result for UKIP. It would be an uncomfortable result for Nigel Farage. The two are not the same thing.

UKIP have played to win. It looks like they're not going to. If they don't, their irresistible march will seem that bit more resistible.

corporeal

Depends where you see Ukip at. Is making comparisons to the sdp/alliance an unreachably high bar? Or the early snp for that matter?

volcanopete

The overriding lesson of Newark for the wider electorate is that if you vote Ukip,you get Tory.

TheScreamingEagles

The other thing that should alarm UKIP supporters and for those of us who will bet on them next year.

For nearly a year, we've known there's a strong chance there would be a by-election in Newark because of Patrick Mercer's scandalous behaviour.

According to the Times last night, the Tories have been planning for such an eventuality since last year, selecting their candidate last year, updating their contact lists etc.

Whereas UKIP didn't do anything until the moment Mercer stood down.I mean remember, Farage was ummming and ahhhing about standing in the seat.

That's not a good approach from UKIP if they want to target and win seats next year.

anotherDave

The "media narrative" before the May elections was that UKIP were unclean vermin that stained the air of Britain. They still won the EU elections.

I think they can survive being called disappointing.

stodge

Evening all

TSE's comment about by-election preparation is everything - there's no substitute for planning and getting going before the others get started. The LDs were past masters at this and it's a lesson insurgent parties need to learn.

That said, is this going to be the UKIP Torrington or West Derbyshire ? In the latter, the LDs got to within 100 votes of defeating the Conservatives and had Labour supporters voted tactically, that could have happened. Would it have made a scintilla of difference to the outcome of the 1987 General Election ? I doubt it.

Newark strikes me as akin to West Derbyshire in some ways politically. IF UKIP win tomorrow, it probably won't make as much difference as some on here think - if the Conservatives hold on, the same is probably true.

TGOHF

UKIPs best chance of the parly and last chance for 2-3 years.

Farage chickened out,

AndyJS

stodge said:

Evening all

TSE's comment about by-election preparation is everything - there's no substitute for planning and getting going before the others get started. The LDs were past masters at this and it's a lesson insurgent parties need to learn.

That said, is this going to be the UKIP Torrington or West Derbyshire ? In the latter, the LDs got to within 100 votes of defeating the Conservatives and had Labour supporters voted tactically, that could have happened. Would it have made a scintilla of difference to the outcome of the 1987 General Election ? I doubt it.

Newark strikes me as akin to West Derbyshire in some ways politically. IF UKIP win tomorrow, it probably won't make as much difference as some on here think - if the Conservatives hold on, the same is probably true.

If the Tories lose they might have to rethink their strategy of getting every Conservative MP to visit the constituency about five times, or whatever it is.

Fat_Steve

Off Topic, but interesting
Gordon Macmillan, an editor at Twitter and branding/ communications guru,
thinks (I paraphrase) that Labour and the Tories have so far been utterly rubbish at using Social Media
http://hurryupharry.org/2014/06/04/how-labour-and-the-tories-failed-to-deliver-a-digital-election/

ToryJim

I tend to agree that UKIP don't play the expectations game particularly well. A close result (majority in the 100s) wouldn't drain the sails entirely of wind but the greater the gap the more it will look like the bandwagon running out of road. I'm afraid not liking that analysis won't make it go away. Of course if everything we believe currently is wrong and UKIP win even by 1 vote or by the toss of a coin in the event of a tie it will be a big event. However even there I would council caution lest our UKIP friends get carried away. In 1958 the Liberal party won the Torrington by-election having not contested the previous election. The following year their national vote share went up from 2.7% to 5.9% gaining them no extra seats and the Conservatives won that election with 20 extra seats. So even a UKIP win here may mean nothing with respect to next year.

Fernando

If UKIP was going to make a break-through we would not be having these doubts about its performance. The SDP in 1981 won Crosby, a very safe Tory seat, taking half the votes in a high turn-out. The Libdem victories at Newbury and Christchurch also stick in the mind. The Libdems had always benefitted as the protest party because they were bland and rather wishy-washy and few voters actively disliked them. I suspect UKIP are more divisive: some love them but many more can’t stand them. As such they are a less effective party of protest, and often struggle to achieve the 40% of the votes usually needed to win in FPTP contests.

AndyJS

Fernando said:

If UKIP was going to make a break-through we would not be having these doubts about its performance. The SDP in 1981 won Crosby, a very safe Tory seat, taking half the votes in a high turn-out. The Libdem victories at Newbury and Christchurch also stick in the mind. The Libdems had always benefitted as the protest party because they were bland and rather wishy-washy and few voters actively disliked them. I suspect UKIP are more divisive: some love them but many more can’t stand them. As such they are a less effective party of protest, and often struggle to achieve the 40% of the votes usually needed to win in FPTP contests.

The Alliance was 50% Liberals who had existed for hundreds of years, so it's not a very good comparison.

isam

I get it.

The more votes UKIP get, the worse they are doing!!

They have improved on vote % across the whole country in the last 18 months, almost everywhere there has been an election (even the locals that some are desperately trying to spin as bad, their vote % went through the roof compared to the last time the seats were fought).

But that doesnt matter?

The Euros win didnt count because the turnout was low?

They arent going to win tomorrow, that seems certain.

But they got 3.8% in 2010 and are likely to get over 25% tomorrow.

Nevertheless, it will be bad for Farage is they come a close 2nd tomorrow and a disaster for the party if they do worse than that?

People like @Antifrank and @MikeSmithson really need to look at themselves and wonder if they are speaking rationally or are just angry that public opinion isnt with them as much as they thought it was.

Some scared people about... Nasty old UKIP are coming to get you!

Casino_Royale

More than a touch of Sion Simon about Matthew d'Ancona in the Evening Standard tonight:

"As fans of the television series The Walking Dead will know, the only way to finish off a zombie is to destroy its brain. Today and tomorrow, Cameron wants to show that his is very much intact, that the recovery is safe in his hands, and that, however unloved and unlovely his army may be, it is still active and heading in the right direction: stomping onwards remorselessly, groaning through the night towards a reanimated Britain."

AlastairMeeks

@isam I'm very confident that UKIP aren't coming to get me. This time next year they will be a minor sideshow. To be more than a minor sideshow in a first past the post election, they're going to have to start winning first past the post elections. So far they've been dismal at that. It seems unlikely that will change tomorrow.

TheScreamingEagles

isam said:

I get it.

The more votes UKIP get, the worse they are doing!!

They have improved on vote % across the whole country in the last 18 months, almost everywhere there has been an election (even the locals that some are desperately trying to spin as bad, their vote % went through the roof compared to the last time the seats were fought).

But that doesnt matter?

The Euros win didnt count because the turnout was low?

They arent going to win tomorrow, that seems certain.

But they got 3.8% in 2010 and are likely to get over 25% tomorrow.

Nevertheless, it will be bad for Farage is they come a close 2nd tomorrow and a disaster for the party if they do worse than that?

People like @Antifrank and @MikeSmithson really need to look at themselves and wonder if they are speaking rationally or are just angry that public opinion isnt with them as much as they thought it was.

Some scared people about... Nasty old UKIP are coming to get you!

Christ you kippers really do have chips on both shoulders.

At various stages of PB Mike's been accused of being irrational and ignoring public opinion, from when he said Gordon Brown would be crap before he became PM.

I suspect one of Mike's most profitable tips at the next General Election will be when he tipped UKIP to win 2 or more seats at 8/1.

Re public opinion, as you Kippers love to point out that the Lab/Lib/Con parties are the same, must be galling that more people voted for them than UKIP.

TheWatcher

TGOHF said:

UKIPs best chance of the parly and last chance for 2-3 years.

Farage chickened out,

I wonder if cash came into the equation? HoC - Expenses. EU - Allowances. The latter seems to be handed over without further scrutiny; not sure the former could be pumped into UKIP coffers without kicking up a stink.

volcanopete

Johnson was clever enough to support the LGBT community to win London.Helmer seems to have taken a different approach in Newark.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/06/04/roger-helmer-i-prefer-straight-activity-does-that-make-me-homophobic/

TheScreamingEagles

Are any bookies offering odds on Penny Mordaunt as next Tory leader?

I can't see any.

But I was very impressed by her today.

Casino_Royale

Just seen that clip. That was a fairly hostile Telegraph journalist. Not saying UKIP candidates should be given a free ride by the media. It just felt like his style was more like Michael Crick, or a Guardian report, that one allegedly on the centre-right.

ToryJim

TheScreamingEagles said:

Are any bookies offering odds on Penny Mordaunt as next Tory leader?

