Indeed - The shock result of the night imho, Labour top brass will be wondering why their traditional supporters stayed home en-masse or deserted completely.
On the day UKIP make huge gains in by-elections, it comes out that Cameron's running scare of debates. How is he going to stand up to the leaders of the EU if he can't even stand up to Farage and Miliband in a neutral debate? The man is a frit coward.
Thanks Socca – that explains it. I must agree – Labour and the Libs should keep shouting about this and, ideally, bring the Kippers into the party too (clearly Farage should be involved, given the KIP poll ratings).
Dave is running scared. For good reason – he is the worst of the four at the debate format. Prefers set pieces and auto cues.
Is that todays diversionary meme?
In other news, Miliband's turned a Labour stronghold into a marginal seat. You've got a big problem.
'If a migrant is incoming with a long term relatively expensive disease or disorder to treat then they should need to cover the cost to the NHS out of their own pocket.'
Surely they would be a health tourist & not an migrant.
Indeed, and governments of both stripes have taken action on this.
But I can't help wondering if this is a problem that really needs to be solved. What are the figures? The issue is that addressing these requires a whole new bureaucracy. People despair of the numbers of managers and administrators being added to the NHS but it is initiatives like this, however worthy, that are the cause. Politicians should ask not just whether "something must be done" but whether it will be cost-effective to do it.
Was there not an episode of Yes, Minister where Jim Hacker commissioned a study of overmanning in the Civil Service, and was shocked when Sir Humphrey recruited hundreds more civil servants to carry it out?
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.
"The idea of the Tories being too "modern" to win in Clacton is a bizarre as it is repugnant. It comes down to a wrong way of seeing voters.
Are Ukip supporters in Clacton really angry, fearful, bewildered and unreasonable? Or decent people, trying to do the best by their families under a system that’s failing them?
If your town had fallen into decay, too late in your life for you to move out, how would you feel about it all?"
And just like every year the reporting on the figures likes to play fast an loose with whether they are doing like-for-like or whole population comparisons.
Not at all. The article is quite clear on that point:
The study took into account age, region and education to create a fair comparison between similar workers in the state and private sectors.
They compare for education, age, experience, sex and region but they don't control for what I consider the most important facotr job. So they aren't comparing medical consultants in the private sector vs medical consultants in the public sector or private vs state teachers or indeed private vs state low level admin assistants.
So we have no way of knowing where the pension bonanza is being felt. Is it all in NHS consultant surgeons pensions or is it in Police and Fire service remuneration?
The last time I saw this type of comparison that controlled by job when you got to, say, mid-level manager with departmental budget in millions type position the Private sector total remuneration pissed on the public sector pay packet.
I thought this an interesting result. Another near miss for UKIP, but Labour taking a far bigger hit than the Tories. Interesting if that is replicated in the North West next May....
One of my sons worked with him on the LME and really, and I mean really, disliked him as a person.
I had a couple of beers with Farage on a 1:1 10+ years ago before he was "Farage". It was back in 2002, I was a young Tory student chairman; he had come to speak to us at a political meeting. I found him perfectly friendly and relaxed. He talked to me like an adult, and wasn't even slightly patronising. This contrasted with many of our Tory speakers - diffidently pompous, who talked down to you - so it really stuck with me.
He did get a bit animated. One of my members challenged him on media articles that had compared him to the BNP (yes, it happened even then) and he got quite angry about it. He strongly rebutted it, explained why it was nonsense (and said UKIP reject racists, and welcomes all ethnicities) and then we moved on to the next question. He calmed down quickly afterwards.
Two other things stuck with me: (1) he said he was like a stick of Blackpool Rock. If you cut him in half through the middle, you'd see 'TORY' printed throughout the whole of his body, and (2) he had been offered a Tory safe seat several times, but had always turned it down - he said he felt (although a natural Conservative) the party had betrayed its natural supporters, took them for granted, and was no longer was representing the interests people of Britain.
Sound familiar?
I certainly don't think he's a monster; a Nick Griffin in disguise. That's lazy and inaccurate. I certainly do think he loathes the modern Tory party. He is motivated by that sense of betrayal, exacarbated by the insults he feels has been thrown his way over the years.
