Well done to Pong on laying 1.22 overnight on UKIP in Rochester & Strood - always a sound strategy to leave "unrealistic" offers up for future events when another event is unfolding...
Still, the 3/1 on the Tories looks big in R & S. You absolutely have to discount the scale of Carswell's win on the grounds that it was Carswell. And Clacton was famously the most "receptive" seat in the country to the UKIP message.
The truly big question in Rochester is what the Labour party, and the Labour voters, do.
UKIP should still be favourites, but not by this much.
There's a pattern developing whereby disaffected Tories vote UKIP whilst disaffected Labour voters sit on their hands.
That would make Rochester a straight head to head. The 3/1 looks about right.
It really is fascinating. The lib dems have some big, fat majorities. Kingston and Surbiton. Twickenham. Are these vulnerable?
Kingston is a probable hold as Davey has 7k majority, but there are underlying problems with the local LDs there. The Conservatives took control of the Council this year and won 7 seats, the LDs lost 9.
Twickenham to go Tory, please, please, please, please!
Only if the current 71 yr old incumbent decides that he is not up to being an MP through to 2020 when he will be approaching his 77th birthday (June).
The Tories have just lost their 86th safest seat by 12,000 votes and most of them are going on about Ed being panda.
Only from the PB Tories.
Only on PB.
Labour Majority is drifting. Tories most seats is shortening. Though I'm sure it's everybody betting blindly off the back of Dan Hodges' columns and Jack Straw's remarks.
If you don't understand the concept of something being "priced in" then perhaps you're on the wrong site.
I am tempted to keep my powder dry on the betting until the result of Rochester and Stroud.
That will be the most important and pivotal by election in this parliament.
(Unless I see a complete and utter rick and if certain PBers spot value)
Mr. Cooke, more than happy to answer any questions you have. Got to say I'm much better at writing than self-promotion/marketing but (as with self-publishing) simply going through the process once reveals a few things it's better to do or to avoid.
At the moment I'm going through a long list of potential review sites (basically just e-mailing and asking them to review Journey to Altmortis or Sir Edric's Temple). Doing that ahead of time, if you've got a 'proper' deal and therefore pre-ordering can take place, may be a good way to get up a head of steam, as well as get some early reviews. [I buggered this up by doing it too late, so I'm playing catch-up rather than being ahead of the game. Hoping to be able to send ARCs/advanced review copies for Sir Edric's Treasure, though].
Long enough I would have thought. Turnout will be much higher then. Though I guess they'll keep the same candidate and if he digs in between now and then he could surprise people.
He's a she, Neil.
I'm often in situations where it's best not to presume (not least at pbc drinks!) but I think I'm on firm ground with this one (I was referring to the UKIP candidate.)
My error, Neil.
Sorry but it takes a girl a while to freshen up after a late nite.
Immigration is a MASSIVE issue that Labour and the Tories can't talk about. Several reasons for this: 1. ****You can't stop immigration as a member of the EU**** 2. For so many British people the available work doesn't cover the cost of childcare. So they don't work and immigrants come to fill the void. That the migrants hold down wages is entirely the agenda that Labservatives have applied for their establishment masters 3. People are now at breaking point yet neither Labour or the Tories offer any honest analysis or new policies or even a recognition there is a problem.
Which is why UKIP are winning so many votes. I think their economic and social policies are genuinely scary but they are right that we need to leave the EU. In the Labour Party, even on the left which has a proud tradition of europhobia, my views are very much in the (tiny) minority. Kippers have it right that society is broken, they have part of the analysis right, but they are wrong on everything else.
But here's the thing. Get people angry AND offer them an alternative, and you have revolution. That people may not have the same aims and views as the leaders of the revolution won't stop them joining in. I'm making the point to left-leaning comrades that trying to attack UKIP with facts is relatively ineffective - people are angry, they've stopped listening, and want change. Any change.
That would make Rochester a straight head to head. The 3/1 looks about right. It wasn't so long ago people were saying labour were the value in this seat on a 'come through the middle' basis. Nope.
Labour should have been the value bet, but they have given up of trying to win through their efforts and instead want a lazy approach sitting back and expecting events to turn everything their way.
@MichaelLCrick: Ukip have just kicked me out of their Clacton office. All I wanted was a good selection of their leaflets.
@MichaelLCrick: Tories win by-election in Clacton, take seat from Ukip. That's Essex Cty Council by-election in Brightlingsea ward, partly in Clacton seat
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
(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.
Andy, great to see you back. Please post more often.
I really like your last paragraph. That's a very perceptive point on infrastructure. It shows how many of us are stuck in 1-D thinking.
