UKIP have had good by-election performances before. In June 2009 less than a year before the general election the Conservatives won Norwich North from labour with a huge swing. This performance drowned out news of a good showing by UKIP who picked up over 4k votes and 12% of the poll. So what happened in 2010: they polled fewer than 2k and fell to 4% of the poll. UKIP are unlikely to win any seats in 2015.
UKIP are now picking up roughly 1 in 4 of the voters those people cannot be ignored or buried by tactical voting.
Only in by elections, euros, and other fun-runs that don't actually alter the government. In those that do, UKIP underperform these other results; viz the 17% they got in the locals, and the 3% they got in the GE.
The SDP polled over 50% in the early 80s; they had broken the mould; where are they now?
"UKIP is the best thing to have happened to the Conservative Party since 1992." Discuss
Possibly.
The Conservative party are definitely better off with UKIP existing as a separate party.
The GOP was/is being ripped apart by the "party within a party" tea party movement. Just as Labour was ripped apart by the left in the 80s and Major's eurosceptics.
The Tories may well be the stupid party, but they are also the lucky party.
They are also quite electorally ruthless at times. There is a reason that the demise of the Conservative Party has been predicted many times but never occurred. I think even now with UKIP enjoying a modest carnival it is far more likely that the Tories will destroy UKIP than the reverse not in one grand swoop but by slowly and relentlessly choking off the avenues of advance and strangling the electoral life out of it.
"I think even now with UKIP enjoying a modest carnival it is far more likely that the Tories will destroy UKIP than the reverse"
The BBC version of reality isn't true: grooming gangs, people leaving the cities because of a gang culture that doesn't officially exist, massive expansion of the shadow economy with unskilled manual and service work shifted to 12+ to a house imports etc. None of this is going away.
Hiding the true reality and attacking people who say different doesn't change the underlying reality it only slows down the rate of people realizing it. So the Tories are doomed by open borders - as clearly flagged by the metro elections - it's just a question of whether the TV media can slow down a party like Ukip replacing them before it no longer matters.
Today that is looking dicey but Con are doomed either way.
Every single prediction of Tory demise has failed. The Conservative Party will survive now. Of course there are challenges, when aren't there, but the Conservatives usually find a means of surmounting them or if not outflanking them.
Cameron's mistake on Lisbon was not to qualify his promise by saying "if elected, and if not ratified". He could not foretell the future that Brown would get frit about an earlier election. If you read Hague's speech at conference at the same time the promise is properly qualified and was Tory policy. I can't understand why people who appear to be knowledgeable about politics keep repeating the same old canard unless they are just looking for an excuse to criticise Cameron. Lisbon is a symbol to the disaffected but a false symbol. It would not be prudent for him to lay out now his objectives for repatriation of powers. He will need to find allies in the EU to support him if his goals are to be realistic.
It wasn't a mistake, he knew exactly what he was doing. Politicians know how to be clear and how to be vague, and Cameron chose the second one. The papers wrote headlines to the effect that he was promising a referendum either way, he could easily have cleared up the "confusion", and he chose not to.
This was effective politics. If he hadn't done it, he may not have been elected, because it held on to a crucial few percent of the vote at a time when Gordon Brown could have called a general election and come out as largest party, or maybe even squeaked a majority.
@Casino_Royale - Very interesting post of your in response to JohnO. I'd just like to comment on one point, which is often made, but which completely puzzles me:
Cameron has lost my confidence because he doesn't really believe anything, and changes his angle so often, I just don't trust him.
I simply cannot understand how anyone can take this view. The way I see it, Cameron has been absolutely consistent. Look at his 2005 speeches: what has changed? Nothing - with minor differences to account for the fact that a bloody great economic crash happened in the meantime, large chunks of these could serve as introductions for the 2010 and, I believe, 2015 manifestos:
"More than 10,000 Newark constituents put their cross in our box – up from fewer than 2,000 at the 2010 General Election. We did particularly well again with working class voters who would once have backed Labour with barely a second thought. But out in the more prosperous rural areas there is no doubt that the Tory vote has firmed up a bit.
Credit where it is due, the Tories put in an enormous and very well-organised campaigning effort. They were running full pelt in Newark a fortnight before the European elections had even taken place.
They flooded the place with MPs and activists. We were never going to be able to match that scale of operation. I’d be interested to know how much money they spent on their campaign – although obviously they will be confident that they can demonstrate that they have stayed within statutory limits.
If the Conservative Party could fight every seat at the next general election in such a fashion then every other party could be in trouble. Unfortunately for them, they can’t. They don’t have the manpower and even their backers don’t have pockets that deep.
I have spoken about UKIP targeting 20, 30 or 40 key seats at the general election. On any measurement before Thursday, Newark would not have been one of them. In fact it would have been nowhere near. But now we have established a party infrastructure in the town and also won the backing of 10,000 voters we will have to take another look at that"
When it comes to UKIP, although your criticisms of their electoral strategy and targeting have a lot of merit, it's clear you don't understand them in the slighest. You get it badly wrong time after time.
Right, must stop avoiding work now and get back to it. I've got a weekend I want to enjoy guilt-free.
I dislike everything UKIP stand for and I dislike still more the dogwhistles that they send out to sections of the electorate. Some good people are misguidedly following them. Most of those I expect will regret that sooner rather than later.
But I never let my dislike of them get in the way of my assessment of their electoral chances. I need to get a proper handle on that if I'm going to bet effectively at the next election. How many, where and who are critical questions that I'm wrestling with. I hope that kippers would acknowledge that I leave my prejudices at the door when I analyse UKIP on my own site.
I have acknowledged that by any normal yardstick they did very well last night. It's their own expectation management that has let them down. I have bet on them and would do so again where appropriate.
So what is it so far that you think I've got wrong about UKIP?
Peter Curran @moridura 9 mins IpsosMORI: Satisfaction ratings for Alistair Darling in freefall: +5% in September, +3% in December, -3% in February and -16% in June.
This only proves he is doing a good job. Previously, the SNP types didn't take him seriously. Now, they know he is a serious threat to their vision of Scotland. Hence, the disliking.
Thatcher was never liked. Nothing much to like about her anyway. She won elections.
Yeah, that's right, the dip in 'Mumbles' Darling's ratings are entirely down to SNP supporters suddenly realising they dislike Darling! A magnificent effort!
Newark would have been a good result under normal circumstances but would have been a touch closer imo but some of the potential Ukip vote is being held back by the political pressure from the TV.
It's weird how the europhile political class can open the borders even though the majority of people privately disagree. As long as they have a few hundred unelected people in TV news rooms censor the negative consequences and shout "racist" loud and often enough at anyone who disagrees with open borders *publicly* then democracy breaks down.
Anyway, can't be helped as like the political class the telly people are so insulated from the consequences of their actions they can feel nicely morally superior with no payback.
The rate of immigration should be lower than the rate of integration. The guardianista telly people can't change that reality all they're doing is hiding it long enough to ensure the maximum amount of damage is done.
So, the people didn't vote the way you wanted, huh? And now you need to find a scapegoat.
Nope. Up 22% is still good, however I think it could have been up 28-ish instead to end up with low 30s.
I think it's pretty clear the telly media targets who they perceive as the socially right most party and that party takes a hit of n%.
"More than 10,000 Newark constituents put their cross in our box – up from fewer than 2,000 at the 2010 General Election. ... But now we have established a party infrastructure in the town and also won the backing of 10,000 voters we will have to take another look at that"
I would take issue with that on a practical basis.
A protest party did very well in the 80s when there was a poor Labour opposition.
10,000 voters today does not mean 10,000 supporters at the GE.
Are they going to question Robinson or inquire after his remarks?
I may disagree with both Mr McConnell's and Mr Robinson's views, but the idea that this is a police matter is a serious threat to liberty. There must be freedom to criticise, even in the most offensive terms, the religions and superstitions that people subscribe to. Neither Mr McConnell nor Mr Robinson incited violence. Let their actions be criticised, not be subject to the criminal law.
I dont disagree with that. My point was that Robinson's behaviour, given his position, is arguably far worse than the Pastor's. That Robinson can make those kind of remarks (in a society where immigrants are commonly targeted by thugs) without anyone seriously questioning his fitness as First Minister is depressing.
@MarkHopkins Indeed I agree, in fact evidence from Norwich North suggests it is highly unlikely. There UKIP got 11.8% in the by election with 4068 votes a year later that had declined to 1868 turnout had increased and the share was down to 4.4%.
Peter Curran @moridura 9 mins IpsosMORI: Satisfaction ratings for Alistair Darling in freefall: +5% in September, +3% in December, -3% in February and -16% in June.
This only proves he is doing a good job. Previously, the SNP types didn't take him seriously. Now, they know he is a serious threat to their vision of Scotland. Hence, the disliking.
Thatcher was never liked. Nothing much to like about her anyway. She won elections.
Yeah, that's right, the dip in 'Mumbles' Darling's ratings are entirely down to SNP supporters suddenly realising they dislike Darling! A magnificent effort!
To address Mr Surbiton's suggestion - the SNP voters, of course, knew exactly who and what he was, likewise the Tories, and neither approved of him to begin with.
I'm more interested in the possibility it is the indyref key target Labour voters who are discarding him (or the Labour Party and therefore him). Any indication which of these it might be?
"UKIP is the best thing to have happened to the Conservative Party since 1992." Discuss
Possibly.
The Conservative party are definitely better off with UKIP existing as a separate party.
The GOP was/is being ripped apart by the "party within a party" tea party movement. Just as Labour was ripped apart by the left in the 80s and Major's eurosceptics.
The Tories may well be the stupid party, but they are also the lucky party.
They are also quite electorally ruthless at times. There is a reason that the demise of the Conservative Party has been predicted many times but never occurred. I think even now with UKIP enjoying a modest carnival it is far more likely that the Tories will destroy UKIP than the reverse not in one grand swoop but by slowly and relentlessly choking off the avenues of advance and strangling the electoral life out of it.
"I think even now with UKIP enjoying a modest carnival it is far more likely that the Tories will destroy UKIP than the reverse"
The BBC version of reality isn't true: grooming gangs, people leaving the cities because of a gang culture that doesn't officially exist, massive expansion of the shadow economy with unskilled manual and service work shifted to 12+ to a house imports etc. None of this is going away.
Hiding the true reality and attacking people who say different doesn't change the underlying reality it only slows down the rate of people realizing it. So the Tories are doomed by open borders - as clearly flagged by the metro elections - it's just a question of whether the TV media can slow down a party like Ukip replacing them before it no longer matters.
Today that is looking dicey but Con are doomed either way.