He struck me as quite sensitive, but would listen to those who showed him respect and shared his values. The way he's got on with Douglas Carswell and listened to some of his localism ideas is instructive in this.
There is no doubt in my mind that his prime motive he's out to cause the maximum amount of damage to he can to the Tories, so he can reclaim the influence he needs to channel true conservativism within British politics again through his party. That means increasing his vote and seat share by *whatever means he feels possible*.
Personally, I think the 2014 Euro campaign was a strategic mistake. It 'toxified' UKIP. I also think the HIV point falls into the same category. But I don't think he believes a word of it. He doesn't care.
So, he's friendly and social, but also sensitive, short-tempered, and politically naive. He is motivated by patriotism, coupled with a strong sense of personal and political betrayal. But there is something in there about trying to change British politics for the better, which he rarely talks about, as it is subsumed by his emotions.
There are so many inaccuracies (presumably in the article rather than in the report itself which I wont get to read until the weekend, yes it will be an exciting weekend for me) that it is difficult to know where to start.
If the Labour leadership look at the Heywood result, and decide they need to do something to stop their voters defecting to UKIP, what will they do? The obvious response would be to talk tougher on Europe, but that would be unpopular with a significant chunk of their voters, and MPs.
If the Labour leadership just write off Heywood as a freak by-election result, MPs and candidates in vulnerable seats will still have their private worries, and could even take independent action, promising to support a tougher line on Europe in their campaign literature, without regard for party policy.
Labour voters are staying at home. That is Labour's problem.
Labour have lost the WWC and they are not coming back.
I thought this an interesting result. Another near miss for UKIP, but Labour taking a far bigger hit than the Tories. Interesting if that is replicated in the North West next May....
Nice blog, made all the better for me by being mentioned! Thanks
I actually haven't backed Boston&Skegness, don't have the money to tie up ATM but it's a great bet
Re Thurrock, I was in Clacton all day yesterday, on the train home now... Spoke with the candidate and there is a by election there next week in a weak Ukip ward.. He reckons if they win that it's a huuuuge indicator... I think Ukip should be odds on there already, so agree with you
The next door constituency is also value at 4/1 S Bas and E Thurrock... They like the candidate I think there
Don't know how Farage does it, I left the pub at 430am and feel knackered now... He was still there as were many others.. Never thought I'd spend a night in a noisy pub watching Question Time and This week as though they were football matches
Would Farsge in Heywood yesterday gained 617 votes? Annoying that it's a question but I think probably not
What UKIP is doing is consigning major parties to total irrelevance in some constituencies.
No point voting labour in Clacton next May. No point voting tory in H&M.
Looks like labour will turn into also rans in Rochester too. A couple of weeks ago people were talking about labour 'coming through the middle' in this seat.
I'm trying to remember which seat Kippers did well in a little while ago - was it South Shields?
By Elections Since 2013; UKIP vote
Eastleigh 27.8% (+24.2%) South Shields 24.2% (+24.2%) Wythenshawe and Sale 18% (+14.5%) Newark 25.9% (+22.2%) Clacton 59.7% (+59.7%) Heywood 38.7% (+36.1%)
They're the only One Nation party.
Thanks Moniker for that useful little table.
It shows graphically what an outstanding result Heywood was for UKIP. Clacton can be explained partly by the exceptional quality of the candidate, but not Heywood.
On the day UKIP make huge gains in by-elections, it comes out that Cameron's running scare of debates. How is he going to stand up to the leaders of the EU if he can't even stand up to Farage and Miliband in a neutral debate? The man is a frit coward.
Thanks Socca – that explains it. I must agree – Labour and the Libs should keep shouting about this and, ideally, bring the Kippers into the party too (clearly Farage should be involved, given the KIP poll ratings).
Dave is running scared. For good reason – he is the worst of the four at the debate format. Prefers set pieces and auto cues.
Is that todays diversionary meme?
In other news, Miliband's turned a Labour stronghold into a marginal seat. You've got a big problem.
Oh dear.
You must have already forgotten the Tories losing a seat by 12,000 votes in their heartlands.