I can't see any.

But I was very impressed by her today.

She's got to retain her seat first, plus get into govt.

Richard_Tyndall

Its funny. Normally we see parties doing expectation management. Here we have Mike doing it instead.

In case you missed it Mike, as most non-partisan sensible people have already agreed, this was never a likely seat for UKIP to win. As such it will do nothing to change the narrative because no one with any sense expected anything other than a Tory win. No matter how much you might try to change that narrative everyone can see what you are trying to do so it is pointless.

If I were you I would be more concerned about whether or not the Lib Dems manage to hang on to 4th or get beating once again by the local also-rans.

isam

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

I get it.







People like @Antifrank and @MikeSmithson really need to look at themselves and wonder if they are speaking rationally or are just angry that public opinion isnt with them as much as they thought it was.

Some scared people about... Nasty old UKIP are coming to get you!

Christ you kippers really do have chips on both shoulders.

At various stages of PB Mike's been accused of being irrational and ignoring public opinion, from when he said Gordon Brown would be crap before he became PM.

I suspect one of Mike's most profitable tips at the next General Election will be when he tipped UKIP to win 2 or more seats at 8/1.

Re public opinion, as you Kippers love to point out that the Lab/Lib/Con parties are the same, must be galling that more people voted for them than UKIP.

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

I get it.

The more votes UKIP get, the worse they are doing!!

They have improved on vote % across the whole country in the last 18 months, almost everywhere there has been an election (even the locals that some are desperately trying to spin as bad, their vote % went through the roof compared to the last time the seats were fought).

But that doesnt matter?

The Euros win didnt count because the turnout was low?

They arent going to win tomorrow, that seems certain.

But they got 3.8% in 2010 and are likely to get over 25% tomorrow.

Nevertheless, it will be bad for Farage is they come a close 2nd tomorrow and a disaster for the party if they do worse than that?

People like @Antifrank and @MikeSmithson really need to look at themselves and wonder if they are speaking rationally or are just angry that public opinion isnt with them as much as they thought it was.

Some scared people about... Nasty old UKIP are coming to get you!

Christ you kippers really do have chips on both shoulders.

At various stages of PB Mike's been accused of being irrational and ignoring public opinion, from when he said Gordon Brown would be crap before he became PM.

I suspect one of Mike's most profitable tips at the next General Election will be when he tipped UKIP to win 2 or more seats at 8/1.

Re public opinion, as you Kippers love to point out that the Lab/Lib/Con parties are the same, must be galling that more people voted for them than UKIP.

Not really. The same could be said if any other party.

Ukip are the black kid in south London while the rest are the met police.

There are some wrong uns in the mix so the rest get tarred with the same brush

They get abused, accused and written off. When they achieve anything it is viewed suspiciously and damned with faint praise and when they point this out people say they have a chip on their shoulder

isam

antifrank said:

@isam I'm very confident that UKIP aren't coming to get me. This time next year they will be a minor sideshow. To be more than a minor sideshow in a first past the post election, they're going to have to start winning first past the post elections. So far they've been dismal at that. It seems unlikely that will change tomorrow.

Would you like to treble the bets we have on ukip at the GE?

Richard_Tyndall

TGOHF said:

UKIPs best chance of the parly and last chance for 2-3 years.

Farage chickened out,

Nope wrong again. You are making a habit of this.

isam

Richard_Tyndall said:

Its funny. Normally we see parties doing expectation management. Here we have Mike doing it instead.

In case you missed it Mike, as most non-partisan sensible people have already agreed, this was never a likely seat for UKIP to win. As such it will do nothing to change the narrative because no one with any sense expected anything other than a Tory win. No matter how much you might try to change that narrative everyone can see what you are trying to do so it is pointless.

If I were you I would be more concerned about whether or not the Lib Dems manage to hang on to 4th or get beating once again by the local also-rans.

Mike is old politics

Like his disciples he can't cope with change so he blames the stranger or newcomer

TheScreamingEagles

@isam‌

Awww bless, you really do believe that don't you?

Fernando

Andy J S - "The Alliance was 50% Liberals who had existed for hundreds of years, so it's not a very good comparison."

The Crosby by-election in 1981 was won by the SDP, a very new party at the time, even newer than UKIP are now. The Alliance did not yet exist.

Richard_Nabavi

Let's see:

Big Tory win: Good for Cameron, UKIP a bit deflated

Narrow Tory win: Score draw, with both parties able to draw comfort

Any size of UKIP win: Excellent for UKIP, potentially trouble for the Tories

Labour a bit above above or not too far below their GE vote share: No big issue, although there will be questions about why they didn't get more of the anti-Coalition votes and LibDem switchers.

Labour dropping significantly below their 2010 vote share: I think that would cause some of the tensions within the party to burst into the open, on political strategy, campaigning tactics, and the appeal or otherwise of Ed.

TheWatcher

isam said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Its funny. Normally we see parties doing expectation management. Here we have Mike doing it instead.

In case you missed it Mike, as most non-partisan sensible people have already agreed, this was never a likely seat for UKIP to win. As such it will do nothing to change the narrative because no one with any sense expected anything other than a Tory win. No matter how much you might try to change that narrative everyone can see what you are trying to do so it is pointless.

If I were you I would be more concerned about whether or not the Lib Dems manage to hang on to 4th or get beating once again by the local also-rans.

Mike is old politics

The suggestion that UKIP are somehow 'new' politics is hilarious.

Richard_Tyndall

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

I get it.

The more votes UKIP get, the worse they are doing!!

They have improved on vote % across the whole country in the last 18 months, almost everywhere there has been an election (even the locals that some are desperately trying to spin as bad, their vote % went through the roof compared to the last time the seats were fought).

But that doesnt matter?

The Euros win didnt count because the turnout was low?

They arent going to win tomorrow, that seems certain.

But they got 3.8% in 2010 and are likely to get over 25% tomorrow.

Nevertheless, it will be bad for Farage is they come a close 2nd tomorrow and a disaster for the party if they do worse than that?

People like @Antifrank and @MikeSmithson really need to look at themselves and wonder if they are speaking rationally or are just angry that public opinion isnt with them as much as they thought it was.

Some scared people about... Nasty old UKIP are coming to get you!

Christ you kippers really do have chips on both shoulders.

At various stages of PB Mike's been accused of being irrational and ignoring public opinion, from when he said Gordon Brown would be crap before he became PM.

I suspect one of Mike's most profitable tips at the next General Election will be when he tipped UKIP to win 2 or more seats at 8/1.

Re public opinion, as you Kippers love to point out that the Lab/Lib/Con parties are the same, must be galling that more people voted for them than UKIP.

Nope, just pointing out that however good a tipster Mike might be, when it comes to UKIP his deep seated hatred of the party means his sense goes right out of the window.

The thread he has written here is a perfect example of that. It is the equivalent of saying the Tory party is finished if it can't win Bootle or the Rhondda.

TheScreamingEagles

isam said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Its funny. Normally we see parties doing expectation management. Here we have Mike doing it instead.

In case you missed it Mike, as most non-partisan sensible people have already agreed, this was never a likely seat for UKIP to win. As such it will do nothing to change the narrative because no one with any sense expected anything other than a Tory win. No matter how much you might try to change that narrative everyone can see what you are trying to do so it is pointless.

If I were you I would be more concerned about whether or not the Lib Dems manage to hang on to 4th or get beating once again by the local also-rans.

Mike is old politics

Like his disciples he can't cope with change so he blames the stranger or newcomer

Must be weird for you, someone not coping with change and not blaming the immigrants.

isam

Ooer

Good news for PBers!

Raheem Kassam (@RaheemJKassam)
04/06/2014 18:56
Bad news for #ukip coming soon, sources tell me. Watch @BreitbartLondon for breaking news.

TheScreamingEagles

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

I get it.

The more votes UKIP get, the worse they are doing!!

They have improved on vote % across the whole country in the last 18 months, almost everywhere there has been an election (even the locals that some are desperately trying to spin as bad, their vote % went through the roof compared to the last time the seats were fought).

But that doesnt matter?

The Euros win didnt count because the turnout was low?

They arent going to win tomorrow, that seems certain.

But they got 3.8% in 2010 and are likely to get over 25% tomorrow.

Nevertheless, it will be bad for Farage is they come a close 2nd tomorrow and a disaster for the party if they do worse than that?

People like @Antifrank and @MikeSmithson really need to look at themselves and wonder if they are speaking rationally or are just angry that public opinion isnt with them as much as they thought it was.