Every single prediction of Tory demise has failed. The Conservative Party will survive now. Of course there are challenges, when aren't there, but the Conservatives usually find a means of surmounting them or if not outflanking them.
Importing millions of low-paid workers because party donors want a plantation economy isn't a "challenge" it's long-term political suicide.
The facts are that UKIP have now finished 2nd in 6 of the last 7 by Elections, almost all from a stnding start in places they had never done well before in.
It is almost a given that they finish 2nd when they have no roots in the seat, and that can only be good for them. Wait until a seat where they and the BNP scored 10%+ combined in 2010. If they dont win that then maybe we can say they have failed.
To use a football analogy, UKIPs by Election performances are a bit like West Ham going to the top 6 teams and getting 4 draws and 2 narrow defeats but playing well. The Euros is like winning the League Cup.
To criticise them by saying well thats only 0.75pts per game so its relegation form, would be to treat every games as if it were away to a top side, rather than thinking it was better than expected and a pointer that they will win when conditions suit them better.
Peter Curran @moridura 9 mins IpsosMORI: Satisfaction ratings for Alistair Darling in freefall: +5% in September, +3% in December, -3% in February and -16% in June.
This only proves he is doing a good job. Previously, the SNP types didn't take him seriously. Now, they know he is a serious threat to their vision of Scotland. Hence, the disliking.
Thatcher was never liked. Nothing much to like about her anyway. She won elections.
Yeah, that's right, the dip in 'Mumbles' Darling's ratings are entirely down to SNP supporters suddenly realising they dislike Darling! A magnificent effort!
To address Mr Surbiton's suggestion - the SNP voters, of course, knew exactly who and what he was, likewise the Tories, and neither approved of him to begin with.
I'm more interested in the possibility it is the indyref key target Labour voters who are discarding him (or the Labour Party and therefore him). Any indication which of these it might be?
It would have been interesting if they'd done a rating for Brown. I always thought Darling was a Westminster vision of what a Scottish campaigner for the Union should be; Brown may have more traction.
"UKIP is the best thing to have happened to the Conservative Party since 1992." Discuss
Possibly.
The Conservative party are definitely better off with UKIP existing as a separate party.
The GOP was/is being ripped apart by the "party within a party" tea party movement. Just as Labour was ripped apart by the left in the 80s and Major's eurosceptics.
The Tories may well be the stupid party, but they are also the lucky party.
They are also quite electorally ruthless at times. There is a reason that the demise of the Conservative Party has been predicted many times but never occurred. I think even now with UKIP enjoying a modest carnival it is far more likely that the Tories will destroy UKIP than the reverse not in one grand swoop but by slowly and relentlessly choking off the avenues of advance and strangling the electoral life out of it.
"I think even now with UKIP enjoying a modest carnival it is far more likely that the Tories will destroy UKIP than the reverse"
The BBC version of reality isn't true: grooming gangs, people leaving the cities because of a gang culture that doesn't officially exist, massive expansion of the shadow economy with unskilled manual and service work shifted to 12+ to a house imports etc. None of this is going away.
Hiding the true reality and attacking people who say different doesn't change the underlying reality it only slows down the rate of people realizing it. So the Tories are doomed by open borders - as clearly flagged by the metro elections - it's just a question of whether the TV media can slow down a party like Ukip replacing them before it no longer matters.
Today that is looking dicey but Con are doomed either way.
Every single prediction of Tory demise has failed. The Conservative Party will survive now. Of course there are challenges, when aren't there, but the Conservatives usually find a means of surmounting them or if not outflanking them.
Importing millions of low-paid workers because party donors want a plantation economy isn't a "challenge" it's long-term political suicide.
The facts are that UKIP have now finished 2nd in 6 of the last 7 by Elections, almost all from a stnding start in places they had never done well before in.
It is almost a given that they finish 2nd when they have no roots in the seat, and that can only be good for them. Wait until a seat where they and the BNP scored 10%+ combined in 2010. If they dont win that then maybe we can say they have failed.
To use a football analogy, UKIPs by Election performances are a bit like West Ham going to the top 6 teams and getting 4 draws and 2 narrow defeats but playing well. The Euros is like winning the League Cup.
To criticise them by saying well thats only 0.75pts per game so its relegation form, would be to treat every games as if it were away to a top side, rather than thinking it was better than expected.
There may well not be another by-election this Parliament. If we get to the autumn without one, any constituency vacancy that arises after that will probably be left unfilled.
So UKIP's next electoral test is probably going to be the general election. It would be well-advised into planning its ground game for that, given how disorganised (if enthusiastic) it seemed to be in Newark.
"UKIP is the best thing to have happened to the Conservative Party since 1992." Discuss
Possibly.
The Conservative party are definitely better off with UKIP existing as a separate party.
The GOP was/is being ripped apart by the "party within a party" tea party movement. Just as Labour was ripped apart by the left in the 80s and Major's eurosceptics.
The Tories may well be the stupid party, but they are also the lucky party.
They are also quite electorally ruthless at times. There is a reason that the demise of the Conservative Party has been predicted many times but never occurred. I think even now with UKIP enjoying a modest carnival it is far more likely that the Tories will destroy UKIP than the reverse not in one grand swoop but by slowly and relentlessly choking off the avenues of advance and strangling the electoral life out of it.
"I think even now with UKIP enjoying a modest carnival it is far more likely that the Tories will destroy UKIP than the reverse"
The BBC version of reality isn't true: grooming gangs, people leaving the cities because of a gang culture that doesn't officially exist, massive expansion of the shadow economy with unskilled manual and service work shifted to 12+ to a house imports etc. None of this is going away.
Hiding the true reality and attacking people who say different doesn't change the underlying reality it only slows down the rate of people realizing it. So the Tories are doomed by open borders - as clearly flagged by the metro elections - it's just a question of whether the TV media can slow down a party like Ukip replacing them before it no longer matters.
Today that is looking dicey but Con are doomed either way.
Tell us about the UKIP fellah with bunkhouses for the cheap immigrant labour he's importing.
You mean that extra bit of evidence i'm right about the shadow economy in the cities?
Are they going to question Robinson or inquire after his remarks?
I may disagree with both Mr McConnell's and Mr Robinson's views, but the idea that this is a police matter is a serious threat to liberty. There must be freedom to criticise, even in the most offensive terms, the religions and superstitions that people subscribe to. Neither Mr McConnell nor Mr Robinson incited violence. Let their actions be criticised, not be subject to the criminal law.
I dont disagree with that. My point was that Robinson's behaviour, given his position, is arguably far worse than the Pastor's. That Robinson can make those kind of remarks (in a society where immigrants are commonly targeted by thugs) without anyone seriously questioning his fitness as First Minister is depressing.
neil remember he's the enlightened one, nobody's actually accused him of organising the murder of his fellow citizens.
maybe this is progress, he's given up on sledging catholics and moved on to someone else.
The facts are that UKIP have now finished 2nd in 6 of the last 7 by Elections, almost all from a stnding start in places they had never done well before in.
It is almost a given that they finish 2nd when they have no roots in the seat, and that can only be good for them. Wait until a seat where they and the BNP scored 10%+ combined in 2010. If they dont win that then maybe we can say they have failed.
To use a football analogy, UKIPs by Election performances are a bit like West Ham going to the top 6 teams and getting 4 draws and 2 narrow defeats but playing well. The Euros is like winning the League Cup.
To criticise them by saying well thats only 0.75pts per game so its relegation form, would be to treat every games as if it were away to a top side, rather than thinking it was better than expected and a pointer that they will win when conditions suit them better.
It's judging them against the history of emerging parties.
A consequence of this result may be that Lansley will be appointed to the EU job sooner rather than later to force another by-election and keep the perceived Conservative momentum rolling.
It would be a smart move by central office to seriously consider it I think.
The facts are that UKIP have now finished 2nd in 6 of the last 7 by Elections, almost all from a stnding start in places they had never done well before in.
It is almost a given that they finish 2nd when they have no roots in the seat, and that can only be good for them. Wait until a seat where they and the BNP scored 10%+ combined in 2010. If they dont win that then maybe we can say they have failed.
To use a football analogy, UKIPs by Election performances are a bit like West Ham going to the top 6 teams and getting 4 draws and 2 narrow defeats but playing well. The Euros is like winning the League Cup.
To criticise them by saying well thats only 0.75pts per game so its relegation form, would be to treat every games as if it were away to a top side, rather than thinking it was better than expected and a pointer that they will win when conditions suit them better.
It's judging them against the history of emerging parties.
Well ok, which other emerging party has won a national election? Or consistently finished a clear second over a three year period in by elections.
I understand you are not sympathetic to UKIPs policies, but to try and say they are not doing well is plain stupid
"More than 10,000 Newark constituents put their cross in our box – up from fewer than 2,000 at the 2010 General Election. ... But now we have established a party infrastructure in the town and also won the backing of 10,000 voters we will have to take another look at that"
I would take issue with that on a practical basis.
A protest party did very well in the 80s when there was a poor Labour opposition.
10,000 voters today does not mean 10,000 supporters at the GE.
The peddlers of snake oil party poured hundreds of workers into Newark and attracted 10,000 voters who believed their false dog whistles . Given 12 more months to think things over and many of those will not be so gullible to vote UKIP a 2nd time .
So UKIP's next electoral test is probably going to be the general election. It would be well-advised into planning its ground game for that, given how disorganised (if enthusiastic) it seemed to be in Newark.
TBF they seem to have done a lot better in Eastleigh where they already had a decent presence on the ground, so maybe they won't be too ineffective in their actual target seats. It must be quite hard to build a by-election machine that you can just air-drop in anywhere; The LibDems ultimately managed it, but it must have taken them a fair bit of practice. Also it probably matters less not to have all kinds of whizzy computer systems and street-level demographic databases if you have a decent number of activists who actually live there.
The challenging time for UKIP is surely now. In recent times we have been mid-term, we have had the locals, the Euros and now the by election. How do they stay in the news and relevant over the next 11months?
I think this is going to be difficult for them. There is no doubt that there will be local councillor makes stupid statement stories, there will be far less in the news about the EU, no one ever pays any attention to what is being said in the Euro Parliament, the media will start to apply the major party criteria as we get closer to the election and the choice between Cameron and Miliband will become more stark making voting for minor parties look self-indulgent.
They have undoubtedly built a core of support that will stay with them come hell or high water but their more recent successes have been built on being the NOTA party at a time when describing the main opposition as uninspirational might be being kind. That is the sort of support that is traditionally squeezed.
Will it be different this time? The answer to that will have a big say in the outcome of the next election. I will be watching this aspect of the polling in the dog days of summer particularly closely.