"The idea of the Tories being too "modern" to win in Clacton is a bizarre as it is repugnant. It comes down to a wrong way of seeing voters.
Are Ukip supporters in Clacton really angry, fearful, bewildered and unreasonable? Or decent people, trying to do the best by their families under a system that’s failing them?
If your town had fallen into decay, too late in your life for you to move out, how would you feel about it all?"
I'm trying to remember which seat Kippers did well in a little while ago - was it South Shields?
By Elections Since 2013; UKIP vote
Eastleigh 27.8% (+24.2%) South Shields 24.2% (+24.2%) Wythenshawe and Sale 18% (+14.5%) Newark 25.9% (+22.2%) Clacton 59.7% (+59.7%) Heywood 38.7% (+36.1%)
They're the only One Nation party.
Thanks Moniker for that useful little table.
It shows graphically what an outstanding result Heywood was for UKIP. Clacton can be explained partly by the exceptional quality of the candidate, but not Heywood.
If the Labour leadership look at the Heywood result, and decide they need to do something to stop their voters defecting to UKIP, what will they do? The obvious response would be to talk tougher on Europe, but that would be unpopular with a significant chunk of their voters, and MPs.
If the Labour leadership just write off Heywood as a freak by-election result, MPs and candidates in vulnerable seats will still have their private worries, and could even take independent action, promising to support a tougher line on Europe in their campaign literature, without regard for party policy.
Labour voters are staying at home. That is Labour's problem.
It's ok: Labour has the Lib-Dem firewall to protect them.
On the day UKIP make huge gains in by-elections, it comes out that Cameron's running scare of debates. How is he going to stand up to the leaders of the EU if he can't even stand up to Farage and Miliband in a neutral debate? The man is a frit coward.
Thanks Socca – that explains it. I must agree – Labour and the Libs should keep shouting about this and, ideally, bring the Kippers into the party too (clearly Farage should be involved, given the KIP poll ratings).
Dave is running scared. For good reason – he is the worst of the four at the debate format. Prefers set pieces and auto cues.
Is that todays diversionary meme?
In other news, Miliband's turned a Labour stronghold into a marginal seat. You've got a big problem.
Oh dear.
You must have already forgotten the Tories losing a seat by 12,000 votes in their heartlands.
Carswell winning was hardly a surprise though was it 'Bob'?
Labour scraping a win by only 600 in Heywood, on the other hand...
Dave's problem, is now very clearly Ed's problem too
Nice blog, made all the better for me by being mentioned! Thanks
I actually haven't backed Boston&Skegness, don't have the money to tie up ATM but it's a great bet
Re Thurrock, I was in Clacton all day yesterday, on the train home now... Spoke with the candidate and there is a by election there next week in a weak Ukip ward.. He reckons if they win that it's a huuuuge indicator... I think Ukip should be odds on there already, so agree with you
The next door constituency is also value at 4/1 S Bas and E Thurrock... They like the candidate I think there
Don't know how Farage does it, I left the pub at 430am and feel knackered now... He was still there as were many others.. Never thought I'd spend a night in a noisy pub watching Question Time and This week as though they were football matches
Would Farsge in Heywood yesterday gained 617 votes? Annoying that it's a question but I think probably not
Well done Sam and congratulations to you and your team. Oh and thanks for your updates. You didn't mislead anybody.
How does Farage do it? It's adrenaline. When you get a run of results like he's had, you probably don't want to go to bed,.
Is that what this is, CCHQ spinners trying to change the subject? Pathetic.
Since when is a Guardian journalist a CCHQ spinner?
They worked together to plant stories about UKIP being racist.
"...Last Wednesday, the insider magazine Private Eye also claimed that the Leftist daily The Guardian had made a secret deal with the Tory Party, which claims to be conservative.
The Tories, it was alleged, had promised the favourite newspaper of the liberal elite a steady supply of damaging stories about UKIP candidates saying daft things (Tories, of course, never say daft things). In return, the newspaper had promised to avoid identifying the source.
Such stories are immediately picked up by BBC radio and TV news channels, which view The Guardian as sacred text. Asked about the allegation, The Guardian drew itself up to its full height and snapped: ‘The Guardian does not disclose its sources.’ (A certain Sarah Tisdall, who went to prison 30 years ago after The Guardian handed over documents that disclosed her as its source, might disagree.)