Some scared people about... Nasty old UKIP are coming to get you!

Christ you kippers really do have chips on both shoulders.

At various stages of PB Mike's been accused of being irrational and ignoring public opinion, from when he said Gordon Brown would be crap before he became PM.

I suspect one of Mike's most profitable tips at the next General Election will be when he tipped UKIP to win 2 or more seats at 8/1.

Re public opinion, as you Kippers love to point out that the Lab/Lib/Con parties are the same, must be galling that more people voted for them than UKIP.

Nope, just pointing out that however good a tipster Mike might be, when it comes to UKIP his deep seated hatred of the party means his sense goes right out of the window.

The thread he has written here is a perfect example of that. It is the equivalent of saying the Tory party is finished if it can't win Bootle or the Rhondda.

Did you read my comment? His sense when it came to UKIP was back them to win 2 plus seats at the General Election at 8/1.

Now you can only get 5/6.

isam

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Its funny. Normally we see parties doing expectation management. Here we have Mike doing it instead.

In case you missed it Mike, as most non-partisan sensible people have already agreed, this was never a likely seat for UKIP to win. As such it will do nothing to change the narrative because no one with any sense expected anything other than a Tory win. No matter how much you might try to change that narrative everyone can see what you are trying to do so it is pointless.

If I were you I would be more concerned about whether or not the Lib Dems manage to hang on to 4th or get beating once again by the local also-rans.

Mike is old politics

Like his disciples he can't cope with change so he blames the stranger or newcomer

Must be weird for you, someone not coping with change and not blaming the immigrants.

Oh come on that was too easy! You didn't really fall for it?

TGOHF

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

I get it.

The more votes UKIP get, the worse they are doing!!

They have improved on vote % across the whole country in the last 18 months, almost everywhere there has been an election (even the locals that some are desperately trying to spin as bad, their vote % went through the roof compared to the last time the seats were fought).

But that doesnt matter?

The Euros win didnt count because the turnout was low?

They arent going to win tomorrow, that seems certain.

But they got 3.8% in 2010 and are likely to get over 25% tomorrow.

Nevertheless, it will be bad for Farage is they come a close 2nd tomorrow and a disaster for the party if they do worse than that?

People like @Antifrank and @MikeSmithson really need to look at themselves and wonder if they are speaking rationally or are just angry that public opinion isnt with them as much as they thought it was.

Some scared people about... Nasty old UKIP are coming to get you!

Christ you kippers really do have chips on both shoulders.

At various stages of PB Mike's been accused of being irrational and ignoring public opinion, from when he said Gordon Brown would be crap before he became PM.

I suspect one of Mike's most profitable tips at the next General Election will be when he tipped UKIP to win 2 or more seats at 8/1.

Re public opinion, as you Kippers love to point out that the Lab/Lib/Con parties are the same, must be galling that more people voted for them than UKIP.

Nope, just pointing out that however good a tipster Mike might be, when it comes to UKIP his deep seated hatred of the party means his sense goes right out of the window.

The thread he has written here is a perfect example of that. It is the equivalent of saying the Tory party is finished if it can't win Bootle or the Rhondda.

It is a mid term bye election - throw your GE seat priority list out the window.

Ukip will lose tomorrow because well the economy is on the up, the Con ground game is rolling and because Kippers alienate 2 voters for every temporary angry man protest they rustle up.

Many other b/e s have been won in more testing situations - Kippers are smoked.

TheScreamingEagles

As I have a train to catch, I know this is the PB equivalent of farting in a lift and walking out

A major terrorism trial is set to be held entirely in secret for the first time in British legal history in an unprecedented departure from the principles of open justice, the court of appeal has heard.

The identities of the two defendants charged with serious terror offences are being withheld from the public, and the media are banned from being present in court to report the forthcoming trial against the two men, known only as AB and CD.

The unprecedented secrecy has been imposed on the proceedings after the Crown Prosecution Service obtained legal orders to withhold the names of the defendants and allow the trial to take place in private on the grounds, they said, of national security.

At the court of appeal in London, Anthony Hudson, representing the Guardian and several other media organisations, challenged the orders, which will allow a secret criminal trial to take place for the first time in legal history.

He was appealing under section 159 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 against orders made by Mr Justice Nicol.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jun/04/major-terrorism-trial-secret-first-time-legal-history

SeaShantyIrish

Good on you, Shadsy! And please consider giving some of your ill/well-gotten gains to the PB Home for Gormless Punters, Misbegotten Hacks & Jack W!

Richard_Tyndall

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

I get it.

The more votes UKIP get, the worse they are doing!!

They have improved on vote % across the whole country in the last 18 months, almost everywhere there has been an election (even the locals that some are desperately trying to spin as bad, their vote % went through the roof compared to the last time the seats were fought).

But that doesnt matter?

The Euros win didnt count because the turnout was low?

They arent going to win tomorrow, that seems certain.

But they got 3.8% in 2010 and are likely to get over 25% tomorrow.

Nevertheless, it will be bad for Farage is they come a close 2nd tomorrow and a disaster for the party if they do worse than that?

People like @Antifrank and @MikeSmithson really need to look at themselves and wonder if they are speaking rationally or are just angry that public opinion isnt with them as much as they thought it was.

Some scared people about... Nasty old UKIP are coming to get you!

Christ you kippers really do have chips on both shoulders.

At various stages of PB Mike's been accused of being irrational and ignoring public opinion, from when he said Gordon Brown would be crap before he became PM.

I suspect one of Mike's most profitable tips at the next General Election will be when he tipped UKIP to win 2 or more seats at 8/1.

Re public opinion, as you Kippers love to point out that the Lab/Lib/Con parties are the same, must be galling that more people voted for them than UKIP.

Nope, just pointing out that however good a tipster Mike might be, when it comes to UKIP his deep seated hatred of the party means his sense goes right out of the window.

The thread he has written here is a perfect example of that. It is the equivalent of saying the Tory party is finished if it can't win Bootle or the Rhondda.

Did you read my comment? His sense when it came to UKIP was back them to win 2 plus seats at the General Election at 8/1.

Now you can only get 5/6.

Yes I did and that coincides with my view as well. That does not for a second excuse the idiocy of the claim that UKIP failing to win a seat that was never a likely win is going to do anything to change the narrative.

Wishful thinking from Mike I am afraid.

foxinsoxuk

Roger Helmer as the face of new politics is indeed risible.

The interest will be how the Labour vote holds up, and how many former liberals head their way. I think that will tell us more about next years election.

TheWatcher said:

isam said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Its funny. Normally we see parties doing expectation management. Here we have Mike doing it instead.

In case you missed it Mike, as most non-partisan sensible people have already agreed, this was never a likely seat for UKIP to win. As such it will do nothing to change the narrative because no one with any sense expected anything other than a Tory win. No matter how much you might try to change that narrative everyone can see what you are trying to do so it is pointless.

If I were you I would be more concerned about whether or not the Lib Dems manage to hang on to 4th or get beating once again by the local also-rans.

Mike is old politics

The suggestion that UKIP are somehow 'new' politics is hilarious.

TheScreamingEagles

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Its funny. Normally we see parties doing expectation management. Here we have Mike doing it instead.

In case you missed it Mike, as most non-partisan sensible people have already agreed, this was never a likely seat for UKIP to win. As such it will do nothing to change the narrative because no one with any sense expected anything other than a Tory win. No matter how much you might try to change that narrative everyone can see what you are trying to do so it is pointless.

If I were you I would be more concerned about whether or not the Lib Dems manage to hang on to 4th or get beating once again by the local also-rans.

Mike is old politics

Like his disciples he can't cope with change so he blames the stranger or newcomer

Must be weird for you, someone not coping with change and not blaming the immigrants.

Oh come on that was too easy! You didn't really fall for it?

No

MikeK

@TheScreamingEagles
"Re public opinion, as you Kippers love to point out that the Lab/Lib/Con parties are the same, must be galling that more people voted for them than UKIP."

I've seen some stupid statements in my time, but that above by TSE takes the biscuit for absolute cheek topped by a venom that only bewildered Tories can supply.

Richard_Tyndall

TGOHF said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

I get it.

The more votes UKIP get, the worse they are doing!!

They have improved on vote % across the whole country in the last 18 months, almost everywhere there has been an election (even the locals that some are desperately trying to spin as bad, their vote % went through the roof compared to the last time the seats were fought).

But that doesnt matter?

The Euros win didnt count because the turnout was low?

They arent going to win tomorrow, that seems certain.

But they got 3.8% in 2010 and are likely to get over 25% tomorrow.