The tories want and need 5% points back from them. That is a lot of people and a challenging target. Resisting that and keeping open the paths to the ex Labour supporters who have come to them more recently will be no easy task.
The facts are that UKIP have now finished 2nd in 6 of the last 7 by Elections, almost all from a stnding start in places they had never done well before in.
It is almost a given that they finish 2nd when they have no roots in the seat, and that can only be good for them. Wait until a seat where they and the BNP scored 10%+ combined in 2010. If they dont win that then maybe we can say they have failed.
To use a football analogy, UKIPs by Election performances are a bit like West Ham going to the top 6 teams and getting 4 draws and 2 narrow defeats but playing well. The Euros is like winning the League Cup.
To criticise them by saying well thats only 0.75pts per game so its relegation form, would be to treat every games as if it were away to a top side, rather than thinking it was better than expected.
There may well not be another by-election this Parliament. If we get to the autumn without one, any constituency vacancy that arises after that will probably be left unfilled.
So UKIP's next electoral test is probably going to be the general election. It would be well-advised into planning its ground game for that, given how disorganised (if enthusiastic) it seemed to be in Newark.
Im sure they are.
They wont be up against the kind of campaign (in terms of numbers) that the Conservatives managed in Newark thats for sure.
Im prepared to put my money where my mouth is against anyone who wants to write UKIP off for next year. I have been doing so for 12 months and I am ahead of the game in every bet. This is because then, as now, everyone was saying it couldnt last, the end is nigh.
A consequence of this result may be that Lansley will be appointed to the EU job sooner rather than later to force another by-election and keep the perceived Conservative momentum rolling.
It would be a smart move by central office to seriously consider it I think.
Very high risk for two reasons:
1) it gives another round of publicity to UKIP 2) it might not work
Tim Montgomerie@TimMontgomerie·1 min I just told Harpenden Tories that the party mustn't talk like accountants. Then discovered a fifth of the audience were accountants. Oops.
The facts are that UKIP have now finished 2nd in 6 of the last 7 by Elections, almost all from a stnding start in places they had never done well before in.
It is almost a given that they finish 2nd when they have no roots in the seat, and that can only be good for them. Wait until a seat where they and the BNP scored 10%+ combined in 2010. If they dont win that then maybe we can say they have failed.
To use a football analogy, UKIPs by Election performances are a bit like West Ham going to the top 6 teams and getting 4 draws and 2 narrow defeats but playing well. The Euros is like winning the League Cup.
To criticise them by saying well thats only 0.75pts per game so its relegation form, would be to treat every games as if it were away to a top side, rather than thinking it was better than expected and a pointer that they will win when conditions suit them better.
Politics isn't like football though and in so far as it is you are always left like a hapless lower league side having been stuffed 4-0 trying to make our that because you passed well, or got in more tackles it was actually good. Yes UKIP seem good at coming a heroic second but they aren't getting that critical mass and the expectations are getting away from you. You can't keep pretending this time is the one then having to come up with post facto reasons why it really wasn't.
Every single prediction of Tory demise has failed. The Conservative Party will survive now. Of course there are challenges, when aren't there, but the Conservatives usually find a means of surmounting them or if not outflanking them.
Importing millions of low-paid workers because party donors want a plantation economy isn't a "challenge" it's long-term political suicide.
It goes to show how widespread it is. First the restaurant owner and now this guy.
Doesn't change the main point though. Importing millions of low paid workers is obviously long-term electoral suicide for the Tories - short-term profit versus conserving your electorate, good for the 1%, not so good for the rest of the Con vote.
A consequence of this result may be that Lansley will be appointed to the EU job sooner rather than later to force another by-election and keep the perceived Conservative momentum rolling.
It would be a smart move by central office to seriously consider it I think.
They probably shouldn't push their luck. Lansley's seat doesn't look easy for UKIP but you often have upsets in by-elections. They have a lot less to gain from winning another by-election than they have from losing it.
A consequence of this result may be that Lansley will be appointed to the EU job sooner rather than later to force another by-election and keep the perceived Conservative momentum rolling.
It would be a smart move by central office to seriously consider it I think.
Very high risk for two reasons:
1) it gives another round of publicity to UKIP 2) it might not work
The activists will love it though, another excuse for beer, sex and curry !
I agree that the UKIP posters went too far, and turned me off a little. But I'm not coming back to the Conservative party unless it changes. If I start to be badged as a clown, fool, fruitcake or Kipper, it will just push me closer to UKIP instead.
The first 3, fair comment. But is "Kipper" really derogatory? To me it seems more like LibDem or Tory?
Wikipedia says the derivation of Tory was "originally a term of abuse, "an Irish rebel", before being adopted as a political label"
It was, I think "bog-trotter" is closer than the rather delightful "Irish rebel" you cite. But no one remembers that (except me)...
Peter Curran @moridura 9 mins IpsosMORI: Satisfaction ratings for Alistair Darling in freefall: +5% in September, +3% in December, -3% in February and -16% in June.
This only proves he is doing a good job. Previously, the SNP types didn't take him seriously. Now, they know he is a serious threat to their vision of Scotland. Hence, the disliking.
Thatcher was never liked. Nothing much to like about her anyway. She won elections.
Yeah, that's right, the dip in 'Mumbles' Darling's ratings are entirely down to SNP supporters suddenly realising they dislike Darling! A magnificent effort!
To address Mr Surbiton's suggestion - the SNP voters, of course, knew exactly who and what he was, likewise the Tories, and neither approved of him to begin with.
I'm more interested in the possibility it is the indyref key target Labour voters who are discarding him (or the Labour Party and therefore him). Any indication which of these it might be?
It would have been interesting if they'd done a rating for Brown. I always thought Darling was a Westminster vision of what a Scottish campaigner for the Union should be; Brown may have more traction.
Ah, thanks.
Given the way Labour VIs for not just Scottish but Westminster Pmt are going, I'm just not sure about Mr Brown one way or another, though a friend who is very much a Fife Labour voter absolutely scoffs at any idea that Mr Brown has serious traction.
Too be fair, some of that drop for Mr D is due to a general scunner* against pols (hardly surprising). The graph is interesting and even if we accept that there is some effect from the relentless and often mendacious personal attacks on Mr Salmond, it nevertheless still shows pro-indy pols leading on average even ignoring Mr Cameron. Ms Lamont has a surprisingly high rating but this has to be viewed in the context of her very gentle treatment by the media** and the fact she is rarely out except for choreographed FMQs.
*Anglice, ennui/tedium/disgust ** vide her remarks on Scots being genetically incapable of making a political decision - which would have provoked a firestorm on at least two counts, had she been anyone else
A consequence of this result may be that Lansley will be appointed to the EU job sooner rather than later to force another by-election and keep the perceived Conservative momentum rolling.
It would be a smart move by central office to seriously consider it I think.
Very high risk for two reasons:
1) it gives another round of publicity to UKIP 2) it might not work
The activists will love it though, another excuse for beer, sex and curry !
Perhaps they could have weekenders in various marginals between now and next May.
I shudder to think what the chat-up lines are like.
A consequence of this result may be that Lansley will be appointed to the EU job sooner rather than later to force another by-election and keep the perceived Conservative momentum rolling.
It would be a smart move by central office to seriously consider it I think.
Very high risk for two reasons:
1) it gives another round of publicity to UKIP 2) it might not work
(1) is the killer. The correct strategy for dealing with UKIP is not to talk about them for a while (and wait for the inevitable - if slightly unfair - focus on their new councillors & MEPs).
Just gotten in and I am so annoyed - my Newark prediction was less than 80 votes out, and still wasn't the closest prediction I see. Can't see me getting that close again.
I agree that the UKIP posters went too far, and turned me off a little. But I'm not coming back to the Conservative party unless it changes. If I start to be badged as a clown, fool, fruitcake or Kipper, it will just push me closer to UKIP instead.
The first 3, fair comment. But is "Kipper" really derogatory? To me it seems more like LibDem or Tory?
Wikipedia says the derivation of Tory was "originally a term of abuse, "an Irish rebel", before being adopted as a political label"
Suffragette was also originally an insult.
There's quite a history of that kind of thing I believe.
Quaker's another one, although that might nto quiet count since they don't formally refer to themselves a Quaker's even now
The facts are that UKIP have now finished 2nd in 6 of the last 7 by Elections, almost all from a stnding start in places they had never done well before in.
It is almost a given that they finish 2nd when they have no roots in the seat, and that can only be good for them. Wait until a seat where they and the BNP scored 10%+ combined in 2010. If they dont win that then maybe we can say they have failed.
To use a football analogy, UKIPs by Election performances are a bit like West Ham going to the top 6 teams and getting 4 draws and 2 narrow defeats but playing well. The Euros is like winning the League Cup.
To criticise them by saying well thats only 0.75pts per game so its relegation form, would be to treat every games as if it were away to a top side, rather than thinking it was better than expected and a pointer that they will win when conditions suit them better.
It's judging them against the history of emerging parties.
Well ok, which other emerging party has won a national election? Or consistently finished a clear second over a three year period in by elections.
I understand you are not sympathetic to UKIPs policies, but to try and say they are not doing well is plain stupid
Hmm. I think Plaid Cymru had a really good run of by-elections in Wales when there was a string of 2 or 3 in a couple of years. The SDP had their famous run. There was the Commonwealth party but I tend to discount them since that was WWII and such a strange situation.
But time and again we've seen this kind of party win by-elections from a long way back.
That UKIP are can't manage that may be random chance, or it may speak to their support being spread so thinly they'll struggle to win seats at a GE.
I don't remember you objecting to Curtice's bar of 30% last night. Farage set expectations as 2-3,000 votes behind Tories.
A consequence of this result may be that Lansley will be appointed to the EU job sooner rather than later to force another by-election and keep the perceived Conservative momentum rolling.
It would be a smart move by central office to seriously consider it I think.
Very high risk for two reasons:
1) it gives another round of publicity to UKIP 2) it might not work
(1) is the killer. The correct strategy for dealing with UKIP is not to talk about them for a while (and wait for the inevitable - if slightly unfair - focus on their new councillors & MEPs).
Any predictions as to how many will be going to prison?
The facts are that UKIP have now finished 2nd in 6 of the last 7 by Elections, almost all from a stnding start in places they had never done well before in.
It is almost a given that they finish 2nd when they have no roots in the seat, and that can only be good for them. Wait until a seat where they and the BNP scored 10%+ combined in 2010. If they dont win that then maybe we can say they have failed.
To use a football analogy, UKIPs by Election performances are a bit like West Ham going to the top 6 teams and getting 4 draws and 2 narrow defeats but playing well. The Euros is like winning the League Cup.