There's a housing development going up v.near me soon. I live in a large historic village in the south-East. Now, I want to support it - there aren't enough homes - but I'm instinctively NIMBY (as we almost all are) for several reasons:
(1) It's a battle to park my car every night, this will make it worse with more traffic. (2) There's nothing directly in it for local residents, but the construction will piss me off for a year (why don't all developers bung residents within 500m a monkey or two?) (3) Given ongoing mass immigration and displacement from London, I can't see any end to it - where will the development stop?
I'm trying to fight it, and not be selfish, but that's how I feel.
The Tories have just lost their 86th safest seat by 12,000 votes and most of them are going on about Ed being panda.
Only from the PB Tories.
Only on PB.
Labour Majority is drifting. Tories most seats is shortening. Though I'm sure it's everybody betting blindly off the back of Dan Hodges' columns and Jack Straw's remarks.
If you don't understand the concept of something being "priced in" then perhaps you're on the wrong site.
I am tempted to keep my powder dry on the betting until the result of Rochester and Stroud.
That will be the most important and pivotal by election in this parliament.
(Unless I see a complete and utter rick and if certain PBers spot value)
I don't see the results as particularly pivotal - the pivotal moment was Carswell's defection. I don't think the result in R&S will ultimately make that much difference to UKIP's polling in May. These results do let us take a temperature reading, however.
On a separate note, if Tory voters in Labour's Northern seats start to tactically vote UKIP, then the Tory vote will become much more efficient. It isn't solely the "piling up large majorities in Surrey" that affects the votes:seats ratio, it's also picking up 15-20% all over the place, whereas Labour's Southern vote is routinely down to the 5-10% because of tactical LD voting [which we might also expect to unwind a bit].
I note Paddys are in to 20/1 on Lab most votes, Con most seats. Ladbrokes are 33/1. Both were 100/1. I couldn't recommend it, but it's an interesting straw in the wind.
Immigration is a MASSIVE issue that Labour and the Tories can't talk about. Several reasons for this: 1. ****You can't stop immigration as a member of the EU**** 2. For so many British people the available work doesn't cover the cost of childcare. So they don't work and immigrants come to fill the void. That the migrants hold down wages is entirely the agenda that Labservatives have applied for their establishment masters 3. People are now at breaking point yet neither Labour or the Tories offer any honest analysis or new policies or even a recognition there is a problem.
Which is why UKIP are winning so many votes. I think their economic and social policies are genuinely scary but they are right that we need to leave the EU. In the Labour Party, even on the left which has a proud tradition of europhobia, my views are very much in the (tiny) minority. Kippers have it right that society is broken, they have part of the analysis right, but they are wrong on everything else.
But here's the thing. Get people angry AND offer them an alternative, and you have revolution. That people may not have the same aims and views as the leaders of the revolution won't stop them joining in. I'm making the point to left-leaning comrades that trying to attack UKIP with facts is relatively ineffective - people are angry, they've stopped listening, and want change. Any change.
1. But you can stop Third World immigration and this is not being stopped. Just that it is less polite to talk about it in case the r-word crops up.
The Tories have just lost their 86th safest seat by 12,000 votes and most of them are going on about Ed being panda.
Only from the PB Tories.
Only on PB.
Labour Majority is drifting. Tories most seats is shortening. Though I'm sure it's everybody betting blindly off the back of Dan Hodges' columns and Jack Straw's remarks.
If you don't understand the concept of something being "priced in" then perhaps you're on the wrong site.
I am tempted to keep my powder dry on the betting until the result of Rochester and Stroud.
That will be the most important and pivotal by election in this parliament.
(Unless I see a complete and utter rick and if certain PBers spot value)
I don't see the results as particularly pivotal - the pivotal moment was Carswell's defection. I don't think the result in R&S will ultimately make that much difference to UKIP's polling in May. These results do let us take a temperature reading, however.
On a separate note, if Tory voters in Labour's Northern seats start to tactically vote UKIP, then the Tory vote will become much more efficient. It isn't solely the "piling up large majorities in Surrey" that affects the votes:seats ratio, it's also picking up 15-20% all over the place, whereas Labour's Southern vote is routinely down to the 5-10% because of tactical LD voting [which we might also expect to unwind a bit].
I note Paddys are in to 20/1 on Lab most votes, Con most seats. Ladbrokes are 33/1. Both were 100/1. I couldn't recommend it, but it's an interesting straw in the wind.
I backed that at 66/1 I think. Max stake £4.04 so I hope you're right.
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.
Andy, great to see you back. Please post more often.
I really like your last paragraph. That's a very perceptive point on infrastructure. It shows how many of us are stuck in 1-D thinking.
