Incidentally, the polls to watch aren't today's Populus (it doesn't actually matter what it says - it's pre-by-election and fairly irrelevant) but YG and especially Survation (as the pollster with the most UKIP-helpful methodology) on Saturday night. If there's a big impact (and we can't be sure) it will be immediate - none of that "it will gradually filter through" stuff.
Parts of the U.S are as poor as the EU. The key difference is the US political culture mitigates against smaller parties whereas the EU is more fertile ground.
Only if you really get down to the small county level. The US states are overwhelmingly richer than EU nations. The UK, one of the EU's richer countries, would only be richer than Mississippi over there:
That's a bit dodgy because the US is so very unequal. Mean GDP per capita across much of the US is certainly higher than the EU - but not median GDP per capita. Strip out Bill Gates and Warren Buffett and a very different view emerges. Have you been to the US lately? It's a toilet. Islands of fabulous wealth surrounded by grinding, soulless awfulness.
Also I see Osborne was warning about a slowdown due to Europe, so presumably we have bad economic news coming soon, hitting the Tories still further. A shame labour squeezed home to prevent things getting really interesting.
Clacton was no surprise. Heywood was. Had UKIP won it it really would have been an earthquake.
Labour thought they had a silver bullet (wittering on about the NHS), now it seems that was a mud bullet.
Ignoring the economy and immigration will not work. On both they don´t have a narrative. On the second they risk alienating their imported vote bank. Problem is, it also alienates their far larger wwc constituency. As Labour hate this constituency I expect silence. MIllipede is proud of his party´s record on immigration. I am sure he is. As are other bien pensants. Problem is, no one else is.
Come on! Who expected Carswell to increase his majority? In a bye election?
When last did a sitting MP 'cross the floor' and win the resulting bye-election in the same seat?
Dick Taverne IIRC. Scraped home at the next General (Feb 74), then lost it in Oct.
Parts of the U.S are as poor as the EU. The key difference is the US political culture mitigates against smaller parties whereas the EU is more fertile ground.
Only if you really get down to the small county level. The US states are overwhelmingly richer than EU nations. The UK, one of the EU's richer countries, would only be richer than Mississippi over there:
And yet it doesn't feel that way. Large parts of Europe *feel* significantly richer than many states in America. Big European cities - London, Paris, Barcelona, Berlin, Hamburg, Copenhagen, Vienna - feel richer than LA, Chicago, New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Phoenix.
I suspect this is because Europe has more accumulated wealth - centuries of art and architecture - and also because Anerican wealth is concentrated in the hands of the 1% even more than in Europe. The average American wage has barely shifted in decades.
Always struck by how run down New York seems, Bavaria is the region that impressed me most, level above others. Only Boston for me comes close to the standard common to Northern Europe.
Parts of the U.S are as poor as the EU. The key difference is the US political culture mitigates against smaller parties whereas the EU is more fertile ground.
Only if you really get down to the small county level. The US states are overwhelmingly richer than EU nations. The UK, one of the EU's richer countries, would only be richer than Mississippi over there:
And yet it doesn't feel that way. Large parts of Europe *feel* significantly richer than many states in America. Big European cities - London, Paris, Barcelona, Berlin, Hamburg, Copenhagen, Vienna - feel richer than LA, Chicago, New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Phoenix.
I suspect this is because Europe has more accumulated wealth - centuries of art and architecture - and also because Anerican wealth is concentrated in the hands of the 1% even more than in Europe. The average American wage has barely shifted in decades.
The US does well but parts of Europe do better. In 2013 we were not doing well but these tables are very vulnerable to currency moves and we had not recovered from a serious devaluation at that time. Inequalities of wealth within countries are also significant. Would a State made up of the contents of the M25 rank so low? Obviously not.
Parts of the U.S are as poor as the EU. The key difference is the US political culture mitigates against smaller parties whereas the EU is more fertile ground.
Only if you really get down to the small county level. The US states are overwhelmingly richer than EU nations. The UK, one of the EU's richer countries, would only be richer than Mississippi over there:
That's a bit dodgy because the US is so very unequal. Mean GDP per capita across much of the US is certainly higher than the EU - but not median GDP per capita. Strip out Bill Gates and Warren Buffett and a very different view emerges. Have you been to the US lately? It's a toilet. Islands of fabulous wealth surrounded by grinding, soulless awfulness.
Another poor country attracting an even larger share of global billionaires than the UK. It's how capitalism works.
Within 700 votes in Heywood. If Labour had actually cared about democracy and allowed the voters of the place to have time for a proper debate, UKIP would have won. No matter. It's this sort of disdain for it's own base that will see UKIP grab seats off Labour in time.
Labours share of the vote increased in Heywood.
UKIP have another close but no cigar moment.
Complacent.
Labour increased from 40.1% in 2010 to 40.9%. That is not a big increase, and certainly not when you factor in the smaller turnout (almost 7,000 fewer votes) and the very small majority (down from 5,971 to 617). All in all, it is a very worrying result for Labour.
"Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget, For we are the people of England, that never has spoken yet."
Well, we are speaking now.
As for whether these results are a flash in the pan, we shall see very soon in Rochester but one thing's for sure, UKIP are setting the agenda - UKIP already have more influence over Conservative policy from outside the government than the LibDems do from within. The three main parties will now base their GE campaigns around how to counter the UKIP vote rather than each other's as would be the case normally.
Frankly anything could happen now over the coming months - more defections? leadership challenges (in any of the main parties)?
Parts of the U.S are as poor as the EU. The key difference is the US political culture mitigates against smaller parties whereas the EU is more fertile ground.
Only if you really get down to the small county level. The US states are overwhelmingly richer than EU nations. The UK, one of the EU's richer countries, would only be richer than Mississippi over there:
And yet it doesn't feel that way. Large parts of Europe *feel* significantly richer than many states in America. Big European cities - London, Paris, Barcelona, Berlin, Hamburg, Copenhagen, Vienna - feel richer than LA, Chicago, New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Phoenix.
I suspect this is because Europe has more accumulated wealth - centuries of art and architecture - and also because Anerican wealth is concentrated in the hands of the 1% even more than in Europe. The average American wage has barely shifted in decades.
Always struck by how run down New York seems, Bavaria is the region that impressed me most, level above others. Only Boston for me comes close to the standard common to Northern Europe.
You have to remember that vast areas of Europe were flattened and then rebuilt after WW2.
Excellent results for UKIP, there is no denying it. A major credibility hurdle and objection to them being in any debates fell tonight.
But it's not just Scotland and England. Look at the rise of Marine le Pen
And now the whole eurozone is slipping into its THIRD recession since Lehmans. What will that do to mainstream parties?
Globalisation and its discontents is absolutely battering Europe, and politics is not immune.
Oh I completely agree that it is a wide phenomenon. I would really not surprised if le Pen were the next President of France. The economic conditions are moving strongly in her direction. By the time the election comes around discussion as to whether or not France should leave the euro will not just be a topic for some eccentrics but mainstream.
Democracy is failing and, as it does, is trying to renew itself. Voters are unwilling to accept how powerless the State is to protect them from the storms raging about them and seek solace from those who think the world's problems can be solved with a series of simple bullet points. Those in power are powerless and those threatening the current order grow stronger by the day.
The key things being economics and immigration. The former isn't working for low-medium skilled working class voters in western countries, in a globalised environment, and they are also much more heavily effected by immigration, which tends to impact upon both their neighbourhoods and their jobs.