To criticise them by saying well thats only 0.75pts per game so its relegation form, would be to treat every games as if it were away to a top side, rather than thinking it was better than expected.
There may well not be another by-election this Parliament. If we get to the autumn without one, any constituency vacancy that arises after that will probably be left unfilled.
So UKIP's next electoral test is probably going to be the general election. It would be well-advised into planning its ground game for that, given how disorganised (if enthusiastic) it seemed to be in Newark.
Im sure they are.
They wont be up against the kind of campaign (in terms of numbers) that the Conservatives managed in Newark thats for sure.
Im prepared to put my money where my mouth is against anyone who wants to write UKIP off for next year. I have been doing so for 12 months and I am ahead of the game in every bet. This is because then, as now, everyone was saying it couldnt last, the end is nigh.
Have you bet on the number of seats UKIP will have at the GE?
The facts are that UKIP have now finished 2nd in 6 of the last 7 by Elections, almost all from a stnding start in places they had never done well before in.
It is almost a given that they finish 2nd when they have no roots in the seat, and that can only be good for them. Wait until a seat where they and the BNP scored 10%+ combined in 2010. If they dont win that then maybe we can say they have failed.
To use a football analogy, UKIPs by Election performances are a bit like West Ham going to the top 6 teams and getting 4 draws and 2 narrow defeats but playing well. The Euros is like winning the League Cup.
To criticise them by saying well thats only 0.75pts per game so its relegation form, would be to treat every games as if it were away to a top side, rather than thinking it was better than expected and a pointer that they will win when conditions suit them better.
Politics isn't like football though and in so far as it is you are always left like a hapless lower league side having been stuffed 4-0 trying to make our that because you passed well, or got in more tackles it was actually good. Yes UKIP seem good at coming a heroic second but they aren't getting that critical mass and the expectations are getting away from you. You can't keep pretending this time is the one then having to come up with post facto reasons why it really wasn't.
Couldnt disagree more.
You seem to be saying that it doesnt matter what kind of seat it is, UKIP should just win it or else its a failure. If they had come 3rd last night that would have been failure, but what happened was par for the course. UKIP were expected to increase their voteshare by 600% and they met expectations.
If a by Election was called in Thurrock, S Basildon & East Thurrock, Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Thanet South or North, Folkestone, Boston & Skegeness , Castle Point tomorrow I would expect UKIP to win and would consider 2nd place a failure.
No one was pretending this was the time. The earthquake Farage predicted was winning the Euros, which he did.
The media are reporting Newark as a safe seat that the Tories held but with a reduced majority, and that UKIP increased its vote many times over to finish 2nd. Its only people that are desperate for UKIP to go away that are claiming its an upset of some kind
The facts are that UKIP have now finished 2nd in 6 of the last 7 by Elections, almost all from a stnding start in places they had never done well before in.
It is almost a given that they finish 2nd when they have no roots in the seat, and that can only be good for them. Wait until a seat where they and the BNP scored 10%+ combined in 2010. If they dont win that then maybe we can say they have failed.
To use a football analogy, UKIPs by Election performances are a bit like West Ham going to the top 6 teams and getting 4 draws and 2 narrow defeats but playing well. The Euros is like winning the League Cup.
To criticise them by saying well thats only 0.75pts per game so its relegation form, would be to treat every games as if it were away to a top side, rather than thinking it was better than expected.
There may well not be another by-election this Parliament. If we get to the autumn without one, any constituency vacancy that arises after that will probably be left unfilled.
So UKIP's next electoral test is probably going to be the general election. It would be well-advised into planning its ground game for that, given how disorganised (if enthusiastic) it seemed to be in Newark.
Im sure they are.
They wont be up against the kind of campaign (in terms of numbers) that the Conservatives managed in Newark thats for sure.
Im prepared to put my money where my mouth is against anyone who wants to write UKIP off for next year. I have been doing so for 12 months and I am ahead of the game in every bet. This is because then, as now, everyone was saying it couldnt last, the end is nigh.
Have you bet on the number of seats UKIP will have at the GE?
No, I have backed them to win
Thurrock at 16s Dudley North at 25s Telford at 25s Birmingham Yardley at 100s North Devon at 20s Cambourne and Redruth at 16s
to outpoll the Lib Dems at 6/4 to get more than 10% at 6/4
The facts are that UKIP have now finished 2nd in 6 of the last 7 by Elections, almost all from a stnding start in places they had never done well before in.
It is almost a given that they finish 2nd when they have no roots in the seat, and that can only be good for them. Wait until a seat where they and the BNP scored 10%+ combined in 2010. If they dont win that then maybe we can say they have failed.
To use a football analogy, UKIPs by Election performances are a bit like West Ham going to the top 6 teams and getting 4 draws and 2 narrow defeats but playing well. The Euros is like winning the League Cup.
To criticise them by saying well thats only 0.75pts per game so its relegation form, would be to treat every games as if it were away to a top side, rather than thinking it was better than expected and a pointer that they will win when conditions suit them better.
It's judging them against the history of emerging parties.
Well ok, which other emerging party has won a national election? Or consistently finished a clear second over a three year period in by elections.
I understand you are not sympathetic to UKIPs policies, but to try and say they are not doing well is plain stupid
Hmm. I think Plaid Cymru had a really good run of by-elections in Wales when there was a string of 2 or 3 in a couple of years. The SDP had their famous run. There was the Commonwealth party but I tend to discount them since that was WWII and such a strange situation.
But time and again we've seen this kind of party win by-elections from a long way back.
That UKIP are can't manage that may be random chance, or it may speak to their support being spread so thinly they'll struggle to win seats at a GE.
I don't remember you objecting to Curtice's bar of 30% last night. Farage set expectations as 2-3,000 votes behind Tories.
Curtice said 30% would be "a remarkable result" it wasnt the par score.
People keep talking about UKIP as if they are a serious political party. They are led by Arthur Daley with Mussolini as his second in command. They are a bunch of homophobic mysoginistic xenophobes. Stop the world I want to get off. As well as attracting this sort to campaign for them they clearly have attracted a bunch of on the make hypocrites. The guy who imports loads of cheap labour is the latest example. Lord Wotsit with is windfarm scam is another. At every turn and for so many reasons its clear they are disreputable but the blind committed 'kipper' will bend over backwards to justify every stupidity. But 'kippers' are not all voters and they are not all UKIP voters who vote as a protest, they are the howling mad commited and clearly the remaining 90% of the electorate can discern enough to keep them out. With UKIP on 27% in Newark the Tories clearly attracted a wide swath of reasonable people to support their decency. In a real election to select a real govt UKIP can expect to be squeezed further. What Newark shows is the best line for the Tories is the decent honest line, you cannot appease the howling mad rump.
*UKIP seat totals* 2/1 Over 4.5 7/2 Over 9.5 5/1 Over 19.5 6/1 Over 29.5 8/1 Over 39.5 10/1 Over 49.5
Those odds are barmy. Can only be driven by way over-enthusiastic Kippers.
There's an important point there. Where UKIP are involved in the race, the odds will be skewed by the gambling kippers. So there may well be bargains elsewhere in the markets.
A consequence of this result may be that Lansley will be appointed to the EU job sooner rather than later to force another by-election and keep the perceived Conservative momentum rolling.
It would be a smart move by central office to seriously consider it I think.
Very high risk for two reasons:
1) it gives another round of publicity to UKIP 2) it might not work
(1) is the killer. The correct strategy for dealing with UKIP is not to talk about them for a while (and wait for the inevitable - if slightly unfair - focus on their new councillors & MEPs).
Any predictions as to how many will be going to prison?
Fewer than the number of Labour MPs in the last Parliament who were eventually sent down? Unlikely to be more I should think.
There are some posters on this site who would like to leave to leave the EU. If you are still intending to vote tory, ask yourself this question: Do you really believe that DC is the man to lead Britain out of Europe? If not, for your position to be logical, you have to take the view that a labour govt would do more damage than Britain staying in the EU. That may be true.
But since WW2, the British govt has alternated between Labour and Conservative. If that is to continue, you will never be able to avoid a Labour govt at some point in the future. So you might as well vote UKIP now. Or, at the very least, pay UKIP the compliment of attending one of their local meetings. Talk to the activists in the bar afterwards. It will be worth your time.
People keep talking about UKIP as if they are a serious political party. They are led by Arthur Daley with Mussolini as his second in command. They are a bunch of homophobic mysoginistic xenophobes. Stop the world I want to get off. As well as attracting this sort to campaign for them they clearly have attracted a bunch of on the make hypocrites. The guy who imports loads of cheap labour is the latest example. Lord Wotsit with is windfarm scam is another. At every turn and for so many reasons its clear they are disreputable but the blind committed 'kipper' will bend over backwards to justify every stupidity. But 'kippers' are not all voters and they are not all UKIP voters who vote as a protest, they are the howling mad commited and clearly the remaining 90% of the electorate can discern enough to keep them out. With UKIP on 27% in Newark the Tories clearly attracted a wide swath of reasonable people to support their decency. In a real election to select a real govt UKIP can expect to be squeezed further. What Newark shows is the best line for the Tories is the decent honest line, you cannot appease the howling mad rump.
Thank you for that thoughtful and insightful piece of analysis.
People keep talking about UKIP as if they are a serious political party. They are led by Arthur Daley with Mussolini as his second in command. They are a bunch of homophobic mysoginistic xenophobes. Stop the world I want to get off. As well as attracting this sort to campaign for them they clearly have attracted a bunch of on the make hypocrites. The guy who imports loads of cheap labour is the latest example. Lord Wotsit with is windfarm scam is another. At every turn and for so many reasons its clear they are disreputable but the blind committed 'kipper' will bend over backwards to justify every stupidity. But 'kippers' are not all voters and they are not all UKIP voters who vote as a protest, they are the howling mad commited and clearly the remaining 90% of the electorate can discern enough to keep them out. With UKIP on 27% in Newark the Tories clearly attracted a wide swath of reasonable people to support their decency. In a real election to select a real govt UKIP can expect to be squeezed further. What Newark shows is the best line for the Tories is the decent honest line, you cannot appease the howling mad rump.
The majority don't want open borders but democracy stops working when the political and media class collude against the public.
The facts are that UKIP have now finished 2nd in 6 of the last 7 by Elections, almost all from a stnding start in places they had never done well before in.
It is almost a given that they finish 2nd when they have no roots in the seat, and that can only be good for them. Wait until a seat where they and the BNP scored 10%+ combined in 2010. If they dont win that then maybe we can say they have failed.
To use a football analogy, UKIPs by Election performances are a bit like West Ham going to the top 6 teams and getting 4 draws and 2 narrow defeats but playing well. The Euros is like winning the League Cup.