Nevertheless, it will be bad for Farage is they come a close 2nd tomorrow and a disaster for the party if they do worse than that?

People like @Antifrank and @MikeSmithson really need to look at themselves and wonder if they are speaking rationally or are just angry that public opinion isnt with them as much as they thought it was.

Some scared people about... Nasty old UKIP are coming to get you!

Christ you kippers really do have chips on both shoulders.

At various stages of PB Mike's been accused of being irrational and ignoring public opinion, from when he said Gordon Brown would be crap before he became PM.

I suspect one of Mike's most profitable tips at the next General Election will be when he tipped UKIP to win 2 or more seats at 8/1.

Re public opinion, as you Kippers love to point out that the Lab/Lib/Con parties are the same, must be galling that more people voted for them than UKIP.

Nope, just pointing out that however good a tipster Mike might be, when it comes to UKIP his deep seated hatred of the party means his sense goes right out of the window.

The thread he has written here is a perfect example of that. It is the equivalent of saying the Tory party is finished if it can't win Bootle or the Rhondda.

It is a mid term bye election - throw your GE seat priority list out the window.

Ukip will lose tomorrow because well the economy is on the up, the Con ground game is rolling and because Kippers alienate 2 voters for every temporary angry man protest they rustle up.

Many other b/e s have been won in more testing situations - Kippers are smoked.

Garbage. What I have said has nothing to do with the priority list and everything to do with actually knowing the seat - something you clearly don't have a clue about.

Richard_Nabavi

Expectations management, LibDem style!

http://www.nottinghampost.com/Newark-election-Liberal-Democrats/story-21165880-detail/story.html

isam

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Its funny. Normally we see parties doing expectation management. Here we have Mike doing it instead.

In case you missed it Mike, as most non-partisan sensible people have already agreed, this was never a likely seat for UKIP to win. As such it will do nothing to change the narrative because no one with any sense expected anything other than a Tory win. No matter how much you might try to change that narrative everyone can see what you are trying to do so it is pointless.

If I were you I would be more concerned about whether or not the Lib Dems manage to hang on to 4th or get beating once again by the local also-rans.

Mike is old politics

Like his disciples he can't cope with change so he blames the stranger or newcomer

Must be weird for you, someone not coping with change and not blaming the immigrants.

Oh come on that was too easy! You didn't really fall for it?

No

Then why bite?

To be fair I am not a typical ukip supporter im not patriotic, i dont ghink british is best, I haven't had a bad experience because of immigration, I don't hate multiculture, and I'm not fussed about gay people either. What I am is able to empathise with people that do have these concerns rather than write them off as bigots, stupid or unworthy as the other three parties have

TheScreamingEagles

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

I get it.

The more votes UKIP get, the worse they are doing!!

They have improved on vote % across the whole country in the last 18 months, almost everywhere there has been an election (even the locals that some are desperately trying to spin as bad, their vote % went through the roof compared to the last time the seats were fought).

But that doesnt matter?

The Euros win didnt count because the turnout was low?

They arent going to win tomorrow, that seems certain.

But they got 3.8% in 2010 and are likely to get over 25% tomorrow.

Nevertheless, it will be bad for Farage is they come a close 2nd tomorrow and a disaster for the party if they do worse than that?

People like @Antifrank and @MikeSmithson really need to look at themselves and wonder if they are speaking rationally or are just angry that public opinion isnt with them as much as they thought it was.

Some scared people about... Nasty old UKIP are coming to get you!

Christ you kippers really do have chips on both shoulders.

At various stages of PB Mike's been accused of being irrational and ignoring public opinion, from when he said Gordon Brown would be crap before he became PM.

I suspect one of Mike's most profitable tips at the next General Election will be when he tipped UKIP to win 2 or more seats at 8/1.

Re public opinion, as you Kippers love to point out that the Lab/Lib/Con parties are the same, must be galling that more people voted for them than UKIP.

Nope, just pointing out that however good a tipster Mike might be, when it comes to UKIP his deep seated hatred of the party means his sense goes right out of the window.

The thread he has written here is a perfect example of that. It is the equivalent of saying the Tory party is finished if it can't win Bootle or the Rhondda.

Did you read my comment? His sense when it came to UKIP was back them to win 2 plus seats at the General Election at 8/1.

Now you can only get 5/6.

Yes I did and that coincides with my view as well. That does not for a second excuse the idiocy of the claim that UKIP failing to win a seat that was never a likely win is going to do anything to change the narrative.

Wishful thinking from Mike I am afraid.

Yet Kippers keep on pointing out that UKIP won the Euros in Newark and Sherwood (I know it isn't the seat boundaries) and one has gone on to predict a Kipper win.

Add in UKIP's fall in the share of NEV and not winning this, the narrative writes itself.

foxinsoxuk

I see shadsy is forecasting Paul Baggaly to do well in Newark, beating both LD and Greens.

Is he about to say why? I am curious.

TGOHF

Richard_Tyndall said:

TGOHF said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

I get it.

The more votes UKIP get, the worse they are doing!!

They have improved on vote % across the whole country in the last 18 months, almost everywhere there has been an election (even the locals that some are desperately trying to spin as bad, their vote % went through the roof compared to the last time the seats were fought).

But that doesnt matter?

The Euros win didnt count because the turnout was low?

They arent going to win tomorrow, that seems certain.

But they got 3.8% in 2010 and are likely to get over 25% tomorrow.

Nevertheless, it will be bad for Farage is they come a close 2nd tomorrow and a disaster for the party if they do worse than that?

People like @Antifrank and @MikeSmithson really need to look at themselves and wonder if they are speaking rationally or are just angry that public opinion isnt with them as much as they thought it was.

Some scared people about... Nasty old UKIP are coming to get you!

Christ you kippers really do have chips on both shoulders.

At various stages of PB Mike's been accused of being irrational and ignoring public opinion, from when he said Gordon Brown would be crap before he became PM.

I suspect one of Mike's most profitable tips at the next General Election will be when he tipped UKIP to win 2 or more seats at 8/1.

Re public opinion, as you Kippers love to point out that the Lab/Lib/Con parties are the same, must be galling that more people voted for them than UKIP.

Nope, just pointing out that however good a tipster Mike might be, when it comes to UKIP his deep seated hatred of the party means his sense goes right out of the window.

The thread he has written here is a perfect example of that. It is the equivalent of saying the Tory party is finished if it can't win Bootle or the Rhondda.

It is a mid term bye election - throw your GE seat priority list out the window.

Ukip will lose tomorrow because well the economy is on the up, the Con ground game is rolling and because Kippers alienate 2 voters for every temporary angry man protest they rustle up.

Many other b/e s have been won in more testing situations - Kippers are smoked.

Garbage. What I have said has nothing to do with the priority list and everything to do with actually knowing the seat - something you clearly don't have a clue about.

Are you saying no opposition party has won a b/e tougher than this one ?

Richard_Nabavi

And expectations management, UKIP style:

http://www.nottinghampost.com/UKIP-leader-Nigel-Farage-Newark-election-win/story-21170484-detail/story.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2639973/My-Peoples-Army-march-First-Farage-aims-Newark-Tories-Labour-heartlands.html

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4077604.ece

Socrates

People criticising UKIP for not following the public relations playbook. That's one of the reasons people like them. None of this expectations management bullshit.

TheScreamingEagles

TGOHF said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TGOHF said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

I get it.

The more votes UKIP get, the worse they are doing!!

They have improved on vote % across the whole country in the last 18 months, almost everywhere there has been an election (even the locals that some are desperately trying to spin as bad, their vote % went through the roof compared to the last time the seats were fought).

But that doesnt matter?

The Euros win didnt count because the turnout was low?

They arent going to win tomorrow, that seems certain.

But they got 3.8% in 2010 and are likely to get over 25% tomorrow.

Nevertheless, it will be bad for Farage is they come a close 2nd tomorrow and a disaster for the party if they do worse than that?

People like @Antifrank and @MikeSmithson really need to look at themselves and wonder if they are speaking rationally or are just angry that public opinion isnt with them as much as they thought it was.

Some scared people about... Nasty old UKIP are coming to get you!

Christ you kippers really do have chips on both shoulders.

At various stages of PB Mike's been accused of being irrational and ignoring public opinion, from when he said Gordon Brown would be crap before he became PM.

I suspect one of Mike's most profitable tips at the next General Election will be when he tipped UKIP to win 2 or more seats at 8/1.

Re public opinion, as you Kippers love to point out that the Lab/Lib/Con parties are the same, must be galling that more people voted for them than UKIP.