Educated middle class voters do fairly well out of the former (job opportunities and lower cost of living) and don't tend to be heavily effected by immigration; they will move out of problem areas whilst lauding the diversity it adds in culture/cuisine (that they can enjoy in their leisure time, before withdrawing) and the cheap cleaning/catering staff it offers them and enhances their lives.
So the latter are more happy supporting established parties fighting over the centre ground.
The last government were desperate to have GDP growth, no matter what. Immigration was good for GDP growth ergo it was a good thing. The effect on their own supporters was a secondary consideration.
True.
But what is also true is:
This government is desperate to have GDP growth, no matter what. Immigration is good for GDP growth ergo it is a good thing. The effect on their own supporters is a secondary consideration.
The effect on their own supporters is much more indirect than the effect on our low paid, state dependent city dwellers that Labour likes to claim as its own.
Within 700 votes in Heywood. If Labour had actually cared about democracy and allowed the voters of the place to have time for a proper debate, UKIP would have won. No matter. It's this sort of disdain for it's own base that will see UKIP grab seats off Labour in time.
Labours share of the vote increased in Heywood.
UKIP have another close but no cigar moment.
Complacent.
Labour increased from 40.1% in 2010 to 40.9%. That is not a big increase, and certainly not when you factor in the smaller turnout (almost 7,000 fewer votes) and the very small majority (down from 5,971 to 617). All in all, it is a very worrying result for Labour.
Increased share of the vote is surprising with a strong NOTA challenge IMO
I suggest people are over analysing these results. Everyone knows that Labour voters unless it's necessary to do so don't bother to vote. This result I'm afraid looks like a good result for Ed.
UKIP are not going to take Labour votes when it matters and let the Tories in but they are now certain to start taking Tory votes in numbers and in the final reckoning the election is going to remain a race between Tory and Labour
@mrchrisaddison: Great to see UKIP challenging the political status quo by getting a white, middle-aged, male, former MP elected. Forwards!
I'm trying to identify the point in time when the terms 'white/middle aged/male/middle class' became acceptable forms of abuse....
Disdain rather than abuse perhaps. Increasing diversity is seen as important for many reasons but apparently the people cannot be trusted to do so fast enough of their own accord and since you cannot mock them for it, you mock the lack of direct action from the powers that be. What was it sir Humphrey said everyone was looking out for? A black Welsh woman disabled trades unionist? Tough to have a shortlist that detailed though
I suggest people are over analysing these results. Everyone knows that Labour voters unless eit's necessary to do so don't bother to vote. This result despite appearances I'm afraid looks like a good result for Ed.
UKIP are not going to take Labour votes and let the Tories in but they are now certain to start taking Tory votes in numbers and in the final reckoning the election is going to remain a race between Tory and Labour
Your 'labour voters' aren't labour voters anymore.
That's the problem. Labour have looked upon the WWC and the like as 'their vote'. They aren't.
Parts of the U.S are as poor as the EU. The key difference is the US political culture mitigates against smaller parties whereas the EU is more fertile ground.
Only if you really get down to the small county level. The US states are overwhelmingly richer than EU nations. The UK, one of the EU's richer countries, would only be richer than Mississippi over there:
And yet it doesn't feel that way. Large parts of Europe *feel* significantly richer than many states in America. Big European cities - London, Paris, Barcelona, Berlin, Hamburg, Copenhagen, Vienna - feel richer than LA, Chicago, New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Phoenix.
I suspect this is because Europe has more accumulated wealth - centuries of art and architecture - and also because Anerican wealth is concentrated in the hands of the 1% even more than in Europe. The average American wage has barely shifted in decades.
Always struck by how run down New York seems, Bavaria is the region that impressed me most, level above others. Only Boston for me comes close to the standard common to Northern Europe.
You have to remember that vast areas of Europe were flattened and then rebuilt after WW2.
Stockholm wasn't and is far more impressive than most US cities. Some of the Western cities are nicer so point taken though.
Fraser Nelson shouldn't give up the day job with those statistics.
A definite shock and one that might continue for a while.
What do the main parties do?
If, as I suspect, a major issue is that a chunk of the electorate feel excluded from economic gain because both parties have favoured groups that they preferentially look after, there's not a lot they can do. They feel that both Tories and Labour are wedded to social engineering and regard their economic plight as irrelevant.
Never mind the income, check the political correctness.
This view may be unfair but with a large deficit, not much is going to change.
"In three visits to the area over the last two weeks, almost all the voters I spoke to began each conversation by saying, unprompted, that they were concerned about immigration – the electrician complaining about wages being undercut by eastern European workers, the parents unable to get their offspring into local primary schools because immigrant children were taking up scarce places, the patients waiting for a GP appointment in a waiting room filled with foreign chatter. Others said things like: “I just want our country back.""
Perhaps Labour could just tell these people they are being entirely unreasonable and "obsessed" by the topic. If they raised any concerns about child abuse next door in Rochdale they could get sickos like Roger to tell them they are prurient and drooling over it.
Who also happens to be white, male and middle class. Ahem. And he'll be middle-aged one day, too (probably).
The Heywood result could alter voting behaviour in Rochester. Will Labour go as soft as possibly and not discourage the idea of tactical voting *for* the Conservatives, or will they go in hard? Will voters stick with the blues or shift to the purples?
The Heywood result shows a strong UKIP *can* hurt Labour and may well do so, but if they calculate it hurts the Conservatives more that'll perhaps be considered a price worth paying for Labour.
"Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget, For we are the people of England, that never has spoken yet."
Well, we are speaking now.
As for whether these results are a flash in the pan, we shall see very soon in Rochester but one thing's for sure, UKIP are setting the agenda - UKIP already have more influence over Conservative policy from outside the government than the LibDems do from within. The three main parties will now base their GE campaigns around how to counter the UKIP vote rather than each other's as would be the case normally.
True enough. Labour still seem safer despite losing ground so seem on course for victory, but all of the parties sweat and worry over ukip. That is the biggest difference between them and the greens for instance, currently the only ones worrying about the greens are the lib dens. Very impressive power really.
But it's not just Scotland and England. Look at the rise of Marine le Pen
And now the whole eurozone is slipping into its THIRD recession since Lehmans. What will that do to mainstream parties?
Globalisation and its discontents is absolutely battering Europe, and politics is not immune.
Oh I completely agree that it is a wide phenomenon. I would really not surprised if le Pen were the next President of France. The economic conditions are moving strongly in her direction. By the time the election comes around discussion as to whether or not France should leave the euro will not just be a topic for some eccentrics but mainstream.
Democracy is failing and, as it does, is trying to renew itself. Voters are unwilling to accept how powerless the State is to protect them from the storms raging about them and seek solace from those who think the world's problems can be solved with a series of simple bullet points. Those in power are powerless and those threatening the current order grow stronger by the day.
Globalisation is trickle-up economics. A process by which wealth is transferred from workers to property owners and from shareholders to executives.
The PPEocrachy see nothing wrong with this because they are personally gaining (that people they despise are losing out makes it even more satisfying to them) and because they are ever more disinclined to leave their metropolitan comfort zones.
EdM's anecdotes of 'ordinary people who live in Dartmouth Park', the Matthew Parris article and holding party conferences in metropolitan mini-mes rather than seaside resorts are examples of this mentality.
That just shows how much those two don't get it. The problem with globalisation is that it does reduce global poverty, and income inequality between nations, but increases inequality within them. At the same time, it creates a highly mobile global super elite that fuels resentment.
The poorest simply try and migrate where they can get the best prospects economically for themselves and their family.
@mrchrisaddison: Great to see UKIP challenging the political status quo by getting a white, middle-aged, male, former MP elected. Forwards!