Well, there you have it. The Tory Party and The Guardian (and the BBC) are all united against UKIP. That would seem the best possible reason to vote UKIP. It also tells you who and what the Conservative Party really is."
Labour voters are staying at home. That is Labour's problem.
But what will Labour do to try and increase its turnout?
I'm not expecting panic measures, but I doubt they'll ignore the issue completely, if only to reassure their more nervous backbenchers.
The next question is why does the Labour leadership think their turnout was low? Anything Labour do will be intended to address what they think the problem is, not what the problem actually is, and there may well be quite a gap between the two.
From what I see in Sheffield Brightside, I'd say the actual problem is that Labour have lost touch with their traditional supporters, who are a lot less socially progressive than the party currently is. Even if Labour did recognise this was a problem there's not a lot they can do about it without alienating the socially progressive wing of their voters.
However, I suspect Labour are more likely to misdiagnose the problem. They'll come up with a bunch of policies they think will get their voters turning out, but because they're out of touch with what those voters actually want, the policies will fall flat. In the worst case, they could even lose them votes.
And just like every year the reporting on the figures likes to play fast an loose with whether they are doing like-for-like or whole population comparisons.
Not at all. The article is quite clear on that point:
The study took into account age, region and education to create a fair comparison between similar workers in the state and private sectors.
They compare for education, age, experience, sex and region but they don't control for what I consider the most important facotr job. So they aren't comparing medical consultants in the private sector vs medical consultants in the public sector or private vs state teachers or indeed private vs state low level admin assistants.
So we have no way of knowing where the pension bonanza is being felt. Is it all in NHS consultant surgeons pensions or is it in Police and Fire service remuneration?
The last time I saw this type of comparison that controlled by job when you got to, say, mid-level manager with departmental budget in millions type position the Private sector total remuneration pissed on the public sector pay packet.
It is controlled for job, hence the statement
" a fair comparison between similar workers"
No it isn't. The only controls mentioned in the report are education, age, experience, sex and region.
Dumfries & Galloway: TCTC Hallam: LD Hold Inverness, Bairn & Strathspey - SNP Gain Pudsey: Lab Gain Reading West: TCTC Sherwood: Lab Gain Southampton Itchen: TCTC Thurrock: UKIP Gain Thanet South: UKIP Gain Torbay - Con Gain
UKIP Gains: Boston, Great Grimsby, Clacton, Great Yarmouth, Basildon & SE Thurrock, Rotherham, Rochester, Thanet South (+ 2 others)
Con to win national vote share, Lib-Lab coalition Gov't.
That's be hugely unstable. A Lib-Lab Coalition would have 324 seats, so assuming 5 Sinn Fein MPs, an effective majority of 3 and be at the mercy of the awkward squad in both parties (two MPs rebelling loses the majority). By-election losses would presumably start to kick in as well. I don't think we'd see much activity from such a Government, or a full five-year term, regardless of the Fixed Term Act.
As a lifelong asthmatic I very much resent the phrase "anyone with a long term medical condition is a lower quality person” There is absolutely nothing I personally could have done to prevent my condition. It’s also noteworthy that my gt gt grandfather’s death certificate shows “asthma” as his cause of death.
According to Farage you're on a par with a child killer.
Yet another reason to dislike the t**d. One of my sons worked with him on the LME and really, and I mean really, disliked him as a person.
You're using a made up reason to dislike him based on made up claims. It's almost like you had a preconceived view and are willing to accept any claim that backs up your prejudice no matter how flimsy the evidence.
What an unpleasant remark. What on earth makes you think that any of this is “made up”?
To be honest, I'm not sure that's a vote loser at all.
Perhaps not - I remember when Labour introduced “Free HIV treatment on NHS for foreign nationals” back in 2012 – it didn’t go done well if memory recalls because of course, the treatment was not free, the UK Tax payers picked up the tab.
I have a long-term lung condition - not caused by any fault on my part - and I am not a "lower quality" person as a result. It has not stopped me working very hard indeed and contributing very considerably to this country via the taxes I pay. I rather resent someone suggesting otherwise.