Nope, just pointing out that however good a tipster Mike might be, when it comes to UKIP his deep seated hatred of the party means his sense goes right out of the window.

The thread he has written here is a perfect example of that. It is the equivalent of saying the Tory party is finished if it can't win Bootle or the Rhondda.

It is a mid term bye election - throw your GE seat priority list out the window.

Ukip will lose tomorrow because well the economy is on the up, the Con ground game is rolling and because Kippers alienate 2 voters for every temporary angry man protest they rustle up.

Many other b/e s have been won in more testing situations - Kippers are smoked.

Garbage. What I have said has nothing to do with the priority list and everything to do with actually knowing the seat - something you clearly don't have a clue about.

Are you saying no opposition party has won a b/e tougher than this one ?

Nigel Farage is no George Galloway.

woody662

foxinsoxuk said:

I see shadsy is forecasting Paul Baggaly to do well in Newark, beating both LD and Greens.

Is he about to say why? I am curious.

Issue of the A & E closure must be resonating

Richard_Nabavi

@Richard_Tyndall - Yes, it is certainly true that you have consistently and firmly made it clear that you think UKIP have no realistic chance in this seat, but you are not the public face of UKIP, and (as my last post showed) Farage and others have been very bullish about it in public. So even if it is objectively true that coming second and some way behind would be a good result, that's probably not how it will be reported. I think that is the point Mike is making, and he is right.

TheScreamingEagles

Just backed Rickie Lambert at FGS at 7/1 with Ladbrokes and to score at anytime at 5/2

Stark_Dawning

I'm putting money on a shock UKIP win. Tory voters are famously unsentimental, and plenty will dabble in the UKIP novelty if for no other reason than to go along for the ride. If Mrs T. can lose Eastbourne to the Lib Dems after the incumbent was murdered by the IRA, then Dave can lose Newark to UKIP after the incumbent quit in sleazy disgrace.

ToryJim

@isam‌
Instead of getting aggressively defensive it may be better to look at things a little more soberly.

The fact that there are far greater numbers of UKIP candidates with views that can be charitably and euphemistically described as "unconventional" suggests either an organic defect in the set up of the party or being charitable a monumental lack of vetting and due diligence. You can't select idiots and not expect opponents to notice and use that, often aggressively.

Your second contention is around performance reporting. In the local elections the NEVS was lower this than last, that is indisputable. We can argue over the difficulty in getting an accurate NEVS for a newish party but it doesn't bear much scrutiny to suggest that the figure was overstated last and understated this. In all likelihood UKIP did less well this year.

Euros the results whilst in line in terms of position with expectation, you won well done, did leave something to be desired in some respects. The margin wasn't vast when expectation fed by certain polling was that UKIP would be relatively further ahead. Of course it is arguable whether that was bad polling or the campaign pegging UKIP back. But finishing so right with the other two was less than many expected.

Finally Newark, some valid points are being made that second place is going to look somewhat like stalling. It may not be entirely fair in relation to past performance in this seat but context in politics counts. The context is the euros which saw a breakthrough of sorts, a second place will be viewed unfavourably against that. I'm also afraid that if you are behind by any great distance then it's going to be reported all the worse.

There are no rules in politics, no fair play, it's for thick skinned people only. Not liking an analysis doesn't necessarily diminish it's validity.

Socrates

@Luckyguy1983

You haven't provided any evidence at all that the people the UK is training in Syria are the same ones that have conducted terrorist attacks. Your whole argument is about as sensible as Saddam causing 9/11, just because he's also a Muslim from the same part of the world Al-Nusra have been the psychopaths in the conflict, and they've been killing FSA troops, who are the ones we're backing.

TGOHF

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TGOHF said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

I get it.

The more votes UKIP get, the worse they are doing!!

They have improved on vote % across the whole country in the last 18 months, almost everywhere there has been an election (even the locals that some are desperately trying to spin as bad, their vote % went through the roof compared to the last time the seats were fought).

But that doesnt matter?

The Euros win didnt count because the turnout was low?

They arent going to win tomorrow, that seems certain.

But they got 3.8% in 2010 and are likely to get over 25% tomorrow.

Nevertheless, it will be bad for Farage is they come a close 2nd tomorrow and a disaster for the party if they do worse than that?

People like @Antifrank and @MikeSmithson really need to look at themselves and wonder if they are speaking rationally or are just angry that public opinion isnt with them as much as they thought it was.

Some scared people about... Nasty old UKIP are coming to get you!

Christ you kippers really do have chips on both shoulders.

At various stages of PB Mike's been accused of being irrational and ignoring public opinion, from when he said Gordon Brown would be crap before he became PM.

I suspect one of Mike's most profitable tips at the next General Election will be when he tipped UKIP to win 2 or more seats at 8/1.

Re public opinion, as you Kippers love to point out that the Lab/Lib/Con parties are the same, must be galling that more people voted for them than UKIP.

Nope, just pointing out that however good a tipster Mike might be, when it comes to UKIP his deep seated hatred of the party means his sense goes right out of the window.

The thread he has written here is a perfect example of that. It is the equivalent of saying the Tory party is finished if it can't win Bootle or the Rhondda.

It is a mid term bye election - throw your GE seat priority list out the window.

Ukip will lose tomorrow because well the economy is on the up, the Con ground game is rolling and because Kippers alienate 2 voters for every temporary angry man protest they rustle up.

Many other b/e s have been won in more testing situations - Kippers are smoked.

Garbage. What I have said has nothing to do with the priority list and everything to do with actually knowing the seat - something you clearly don't have a clue about.

Are you saying no opposition party has won a b/e tougher than this one ?

Nigel Farage is no George Galloway.

Bingo - George had the guts to stand.

Richard_Tyndall

TGOHF said:

Are you saying no opposition party has won a b/e tougher than this one ?

I am saying there are specific on the ground reasons why this is not a seat that UKIP could win. I have said that consistently from even before the election was announced and have set out my reasons for this on a number of occasions on here.

As I hope most people will recognise I don't go in for the expectations management game. I think it is stupid and pointless as most people see through it easily. I have always said that whilst I expect UKIP to poll in double figures at the GE I would be very pleased to see them get a couple of seats. I do not think it is reasonable to expect them to do better than that in seat numbers.

What I find annoying is Mike's frankly transparent attempt to portray a result which has been obvious for weeks or even months as something surprising or problematic for UKIP. Whilst I think they could have chosen a better candidate I still don't believe for a second that would have made any difference to the basic result of a Tory win. Mike trying to spin it in any other way just exposes his own anti-UKIP bias.

TheScreamingEagles

ToryJim said:

@isam‌
Instead of getting aggressively defensive it may be better to look at things a little more soberly.

The fact that there are far greater numbers of UKIP candidates with views that can be charitably and euphemistically described as "unconventional" suggests either an organic defect in the set up of the party or being charitable a monumental lack of vetting and due diligence. You can't select idiots and not expect opponents to notice and use that, often aggressively.

Your second contention is around performance reporting. In the local elections the NEVS was lower this than last, that is indisputable. We can argue over the difficulty in getting an accurate NEVS for a newish party but it doesn't bear much scrutiny to suggest that the figure was overstated last and understated this. In all likelihood UKIP did less well this year.

Euros the results whilst in line in terms of position with expectation, you won well done, did leave something to be desired in some respects. The margin wasn't vast when expectation fed by certain polling was that UKIP would be relatively further ahead. Of course it is arguable whether that was bad polling or the campaign pegging UKIP back. But finishing so right with the other two was less than many expected.

Finally Newark, some valid points are being made that second place is going to look somewhat like stalling. It may not be entirely fair in relation to past performance in this seat but context in politics counts. The context is the euros which saw a breakthrough of sorts, a second place will be viewed unfavourably against that. I'm also afraid that if you are behind by any great distance then it's going to be reported all the worse.

There are no rules in politics, no fair play, it's for thick skinned people only. Not liking an analysis doesn't necessarily diminish it's validity.

Be gentle with him, he and UKIP are like Stephen Lawrence, you, I and the media are like the Met Police.

ToryJim

Socrates said:

People criticising UKIP for not following the public relations playbook. That's one of the reasons people like them. None of this expectations management bullshit.

The trouble is that done right it works. Exhibit A the Tories last month.

TheScreamingEagles

Heart of stone time

Vince Cable has failed to declare expensive polling of his constituency provided privately by his friend Lord Oakeshott. Surveys carried out by ICM and funded by the wealthy peer were a cornerstone of an abortive coup attempt against Nick Clegg — but haven’t yet appeared on the relevant parliamentary register.