I'm trying to identify the point in time when the terms 'white/middle aged/male/middle class' became acceptable forms of abuse....
Comments like that just show how much he doesn't understand. I once went to a 'comedy' stand-up of his in Cambridge with my wife. He was so unfunny, as well as being extremely rude to anyone not on the uber metropolitan left, she had to restrain me from walking out of the gig.
I suggest people are over analysing these results. Everyone knows that Labour voters unless it's necessary to do so don't bother to vote. This result I'm afraid looks like a good result for Ed.
UKIP are not going to take Labour votes when it matters and let the Tories in but they are now certain to start taking Tory votes in numbers and in the final reckoning the election is going to remain a race between Tory and Labour
Labour won.
It is important to grind out a result when you are not playing well. Just imagine the headlines today if they had lost.
Still, Labour needs to work out how to put wind back in its sails and some enthusiasm on the doorstep.
Oh I completely agree that it is a wide phenomenon. I would really not surprised if le Pen were the next President of France. The economic conditions are moving strongly in her direction. By the time the election comes around discussion as to whether or not France should leave the euro will not just be a topic for some eccentrics but mainstream.
Democracy is failing and, as it does, is trying to renew itself. Voters are unwilling to accept how powerless the State is to protect them from the storms raging about them and seek solace from those who think the world's problems can be solved with a series of simple bullet points. Those in power are powerless and those threatening the current order grow stronger by the day.
The key things being economics and immigration. The former isn't working for low-medium skilled working class voters in western countries, in a globalised environment, and they are also much more heavily effected by immigration, which tends to impact upon both their neighbourhoods and their jobs.
Educated middle class voters do fairly well out of the former (job opportunities and lower cost of living) and don't tend to be heavily effected by immigration; they will move out of problem areas whilst lauding the diversity it adds in culture/cuisine (that they can enjoy in their leisure time, before withdrawing) and the cheap cleaning/catering staff it offers them and enhances their lives.
So the latter are more happy supporting established parties fighting over the centre ground.
The last government were desperate to have GDP growth, no matter what. Immigration was good for GDP growth ergo it was a good thing. The effect on their own supporters was a secondary consideration.
True.
But what is also true is:
This government is desperate to have GDP growth, no matter what. Immigration is good for GDP growth ergo it is a good thing. The effect on their own supporters is a secondary consideration.
The effect on their own supporters is much more indirect than the effect on our low paid, state dependent city dwellers that Labour likes to claim as its own.
No it isn't. Those affected by immigration stretch far higher up the socioeconomic scale than that.
Conservative governments get elected on the back of C1C2 votes.
Yesturday those who voted Conservative in 2010 switched to UKIP.
Quite a night, but the press do have a vested interest in making this sound more earth shattering than it really is. The poor 'get-out-the-vote' operation by Labour must be a worry, particularly given Ed's early enthusiasm for grass-roots activism and community-driven politics and the work of Arnie Graf (what happened to all that?).
Oh, and with the falling oil price, looks like the SNP dodged a bullet by NO winning. You don't want to be an oil economy when Saudi Arabia starts trying to prevent the USA being a competing oil exporter, by killing a mass of marginal production.....
Within 700 votes in Heywood. If Labour had actually cared about democracy and allowed the voters of the place to have time for a proper debate, UKIP would have won. No matter. It's this sort of disdain for it's own base that will see UKIP grab seats off Labour in time.
Labours share of the vote increased in Heywood.
UKIP have another close but no cigar moment.
Complacent.
Labour increased from 40.1% in 2010 to 40.9%. That is not a big increase, and certainly not when you factor in the smaller turnout (almost 7,000 fewer votes) and the very small majority (down from 5,971 to 617). All in all, it is a very worrying result for Labour.
Increased share of the vote is surprising with a strong NOTA challenge IMO
Ffs. You are the only main opposition party to an unpopular coalition. Your GE result in 2010 was yr worst in nearly 80 years. You should have surged from that appalling result and won this seat handsomely.
Instead you nearly got beat by a fringe hard right party.
It's a bad bad result for Labour, as grim as Clacton is for the Tories. Any spinner, from either party, who claims otherwise, is lying.
No its not,
The right wing parties in Heywood and Middleton started with a 2010 base of 37% compared to LAB 40% vote share.
LAB % of the vote increases despite Tories and LD not running any campaign.
Enough Tories vote Tory to help LAB retain the seat.
Only UKIP can beat LAB in the North. The ones who continued to vote Tory saved Ed from what would have been a big story.
"Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget, For we are the people of England, that never has spoken yet."
Well, we are speaking now.
As for whether these results are a flash in the pan, we shall see very soon in Rochester but one thing's for sure, UKIP are setting the agenda - UKIP already have more influence over Conservative policy from outside the government than the LibDems do from within. The three main parties will now base their GE campaigns around how to counter the UKIP vote rather than each other's as would be the case normally.
Frankly anything could happen now over the coming months - more defections? leadership challenges (in any of the main parties)?
A big win in Clacton by the incumbent having switched parties, almost as big as Bermondsey won by a real challenger in '83. But do Bye Elections change much when it comes to the GE?
Within 700 votes in Heywood. If Labour had actually cared about democracy and allowed the voters of the place to have time for a proper debate, UKIP would have won. No matter. It's this sort of disdain for it's own base that will see UKIP grab seats off Labour in time.
Labours share of the vote increased in Heywood.
UKIP have another close but no cigar moment.
Complacent.
Labour increased from 40.1% in 2010 to 40.9%. That is not a big increase, and certainly not when you factor in the smaller turnout (almost 7,000 fewer votes) and the very small majority (down from 5,971 to 617). All in all, it is a very worrying result for Labour.
Increased share of the vote is surprising with a strong NOTA challenge IMO
change of topic - noticed Pakistan v Australia today (12:00) – will you be watching?
Mr. Royale, I'm not a UKIPper (have voted for them a couple of times, but I've done that for several parties) but the few Have I Got News For You editions I've watched relatively recently were full of UKIP-bashing, and it felt like rather smug dinner party banter [does one 'banter' at dinner parties?] about the oiks who don't enjoy foie gras.
Oh, and with the falling oil price, looks like the SNP dodged a bullet by NO winning. You don't want to be an oil economy when Saudi Arabia starts trying to prevent the USA being a competing oil exporter, by killing a mass of marginal production.....
Within 700 votes in Heywood. If Labour had actually cared about democracy and allowed the voters of the place to have time for a proper debate, UKIP would have won. No matter. It's this sort of disdain for it's own base that will see UKIP grab seats off Labour in time.
Labours share of the vote increased in Heywood.
UKIP have another close but no cigar moment.
Complacent.
Labour increased from 40.1% in 2010 to 40.9%. That is not a big increase, and certainly not when you factor in the smaller turnout (almost 7,000 fewer votes) and the very small majority (down from 5,971 to 617). All in all, it is a very worrying result for Labour.
Increased share of the vote is surprising with a strong NOTA challenge IMO
Ffs. You are the only main opposition party to an unpopular coalition. Your GE result in 2010 was yr worst in nearly 80 years. You should have surged from that appalling result and won this seat handsomely.
Instead you nearly got beat by a fringe hard right party.
It's a bad bad result for Labour, as grim as Clacton is for the Tories. Any spinner, from either party, who claims otherwise, is lying.
No its not,
The right wing parties in Heywood and Middleton started with a 2010 base of 37% compared to LAB 40% vote share.
LAB % of the vote increases despite Tories and LD not running any campaign.