There's a housing development going up v.near me soon. I live in a large historic village in the south-East. Now, I want to support it - there aren't enough homes - but I'm instinctively NIMBY (as we almost all are) for several reasons:
(1) It's a battle to park my car every night, this will make it worse with more traffic. (2) There's nothing directly in it for local residents, but the construction will piss me off for a year (why don't all developers bung residents within 500m a monkey or two?) (3) Given ongoing mass immigration and displacement from London, I can't see any end to it - where will the development stop?
I'm trying to fight it, and not be selfish, but that's how I feel.
Thanks :-)
There's a strong case for sending some direct and immediate benefits to locales where housing is constructed (so bunging a few hundred quid to residents is a real legitimate way of doing it). And, of course, if the transport infrastructure (and other infrastructure) is sorted out as well, you'd find it far easier to fight the NIMBY feelings.
The Tories have just lost their 86th safest seat by 12,000 votes and most of them are going on about Ed being panda.
Only from the PB Tories.
Only on PB.
Labour Majority is drifting. Tories most seats is shortening. Though I'm sure it's everybody betting blindly off the back of Dan Hodges' columns and Jack Straw's remarks.
If you don't understand the concept of something being "priced in" then perhaps you're on the wrong site.
I am tempted to keep my powder dry on the betting until the result of Rochester and Stroud.
That will be the most important and pivotal by election in this parliament.
(Unless I see a complete and utter rick and if certain PBers spot value)
I don't see the results as particularly pivotal - the pivotal moment was Carswell's defection. I don't think the result in R&S will ultimately make that much difference to UKIP's polling in May. These results do let us take a temperature reading, however.
On a separate note, if Tory voters in Labour's Northern seats start to tactically vote UKIP, then the Tory vote will become much more efficient. It isn't solely the "piling up large majorities in Surrey" that affects the votes:seats ratio, it's also picking up 15-20% all over the place, whereas Labour's Southern vote is routinely down to the 5-10% because of tactical LD voting [which we might also expect to unwind a bit].
I note Paddys are in to 20/1 on Lab most votes, Con most seats. Ladbrokes are 33/1. Both were 100/1. I couldn't recommend it, but it's an interesting straw in the wind.
I backed that at 66/1 I think. Max stake £4.04 so I hope you're right.
I think the SNP surge in Scotland will scupper any chance of this happening. Labour will lose votes in Scotland but hardly any seats
The Tories have just lost their 86th safest seat by 12,000 votes and most of them are going on about Ed being panda.
Only from the PB Tories.
Only on PB.
Labour Majority is drifting. Tories most seats is shortening. Though I'm sure it's everybody betting blindly off the back of Dan Hodges' columns and Jack Straw's remarks.
If you don't understand the concept of something being "priced in" then perhaps you're on the wrong site.
I am tempted to keep my powder dry on the betting until the result of Rochester and Stroud.
That will be the most important and pivotal by election in this parliament.
(Unless I see a complete and utter rick and if certain PBers spot value)
I don't see the results as particularly pivotal - the pivotal moment was Carswell's defection. I don't think the result in R&S will ultimately make that much difference to UKIP's polling in May. These results do let us take a temperature reading, however.
On a separate note, if Tory voters in Labour's Northern seats start to tactically vote UKIP, then the Tory vote will become much more efficient. It isn't solely the "piling up large majorities in Surrey" that affects the votes:seats ratio, it's also picking up 15-20% all over the place, whereas Labour's Southern vote is routinely down to the 5-10% because of tactical LD voting [which we might also expect to unwind a bit].
I note Paddys are in to 20/1 on Lab most votes, Con most seats. Ladbrokes are 33/1. Both were 100/1. I couldn't recommend it, but it's an interesting straw in the wind.
I backed that at 66/1 I think. Max stake £4.04 so I hope you're right.
I think the SNP surge in Scotland will scupper any chance of this happening. Labour will lose votes in Scotland but hardly any seats
I expect to see UKIP eating into the fat fickle SNP vote over the coming months.
I don't believe it has been mentioned here yet but the Tories in Rochester and Strood have very sensibly decided to hold a full postal ballot primary to select their candidate (as they did for Sarah Woolaston). That could be a not unimportant (albeit not decisive) factor in the battle against the ghastly Reckless.
I'm sure that's a smart thing to do. Also it produces MPs of Sarah's quality.
'For the record, are you predicting that outcome?'
For the record are you predicting that Tories won't vote tactically to keep Labour out?
Are you claiming that tactical voting will only happen in Lib / Con marginals?
I have already said what I am predicting. That Ukip will hurt both parties to an extent, but will hurt the Tories far more.
I have been clear about this forecast, a number of times.
What is your prediction? You don't actually say, preferring hypothetical rumination.