Along with a survey of his PPS Tessa Munt’s constituency in Somerset, the financial value of the 500-person polls would come to at least £8,000 and is well above the threshold for declaration on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2014/06/vince-cable-and-tessa-munt-have-failed-to-declare-8000-in-private-polling/

dr_spyn

What has happened in Tower Hamlets BBC seem to be slow on uptake on arrests.

ToryJim

TheScreamingEagles said:

Heart of stone time

Vince Cable has failed to declare expensive polling of his constituency provided privately by his friend Lord Oakeshott. Surveys carried out by ICM and funded by the wealthy peer were a cornerstone of an abortive coup attempt against Nick Clegg — but haven’t yet appeared on the relevant parliamentary register.

Along with a survey of his PPS Tessa Munt’s constituency in Somerset, the financial value of the 500-person polls would come to at least £8,000 and is well above the threshold for declaration on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2014/06/vince-cable-and-tessa-munt-have-failed-to-declare-8000-in-private-polling/

So how long before someone reports him to the Standards Commissioner, and who will it be? Bone? Hollobone?

TheWatcher

Socrates said:

People criticising UKIP for not following the public relations playbook.

Someone forgot to tell Patrick O' Flynn, UKIPs Director of Communication.

I'm sure I saw him trying to rush Farage out of an uncomfortable interview the other day. Perhaps it was a mirage?

dr_spyn

@ToryJim Nick Clegg.

isam

TheScreamingEagles said:

ToryJim said:

@isam‌
Instead of getting aggressively defensive it may be better to look at things a little more soberly.

The fact that there are far greater numbers of UKIP candidates with views that can be charitably and euphemistically described as "unconventional" suggests either an organic defect in the set up of the party or being charitable a monumental lack of vetting and due diligence. You can't select idiots and not expect opponents to notice and use that, often aggressively.

Your second contention is around performance reporting. In the local elections the NEVS was lower this than last, that is indisputable. We can argue over the difficulty in getting an accurate NEVS for a newish party but it doesn't bear much scrutiny to suggest that the figure was overstated last and understated this. In all likelihood UKIP did less well this year.

Euros the results whilst in line in terms of position with expectation, you won well done, did leave something to be desired in some respects. The margin wasn't vast when expectation fed by certain polling was that UKIP would be relatively further ahead. Of course it is arguable whether that was bad polling or the campaign pegging UKIP back. But finishing so right with the other two was less than many expected.

Finally Newark, some valid points are being made that second place is going to look somewhat like stalling. It may not be entirely fair in relation to past performance in this seat but context in politics counts. The context is the euros which saw a breakthrough of sorts, a second place will be viewed unfavourably against that. I'm also afraid that if you are behind by any great distance then it's going to be reported all the worse.

There are no rules in politics, no fair play, it's for thick skinned people only. Not liking an analysis doesn't necessarily diminish it's validity.

Be gentle with him, he and UKIP are like Stephen Lawrence, you, I and the media are like the Met Police.

I didn't say Stephen Lawrence.

Richard_Tyndall

woody662 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

I see shadsy is forecasting Paul Baggaly to do well in Newark, beating both LD and Greens.

Is he about to say why? I am curious.

Issue of the A & E closure must be resonating

That is an issue than none of the parties - including UKIP - have addressed properly. They have all turned up and mouthed platitudes nad played politics but it has only been the local candidates who have really fought this battle.

For context Newark is a town of around 30,000 which is in the process of increasing in population by 50% over the next decade. The A&E at the local hospital has been downgraded so it will no longer accept children or people with chest or stomach conditions or strokes. These people are now taken to Kings Mill at Sutton in Ashfield which even blue lighting is a good 30 minutes away along country lanes.

Not only does this mean that those who are refused at Newark now have to wait much longer before getting treatment it also means that the ambulances available in Newark are now tied up for much longer taking people on hour long round trips to A&E.

There have now been at least two cases reported in the paper where people have died as a result of this change. No one seems to be listening and a fast growing town is seeing more of its services being removed.

I have a personal interest having had an issue due to the closer of the maternity department. When my son was born there was a large number of deliveries that night at Nottingham City where my son was due to be born. They delayed and delayed allowing the ambulance to bring my wife in and eventually it was left to late and we had to go to the A&E at Newark where my son was born without a midwife or doctor present. All was fine but of course we were not overly impressed with the overall management (although the medical people were fab.)

More people will die as a result of the current setup in medical services Newark and it is a shame that none of the big four parties really seem to have picked up on the local anger

TheScreamingEagles

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ToryJim said:

@isam‌
Instead of getting aggressively defensive it may be better to look at things a little more soberly.

The fact that there are far greater numbers of UKIP candidates with views that can be charitably and euphemistically described as "unconventional" suggests either an organic defect in the set up of the party or being charitable a monumental lack of vetting and due diligence. You can't select idiots and not expect opponents to notice and use that, often aggressively.

Your second contention is around performance reporting. In the local elections the NEVS was lower this than last, that is indisputable. We can argue over the difficulty in getting an accurate NEVS for a newish party but it doesn't bear much scrutiny to suggest that the figure was overstated last and understated this. In all likelihood UKIP did less well this year.

Euros the results whilst in line in terms of position with expectation, you won well done, did leave something to be desired in some respects. The margin wasn't vast when expectation fed by certain polling was that UKIP would be relatively further ahead. Of course it is arguable whether that was bad polling or the campaign pegging UKIP back. But finishing so right with the other two was less than many expected.

Finally Newark, some valid points are being made that second place is going to look somewhat like stalling. It may not be entirely fair in relation to past performance in this seat but context in politics counts. The context is the euros which saw a breakthrough of sorts, a second place will be viewed unfavourably against that. I'm also afraid that if you are behind by any great distance then it's going to be reported all the worse.

There are no rules in politics, no fair play, it's for thick skinned people only. Not liking an analysis doesn't necessarily diminish it's validity.

Be gentle with him, he and UKIP are like Stephen Lawrence, you, I and the media are like the Met Police.

I didn't say Stephen Lawrence.

Well if you're going to analogise yourself to a black kid in South London and The Met Police, don't be surprised if people mention the most egregious failure of The Met Police in relation to a Black Kid in South London.

isam

ToryJim said:

@isam‌
Instead of getting aggressively defensive it may be better to look at things a little more soberly.

The fact that there are far greater numbers of UKIP candidates with views that can be charitably and euphemistically described as "unconventional" suggests either an organic defect in the set up of the party or being charitable a monumental lack of vetting and due diligence. You can't select idiots and not expect opponents to notice and use that, often aggressively.

Your second contention is around performance reporting. In the local elections the NEVS was lower this than last, that is indisputable. We can argue over the difficulty in getting an accurate NEVS for a newish party but it doesn't bear much scrutiny to suggest that the figure was overstated last and understated this. In all likelihood UKIP did less well this year.

Euros the results whilst in line in terms of position with expectation, you won well done, did leave something to be desired in some respects. The margin wasn't vast when expectation fed by certain polling was that UKIP would be relatively further ahead. Of course it is arguable whether that was bad polling or the campaign pegging UKIP back. But finishing so right with the other two was less than many expected.

Finally Newark, some valid points are being made that second place is going to look somewhat like stalling. It may not be entirely fair in relation to past performance in this seat but context in politics counts. The context is the euros which saw a breakthrough of sorts, a second place will be viewed unfavourably against that. I'm also afraid that if you are behind by any great distance then it's going to be reported all the worse.

There are no rules in politics, no fair play, it's for thick skinned people only. Not liking an analysis doesn't necessarily diminish it's validity.

I just don't see the need for spin when debating politics. If we were trying to convince the general public on here then maybe, but we aren't.

It's worth being honest in discussion, if ukip had not won the euros I would have been the first to say I was disappointed and the result was disappointing.

If mike was an idiot I would let his ukip bias go, but he obviously isn't and so its worth pointing out

TheScreamingEagles

What's that old saying, a little knowledge can be dangerous...

Lloyd Embley ‏@Mirror_Editor 45s

Farage tells conference in Malta he doesn't want to live in a country with two languages - a country like, er, Malta

Ninoinoz

ToryJim said:

Socrates said:

People criticising UKIP for not following the public relations playbook. That's one of the reasons people like them. None of this expectations management bullshit.

The trouble is that done right it works. Exhibit A the Tories last month.