Enough Tories vote Tory to help LAB retain the seat.
Only UKIP can beat LAB in the North. The ones who continued to vote Tory saved Ed from what would have been a big story.
Thanks for that
That was tactical voting. To make sure Ed wasn't ditched.
I suggest people are over analysing these results. Everyone knows that Labour voters unless eit's necessary to do so don't bother to vote. This result despite appearances I'm afraid looks like a good result for Ed.
UKIP are not going to take Labour votes and let the Tories in but they are now certain to start taking Tory votes in numbers and in the final reckoning the election is going to remain a race between Tory and Labour
Your 'labour voters' aren't labour voters anymore.
That's the problem. Labour have looked upon the WWC and the like as 'their vote'. They aren't.
What's the 'Tory vote' now the base is voting UKIP? Can anyone enlighten me?
It might be worth looking at the drivers that lead to the creation and rise of the Labour Party, perhaps the same drivers are at work here but now in favour of UKIP
I suggest people are over analysing these results. Everyone knows that Labour voters unless eit's necessary to do so don't bother to vote. This result despite appearances I'm afraid looks like a good result for Ed.
UKIP are not going to take Labour votes and let the Tories in but they are now certain to start taking Tory votes in numbers and in the final reckoning the election is going to remain a race between Tory and Labour
Your 'labour voters' aren't labour voters anymore.
That's the problem. Labour have looked upon the WWC and the like as 'their vote'. They aren't.
What's the 'Tory vote' now the base is voting UKIP? Can anyone enlighten me?
whataboutery.
I'm not denying UKIP is a big problem for the tories. It's the left which is in denial.
Labour's Northern fire-wall: less than 700 Tories....
The Tory northern strategy is now very 'complex'. To win in May they need Labour to suffer badly in their heartlands. We have seen very clearly last night that UKIP can bite huge chunks out of the Labour vote. So, perversely, in Labour's heartlands and somewhat marginal seats Dave actually needs pretty much to give up and hope for some serious tactical voting for UKIP. Imagine if UKIP could, sensationally, take 20 seats 'unexpectedly' on the back of major Tory tactical voting. They can't, of course, state this openly and will no doubt 'fight hard for every seat'.
In the Tory heartlands and Tory held marginals it's a completely different story. These they really do need to fight for body and soul. But with a loud and clear 'Labour have abandoned the WWC' message. They badly need UKIP to eat into the Labour threat in these ones.
Which all might leave us in the delicious position of a hung parliament and UKIP holding the balance of power. God knows how a Dave / Farage coalition might work. A Hammond / Carswell one might be very easy.
IPPR have a timely new report, looking at alienation of voters and class issues. Their survey results show the depths of disgruntlement of voters:
"...a staggering 86 per cent [of white working class] believe that politicians don’t understand the lives of people like them. It should be noted, however, that in this regard the views of the white working-class do not differ much from those of the rest of the country. Figures for middle-class respondents were only a little more encouraging, with just 18 per cent saying that they felt politicians understood their lives, compared to 78 per cent who did not."
Parts of the U.S are as poor as the EU. The key difference is the US political culture mitigates against smaller parties whereas the EU is more fertile ground.
Only if you really get down to the small county level. The US states are overwhelmingly richer than EU nations. The UK, one of the EU's richer countries, would only be richer than Mississippi over there:
And yet it doesn't feel that way. Large parts of Europe *feel* significantly richer than many states in America. Big European cities - London, Paris, Barcelona, Berlin, Hamburg, Copenhagen, Vienna - feel richer than LA, Chicago, New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Phoenix.
I suspect this is because Europe has more accumulated wealth - centuries of art and architecture - and also because Anerican wealth is concentrated in the hands of the 1% even more than in Europe. The average American wage has barely shifted in decades.
The US does well but parts of Europe do better. In 2013 we were not doing well but these tables are very vulnerable to currency moves and we had not recovered from a serious devaluation at that time. Inequalities of wealth within countries are also significant. Would a State made up of the contents of the M25 rank so low? Obviously not.
Parts of Europe only do better because they're little islands of prosperity of a few million people. If you rank the US states by GDP per capita, the vast majority of them would be ahead of the large EU nations like Germany and the UK.
Within 700 votes in Heywood. If Labour had actually cared about democracy and allowed the voters of the place to have time for a proper debate, UKIP would have won. No matter. It's this sort of disdain for it's own base that will see UKIP grab seats off Labour in time.
Labours share of the vote increased in Heywood.
UKIP have another close but no cigar moment.
Complacent.
Labour increased from 40.1% in 2010 to 40.9%. That is not a big increase, and certainly not when you factor in the smaller turnout (almost 7,000 fewer votes) and the very small majority (down from 5,971 to 617). All in all, it is a very worrying result for Labour.
Increased share of the vote is surprising with a strong NOTA challenge IMO
Ffs. You are the only main opposition party to an unpopular coalition. Your GE result in 2010 was yr worst in nearly 80 years. You should have surged from that appalling result and won this seat handsomely.
Instead you nearly got beat by a fringe hard right party.
It's a bad bad result for Labour, as grim as Clacton is for the Tories. Any spinner, from either party, who claims otherwise, is lying.
No its not,
The right wing parties in Heywood and Middleton started with a 2010 base of 37% compared to LAB 40% vote share.
LAB % of the vote increases despite Tories and LD not running any campaign.
Enough Tories vote Tory to help LAB retain the seat.
Only UKIP can beat LAB in the North. The ones who continued to vote Tory saved Ed from what would have been a big story.
Thanks for that
That was tactical voting. To make sure Ed wasn't ditched.
Very amusing.
Have you ditched your tactical voting plan for Sheffield Halam for the same reason.
US cities don't feel as wealthy because the wealth of the US has long been in the suburbs, after white flight during desegregation. It's only in the last decade that rich people have started to move back to downtown areas. If you go to average suburban towns in the US they're much more done up than the Readings of the world.
Looks like the Tories need a new strategy for their General election campaign "Vote Farage get Ed" holed below the water line.
Looks like Ed needs a new strategy for Labours General election campaign. 35% core vote strategy holed below the waterline.
Looks like Opinion Pollsters need a new strategy for the General election campaign, as C2,D&Es who have not voted for years turn out wholesale for UKIP under their radar & hole their methodology under the waterline.
Socrates Those figures questionable, figures from US bureau of Economic Stats had UK richer than 10 US states, Switzerland on Nelson's figures richer than 31 US states, Germany and Sweden in middle. West London richest OECD region http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_regions_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Kle4 The eurozone has slower growth, the UK has higher growth than US this year
Labour's Northern fire-wall: less than 700 Tories....
The Tory northern strategy is now very 'complex'. To win in May they need Labour to suffer badly in their heartlands. We have seen very clearly last night that UKIP can bite huge chunks out of the Labour vote. So, perversely, in Labour's heartlands and somewhat marginal seats Dave actually needs pretty much to give up and hope for some serious tactical voting for UKIP. Imagine if UKIP could, sensationally, take 20 seats 'unexpectedly' on the back of major Tory tactical voting. They can't, of course, state this openly and will no doubt 'fight hard for every seat'.
In the Tory heartlands and Tory held marginals it's a completely different story. These they really do need to fight for body and soul. But with a loud and clear 'Labour have abandoned the WWC' message. They badly need UKIP to eat into the Labour threat in these ones.
Which all might leave us in the delicious position of a hung parliament and UKIP holding the balance of power. God knows how a Dave / Farage coalition might work. A Hammond / Carswell one might be very easy.