To criticise them by saying well thats only 0.75pts per game so its relegation form, would be to treat every games as if it were away to a top side, rather than thinking it was better than expected and a pointer that they will win when conditions suit them better.
It's judging them against the history of emerging parties.
Well ok, which other emerging party has won a national election? Or consistently finished a clear second over a three year period in by elections.
I understand you are not sympathetic to UKIPs policies, but to try and say they are not doing well is plain stupid
I'm trying to put UKIP in some kind of historical context.
Are they 'doing well'? Sure, but that's a bland assessment.
How well are they doing? Compared to historical parties, more evidence of national support but failing to make that breakthrough that others did in seats they started just as far back in. Which means it has to call into question their ability to win seats at a GE.
With the hype (and UKIP have been hyping themselves plenty) comes expectations.
@isam UKIP seem to have peak support at 25% give or take and so unless you can find a 3-way seat to turn 4-way it's going to be problematic. You have to break out of that 25% straitjacket and so far nothing suggests that you are.
@isam UKIP seem to have peak support at 25% give or take and so unless you can find a 3-way seat to turn 4-way it's going to be problematic. You have to break out of that 25% straitjacket and so far nothing suggests that you are.
a two way marginal where UKIP and BNP = 10% at 2010 would be good enough
By the way I think if UKIP did win from a standing start, the accusation of a "protest vote" would carry some weight. If they win a seat as I have described above, it is because thats genuinely what the public want
The facts are that UKIP have now finished 2nd in 6 of the last 7 by Elections, almost all from a stnding start in places they had never done well before in.
It is almost a given that they finish 2nd when they have no roots in the seat, and that can only be good for them. Wait until a seat where they and the BNP scored 10%+ combined in 2010. If they dont win that then maybe we can say they have failed.
To use a football analogy, UKIPs by Election performances are a bit like West Ham going to the top 6 teams and getting 4 draws and 2 narrow defeats but playing well. The Euros is like winning the League Cup.
To criticise them by saying well thats only 0.75pts per game so its relegation form, would be to treat every games as if it were away to a top side, rather than thinking it was better than expected and a pointer that they will win when conditions suit them better.
It's judging them against the history of emerging parties.
Well ok, which other emerging party has won a national election? Or consistently finished a clear second over a three year period in by elections.
I understand you are not sympathetic to UKIPs policies, but to try and say they are not doing well is plain stupid
Hmm. I think Plaid Cymru had a really good run of by-elections in Wales when there was a string of 2 or 3 in a couple of years. The SDP had their famous run. There was the Commonwealth party but I tend to discount them since that was WWII and such a strange situation.
But time and again we've seen this kind of party win by-elections from a long way back.
That UKIP are can't manage that may be random chance, or it may speak to their support being spread so thinly they'll struggle to win seats at a GE.
I don't remember you objecting to Curtice's bar of 30% last night. Farage set expectations as 2-3,000 votes behind Tories.
Curtice said 30% would be "a remarkable result" it wasnt the par score.
Very naughty to say that was the bar he set
Sorry, my mistake last night's a bit hazy (and I was also watching basketball rather than Andrew Neil).
There are some posters on this site who would like to leave to leave the EU. If you are still intending to vote tory, ask yourself this question: Do you really believe that DC is the man to lead Britain out of Europe? If not, for your position to be logical, you have to take the view that a labour govt would do more damage than Britain staying in the EU. That may be true............ .
Let me re-phrase that into the real key question. There are some posters on this site who would like a referendum on the EU. If you are still intending to vote UKIP, ask yourself this question: do you really believe that a Govt led by Ed Milliband is the man to deliver a referendum after the next GE?
DC has never said he would take Britain out. He has however committed to a referendum in 2017 and more than 50% of his backbenchers have voted for that. EdM has said he will not give a referendum if he leads the Govt after the GE, less than 10% of Ed's backbenchers have voted for one. So it is clear which way the two parties are heading.
*UKIP seat totals* 2/1 Over 4.5 7/2 Over 9.5 5/1 Over 19.5 6/1 Over 29.5 8/1 Over 39.5 10/1 Over 49.5
Those odds are barmy. Can only be driven by way over-enthusiastic Kippers.
There's an important point there. Where UKIP are involved in the race, the odds will be skewed by the gambling kippers. So there may well be bargains elsewhere in the markets.
The 6/4 on no seats looks excellent value to me.
Ladbrokes cunningly not offering odds on the 1-4 seats market.
UKIP has to offer a vision of life outside of Europe with all the economic pros and cons - not seen this yet from them.
It is easy to be negative about something, but much harder to give a detailed scenario of what happens afterwards and that is the most important bit - oft forgotten as Tony Blair et al found out.
@isam UKIP seem to have peak support at 25% give or take and so unless you can find a 3-way seat to turn 4-way it's going to be problematic. You have to break out of that 25% straitjacket and so far nothing suggests that you are.
a two way marginal where UKIP and BNP = 10% at 2010 would be good enough
That rather suggests that racists have a home in UKIP.
@isam UKIP seem to have peak support at 25% give or take and so unless you can find a 3-way seat to turn 4-way it's going to be problematic. You have to break out of that 25% straitjacket and so far nothing suggests that you are.
a two way marginal where UKIP and BNP = 10% at 2010 would be good enough
South Thanet seems to be that seat: it's a Con/Lab marginal, with a BNP vote to be squeezed, in a UKIP heartland. 27 or 28% might well be enough to win in 2015 - and the combined UKIP/BNP share in 2010 puts them withing shouting distance of that.
However, the danger is - especially if Farage is the candidate - that it is relentlessly opinion-polled, and you see the anti-UKIP vote coalesce around someone... probably, I would suspect, the Conservative candidate.
The facts are that UKIP have now finished 2nd in 6 of the last 7 by Elections, almost all from a stnding start in places they had never done well before in.
It is almost a given that they finish 2nd when they have no roots in the seat, and that can only be good for them. Wait until a seat where they and the BNP scored 10%+ combined in 2010. If they dont win that then maybe we can say they have failed.
To use a football analogy, UKIPs by Election performances are a bit like West Ham going to the top 6 teams and getting 4 draws and 2 narrow defeats but playing well. The Euros is like winning the League Cup.
To criticise them by saying well thats only 0.75pts per game so its relegation form, would be to treat every games as if it were away to a top side, rather than thinking it was better than expected and a pointer that they will win when conditions suit them better.
It's judging them against the history of emerging parties.
Well ok, which other emerging party has won a national election? Or consistently finished a clear second over a three year period in by elections.
I understand you are not sympathetic to UKIPs policies, but to try and say they are not doing well is plain stupid
Hmm. I think Plaid Cymru had a really good run of by-elections in Wales when there was a string of 2 or 3 in a couple of years. The SDP had their famous run. There was the Commonwealth party but I tend to discount them since that was WWII and such a strange situation.
But time and again we've seen this kind of party win by-elections from a long way back.
That UKIP are can't manage that may be random chance, or it may speak to their support being spread so thinly they'll struggle to win seats at a GE.
I don't remember you objecting to Curtice's bar of 30% last night. Farage set expectations as 2-3,000 votes behind Tories.
Curtice said 30% would be "a remarkable result" it wasnt the par score.
Very naughty to say that was the bar he set
Sorry, my mistake last night's a bit hazy (and I was also watching basketball rather than Andrew Neil).
@isam UKIP seem to have peak support at 25% give or take and so unless you can find a 3-way seat to turn 4-way it's going to be problematic. You have to break out of that 25% straitjacket and so far nothing suggests that you are.
The key Ukip demographic is in the C1/C2/B range imo so seats in the middle of the social class spectrum will be where they have peak support.
edit: hence why Eastleigh was better than Newark or Wythenshawe.
@isam UKIP seem to have peak support at 25% give or take and so unless you can find a 3-way seat to turn 4-way it's going to be problematic. You have to break out of that 25% straitjacket and so far nothing suggests that you are.
a two way marginal where UKIP and BNP = 10% at 2010 would be good enough
South Thanet seems to be that seat: it's a Con/Lab marginal, with a BNP vote to be squeezed, in a UKIP heartland. 27 or 28% might well be enough to win in 2015 - and the combined UKIP/BNP share in 2010 puts them withing shouting distance of that.
However, the danger is - especially if Farage is the candidate - that it is relentlessly opinion-polled, and you see the anti-UKIP vote coalesce around someone... probably, I would suspect, the Conservative candidate.
Which interestingly is almost a case for Farage declaring his personal candidacy as late as possible (whilst still putting all the effort in from now onwards)
There are some posters on this site who would like to leave to leave the EU. If you are still intending to vote tory, ask yourself this question: Do you really believe that DC is the man to lead Britain out of Europe? If not, for your position to be logical, you have to take the view that a labour govt would do more damage than Britain staying in the EU. That may be true............ .
Let me re-phrase that into the real key question. There are some posters on this site who would like a referendum on the EU. If you are still intending to vote UKIP, ask yourself this question: do you really believe that a Govt led by Ed Milliband is the man to deliver a referendum after the next GE?
DC has never said he would take Britain out. He has however committed to a referendum in 2017 and more than 50% of his backbenchers have voted for that. EdM has said he will not give a referendum if he leads the Govt after the GE, less than 10% of Ed's backbenchers have voted for one. So it is clear which way the two parties are heading.
My only reason for supporting UKIP is because I believe it would massively in the country's interest to leave the EU. I do not believe that a referendum, under a govt led by DC (who has admitted that he will be a key member of the stay-in campaign) is the way to achieve it.
@isam UKIP seem to have peak support at 25% give or take and so unless you can find a 3-way seat to turn 4-way it's going to be problematic. You have to break out of that 25% straitjacket and so far nothing suggests that you are.
a two way marginal where UKIP and BNP = 10% at 2010 would be good enough
That rather suggests that racists have a home in UKIP.
I would say that untila couple of years ago people whose lives have been naused by mass immigration had a choice between the BNP and UKIP. In 2010 there was much more media presence for the BNP.
A lot of people who voted BNP arent really racist they were just frustrated. Non violent people sometimes lash out, doesnt mean they are thugs. Everyone has a breaking point, we shouldnt brand them bad forever.
UKIP offers a place for people who are anti immigration but not racist, and I think a lot of people who were angry enough to vote BNP before prefer the more tolerant and balanced approach UKIP.
The faster growth in the UK should create more demand here and suck in more exports so trying to reduce the deficit is not easy at the moment. We also have a government providing one of the largest boosts (by way of deficit spending) to demand of any country in the EU. Still, it is time that some of the apparently good news in the Markit figures started to bleed into reality. It is not happening so far.