The stories from last months elections in my order of precedence:

1. UKIP wins;1st non-ConLab victory for over 100 years.
2. LibDem drubbing; In a European election by PR.
3. UKIP taking votes off Labour at the locals.
4. UKIP winning a seat in Scotland or SNP/Salmond a laughing stock.
5. Labour just manging to finish 2nd as the Official Opposition in the Euros.
6. Tories finish 3rd for 1st time ever.

Now, you may query my order, but it doesn't huge political skill to keep the 6th rated story out of the media.

TheScreamingEagles

isam said:

ToryJim said:

@isam‌
Instead of getting aggressively defensive it may be better to look at things a little more soberly.

The fact that there are far greater numbers of UKIP candidates with views that can be charitably and euphemistically described as "unconventional" suggests either an organic defect in the set up of the party or being charitable a monumental lack of vetting and due diligence. You can't select idiots and not expect opponents to notice and use that, often aggressively.

Your second contention is around performance reporting. In the local elections the NEVS was lower this than last, that is indisputable. We can argue over the difficulty in getting an accurate NEVS for a newish party but it doesn't bear much scrutiny to suggest that the figure was overstated last and understated this. In all likelihood UKIP did less well this year.

Euros the results whilst in line in terms of position with expectation, you won well done, did leave something to be desired in some respects. The margin wasn't vast when expectation fed by certain polling was that UKIP would be relatively further ahead. Of course it is arguable whether that was bad polling or the campaign pegging UKIP back. But finishing so right with the other two was less than many expected.

Finally Newark, some valid points are being made that second place is going to look somewhat like stalling. It may not be entirely fair in relation to past performance in this seat but context in politics counts. The context is the euros which saw a breakthrough of sorts, a second place will be viewed unfavourably against that. I'm also afraid that if you are behind by any great distance then it's going to be reported all the worse.

There are no rules in politics, no fair play, it's for thick skinned people only. Not liking an analysis doesn't necessarily diminish it's validity.

I just don't see the need for spin when debating politics. If we were trying to convince the general public on here then maybe, but we aren't.

It's worth being honest in discussion, if ukip had not won the euros I would have been the first to say I was disappointed and the result was disappointing.

If mike was an idiot I would let his ukip bias go, but he obviously isn't and so its worth pointing out

I will be expanding on Mike's point, if UKIP don't win Newark in a thread on Friday.

One of the biggest problem for the SDP/Alliance and the Lib Dems winning seats at Westminster was the voters told pollsters, that voting for them was a wasted vote so they didn't vote for them.

If UKIP keep on getting nothing but impressive second places, then the same problem will arise for them..

isam

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ToryJim said:

@isam‌
Instead of getting aggressively defensive it may be better to look at things a little more soberly.

The fact that there are far greater numbers of UKIP candidates with views that can be charitably and euphemistically described as "unconventional" suggests either an organic defect in the set up of the party or being charitable a monumental lack of vetting and due diligence. You can't select idiots and not expect opponents to notice and use that, often aggressively.

Your second contention is around performance reporting. In the local elections the NEVS was lower this than last, that is indisputable. We can argue over the difficulty in getting an accurate NEVS for a newish party but it doesn't bear much scrutiny to suggest that the figure was overstated last and understated this. In all likelihood UKIP did less well this year.

Euros the results whilst in line in terms of position with expectation, you won well done, did leave something to be desired in some respects. The margin wasn't vast when expectation fed by certain polling was that UKIP would be relatively further ahead. Of course it is arguable whether that was bad polling or the campaign pegging UKIP back. But finishing so right with the other two was less than many expected.

Finally Newark, some valid points are being made that second place is going to look somewhat like stalling. It may not be entirely fair in relation to past performance in this seat but context in politics counts. The context is the euros which saw a breakthrough of sorts, a second place will be viewed unfavourably against that. I'm also afraid that if you are behind by any great distance then it's going to be reported all the worse.

There are no rules in politics, no fair play, it's for thick skinned people only. Not liking an analysis doesn't necessarily diminish it's validity.

Be gentle with him, he and UKIP are like Stephen Lawrence, you, I and the media are like the Met Police.

I didn't say Stephen Lawrence.

Well if you're going to analogise yourself to a black kid in South London and The Met Police, don't be surprised if people mention the most egregious failure of The Met Police in relation to a Black Kid in South London.

Ok I meant black kids getting stopped and searched and viewed with suspicion in the back of one or two wrong uns not Stephen Lawrence being murdered

Ninoinoz

TheScreamingEagles said:

What's that old saying, a little knowledge can be dangerous...

Lloyd Embley ‏@Mirror_Editor 45s

Farage tells conference in Malta he doesn't want to live in a country with two languages - a country like, er, Malta

So what? He doesn't want to live in Malta? Presumably, that's why he doesn't.

volcanopete

What concerns me most most about Ukip is the lack of support for evidence-based policy.There is the dangerous ignorance of much of what Ukip says, eg Helmers' views on asbestos I posted here-I was a health and safety rep.- and on climate change which they want removed from the national curriculum.I could go on.There are enormous benefits from immigration too,both economic and social, and I for one appreciate the free movement of people like me who like to travel freely across the continent.There are workers' rights to consider too,never even mentioned in the 2 debates between Clegg and Farage.
Free movement is good for Britain,based on evidence,something in short supply in Ukip.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/hugo-dixon/free-movement-britain_b_5436803.html

GIN1138

Here's Dan's latest Ed is crap pice;

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100274828/queens-speech-labour-mps-are-now-just-giving-up-on-ed-miliband/

Considering he probably had this ready to go at 9am this morning, not sure why it's taken so long to post it up.

TheScreamingEagles

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ToryJim said:

@isam‌
Instead of getting aggressively defensive it may be better to look at things a little more soberly.


There are no rules in politics, no fair play, it's for thick skinned people only. Not liking an analysis doesn't necessarily diminish it's validity.

Be gentle with him, he and UKIP are like Stephen Lawrence, you, I and the media are like the Met Police.

I didn't say Stephen Lawrence.

Well if you're going to analogise yourself to a black kid in South London and The Met Police, don't be surprised if people mention the most egregious failure of The Met Police in relation to a Black Kid in South London.

Ok I meant black kids getting stopped and searched and viewed with suspicion in the back of one or two wrong uns not Stephen Lawrence being murdered

Fortunately that's changing. As Theresa May said in her speech to the Police Federation

I can already hear some of you say, “but the opinion polls show confidence in the police hasn’t changed.” And that is indeed true. The opinion polls show consistently that about two thirds of the public trust the police to tell the truth. But that is no reason to rest on our laurels, because we should never accept a situation in which a third of people do not trust police officers to tell the truth.

And for different communities, the numbers can get very worrying indeed. According to one survey carried out recently only 42% of black people from a Caribbean background trust the police. That is simply not sustainable. Change is therefore required.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/home-secretarys-police-federation-2014-speech

ToryJim

Ninoinoz said:

ToryJim said:

Socrates said:

People criticising UKIP for not following the public relations playbook. That's one of the reasons people like them. None of this expectations management bullshit.

The trouble is that done right it works. Exhibit A the Tories last month.

The stories from last months elections in my order of precedence:

1. UKIP wins;1st non-ConLab victory for over 100 years.
2. LibDem drubbing; In a European election by PR.
3. UKIP taking votes off Labour at the locals.
4. UKIP winning a seat in Scotland or SNP/Salmond a laughing stock.
5. Labour just manging to finish 2nd as the Official Opposition in the Euros.
6. Tories finish 3rd for 1st time ever.

Now, you may query my order, but it doesn't huge political skill to keep the 6th rated story out of the media.

The skill is ensuring it's so low down the list. To have the narratives focus on everything but the government in a mid term election is more than impressive. The Tories played a blinder in media terms, which given past experience is something in itself.

TGOHF

Latest shocking new leadership numbers from the Guardian !

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jun/04/polticians-pull-pints-al-murray-pub-landlord?CMP=twt_gu

TheScreamingEagles

Ninoinoz said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

What's that old saying, a little knowledge can be dangerous...

Lloyd Embley ‏@Mirror_Editor 45s

Farage tells conference in Malta he doesn't want to live in a country with two languages - a country like, er, Malta

So what? He doesn't want to live in Malta? Presumably, that's why he doesn't.

But when you're in Malta, like Farage is, it's probably not the best place to make that comment.

SeaShantyIrish

In case anyone here still pays attention to US politics

MISSISSIPPI 2014 REPUBLICAN PRIMARY for US SENATE

Long-term (very) incumbent establishmentarian US Senator Thad Cochran versus teaparty challenger Chris McDaniel. Until three weeks ago McDaniel was leading polls against much older (and not much to show for it) Cochrane. Until blogger connected with teapartiers connected with McD campaign declded to celebrate Easter by visiting Sen Cochran wife, who suffers from dementia in her nursing home, photographing her and posting pixs on blog. To "illustrate" totally-unproven claim that Sen was having affair with one of his aids - total BS.