But the health of potential immigrants is one of many legitimate factors which countries can look at when determining whether to grant a potential immigrant a visa. And it is what lots of countries do.
That is what Farage should have said. But he tends to speak before he thinks sometimes. It is what both makes him attractive to some voters and gets him into trouble with others.
There is certainly an issue with people turning up here - having contributed nothing - and getting NHS treatment for long-term conditions. Most countries expect visitors either to pay or to have insurance in place. That is the way to deal with such issues not casually and unthinkingly and insultingly lump in sufferers from debilitating conditions with murderers.
Experts said the party slashed Labour’s majority in the Heywood by-election because its simplistic message can appeal to angry, gullible cretins across the political spectrum.
Wow, sort of caught up. Back when I started to read and comment on pbc (2004), I always made a point of reading every comment. I managed to keep that up until about 2007. After that, I started to skim, but it's harder and harder these days.
Anyway - some thoughts on the rise of UKIP: The Big Parties are just starting to accept the fact that their diagnosis and treatment of the UKIP infection was inaccurate and are trying to come up with new treatments. However, their treatment of each other (and the Lib Dems) has made a very benign environment for the insurgent Party. As Nick P mentioned earlier, the danger with the Tories and Labour each declaiming that the other is crap is that both are increasingly believed. As are they when they add that the Lib Dems are crap and irrelevant.
Negative campaigning is such a temptress - because it works for so long. In a zero-sum game, bringing your opponent down is as effective as boosting yourself, and often - given the complexities and subtleties of real life impacting upon ideological and simplistic promises - so very much easier. And, if you've successfully damned the other big party, you get the situation described in Denis Healey's famous words to the right wing of the Labour Party in 1980: "You have nowhere else to go".
As he found out with the SDP's founding, too many people , in Mike Thomas's words "have found somewhere else to go".
So, while there are wider issues fuelling the resentment that has been the first stage of the rocket that is UKIP's rise, the second stage has been that the Tories and Lib Dems have convinced voters that Labour is profligate, brainless, out of touch, untrustworthy and crap; Labour and the Lib Dems have convinced voters that the Tories are heartless, unfeeling, out of touch, untrustworthy and crap, and the Tories and Labour have convinced voters that the Lib Dems are treacherous, inconsistent, out of touch, untrustworthy and crap.
So UKIP are surfing that decades-long wave of negative campaigning. Further mixing metaphors ruthlessly: the Big Three have been enthusiastically sowing the wind for ages. It's no wonder that they're feeling the barometer plummet and now dreading that they may be about to reap the whirlwind.
As I've got a rare day off, I'm in the unusual position of being able to read and comment even more. Dissatisfaction with the Big Three isn't enough to get the ball rolling, even if that dissatisfaction can turbo boost the rise. Otherwise the Greens would have reaped the harvest far more so than they have.
So what is it? It's partially that the big parties have dismissed very real concerns that voters have had, in the aim of running over the uncertain ground easier. Sean T referenced it earlier, on the globalisation and immigration front.
Globalisation makes all of us better off, it's true. But that's not evenly spread. Not in time, in location, demographics or educational level. There are local losers. Always. They may even outweigh the benefits for a while in some areas, but government intervention can help. Which makes it more of a pity when they don't intervene appropriately.
We've had the Tories boosting globalisation of capital, which has admittedly helped worldwide - but at the cost of some people. Labour have been a bit more unsure - not necessarily for the right reasons.
We've had Labour boosting globalisation of labour (immigration), which makes us better off and assuredly tends to make the immigrants better off - but at the cost of pressure on infrastructure and against low-paying workers. The Tories have been a bit more unsure - not necessarily for the right reasons.
(The Lib Dems, of course, have strong elements pro-each-side-but-anti-the-other, which might have helped them when they didn't have to make government decisions, but hinders them now).
The immigration issues have been dismissed as having an unpleasant whiff of racism - dodging the issues. And hugely exacerbated by the abdication of both parties of Government from upgrading and extending the infrastructure (housing, transport, primary schools in the right areas, doctors surgeries, etc). And discontent with local housebuilding is invariably dismissed as NIMBYism - where in many cases, while there is a NIMBY element, a lot of people are stressed about major increases on pressure on already creaking and ineffective local infrastructure.