My guess for Q2 is that it will be about 0.9%. It would have been better and more sustainable with enough of a lift from net trade to get us to 1.0%. That looks unlikely on these figures.
Could one of the thread's statisticians tell us whether there is any way of using Benford's law or something similar for assessing the reliability of reported polls?
I usually discount them until we get proper accreditation (and the Loughborough students one was obvious rubbish), but it would be useful to know if there are back-up checks to common sense.
Maybe the Kuiper statistical test would be better.
The faster growth in the UK should create more demand here and suck in more exports so trying to reduce the deficit is not easy at the moment. We also have a government providing one of the largest boosts (by way of deficit spending) to demand of any country in the EU. Still, it is time that some of the apparently good news in the Markit figures started to bleed into reality. It is not happening so far.
My guess for Q2 is that it will be about 0.9%. It would have been better and more sustainable with enough of a lift from net trade to get us to 1.0%. That looks unlikely on these figures.
Importing millions of unskilled workers to drive down wages in the *service* sector (as most of the low skill manufacturing jobs were already off-shored) will make the trade deficit worse especially when so much of the money earned is sent home.
There are some posters on this site who would like to leave to leave the EU. If you are still intending to vote tory, ask yourself this question: Do you really believe that DC is the man to lead Britain out of Europe? If not, for your position to be logical, you have to take the view that a labour govt would do more damage than Britain staying in the EU. That may be true............ .
Let me re-phrase that into the real key question. There are some posters on this site who would like a referendum on the EU. If you are still intending to vote UKIP, ask yourself this question: do you really believe that a Govt led by Ed Milliband is the man to deliver a referendum after the next GE?
DC has never said he would take Britain out. He has however committed to a referendum in 2017 and more than 50% of his backbenchers have voted for that. EdM has said he will not give a referendum if he leads the Govt after the GE, less than 10% of Ed's backbenchers have voted for one. So it is clear which way the two parties are heading.
My only reason for supporting UKIP is because I believe it would massively in the country's interest to leave the EU. I do not believe that a referendum, under a govt led by DC (who has admitted that he will be a key member of the stay-in camp) is the way to achieve it.
I don't quite follow. Whether Cameron supports being in or not is irrelevant surely? A referendum is needed - I'd probably vote In, but think we should have a referendum right now to be honest, or at least as soon as possible - and whichever way Cameron or other party leaders intend to campaign, those wanting to leave will get their chance in that referendum. I'd understand if you felt Cameron would find a way not to have the referendum somehow, but if you think a Cameron government will offer one, that is a perfect way to achieve leaving the EU regardless of what he wants.
I wish UKIP a good showing in 2015, I'm not about to advocate not voting for them if people want to (the more parties with MPs the better in my view), but if you want the UK to leave the EU, does it matter how that is achieved? A Cameron led referendum which he is campaigning on the other side is a way to achieve it.
@isam I don't think that an approach which was broadly if the Bulgarians don't steal your job the Romanians will mug you for your pay cheque is particularly tolerant.
Of course some non-racists would vote BNP however by 2010 I would suggest it was vanishingly small numbers. By that stage most of them would have been shamed out of it.
@isam I don't think that an approach which was broadly if the Bulgarians don't steal your job the Romanians will mug you for your pay cheque is particularly tolerant.
Of course some non-racists would vote BNP however by 2010 I would suggest it was vanishingly small numbers. By that stage most of them would have been shamed out of it.
The majority don't want open borders but when the political and media class collude as a caste against the public then democracy stops working.
The faster growth in the UK should create more demand here and suck in more exports so trying to reduce the deficit is not easy at the moment. We also have a government providing one of the largest boosts (by way of deficit spending) to demand of any country in the EU. Still, it is time that some of the apparently good news in the Markit figures started to bleed into reality. It is not happening so far.
My guess for Q2 is that it will be about 0.9%. It would have been better and more sustainable with enough of a lift from net trade to get us to 1.0%. That looks unlikely on these figures.
Importing millions of unskilled workers to drive down wages in the *service* sector (as most of the low skill manufacturing jobs were already off-shored) will make the trade deficit worse especially when so much of the money earned is sent home.
Money sent home is not captured in trade balance numbers so your argument makes no sense.
@isam I don't think that an approach which was broadly if the Bulgarians don't steal your job the Romanians will mug you for your pay cheque is particularly tolerant.
Of course some non-racists would vote BNP however by 2010 I would suggest it was vanishingly small numbers. By that stage most of them would have been shamed out of it.
Well you are projecting your own dislike of UKIP onto that . No real need, it doesnt help the debate.
The combine UKIP and BNP vote was big enough in many areas for me to think that UKIP could win those seats, hence I have backed them to do so.
Thurrock
Conservative Jackie Doyle-Price 16,869 36.8 +3.6 Labour Carl Morris 16,777 36.6 −9.6 Liberal Democrat Carys Davis 4,901 10.7 −0.4 BNP Emma Colgate 3,618 7.9 +2.1 UKIP Clive Broad 3,390 7.4 +4.0
General Election 2010: Hornchurch & Upminster Party Candidate Votes % ±% Conservative Angela Watkinson* 27,469 51.4 n/a Labour Kath McGuirk 11,098 20.8 n/a Liberal Democrat Karen Chilvers 7,426 13.9 n/a BNP William Whelpley 3,421 6.4 n/a UKIP Lawrence Webb 2,848 5.3 n/a Green Melanie Collins 542 1.0 n/a Independent David Durant 305 0.6 n/a Christian Johnson Olukotun 281 0.5 n/
May I say that I agree with Mr Antifrank and Mr Nabavi. I am not very good at this threading business and cannot make any better elucidation of my position. Ukips dog whistles are disgusting and Cameron is a typical mainstream centrist Tory leader. He is to the left of me and probably a bit to the right of Willie Whitelaw.
@isam I don't think that an approach which was broadly if the Bulgarians don't steal your job the Romanians will mug you for your pay cheque is particularly tolerant.
Of course some non-racists would vote BNP however by 2010 I would suggest it was vanishingly small numbers. By that stage most of them would have been shamed out of it.
The majority don't want open borders but when the political and media class collude as a caste against the public then democracy stops working.
There are some posters on this site who would like to leave to leave the EU. If you are still intending to vote tory, ask yourself this question: Do you really believe that DC is the man to lead Britain out of Europe? If not, for your position to be logical, you have to take the view that a labour govt would do more damage than Britain staying in the EU. That may be true............ .
Let me re-phrase that into the real key question. There are some posters on this site who would like a referendum on the EU. If you are still intending to vote UKIP, ask yourself this question: do you really believe that a Govt led by Ed Milliband is the man to deliver a referendum after the next GE?
DC has never said he would take Britain out. He has however committed to a referendum in 2017 and more than 50% of his backbenchers have voted for that. EdM has said he will not give a referendum if he leads the Govt after the GE, less than 10% of Ed's backbenchers have voted for one. So it is clear which way the two parties are heading.
My only reason for supporting UKIP is because I believe it would massively in the country's interest to leave the EU. I do not believe that a referendum, under a govt led by DC (who has admitted that he will be a key member of the stay-in camp) is the way to achieve it.
I don't quite follow. Whether Cameron supports being in or not is irrelevant surely? A referendum is needed - I'd probably vote In, but think we should have a referendum right now to be honest, or at least as soon as possible - and whichever way Cameron or other party leaders intend to campaign, those wanting to leave will get their chance in that referendum. I'd understand if you felt Cameron would find a way not to have the referendum somehow, but if you think a Cameron government will offer one, that is a perfect way to achieve leaving the EU regardless of what he wants.
I wish UKIP a good showing in 2015, I'm not about to advocate not voting for them if people want to (the more parties with MPs the better in my view), but if you want the UK to leave the EU, does it matter how that is achieved? A Cameron led referendum which he is campaigning on the other side is a way to achieve it.
A Cameron organised referendum, when he is strongly on one side, would probably result in a win for in. We'd be screwed for a generation. The stronger UKIP is, the more likely we are to leave the EU.
@isam I don't think that an approach which was broadly if the Bulgarians don't steal your job the Romanians will mug you for your pay cheque is particularly tolerant.
Of course some non-racists would vote BNP however by 2010 I would suggest it was vanishingly small numbers. By that stage most of them would have been shamed out of it.
The majority don't want open borders but when the political and media class collude as a caste against the public then democracy stops working.
You massively overestimate the influence let alone the organisation of politicians and journalists.
General Election 2010: Boston and Skegness[23][24] Party Candidate Votes % ±% Conservative Mark Simmonds 21,325 49.4 +3.2 Labour Paul Kenny 8,899 20.6 −11.1 Liberal Democrat Philip Smith 6,371 14.8 +6.1 UKIP Christopher Pain[n 4] 4,081 9.5 −0.1 BNP David Owens 2,278 5.3 +2.9
General Election 2010: Plymouth Moor View[4] Party Candidate Votes % ±% Labour Alison Seabeck 15,433 37.2 −7.2 Conservative Matthew Groves 13,845 33.3 +8.3 Liberal Democrat Stuart Bonar 7,016 16.9 −2.1 UKIP Bill Wakeham 3,188 7.7 +0.0 BNP Roy Crook 1,438 3.5 +3.5
General Election 2010: South Basildon and East Thurrock[6][7] Party Candidate Votes % ±% Conservative Stephen Metcalfe 19,624 43.9 +5.3 Labour Angela Evans Smith* 13,852 31.0 -9.7 Liberal Democrat Geoff Williams 5,977 13.4 +2.8 UKIP Kerry Smith 2,639 5.9 +3.3 BNP Chris Roberts 2,518 5.6 +0.8
Have the Conservatives chosen a replacement for Laura Sandys?
It appears not.
Together with the EU Parliament results, they posted:
"We will be seeking a new candidate for the South Thanet Parliamentary seat. That candidate must be able to convince this Association and our electorate that not only has he/she fully taken the voters concerns on board but that it is vital that the Conservative government delivers a referendum on our continued membership of the EU as soon as possible."
So UKIP might be on a level playing field. But they can't delay too long. UKIP should really be all-over that constituency like a rash right now, assembling canvassing data and recruiting members. They can tell their faithful that Farage is very likely to stand, but as the Conservatives are so desperate to stop him, he doesn't want to make it official for a while yet. Lest that wake the Tory beast.
UKIP don't need a fancy piece of voter software. They need 2 or 3 experienced campaigners, a good man-manager, an office with a few PCs, some telephones and MS Excel or MS access database would be enough to start with.
Personally, I think it would be very healthy for British democracy to have Nigel Farage in the House of Commons. However, it's clear the Conservatives are prepared to pay almost any price to stop that happening. So if he does declare for Thanet South, it will get one hell of a lot of attention from Millbank (or wherever the Tories are based these days)
Have the Conservatives chosen a replacement for Laura Sandys?