Yes perhaps Daves new sound bite of vote UKIP get Ed needs some refinement.
Vote Tory get ED sounds more accurate to me in the North
Within 700 votes in Heywood. If Labour had actually cared about democracy and allowed the voters of the place to have time for a proper debate, UKIP would have won. No matter. It's this sort of disdain for it's own base that will see UKIP grab seats off Labour in time.
Labours share of the vote increased in Heywood.
UKIP have another close but no cigar moment.
Complacent.
Labour increased from 40.1% in 2010 to 40.9%. That is not a big increase, and certainly not when you factor in the smaller turnout (almost 7,000 fewer votes) and the very small majority (down from 5,971 to 617). All in all, it is a very worrying result for Labour.
Increased share of the vote is surprising with a strong NOTA challenge IMO
Ffs. You are the only main opposition party to an unpopular coalition. Your GE result in 2010 was yr worst in nearly 80 years. You should have surged from that appalling result and won this seat handsomely.
Instead you nearly got beat by a fringe hard right party.
It's a bad bad result for Labour, as grim as Clacton is for the Tories. Any spinner, from either party, who claims otherwise, is lying.
No its not,
The right wing parties in Heywood and Middleton started with a 2010 base of 37% compared to LAB 40% vote share.
LAB % of the vote increases despite Tories and LD not running any campaign.
Enough Tories vote Tory to help LAB retain the seat.
Only UKIP can beat LAB in the North. The ones who continued to vote Tory saved Ed from what would have been a big story.
Thanks for that
That was tactical voting. To make sure Ed wasn't ditched.
Very amusing.
Have you ditched your tactical voting plan for Sheffield Halam for the same reason.
I've voting Tory since last week, when it was confirmed that Nick Clegg vetoed Michael Howard as our next man in Bruxelles.
I had £50 at 25/1 on Howard being our next EU Commissioner.
Mr. Nashe, I think it's probably harder for the Conservatives, but it's not a done deal either way.
Edited extra bit: P2 kicks off at 11.
UKIP now have more than enough momentum to take them over the line in Rochester. The H&M result is at least as significant as Clacton, because it shows UKIP's capacity for eating into the core Labour vote, and they'll surely pick up lots of ex-Labour voters in Rochester too.
Parts of the U.S are as poor as the EU. The key difference is the US political culture mitigates against smaller parties whereas the EU is more fertile ground.
Only if you really get down to the small county level. The US states are overwhelmingly richer than EU nations. The UK, one of the EU's richer countries, would only be richer than Mississippi over there:
And yet it doesn't feel that way. Large parts of Europe *feel* significantly richer than many states in America. Big European cities - London, Paris, Barcelona, Berlin, Hamburg, Copenhagen, Vienna - feel richer than LA, Chicago, New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Phoenix.
I suspect this is because Europe has more accumulated wealth - centuries of art and architecture - and also because Anerican wealth is concentrated in the hands of the 1% even more than in Europe. The average American wage has barely shifted in decades.
The US does well but parts of Europe do better. In 2013 we were not doing well but these tables are very vulnerable to currency moves and we had not recovered from a serious devaluation at that time. Inequalities of wealth within countries are also significant. Would a State made up of the contents of the M25 rank so low? Obviously not.
Parts of Europe only do better because they're little islands of prosperity of a few million people. If you rank the US states by GDP per capita, the vast majority of them would be ahead of the large EU nations like Germany and the UK.
In these tables countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland do better than the US.
My experience when you go to large parts of the US is frankly bewilderment. Are these endless streams of tatty restaurants and strip malls really the largest economy in the world? It is the US that has some (not so little) islands of prosperity.
I am confused about this suggestion doing the rounds that a vote for the Tories is the only way to get a UK referendum in 2017, do people seriously think that Mr Carswell and any colleagues he has in parliament after the election are NOT going to vote for a referendum? If there had been 618 more votes for UKIP in H&M (and it was sustained through the election) that would be another vote FOR a referendum on the EU, rather than a Labour vote against it.
Socrates Those figures questionable, figures from US bureau of Economic Stats had UK richer than 10 US states, Switzerland on Nelson's figures richer than 31 US states, Germany and Sweden in middle. West London richest OECD region http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_regions_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Kle4 The eurozone has slower growth, the UK has higher growth than US this year
That list shows how near the top are US states with populations of close to ten million listed against regions of a few hundred thousand. Switzerland isn't listed in your list.
IPPR have a timely new report, looking at alienation of voters and class issues. Their survey results show the depths of disgruntlement of voters:
"...a staggering 86 per cent [of white working class] believe that politicians don’t understand the lives of people like them. It should be noted, however, that in this regard the views of the white working-class do not differ much from those of the rest of the country. Figures for middle-class respondents were only a little more encouraging, with just 18 per cent saying that they felt politicians understood their lives, compared to 78 per cent who did not."
The voters are like an alcoholic who finds that beer (Miliband) and whisky (Cameron) don't cut it for her anymore. So she turns to cocaine (Carswell). You can all finish the story for yourselves...
"Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget, For we are the people of England, that never has spoken yet."
Well, we are speaking now.
As for whether these results are a flash in the pan, we shall see very soon in Rochester but one thing's for sure, UKIP are setting the agenda - UKIP already have more influence over Conservative policy from outside the government than the LibDems do from within. The three main parties will now base their GE campaigns around how to counter the UKIP vote rather than each other's as would be the case normally.
Frankly anything could happen now over the coming months - more defections? leadership challenges (in any of the main parties)?
A big win in Clacton by the incumbent having switched parties, almost as big as Bermondsey won by a real challenger in '83. But do Bye Elections change much when it comes to the GE?
Part of the Conservatives reported 'strategy' for the general election, was to hope that UKIP don't get any media attention during the campaign. That's out the window.
The big and increasingly important economic difference between the USA and Europe is that the USA is self-sufficient in energy. A lot of Europe relies on the goodwill of Putin.
"Still, Labour needs to work out how to put wind back in its sails and some enthusiasm on the doorstep."
I think Labour's strategy for the next election has been written by Alex Salmond. They will simply take the YES campaign almost in its entirity. It has the benefit of an already existing template but more importantly it's Saville Row tailored to Labour and presses all the right buttons. It's messages particularly on saving the NHS are also invisible to Tories
Oh I completely agree that it is a wide phenomenon. I would really not surprised if le Pen were the next President of France. The economic conditions are moving strongly in her direction. By the time the election comes around discussion as to whether or not France should leave the euro will not just be a topic for some eccentrics but mainstream.
Democracy is failing and, as it does, is trying to renew itself. Voters are unwilling to accept how powerless the State is to protect them from the storms raging about them and seek solace from those who think the world's problems can be solved with a series of simple bullet points. Those in power are powerless and those threatening the current order grow stronger by the day.
The key things being economics and immigration. The former isn't working for low-medium skilled working class voters in western countries, in a globalised environment, and they are also much more heavily effected by immigration, which tends to impact upon both their neighbourhoods and their jobs.
Educated middle class voters do fairly well out of the former (job opportunities and lower cost of living) and don't tend to be heavily effected by immigration; they will move out of problem areas whilst lauding the diversity it adds in culture/cuisine (that they can enjoy in their leisure time, before withdrawing) and the cheap cleaning/catering staff it offers them and enhances their lives.
So the latter are more happy supporting established parties fighting over the centre ground.
The last government were desperate to have GDP growth, no matter what. Immigration was good for GDP growth ergo it was a good thing. The effect on their own supporters was a secondary consideration.
True.