Upshot was 1. alleged perps arrested & charged with elder abuse, conspiracy, etc.; and 2) Cochran went up in the polls and McDaniel when down. Also raised profile of the race, which ordinarily would boost turnout but the disgusting nature of what was done to Mrs Cochran may also have convinced some potential voters to stay away from the mudpit that is Miss.GOP politics

Set stage for last night's / today's photo finish. WIth a few handfulls of votes here and there yet to be counted, McDaniels is leading Cochran by about 1,700 votes statewide:

Chris McDaniel 49.5%
Thad Cochran 48.9%
Thomas Carey 1.5%

IF the above numbers hold AND McDaniels remains below 50% plus one, THEN the result of the primary is a RUNOFF in three weeks between McDaniels and Cochran.




MISSISSIPPI 4th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 2014 REPUBLICAN PRIMARY

This is sourthernmost district in the state, runs from Biloxi and Gulf Coast (aka Redneck Riviera) inland to Hattiesburg and piney woods. Pitted current Republican US Rep Steven Palazzo against former Democratic congressman Gene Taylor, the guy Palazzo beat to get into Congress in the first place. Taylor was a different kind of Democraty, famously refused to vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker (and maybe alienated the small local Italian community?)

Result of last nights primary have incumbent Palazzo just above 50% by about 500 votes. HOWEVER in 13 precincts in Harrison County (Biloxi) local Republicans (under state law responsible for primary voting materials for their primary) provided the wrong voting machines or something. Meaning that as-yet unknown number of ballots were NOT counted last night, in county that Taylor won approx 65% of the vote.

So this morning, local voting & party officials in Harrison Co were try8ing to sort it out. Check out live blog by Biloxi Sun newspaper. Latest word was that looks like there are NOT enough ballots left to drive Palazzo's percentage below 50% thus forcing a runoff in this race.


Cheers,

Sea Shanty Irish

foxinsoxuk

Small A/E like Newark are not viable for major conditions like strokes. Contempory management requires 24 hour scanning and interventional radiology to re-perfuse the brain. If I had a stroke in Newark, I would want the blue light to QMC in Nottingham.

I agree though about transport and capacity though, if units are closing there obviously needs to be upgrading elsewhere. Sherwood Forest hospitals is a disaster from the management point of view. It would be better to be part of either Nottingham or Lincoln Trust, and of these Nottingham would be the viable one.

Richard_Tyndall said:

woody662 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

I see shadsy is forecasting Paul Baggaly to do well in Newark, beating both LD and Greens.

Is he about to say why? I am curious.

Issue of the A & E closure must be resonating

That is an issue than none of the parties - including UKIP - have addressed properly. They have all turned up and mouthed platitudes nad played politics but it has only been the local candidates who have really fought this battle.

For context Newark is a town of around 30,000 which is in the process of increasing in population by 50% over the next decade. The A&E at the local hospital has been downgraded so it will no longer accept children or people with chest or stomach conditions or strokes. These people are now taken to Kings Mill at Sutton in Ashfield which even blue lighting is a good 30 minutes away along country lanes.

Not only does this mean that those who are refused at Newark now have to wait much longer before getting treatment it also means that the ambulances available in Newark are now tied up for much longer taking people on hour long round trips to A&E.

There have now been at least two cases reported in the paper where people have died as a result of this change. No one seems to be listening and a fast growing town is seeing more of its services being removed.

I have a personal interest having had an issue due to the closer of the maternity department. When my son was born there was a large number of deliveries that night at Nottingham City where my son was due to be born. They delayed and delayed allowing the ambulance to bring my wife in and eventually it was left to late and we had to go to the A&E at Newark where my son was born without a midwife or doctor present. All was fine but of course we were not overly impressed with the overall management (although the medical people were fab.)

More people will die as a result of the current setup in medical services Newark and it is a shame that none of the big four parties really seem to have picked up on the local anger

ToryJim

TheScreamingEagles said:

What's that old saying, a little knowledge can be dangerous...

Lloyd Embley ‏@Mirror_Editor 45s

Farage tells conference in Malta he doesn't want to live in a country with two languages - a country like, er, Malta

What about the Welsh more to the point?

TheScreamingEagles

@SeaShantyIrish - If Hillary doesn't run, who will get the Democrat Party nomination?

Thanks for your reply (I really am getting on a train now and won't be able to reply for a bit)

TheWatcher

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ToryJim said:

@isam‌
Instead of getting aggressively defensive it may be better to look at things a little more soberly.

The fact that there are far greater numbers of UKIP candidates with views that can be charitably and euphemistically described as "unconventional" suggests either an organic defect in the set up of the party or being charitable a monumental lack of vetting and due diligence. You can't select idiots and not expect opponents to notice and use that, often aggressively.

Your second contention is around performance reporting. In the local elections the NEVS was lower this than last, that is indisputable. We can argue over the difficulty in getting an accurate NEVS for a newish party but it doesn't bear much scrutiny to suggest that the figure was overstated last and understated this. In all likelihood UKIP did less well this year.

Euros the results whilst in line in terms of position with expectation, you won well done, did leave something to be desired in some respects. The margin wasn't vast when expectation fed by certain polling was that UKIP would be relatively further ahead. Of course it is arguable whether that was bad polling or the campaign pegging UKIP back. But finishing so right with the other two was less than many expected.

Finally Newark, some valid points are being made that second place is going to look somewhat like stalling. It may not be entirely fair in relation to past performance in this seat but context in politics counts. The context is the euros which saw a breakthrough of sorts, a second place will be viewed unfavourably against that. I'm also afraid that if you are behind by any great distance then it's going to be reported all the worse.

There are no rules in politics, no fair play, it's for thick skinned people only. Not liking an analysis doesn't necessarily diminish it's validity.

Be gentle with him, he and UKIP are like Stephen Lawrence, you, I and the media are like the Met Police.

I didn't say Stephen Lawrence.

Well if you're going to analogise yourself to a black kid in South London and The Met Police, don't be surprised if people mention the most egregious failure of The Met Police in relation to a Black Kid in South London.

Ok I meant black kids getting stopped and searched and viewed with suspicion in the back of one or two wrong uns not Stephen Lawrence being murdered

Wouldn't a better analogy be that UKIP are the trafficked Romanians, and everyone else is the evil property speculating gang master?

ToryJim

@isam‌
You talk about Mike's UKIP bias as you perceive it. I would counsel you to heed Matthew 7:3.

corporeal

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

I get it.

The more votes UKIP get, the worse they are doing!!

They have improved on vote % across the whole country in the last 18 months, almost everywhere there has been an election (even the locals that some are desperately trying to spin as bad, their vote % went through the roof compared to the last time the seats were fought).

But that doesnt matter?

Christ you kippers really do have chips on both shoulders.

At various stages of PB Mike's been accused of being irrational and ignoring public opinion, from when he said Gordon Brown would be crap before he became PM.

I suspect one of Mike's most profitable tips at the next General Election will be when he tipped UKIP to win 2 or more seats at 8/1.

Re public opinion, as you Kippers love to point out that the Lab/Lib/Con parties are the same, must be galling that more people voted for them than UKIP.

Nope, just pointing out that however good a tipster Mike might be, when it comes to UKIP his deep seated hatred of the party means his sense goes right out of the window.

The thread he has written here is a perfect example of that. It is the equivalent of saying the Tory party is finished if it can't win Bootle or the Rhondda.

Did you read my comment? His sense when it came to UKIP was back them to win 2 plus seats at the General Election at 8/1.

Now you can only get 5/6.

Yes I did and that coincides with my view as well. That does not for a second excuse the idiocy of the claim that UKIP failing to win a seat that was never a likely win is going to do anything to change the narrative.

Wishful thinking from Mike I am afraid.

Go look at the history. Hamilton was never likely to be a SNP win, but it was. Same for Crosby, Croydon North West etc for the Alliance, and Carmarthen etc for Plaid Cymru.

We've seen safe seats fall at by-elections several times before. Indeed most significant parties we've seen emerge have won such seats early on in their progression.

That's not to say UKIP have to win or they're finished, but expecting them to pull off a by-election win is to expect them to do well as other parties have done while emerging.

In short, to claim the expectations as unreasonable is to ignore all the comparable precedents.