It appears not.
Together with the EU Parliament results, they posted:
"We will be seeking a new candidate for the South Thanet Parliamentary seat. That candidate must be able to convince this Association and our electorate that not only has he/she fully taken the voters concerns on board but that it is vital that the Conservative government delivers a referendum on our continued membership of the EU as soon as possible."
Tim Montgomerie@TimMontgomerie·1 min I just told Harpenden Tories that the party mustn't talk like accountants. Then discovered a fifth of the audience were accountants. Oops.
I'm shocked to note only a fifth were accountant .... probably the balance was made up of corporate lawyers and all of them masons !!
The faster growth in the UK should create more demand here and suck in more exports so trying to reduce the deficit is not easy at the moment. We also have a government providing one of the largest boosts (by way of deficit spending) to demand of any country in the EU. Still, it is time that some of the apparently good news in the Markit figures started to bleed into reality. It is not happening so far.
My guess for Q2 is that it will be about 0.9%. It would have been better and more sustainable with enough of a lift from net trade to get us to 1.0%. That looks unlikely on these figures.
Importing millions of unskilled workers to drive down wages in the *service* sector (as most of the low skill manufacturing jobs were already off-shored) will make the trade deficit worse especially when so much of the money earned is sent home.
Money sent home is not captured in trade balance numbers so your argument makes no sense.
Fair enough if they're talking balance of trade vs balance of payments.
"In many countries a useful distinction is drawn between the balance of trade and the balance of payments. 'Balance of trade' refers to the trade of both tangible (physical) objects as well as the trade in services – collectively known as exports and imports (in other words, 'visibles plus services') – while the 'balance of payments' also includes transfers of Capital in the form of loans, investments in shares or direct investment in projects."
Either way the mass import of low-skilled workers since the political class opened the borders has mostly been into the local service sector (as the political class had already off-shored the low-skill manufacturing work) so even without the remittance aspect that means adding extra people (more imports e.g. food) vs little or no added exports (as the jobs are mostly in the local service or construction sectors: construction, shops, restaurants, petrol stations, care homes etc).
So importing millions of people into the low-skilled local service sector is more or less guaranteed to worsen balance of trade (and worsen balance of payments even more because of remittances).
So UKIP might be on a level playing field. But they can't delay too long. UKIP should really be all-over that constituency like a rash right now, assembling canvassing data and recruiting members. They can tell their faithful that Farage is very likely to stand, but as the Conservatives are so desperate to stop him, he doesn't want to make it official for a while yet. Lest that wake the Tory beast.
UKIP don't need a fancy piece of voter software. They need 2 or 3 experienced campaigners, a good man-manager, an office with a few PCs, some telephones and MS Excel or MS access database would be enough to start with.
Personally, I think it would be very healthy for British democracy to have Nigel Farage in the House of Commons. However, it's clear the Conservatives are prepared to pay almost any price to stop that happening. So if he does declare for Thanet South, it will get one hell of a lot of attention from Millbank (or wherever the Tories are based these days)
I wonder if the prospect of Mr Farage as the UKIP candidate is delaying the selection for the Conservative candidate in South Thanet? Perhaps CCHQ have a Kryptonite candidate in mind for his constituency?
Outgoing MP (No incumbency) Low 53.8% turnout - more than average non voters there at GE time. Almost evenly split Lab-Con vote last time. East coast. 10.8% UKIP/BNP vote last time. UKIP only start 8734 votes behind Labour & 8020 behind Conservatives.
I'd imagine the demographic profile would be favourable to UKIP too, just a hunch mind..
So UKIP might be on a level playing field. But they can't delay too long. UKIP should really be all-over that constituency like a rash right now, assembling canvassing data and recruiting members. They can tell their faithful that Farage is very likely to stand, but as the Conservatives are so desperate to stop him, he doesn't want to make it official for a while yet. Lest that wake the Tory beast.
UKIP don't need a fancy piece of voter software. They need 2 or 3 experienced campaigners, a good man-manager, an office with a few PCs, some telephones and MS Excel or MS access database would be enough to start with.
Personally, I think it would be very healthy for British democracy to have Nigel Farage in the House of Commons. However, it's clear the Conservatives are prepared to pay almost any price to stop that happening. So if he does declare for Thanet South, it will get one hell of a lot of attention from Millbank (or wherever the Tories are based these days)
I wonder if the prospect of Mr Farage as the UKIP candidate is delaying the selection for the Conservative candidate in South Thanet? Perhaps CCHQ have a Kryptonite candidate in mind for his constituency?
That or a spoiler ! Maybe the tories have a Mr Nigel Ferage in their ranks!!
Comments
This was effective politics. If he hadn't done it, he may not have been elected, because it held on to a crucial few percent of the vote at a time when Gordon Brown could have called a general election and come out as largest party, or maybe even squeaked a majority.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/oct/04/conservatives2005.conservatives3
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4504722.stm
Credit where it is due, the Tories put in an enormous and very well-organised campaigning effort. They were running full pelt in Newark a fortnight before the European elections had even taken place.
They flooded the place with MPs and activists. We were never going to be able to match that scale of operation. I’d be interested to know how much money they spent on their campaign – although obviously they will be confident that they can demonstrate that they have stayed within statutory limits.
If the Conservative Party could fight every seat at the next general election in such a fashion then every other party could be in trouble. Unfortunately for them, they can’t. They don’t have the manpower and even their backers don’t have pockets that deep.
I have spoken about UKIP targeting 20, 30 or 40 key seats at the general election. On any measurement before Thursday, Newark would not have been one of them. In fact it would have been nowhere near. But now we have established a party infrastructure in the town and also won the backing of 10,000 voters we will have to take another look at that"
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/480656/FARAGE-ON-FRIDAY-Ukip-boss-says-next-target-is-2015-general-election-Commons-breakthrough
But I never let my dislike of them get in the way of my assessment of their electoral chances. I need to get a proper handle on that if I'm going to bet effectively at the next election. How many, where and who are critical questions that I'm wrestling with. I hope that kippers would acknowledge that I leave my prejudices at the door when I analyse UKIP on my own site.
I have acknowledged that by any normal yardstick they did very well last night. It's their own expectation management that has let them down. I have bet on them and would do so again where appropriate.
So what is it so far that you think I've got wrong about UKIP?
I think it's pretty clear the telly media targets who they perceive as the socially right most party and that party takes a hit of n%.
The question is what to do about it.
A protest party did very well in the 80s when there was a poor Labour opposition.
10,000 voters today does not mean 10,000 supporters at the GE.
Indeed I agree, in fact evidence from Norwich North suggests it is highly unlikely. There UKIP got 11.8% in the by election with 4068 votes a year later that had declined to 1868 turnout had increased and the share was down to 4.4%.
I'm more interested in the possibility it is the indyref key target Labour voters who are discarding him (or the Labour Party and therefore him). Any indication which of these it might be?
Obviously.
It is almost a given that they finish 2nd when they have no roots in the seat, and that can only be good for them. Wait until a seat where they and the BNP scored 10%+ combined in 2010. If they dont win that then maybe we can say they have failed.
To use a football analogy, UKIPs by Election performances are a bit like West Ham going to the top 6 teams and getting 4 draws and 2 narrow defeats but playing well. The Euros is like winning the League Cup.
To criticise them by saying well thats only 0.75pts per game so its relegation form, would be to treat every games as if it were away to a top side, rather than thinking it was better than expected and a pointer that they will win when conditions suit them better.
It would have been interesting if they'd done a rating for Brown. I always thought Darling was a Westminster vision of what a Scottish campaigner for the Union should be; Brown may have more traction.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-mep-nathan-gill-employed-dozens-of-immigrants-and-kept-them-in-bunkhouses-9485018.html
'Do as I say, not as I do...'
So UKIP's next electoral test is probably going to be the general election. It would be well-advised into planning its ground game for that, given how disorganised (if enthusiastic) it seemed to be in Newark.
neil remember he's the enlightened one, nobody's actually accused him of organising the murder of his fellow citizens.
maybe this is progress, he's given up on sledging catholics and moved on to someone else.
progress comes dropping slow.
neighbours eh ?
It would be a smart move by central office to seriously consider it I think.
Or consistently finished a clear second over a three year period in by elections.
I understand you are not sympathetic to UKIPs policies, but to try and say they are not doing well is plain stupid
I think this is going to be difficult for them. There is no doubt that there will be local councillor makes stupid statement stories, there will be far less in the news about the EU, no one ever pays any attention to what is being said in the Euro Parliament, the media will start to apply the major party criteria as we get closer to the election and the choice between Cameron and Miliband will become more stark making voting for minor parties look self-indulgent.
They have undoubtedly built a core of support that will stay with them come hell or high water but their more recent successes have been built on being the NOTA party at a time when describing the main opposition as uninspirational might be being kind. That is the sort of support that is traditionally squeezed.
Will it be different this time? The answer to that will have a big say in the outcome of the next election. I will be watching this aspect of the polling in the dog days of summer particularly closely.
The tories want and need 5% points back from them. That is a lot of people and a challenging target. Resisting that and keeping open the paths to the ex Labour supporters who have come to them more recently will be no easy task.
They wont be up against the kind of campaign (in terms of numbers) that the Conservatives managed in Newark thats for sure.
Im prepared to put my money where my mouth is against anyone who wants to write UKIP off for next year. I have been doing so for 12 months and I am ahead of the game in every bet. This is because then, as now, everyone was saying it couldnt last, the end is nigh.
1) it gives another round of publicity to UKIP
2) it might not work
Tim Montgomerie@TimMontgomerie·1 min
I just told Harpenden Tories that the party mustn't talk like accountants. Then discovered a fifth of the audience were accountants. Oops.
Doesn't change the main point though. Importing millions of low paid workers is obviously long-term electoral suicide for the Tories - short-term profit versus conserving your electorate, good for the 1%, not so good for the rest of the Con vote.
Given the way Labour VIs for not just Scottish but Westminster Pmt are going, I'm just not sure about Mr Brown one way or another, though a friend who is very much a Fife Labour voter absolutely scoffs at any idea that Mr Brown has serious traction.
Too be fair, some of that drop for Mr D is due to a general scunner* against pols (hardly surprising). The graph is interesting and even if we accept that there is some effect from the relentless and often mendacious personal attacks on Mr Salmond, it nevertheless still shows pro-indy pols leading on average even ignoring Mr Cameron. Ms Lamont has a surprisingly high rating but this has to be viewed in the context of her very gentle treatment by the media** and the fact she is rarely out except for choreographed FMQs.