But what is also true is:
This government is desperate to have GDP growth, no matter what. Immigration is good for GDP growth ergo it is a good thing. The effect on their own supporters is a secondary consideration.
The effect on their own supporters is much more indirect than the effect on our low paid, state dependent city dwellers that Labour likes to claim as its own.
No it isn't. Those affected by immigration stretch far higher up the socioeconomic scale than that.
Conservative governments get elected on the back of C1C2 votes.
Yesturday those who voted Conservative in 2010 switched to UKIP.
I know plenty of upper middle class who complain bitterly, educated classes have children who then have to compete for white collar jobs with graduates from across the world. Private schools aren't what they used to be fee or student composition wise.
Also, perhaps the lack of tactical voting by the Tories was that there was no viable alternative. Up north, Tories may find the thought of a UKIP MP more palatable than a Labour or LD one.
Looks like Opinion Pollsters need a new strategy for the General election campaign, as C2,D&Es who have not voted for years turn out wholesale for UKIP under their radar & hole their methodology under the waterline.
Within 700 votes in Heywood. If Labour had actually cared about democracy and allowed the voters of the place to have time for a proper debate, UKIP would have won. No matter. It's this sort of disdain for it's own base that will see UKIP grab seats off Labour in time.
Labours share of the vote increased in Heywood.
UKIP have another close but no cigar moment.
Complacent.
Labour increased from 40.1% in 2010 to 40.9%. That is not a big increase, and certainly not when you factor in the smaller turnout (almost 7,000 fewer votes) and the very small majority (down from 5,971 to 617). All in all, it is a very worrying result for Labour.
Increased share of the vote is surprising with a strong NOTA challenge IMO
Ffs. You are the only main opposition party to an unpopular coalition. Your GE result in 2010 was yr worst in nearly 80 years. You should have surged from that appalling result and won this seat handsomely.
Instead you nearly got beat by a fringe hard right party.
It's a bad bad result for Labour, as grim as Clacton is for the Tories. Any spinner, from either party, who claims otherwise, is lying.
No its not,
The right wing parties in Heywood and Middleton started with a 2010 base of 37% compared to LAB 40% vote share.
LAB % of the vote increases despite Tories and LD not running any campaign.
Enough Tories vote Tory to help LAB retain the seat.
Only UKIP can beat LAB in the North. The ones who continued to vote Tory saved Ed from what would have been a big story.
Thanks for that
That was tactical voting. To make sure Ed wasn't ditched.
Very amusing.
Have you ditched your tactical voting plan for Sheffield Halam for the same reason.
I've voting Tory since last week, when it was confirmed that Nick Clegg vetoed Michael Howard as our next man in Bruxelles.
I had £50 at 25/1 on Howard being our next EU Commissioner.
You dont need the £1250 surely UKIP (or LAB( would be the best beat Clegg option
In these tables countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland do better than the US.
My experience when you go to large parts of the US is frankly bewilderment. Are these endless streams of tatty restaurants and strip malls really the largest economy in the world? It is the US that has some (not so little) islands of prosperity.
You can't compare Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland - countries of <10 million - with the US. You also need to adjust for PPP because the cost of living is cheap in the USA and hideously expensive in Scandinavia and Switzerland.
It's Western Europe that has endless numbers of crappy places. Have you ever been to Stoke or Bradford?
Labour's Northern fire-wall: less than 700 Tories....
The Tory northern strategy is now very 'complex'. To win in May they need Labour to suffer badly in their heartlands. We have seen very clearly last night that UKIP can bite huge chunks out of the Labour vote. So, perversely, in Labour's heartlands and somewhat marginal seats Dave actually needs pretty much to give up and hope for some serious tactical voting for UKIP. Imagine if UKIP could, sensationally, take 20 seats 'unexpectedly' on the back of major Tory tactical voting. They can't, of course, state this openly and will no doubt 'fight hard for every seat'.
In the Tory heartlands and Tory held marginals it's a completely different story. These they really do need to fight for body and soul. But with a loud and clear 'Labour have abandoned the WWC' message. They badly need UKIP to eat into the Labour threat in these ones.
Which all might leave us in the delicious position of a hung parliament and UKIP holding the balance of power. God knows how a Dave / Farage coalition might work. A Hammond / Carswell one might be very easy.
Yes perhaps Daves new sound bite of vote UKIP get Ed needs some refinement.
Vote Tory get ED sounds more accurate to me in the North
Dave can win Labour held marginals by letting UKIP ruin the Labour vote. He can win his own marginals by bigging up the messages we saw in his recent speech (and also hoping UKIP will eat into Labour's WWC vote). It will be the devil's own job getting messaging right vis-a-vis UKIP: Vote for them in Labour marginals but steer clear in Tory ones!
"Still, Labour needs to work out how to put wind back in its sails and some enthusiasm on the doorstep."
I think Labour's strategy for the next election has been written by Alex Salmond. They will simply take the YES campaign almost in its entirity. It has the benefit of an already existing template but more importantly it's Saville Row tailored to Labour and presses all the right buttons. It's messages particularly on saving the NHS are also invisible to Tories
Didn't save 1,200 people in mid-Staffs did they?
Labour campaigning mainly on the NHS is hilarious, they think if you throw more money at it that is the solution. They have not got a clue.
I think Labour's strategy for the next election has been written by Alex Salmond. They will simply take the YES campaign almost in its entirity. It has the benefit of an already existing template but more importantly it's Saville Row tailored to Labour and presses all the right buttons. It's messages particularly on saving the NHS are also invisible to Tories
The SNP don't have the vulnerabilities on the NHS that Labour do - either historically (dieing pensioner drinking from flower vase) or currently (NHS Wales) - and as Cameron has made clear, the Tories will not leave the NHS uncontested.....
As politicians and pundits from all sides scratch their heads in astonishment, take a step out of the establishment bubble and live in places like Clacton or Middleton. The Tories are crowing about an economic recovery noone can feel. About paying down our debt which has soared by 44% since the election. About how austerity is fair on working people when its the working poor watching their benefits taken away. Now have Labour proposed any real solutions - worthy tinkering yes, but still tinkering.
So for the people who work and are broke. Who want more minimum wage hours and can't get them but get their WTC cut as punishment. Who can't go back to work as childcare costs wipe out the wages they could get. Who can't see any change but downwards. Then go up an economic level and take the so-called middle class earning a bit more than the people they sneer at below them but left with increasingly less to spend and none to save. Worried about the direction the country is going because they're told is the fault of the scroungers and immigrants and they don't know if thats true but something IS broken.
For these people - and its the majority of the population - the economic model is broken no matter how hard they are told to cling to it. The social model is broken because if its all about me how come me is worse off? And the political model is broken, because the 1% bought and reshaped the parties so that all looked the same. Cameron, Clegg and Blair would all happily have coexisted in an Orwell Party all saying the same meaningless guff with the same solutions and denials.
The Tories will lose because the economy is worse than it was in 2010, people are worse off and feel it and no lies-denounced-by-ONS can make people think black actually is white. Labour are losing because half the party is still with Tony Orwell, the other half can't see past the straightjacket of non-ideas the establishment have put them in. The LibDems are a political zombie of a party and they know it. So what does that leave? Apathy yes. Non-voting yes. And for the rest? UKIP.
As I am saying to comrades on Labour facebook groups this morning you can't combat UKIP with facts because their voters (especially in the north) don't really care what their policies are. I don't think they have any thought of UKIP being in a position to implement any of them. Its not policy driving the UKIP revolution. Its rage. Its Fear. Its despair. And none of the big parties can combat this.