"The idea that Labour was invulnerable has been smashed by the Heywood numbers."
No, I don't agree. It was almost a perfect storm last night. Labour rarely gets its vote out in by-elections so its numbers dropped, UKIP hoovered up Tory votes, there was no BNP candidate so their vote jumped to UKIP, some Lib Dems went to Labour.
UKIP got all its vote out in the hope of an upset, but it still wasn't enough. In May they will fall short by a good 4000 or so and Labour will have a reasonable majority again. UKIP hurts Tories more than Labour, there's no getting away from it.
Comments
In other news, Miliband's turned a Labour stronghold into a marginal seat. You've got a big problem.
But I can't help wondering if this is a problem that really needs to be solved. What are the figures? The issue is that addressing these requires a whole new bureaucracy. People despair of the numbers of managers and administrators being added to the NHS but it is initiatives like this, however worthy, that are the cause. Politicians should ask not just whether "something must be done" but whether it will be cost-effective to do it.
Was there not an episode of Yes, Minister where Jim Hacker commissioned a study of overmanning in the Civil Service, and was shocked when Sir Humphrey recruited hundreds more civil servants to carry it out?
(McFlurry/McFlurries were mentioned in an article I was reading; apparently Mr Carswell likes them.)
http://www.itv.com/news/2014-10-10/an-astonishing-night-for-ukip-and-for-british-politics/
Con .......... 299 (+11 seats)
Lab ........... 293 ( -13 seats)
LibDem ...... 28 (unchanged)
Others ....... 30 (+2 seats)
Total ........ 650 seats
It is controlled for job, hence the statement
" a fair comparison between similar workers"
Labour would be loosing seats on this basis.
'Dave is running scared. For good reason – he is the worst of the four at the debate format. Prefers set pieces and auto cues.'
How can you claim that when we haven't seen Ed in this format?
Farage hasn't changed since his years at Dulwich.
He did get a bit animated. One of my members challenged him on media articles that had compared him to the BNP (yes, it happened even then) and he got quite angry about it. He strongly rebutted it, explained why it was nonsense (and said UKIP reject racists, and welcomes all ethnicities) and then we moved on to the next question. He calmed down quickly afterwards.
Two other things stuck with me: (1) he said he was like a stick of Blackpool Rock. If you cut him in half through the middle, you'd see 'TORY' printed throughout the whole of his body, and (2) he had been offered a Tory safe seat several times, but had always turned it down - he said he felt (although a natural Conservative) the party had betrayed its natural supporters, took them for granted, and was no longer was representing the interests people of Britain.
Sound familiar?
I certainly don't think he's a monster; a Nick Griffin in disguise. That's lazy and inaccurate. I certainly do think he loathes the modern Tory party. He is motivated by that sense of betrayal, exacarbated by the insults he feels has been thrown his way over the years.
He struck me as quite sensitive, but would listen to those who showed him respect and shared his values. The way he's got on with Douglas Carswell and listened to some of his localism ideas is instructive in this.
There is no doubt in my mind that his prime motive he's out to cause the maximum amount of damage to he can to the Tories, so he can reclaim the influence he needs to channel true conservativism within British politics again through his party. That means increasing his vote and seat share by *whatever means he feels possible*.
Personally, I think the 2014 Euro campaign was a strategic mistake. It 'toxified' UKIP. I also think the HIV point falls into the same category. But I don't think he believes a word of it. He doesn't care.
So, he's friendly and social, but also sensitive, short-tempered, and politically naive. He is motivated by patriotism, coupled with a strong sense of personal and political betrayal. But there is something in there about trying to change British politics for the better, which he rarely talks about, as it is subsumed by his emotions.
Make of that what you will.
It's like Rorkes Drift in the NW.....
Eastleigh 27.8% (+24.2%)
South Shields 24.2% (+24.2%)
Wythenshawe and Sale 18% (+14.5%)
Newark 25.9% (+22.2%)
Clacton 59.7% (+59.7%)
Heywood 38.7% (+36.1%)
That is their problem.