*Anglice, ennui/tedium/disgust
** vide her remarks on Scots being genetically incapable of making a political decision - which would have provoked a firestorm on at least two counts, had she been anyone else
I shudder to think what the chat-up lines are like.
But time and again we've seen this kind of party win by-elections from a long way back.
That UKIP are can't manage that may be random chance, or it may speak to their support being spread so thinly they'll struggle to win seats at a GE.
I don't remember you objecting to Curtice's bar of 30% last night. Farage set expectations as 2-3,000 votes behind Tories.
You seem to be saying that it doesnt matter what kind of seat it is, UKIP should just win it or else its a failure. If they had come 3rd last night that would have been failure, but what happened was par for the course. UKIP were expected to increase their voteshare by 600% and they met expectations.
If a by Election was called in Thurrock, S Basildon & East Thurrock, Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Thanet South or North, Folkestone, Boston & Skegeness , Castle Point tomorrow I would expect UKIP to win and would consider 2nd place a failure.
No one was pretending this was the time. The earthquake Farage predicted was winning the Euros, which he did.
The media are reporting Newark as a safe seat that the Tories held but with a reduced majority, and that UKIP increased its vote many times over to finish 2nd. Its only people that are desperate for UKIP to go away that are claiming its an upset of some kind
*UKIP to win a seat*
1/2 Yes
6/4 No
*UKIP seat totals*
2/1 Over 4.5
7/2 Over 9.5
5/1 Over 19.5
6/1 Over 29.5
8/1 Over 39.5
10/1 Over 49.5
Those odds are barmy. Can only be driven by way over-enthusiastic Kippers.
Thurrock at 16s
Dudley North at 25s
Telford at 25s
Birmingham Yardley at 100s
North Devon at 20s
Cambourne and Redruth at 16s
to outpoll the Lib Dems at 6/4
to get more than 10% at 6/4
Farage to stand in Thanet South at 2s
Are you offereing a bet?
But bare in mind that Smithson did tip up 8-1 2+ seats at Hills ages ago.
I think the pro Kipper bet right now is the 5-4 at Hills to beat the Lib Dems in vote share at the next GE.
Very naughty to say that was the bar he set
Lord Wotsit with is windfarm scam is another. At every turn and for so many reasons its clear they are disreputable but the blind committed 'kipper' will bend over backwards to justify every stupidity.
But 'kippers' are not all voters and they are not all UKIP voters who vote as a protest, they are the howling mad commited and clearly the remaining 90% of the electorate can discern enough to keep them out. With UKIP on 27% in Newark the Tories clearly attracted a wide swath of reasonable people to support their decency. In a real election to select a real govt UKIP can expect to be squeezed further.
What Newark shows is the best line for the Tories is the decent honest line, you cannot appease the howling mad rump.
The 6/4 on no seats looks excellent value to me.
But since WW2, the British govt has alternated between Labour and Conservative. If that is to continue, you will never be able to avoid a Labour govt at some point in the future. So you might as well vote UKIP now. Or, at the very least, pay UKIP the compliment of attending one of their local meetings. Talk to the activists in the bar afterwards. It will be worth your time.
Are they 'doing well'? Sure, but that's a bland assessment.
How well are they doing? Compared to historical parties, more evidence of national support but failing to make that breakthrough that others did in seats they started just as far back in. Which means it has to call into question their ability to win seats at a GE.
With the hype (and UKIP have been hyping themselves plenty) comes expectations.
UKIP seem to have peak support at 25% give or take and so unless you can find a 3-way seat to turn 4-way it's going to be problematic. You have to break out of that 25% straitjacket and so far nothing suggests that you are.
By the way I think if UKIP did win from a standing start, the accusation of a "protest vote" would carry some weight. If they win a seat as I have described above, it is because thats genuinely what the public want
There are some posters on this site who would like a referendum on the EU. If you are still intending to vote UKIP, ask yourself this question: do you really believe that a Govt led by Ed Milliband is the man to deliver a referendum after the next GE?
DC has never said he would take Britain out. He has however committed to a referendum in 2017 and more than 50% of his backbenchers have voted for that. EdM has said he will not give a referendum if he leads the Govt after the GE, less than 10% of Ed's backbenchers have voted for one. So it is clear which way the two parties are heading.
It is easy to be negative about something, but much harder to give a detailed scenario of what happens afterwards and that is the most important bit - oft forgotten as Tony Blair et al found out.
The best bets are the seats that Antifrank listed (plus Boston & Skegness).
However, the danger is - especially if Farage is the candidate - that it is relentlessly opinion-polled, and you see the anti-UKIP vote coalesce around someone... probably, I would suspect, the Conservative candidate.
edit: hence why Eastleigh was better than Newark or Wythenshawe.
A lot of people who voted BNP arent really racist they were just frustrated. Non violent people sometimes lash out, doesnt mean they are thugs. Everyone has a breaking point, we shouldnt brand them bad forever.
UKIP offers a place for people who are anti immigration but not racist, and I think a lot of people who were angry enough to vote BNP before prefer the more tolerant and balanced approach UKIP.
The faster growth in the UK should create more demand here and suck in more exports so trying to reduce the deficit is not easy at the moment. We also have a government providing one of the largest boosts (by way of deficit spending) to demand of any country in the EU. Still, it is time that some of the apparently good news in the Markit figures started to bleed into reality. It is not happening so far.
My guess for Q2 is that it will be about 0.9%. It would have been better and more sustainable with enough of a lift from net trade to get us to 1.0%. That looks unlikely on these figures.
Maybe the Kuiper statistical test would be better.
I'll get me coat.
I wish UKIP a good showing in 2015, I'm not about to advocate not voting for them if people want to (the more parties with MPs the better in my view), but if you want the UK to leave the EU, does it matter how that is achieved? A Cameron led referendum which he is campaigning on the other side is a way to achieve it.
Given a binary choice between 1 and 0 Kipper seats I'd pick 0.
I don't think that an approach which was broadly if the Bulgarians don't steal your job the Romanians will mug you for your pay cheque is particularly tolerant.
Of course some non-racists would vote BNP however by 2010 I would suggest it was vanishingly small numbers. By that stage most of them would have been shamed out of it.
The combine UKIP and BNP vote was big enough in many areas for me to think that UKIP could win those seats, hence I have backed them to do so.
Thurrock
Conservative Jackie Doyle-Price 16,869 36.8 +3.6
Labour Carl Morris 16,777 36.6 −9.6
Liberal Democrat Carys Davis 4,901 10.7 −0.4
BNP Emma Colgate 3,618 7.9 +2.1
UKIP Clive Broad 3,390 7.4 +4.0
General Election 2010: Hornchurch & Upminster
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Conservative Angela Watkinson* 27,469 51.4 n/a
Labour Kath McGuirk 11,098 20.8 n/a
Liberal Democrat Karen Chilvers 7,426 13.9 n/a
BNP William Whelpley 3,421 6.4 n/a
UKIP Lawrence Webb 2,848 5.3 n/a
Green Melanie Collins 542 1.0 n/a
Independent David Durant 305 0.6 n/a
Christian Johnson Olukotun 281 0.5 n/
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Conservative Mark Simmonds 21,325 49.4 +3.2
Labour Paul Kenny 8,899 20.6 −11.1
Liberal Democrat Philip Smith 6,371 14.8 +6.1
UKIP Christopher Pain[n 4] 4,081 9.5 −0.1
BNP David Owens 2,278 5.3 +2.9
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Labour Alison Seabeck 15,433 37.2 −7.2
Conservative Matthew Groves 13,845 33.3 +8.3
Liberal Democrat Stuart Bonar 7,016 16.9 −2.1
UKIP Bill Wakeham 3,188 7.7 +0.0
BNP Roy Crook 1,438 3.5 +3.5
General Election 2010: South Basildon and East Thurrock[6][7]
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Conservative Stephen Metcalfe 19,624 43.9 +5.3
Labour Angela Evans Smith* 13,852 31.0 -9.7
Liberal Democrat Geoff Williams 5,977 13.4 +2.8
UKIP Kerry Smith 2,639 5.9 +3.3
BNP Chris Roberts 2,518 5.6 +0.8
http://www.souththanetconservatives.org.uk/sites/www.souththanetconservatives.org.uk/files/ppc_selection_process.pdf
Together with the EU Parliament results, they posted:
"We will be seeking a new candidate for the South Thanet Parliamentary seat. That candidate must be able to convince this Association and our electorate that not only has he/she fully taken the voters concerns on board but that it is vital that the Conservative government delivers a referendum on our continued membership of the EU as soon as possible."
http://www.souththanetconservatives.org.uk
So UKIP might be on a level playing field. But they can't delay too long. UKIP should really be all-over that constituency like a rash right now, assembling canvassing data and recruiting members. They can tell their faithful that Farage is very likely to stand, but as the Conservatives are so desperate to stop him, he doesn't want to make it official for a while yet. Lest that wake the Tory beast.
UKIP don't need a fancy piece of voter software. They need 2 or 3 experienced campaigners, a good man-manager, an office with a few PCs, some telephones and MS Excel or MS access database would be enough to start with.
Personally, I think it would be very healthy for British democracy to have Nigel Farage in the House of Commons. However, it's clear the Conservatives are prepared to pay almost any price to stop that happening. So if he does declare for Thanet South, it will get one hell of a lot of attention from Millbank (or wherever the Tories are based these days)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_balance
"In many countries a useful distinction is drawn between the balance of trade and the balance of payments. 'Balance of trade' refers to the trade of both tangible (physical) objects as well as the trade in services – collectively known as exports and imports (in other words, 'visibles plus services') – while the 'balance of payments' also includes transfers of Capital in the form of loans, investments in shares or direct investment in projects."
Either way the mass import of low-skilled workers since the political class opened the borders has mostly been into the local service sector (as the political class had already off-shored the low-skill manufacturing work) so even without the remittance aspect that means adding extra people (more imports e.g. food) vs little or no added exports (as the jobs are mostly in the local service or construction sectors: construction, shops, restaurants, petrol stations, care homes etc).
So importing millions of people into the low-skilled local service sector is more or less guaranteed to worsen balance of trade (and worsen balance of payments even more because of remittances).
Outgoing MP (No incumbency)
Low 53.8% turnout - more than average non voters there at GE time.
Almost evenly split Lab-Con vote last time.
East coast.
10.8% UKIP/BNP vote last time.
UKIP only start 8734 votes behind Labour &
8020 behind Conservatives.
I'd imagine the demographic profile would be favourable to UKIP too, just a hunch mind..
That or a spoiler ! Maybe the tories have a Mr Nigel Ferage in their ranks!!