The big and increasingly important economic difference between the USA and Europe is that the USA is self-sufficient in energy. A lot of Europe relies on the goodwill of Putin.
I would say the difference is the US has lots of land, of which large resources is the inevitable result, where as Europe has little.
Yes Russia has plenty of land too, more than the US. Lake Baikal, the largest fresh water source, the Kara sea might hold more oil than Saudi alone. Let's hope they choose to supply us rather than China.
A Labour activist wrote on another place "a Labour organiser who has been up to Heywood told me that Jim Dobbin bequeathed a non-existant campaign infrastructure, with very low voter ID, and so this campaign basically had to start from scratch whilst losing key paid workers to Scotland"
I guess Heywood and Middleton CLP share this feature with some other CLPs in safe areas. And if caught off guard they are the areas where some surprising can happen....
A victory for Brand Carswell and a defeat for Brand Miliband.
Fortunately the Tories got lucky last night.
A victory for UKIP oop North would have been curtains for Ed.
Now to win Rochester and give Reckless a political crucifixion.
Rochester will go UKIP IMO
Would you like a bet?
The Tories are going to throw everything at it. Even I, am going to go campaign in Rochester & Strood.
We Tories are going to fight it like the Greeks at the Battle of Plataea.
What odds are you offering on a Tory victory.
if the Tories lose after throwing everything at it what will that say to them?
Yes the Tories need to win it! Quoting from http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/10/election-win-ukip-will-it-repeat-sdps-journey "Ultimately, however, Ukip can only go so far under the current rules of the game. To really break the mould, it needs – just like the SDP needed but never succeeded – to break the electoral system. If it can’t or won’t do that, then its only hope is to break the Conservative party. "
Mr. Jessop, if unnecessary posts were frowned upon, think of all the differential front end grip the site would've missed out on.
Missed almost all of P1, but sounds like people are unimpressed with the circuit (as I was, when I saw the diagram, likewise the Baku track in Azerbaijan).
As politicians and pundits from all sides scratch their heads in astonishment, take a step out of the establishment bubble and live in places like Clacton or Middleton. The Tories are crowing about an economic recovery noone can feel. About paying down our debt which has soared by 44% since the election. About how austerity is fair on working people when its the working poor watching their benefits taken away. Now have Labour proposed any real solutions - worthy tinkering yes, but still tinkering.
So for the people who work and are broke. Who want more minimum wage hours and can't get them but get their WTC cut as punishment. Who can't go back to work as childcare costs wipe out the wages they could get. Who can't see any change but downwards. Then go up an economic level and take the so-called middle class earning a bit more than the people they sneer at below them but left with increasingly less to spend and none to save. Worried about the direction the country is going because they're told is the fault of the scroungers and immigrants and they don't know if thats true but something IS broken.
For these people - and its the majority of the population - the economic model is broken no matter how hard they are told to cling to it. The social model is broken because if its all about me how come me is worse off? And the political model is broken, because the 1% bought and reshaped the parties so that all looked the same. Cameron, Clegg and Blair would all happily have coexisted in an Orwell Party all saying the same meaningless guff with the same solutions and denials.
The Tories will lose because the economy is worse than it was in 2010, people are worse off and feel it and no lies-denounced-by-ONS can make people think black actually is white. Labour are losing because half the party is still with Tony Orwell, the other half can't see past the straightjacket of non-ideas the establishment have put them in. The LibDems are a political zombie of a party and they know it. So what does that leave? Apathy yes. Non-voting yes. And for the rest? UKIP.
As I am saying to comrades on Labour facebook groups this morning you can't combat UKIP with facts because their voters (especially in the north) don't really care what their policies are. I don't think they have any thought of UKIP being in a position to implement any of them. Its not policy driving the UKIP revolution. Its rage. Its Fear. Its despair. And none of the big parties can combat this.
Good post overall, but what's this guff about 'Orwell'? The only thing that Tony Blair had in common with George was the surname. If anyone understood the working class of this country in the 1930s and 40s it was Eric Blair - he spent a lifetime attempting to connect with them.
Comments
Have you been to the US lately? It's a toilet. Islands of fabulous wealth surrounded by grinding, soulless awfulness.
Also I see Osborne was warning about a slowdown due to Europe, so presumably we have bad economic news coming soon, hitting the Tories still further. A shame labour squeezed home to prevent things getting really interesting.
The US does well but parts of Europe do better. In 2013 we were not doing well but these tables are very vulnerable to currency moves and we had not recovered from a serious devaluation at that time. Inequalities of wealth within countries are also significant. Would a State made up of the contents of the M25 rank so low? Obviously not.
Labour increased from 40.1% in 2010 to 40.9%. That is not a big increase, and certainly not when you factor in the smaller turnout (almost 7,000 fewer votes) and the very small majority (down from 5,971 to 617). All in all, it is a very worrying result for Labour.
For we are the people of England, that never has spoken yet."
Well, we are speaking now.
As for whether these results are a flash in the pan, we shall see very soon in Rochester but one thing's for sure, UKIP are setting the agenda - UKIP already have more influence over Conservative policy from outside the government than the LibDems do from within.
The three main parties will now base their GE campaigns around how to counter the UKIP vote rather than each other's as would be the case normally.
Frankly anything could happen now over the coming months - more defections? leadership challenges (in any of the main parties)?
Remember how he thought you could take half of the 2010 LibDem vote and add it to the 2010 Labour vote as a predictor for 2015.
Those punters who followed me in betting on Con in Elmet & Rothwell at 9/2 should be smiling though.
UKIP are not going to take Labour votes when it matters and let the Tories in but they are now certain to start taking Tory votes in numbers and in the final reckoning the election is going to remain a race between Tory and Labour
That's the problem. Labour have looked upon the WWC and the like as 'their vote'. They aren't.
Fraser Nelson shouldn't give up the day job with those statistics.
A definite shock and one that might continue for a while.
What do the main parties do?
If, as I suspect, a major issue is that a chunk of the electorate feel excluded from economic gain because both parties have favoured groups that they preferentially look after, there's not a lot they can do. They feel that both Tories and Labour are wedded to social engineering and regard their economic plight as irrelevant.
Never mind the income, check the political correctness.
This view may be unfair but with a large deficit, not much is going to change.
"In three visits to the area over the last two weeks, almost all the voters I spoke to began each conversation by saying, unprompted, that they were concerned about immigration – the electrician complaining about wages being undercut by eastern European workers, the parents unable to get their offspring into local primary schools because immigrant children were taking up scarce places, the patients waiting for a GP appointment in a waiting room filled with foreign chatter. Others said things like: “I just want our country back.""
Perhaps Labour could just tell these people they are being entirely unreasonable and "obsessed" by the topic. If they raised any concerns about child abuse next door in Rochdale they could get sickos like Roger to tell them they are prurient and drooling over it.
Who also happens to be white, male and middle class. Ahem. And he'll be middle-aged one day, too (probably).
The Heywood result could alter voting behaviour in Rochester. Will Labour go as soft as possibly and not discourage the idea of tactical voting *for* the Conservatives, or will they go in hard? Will voters stick with the blues or shift to the purples?
The Heywood result shows a strong UKIP *can* hurt Labour and may well do so, but if they calculate it hurts the Conservatives more that'll perhaps be considered a price worth paying for Labour.
The poorest simply try and migrate where they can get the best prospects economically for themselves and their family. Comments like that just show how much he doesn't understand. I once went to a 'comedy' stand-up of his in Cambridge with my wife. He was so unfunny, as well as being extremely rude to anyone not on the uber metropolitan left, she had to restrain me from walking out of the gig.