We have seen Ed in debates when running for the Labour leader job.
Up to you.
I actually haven't backed Boston&Skegness, don't have the money to tie up ATM but it's a great bet
Re Thurrock, I was in Clacton all day yesterday, on the train home now... Spoke with the candidate and there is a by election there next week in a weak Ukip ward.. He reckons if they win that it's a huuuuge indicator... I think Ukip should be odds on there already, so agree with you
The next door constituency is also value at 4/1 S Bas and E Thurrock... They like the candidate I think there
Don't know how Farage does it, I left the pub at 430am and feel knackered now... He was still there as were many others.. Never thought I'd spend a night in a noisy pub watching Question Time and This week as though they were football matches
Would Farsge in Heywood yesterday gained 617 votes? Annoying that it's a question but I think probably not
No point voting labour in Clacton next May. No point voting tory in H&M.
Looks like labour will turn into also rans in Rochester too. A couple of weeks ago people were talking about labour 'coming through the middle' in this seat.
It shows graphically what an outstanding result Heywood was for UKIP. Clacton can be explained partly by the exceptional quality of the candidate, but not Heywood.
You must have already forgotten the Tories losing a seat by 12,000 votes in their heartlands.
Quite remarkable, even by your low standards.
These people lay into Norman Tebbit and Daniel Hannan, for God's sake.
How will you fare in Rochester? relative irrelevance or total irrelevance?
Labour scraping a win by only 600 in Heywood, on the other hand...
Dave's problem, is now very clearly Ed's problem too
How does Farage do it? It's adrenaline. When you get a run of results like he's had, you probably don't want to go to bed,.
The Tories, it was alleged, had promised the favourite newspaper of the liberal elite a steady supply of damaging stories about UKIP candidates saying daft things (Tories, of course, never say daft things). In return, the newspaper had promised to avoid identifying the source.
Such stories are immediately picked up by BBC radio and TV news channels, which view The Guardian as sacred text. Asked about the allegation, The Guardian drew itself up to its full height and snapped: ‘The Guardian does not disclose its sources.’ (A certain Sarah Tisdall, who went to prison 30 years ago after The Guardian handed over documents that disclosed her as its source, might disagree.)
Well, there you have it. The Tory Party and The Guardian (and the BBC) are all united against UKIP. That would seem the best possible reason to vote UKIP. It also tells you who and what the Conservative Party really is."
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2014/05/fair-taxes-theyre-as-likely-as-osborne-joining-take-that.html
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2014/05/begging-the-guardian-ukip-and-car-crashes.html
I'm not expecting panic measures, but I doubt they'll ignore the issue completely, if only to reassure their more nervous backbenchers.
The next question is why does the Labour leadership think their turnout was low? Anything Labour do will be intended to address what they think the problem is, not what the problem actually is, and there may well be quite a gap between the two.
From what I see in Sheffield Brightside, I'd say the actual problem is that Labour have lost touch with their traditional supporters, who are a lot less socially progressive than the party currently is. Even if Labour did recognise this was a problem there's not a lot they can do about it without alienating the socially progressive wing of their voters.
However, I suspect Labour are more likely to misdiagnose the problem. They'll come up with a bunch of policies they think will get their voters turning out, but because they're out of touch with what those voters actually want, the policies will fall flat. In the worst case, they could even lose them votes.
Nigel Farage: Ban migrants with HIV from entering Britain
http://www.buzzfeed.com/richardhjames/nigel-farage-ban-migrants-with-hiv-from-entering-britain#33wegmg …
To be honest, I'm not sure that's a vote loser at all.
Look, here is the report - http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/bns/bn151.pdf you can read it rather than a newspaper report about it.,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17187179
But the health of potential immigrants is one of many legitimate factors which countries can look at when determining whether to grant a potential immigrant a visa. And it is what lots of countries do.
That is what Farage should have said. But he tends to speak before he thinks sometimes. It is what both makes him attractive to some voters and gets him into trouble with others.
There is certainly an issue with people turning up here - having contributed nothing - and getting NHS treatment for long-term conditions. Most countries expect visitors either to pay or to have insurance in place. That is the way to deal with such issues not casually and unthinkingly and insultingly lump in sufferers from debilitating conditions with murderers.