It is important to grind out a result when you are not playing well. Just imagine the headlines today if they had lost.
Still, Labour needs to work out how to put wind back in its sails and some enthusiasm on the doorstep.
Conservative governments get elected on the back of C1C2 votes.
Yesturday those who voted Conservative in 2010 switched to UKIP.
Quite a night, but the press do have a vested interest in making this sound more earth shattering than it really is. The poor 'get-out-the-vote' operation by Labour must be a worry, particularly given Ed's early enthusiasm for grass-roots activism and community-driven politics and the work of Arnie Graf (what happened to all that?).
Fortunately the Tories got lucky last night.
A victory for UKIP oop North would have been curtains for Ed.
Now to win Rochester and give Reckless a political crucifixion.
The right wing parties in Heywood and Middleton started with a 2010 base of 37% compared to LAB 40% vote share.
LAB % of the vote increases despite Tories and LD not running any campaign.
Enough Tories vote Tory to help LAB retain the seat.
Only UKIP can beat LAB in the North. The ones who continued to vote Tory saved Ed from what would have been a big story.
Thanks for that
Maybe we should be screening for it?
Would you like a bet?
I'm not denying UKIP is a big problem for the tories. It's the left which is in denial.
In the Tory heartlands and Tory held marginals it's a completely different story. These they really do need to fight for body and soul. But with a loud and clear 'Labour have abandoned the WWC' message. They badly need UKIP to eat into the Labour threat in these ones.
Which all might leave us in the delicious position of a hung parliament and UKIP holding the balance of power. God knows how a Dave / Farage coalition might work. A Hammond / Carswell one might be very easy.
"...a staggering 86 per cent [of white working class] believe that politicians don’t understand
the lives of people like them. It should be noted, however, that in this regard
the views of the white working-class do not differ much from those of the rest
of the country. Figures for middle-class respondents were only a little more
encouraging, with just 18 per cent saying that they felt politicians understood
their lives, compared to 78 per cent who did not."
http://www.ippr.org/publications/alien-nation-new-perspectives-on-the-white-working-class-and-disengagement-in-britain
Not sure Douglas Carswell is the answer to this.
Imagine the horror of Tories getting unlucky! Doesn't bear thinking about.
I do think the scarier "abroad" gets the better it gets for UKIP and it is pretty scary at the moment.
That said this Ebola outbreak has still killed about half as many as die of malaria every week. It may well get over the week before it peaks out.
Edited extra bit: P2 kicks off at 11.
Have you ditched your tactical voting plan for Sheffield Halam for the same reason.
US cities don't feel as wealthy because the wealth of the US has long been in the suburbs, after white flight during desegregation. It's only in the last decade that rich people have started to move back to downtown areas. If you go to average suburban towns in the US they're much more done up than the Readings of the world.
We Tories are going to fight it like the Greeks at the Battle of Plataea.
What odds are you offering on a Tory victory.
Kle4 The eurozone has slower growth, the UK has higher growth than US this year
Vote Tory get ED sounds more accurate to me in the North
When it happens to the tories it's 'Thrashed! Disaster!'
Pull the other one.
I had £50 at 25/1 on Howard being our next EU Commissioner.
In these tables countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland do better than the US.
My experience when you go to large parts of the US is frankly bewilderment. Are these endless streams of tatty restaurants and strip malls really the largest economy in the world? It is the US that has some (not so little) islands of prosperity.
Was hoping to take advantage of your misplaced confidence and make it an Evs between CON/UKIP
I give you £100 if Tories win
You give me £100 if UKIP win
If LAB win we run round Cineworld naked!!!
"Still, Labour needs to work out how to put wind back in its sails and some enthusiasm on the doorstep."
I think Labour's strategy for the next election has been written by Alex Salmond. They will simply take the YES campaign almost in its entirity. It has the benefit of an already existing template but more importantly it's Saville Row tailored to Labour and presses all the right buttons. It's messages particularly on saving the NHS are also invisible to Tories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clacton_by-election,_2014#Polling
Heywood and Middleton could be explained by a late swing Lab>UKIP, the Con/LD/Green numbers are OK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heywood_and_Middleton_by-election,_2014#Polling
It's Western Europe that has endless numbers of crappy places. Have you ever been to Stoke or Bradford?
Labour campaigning mainly on the NHS is hilarious, they think if you throw more money at it that is the solution. They have not got a clue.
"Congratulations to Douglas Carswell and Liz McInnes. "
A message almost as dull and unnecessary as this one.
I have to say I am genuinely surprised by the Tories being so open with the throwing everything at Rochester.
High risk strategy in what looks like a long shot IMO
So for the people who work and are broke. Who want more minimum wage hours and can't get them but get their WTC cut as punishment. Who can't go back to work as childcare costs wipe out the wages they could get. Who can't see any change but downwards. Then go up an economic level and take the so-called middle class earning a bit more than the people they sneer at below them but left with increasingly less to spend and none to save. Worried about the direction the country is going because they're told is the fault of the scroungers and immigrants and they don't know if thats true but something IS broken.
For these people - and its the majority of the population - the economic model is broken no matter how hard they are told to cling to it. The social model is broken because if its all about me how come me is worse off? And the political model is broken, because the 1% bought and reshaped the parties so that all looked the same. Cameron, Clegg and Blair would all happily have coexisted in an Orwell Party all saying the same meaningless guff with the same solutions and denials.
The Tories will lose because the economy is worse than it was in 2010, people are worse off and feel it and no lies-denounced-by-ONS can make people think black actually is white. Labour are losing because half the party is still with Tony Orwell, the other half can't see past the straightjacket of non-ideas the establishment have put them in. The LibDems are a political zombie of a party and they know it. So what does that leave? Apathy yes. Non-voting yes. And for the rest? UKIP.
As I am saying to comrades on Labour facebook groups this morning you can't combat UKIP with facts because their voters (especially in the north) don't really care what their policies are. I don't think they have any thought of UKIP being in a position to implement any of them. Its not policy driving the UKIP revolution. Its rage. Its Fear. Its despair. And none of the big parties can combat this.
Yes Russia has plenty of land too, more than the US. Lake Baikal, the largest fresh water source, the Kara sea might hold more oil than Saudi alone. Let's hope they choose to supply us rather than China.
I guess Heywood and Middleton CLP share this feature with some other CLPs in safe areas. And if caught off guard they are the areas where some surprising can happen....
Plus the Tories really want to defeat him, because of his duplicity and his timing.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/10/election-win-ukip-will-it-repeat-sdps-journey
"Ultimately, however, Ukip can only go so far under the current rules of the game. To really break the mould, it needs – just like the SDP needed but never succeeded – to break the electoral system. If it can’t or won’t do that, then its only hope is to break the Conservative party. "
BTW, I don't know if you've seen it, but the following about a rather interesting ad appeared on my FB feed:
http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/another-subway-ad-blows-womans-hair-around-trains-arrive-theres-twist-160588
The first ad is rather good; the second stunning.
Some time ago.
They forgot heterosexual.
Missed almost all of P1, but sounds like people are unimpressed with the circuit (as I was, when I saw the diagram, likewise the Baku track in Azerbaijan).
"Heywood and Middleton could be explained by a late swing Lab>UKIP, the Con/LD/Green numbers are OK."
I notice Labour's vote percentage has increased in Haywood since the GE. Not bad in a by election against the combined might of the 'new right' is it?
Singapore has barely any land and virtually no resources yet is both much wealthier than us and with much higher growth.