Experts said the party slashed Labour’s majority in the Heywood by-election because its simplistic message can appeal to angry, gullible cretins across the political spectrum.
I managed to keep that up until about 2007. After that, I started to skim, but it's harder and harder these days.
Anyway - some thoughts on the rise of UKIP:
The Big Parties are just starting to accept the fact that their diagnosis and treatment of the UKIP infection was inaccurate and are trying to come up with new treatments. However, their treatment of each other (and the Lib Dems) has made a very benign environment for the insurgent Party. As Nick P mentioned earlier, the danger with the Tories and Labour each declaiming that the other is crap is that both are increasingly believed. As are they when they add that the Lib Dems are crap and irrelevant.
Negative campaigning is such a temptress - because it works for so long. In a zero-sum game, bringing your opponent down is as effective as boosting yourself, and often - given the complexities and subtleties of real life impacting upon ideological and simplistic promises - so very much easier. And, if you've successfully damned the other big party, you get the situation described in Denis Healey's famous words to the right wing of the Labour Party in 1980: "You have nowhere else to go".
As he found out with the SDP's founding, too many people , in Mike Thomas's words "have found somewhere else to go".
So, while there are wider issues fuelling the resentment that has been the first stage of the rocket that is UKIP's rise, the second stage has been that the Tories and Lib Dems have convinced voters that Labour is profligate, brainless, out of touch, untrustworthy and crap; Labour and the Lib Dems have convinced voters that the Tories are heartless, unfeeling, out of touch, untrustworthy and crap, and the Tories and Labour have convinced voters that the Lib Dems are treacherous, inconsistent, out of touch, untrustworthy and crap.
So UKIP are surfing that decades-long wave of negative campaigning. Further mixing metaphors ruthlessly: the Big Three have been enthusiastically sowing the wind for ages. It's no wonder that they're feeling the barometer plummet and now dreading that they may be about to reap the whirlwind.
Dissatisfaction with the Big Three isn't enough to get the ball rolling, even if that dissatisfaction can turbo boost the rise. Otherwise the Greens would have reaped the harvest far more so than they have.
So what is it? It's partially that the big parties have dismissed very real concerns that voters have had, in the aim of running over the uncertain ground easier. Sean T referenced it earlier, on the globalisation and immigration front.
Globalisation makes all of us better off, it's true. But that's not evenly spread. Not in time, in location, demographics or educational level. There are local losers. Always. They may even outweigh the benefits for a while in some areas, but government intervention can help. Which makes it more of a pity when they don't intervene appropriately.
We've had the Tories boosting globalisation of capital, which has admittedly helped worldwide - but at the cost of some people. Labour have been a bit more unsure - not necessarily for the right reasons.
We've had Labour boosting globalisation of labour (immigration), which makes us better off and assuredly tends to make the immigrants better off - but at the cost of pressure on infrastructure and against low-paying workers. The Tories have been a bit more unsure - not necessarily for the right reasons.
(The Lib Dems, of course, have strong elements pro-each-side-but-anti-the-other, which might have helped them when they didn't have to make government decisions, but hinders them now).
The immigration issues have been dismissed as having an unpleasant whiff of racism - dodging the issues. And hugely exacerbated by the abdication of both parties of Government from upgrading and extending the infrastructure (housing, transport, primary schools in the right areas, doctors surgeries, etc). And discontent with local housebuilding is invariably dismissed as NIMBYism - where in many cases, while there is a NIMBY element, a lot of people are stressed about major increases on pressure on already creaking and ineffective local infrastructure.
Edited extra bit: new thread.
No, I don't agree. It was almost a perfect storm last night. Labour rarely gets its vote out in by-elections so its numbers dropped, UKIP hoovered up Tory votes, there was no BNP candidate so their vote jumped to UKIP, some Lib Dems went to Labour.
UKIP got all its vote out in the hope of an upset, but it still wasn't enough. In May they will fall short by a good 4000 or so and Labour will have a reasonable majority again. UKIP hurts Tories more than Labour, there's no getting away from it.