It is clutching at straws to say UKIP hurt Labour as much as the Tories. A test would be to give Cameron and Miliband the chance to' wish away' UKIP . Cameron would make that wish in an instant. Miliband would um and arh about it, check if all diversity issues are Ok with it and then form a committee to discuss possibly NOT wishing it away
Just read an amusing tweet from OGH on UKIP popularity in areas where there are Butlins holiday camps.
You might like to read Fraser Nelson's article.
"...the poverty in Clacton-on-Sea is a very modern phenomenon. The rise of cheap flights diverted holidaymakers from seaside towns, and the lack of business has had several knock-on effects. The Centre For Social Justice (on whose advisory board I sit) produced a report about new phenomenon last year – a problem that effects not just Clacton-on-Sea but Blackpool, Great Yarmouth, Margate and Rhyl. They have become studies in modern poverty.
When work moves out, welfare moves in. The cost of renting a house falls without salaried workers to compete for them. What marks seaside towns out is the availability of cheap accommodation. What once attracted holidaymakers now attracts local authorities placing children in care and ex-offenders. The B&Bs that once accommodated British holidaymakers start to house welfare tenants – not ideal for landlords, but better than facing months of vacancies. This has a cluster effect; poverty attracts poverty. "
I canvassed in Jaywick yesterday.. a truly extraordinary place.. people live in pebbledashed caravans supported bricks.. cats and dogs running about everywhere, roads are not worthy of the name, few streetlights.. quite amazing that its in the same constituency as Frinton
And I am not sure it´s a gaffe. The great and the good are scandalised. The riff raff are supporting.
What other illnesses would you apply it to? TB? Diabetes? Cancer? Why just HIV?
There should not be a list of diseases (excepting for ones which are too dangerous to allow in)
Immigration should be based upon a simple formula....when all plus's and minus's are taken into account are you a net benefit to the country.
Inputs should be earnings, likely costs on infrastructure such as nhs care etc, social costs such as housing pressure etc and downwards wage pressure, need for people in your line of work etc..(no point bringing in more plumbers when we have plumbers who cannot get work already etc), integration likelihood (ie will you not be at loggerheads with the culture of the uk, this is not to say you can't be different merely there are some attitudes we may not wish to import).
With all that done that seems to be a good basis for immigration decision frankly, note there is no mention of race, colour , creed or sexual orientation.
To suggest we shouldn't take long term health problems into account is barmy, they should certainly be an input into the decision they should not be the only input it is true (with some exceptions)
Just read an amusing tweet from OGH on UKIP popularity in areas where there are Butlins holiday camps.
I'm sure it was unintended but the whole tweet reinforces the 'imaging' of UKIP as old-fashioned and out of touch. now that may be true but so far the attempts by the political establishment to describe them thus has been singularly counter-productive. I am not a UKIP voter or supporter but I know lots of fairly ordinary folk who have strident views on immigration, etc and who really resent the way they are characterised as bigots. Incidentally none of them are from Clacton/Skegness but hey what's wrong with living in fairly typical English towns.
Leaving aside the defection issue, is R&S closer to Newark or Clacton?
Clacton.
Not convinced, though I don't have data to hand. Per Wiki:
Rochester and Strood has a working population with close to the national average income, low unemployment compared to the national average (3.5% at the end of 2012) and can be considered aside from significant sources of employment, professions and trades in Kent as part of the London Commuter Belt. Levels of reliance on social housing are similar to most of the region in this seat.
I don't believe it has been mentioned here yet but the Tories in Rochester and Strood have very sensibly decided to hold a full postal ballot primary to select their candidate (as they did for Sarah Woolaston). That could be a not unimportant (albeit not decisive) factor in the battle against the ghastly Reckless.
I'm sure that's a smart thing to do. Also it produces MPs of Sarah's quality.
Can't agree on this one. One of the few remaining reasons to bother joining a political party is to have a say and vote on who the candidate is for your party. Parties are already in terminal decline.
Couple of things - Great to see @Andy_Cooke posting again - please do so more if possible.
Also, on @Tissue_Prices question about Rochester being closer to Newark or Clacton - I would estimate about half-way - it has the Kent/Essex coastal elements of Clacton, but is less deprived and has more London commuters than either (which I would regard as more akin to leafy parts of Newark)
Just before I go, saw this on the BBC ticker (no story link yet): "Responding to by-elections Ed Miliband says Tories are "party that cannot win at next election""
Not a wise line. Conservatives in Labour 'safe' seats might be encouraged to vote tactically against Labour.
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.
Andy, great to see you back. Please post more often.
I really like your last paragraph. That's a very perceptive point on infrastructure. It shows how many of us are stuck in 1-D thinking.
There's a housing development going up v.near me soon. I live in a large historic village in the south-East. Now, I want to support it - there aren't enough homes - but I'm instinctively NIMBY (as we almost all are) for several reasons:
(1) It's a battle to park my car every night, this will make it worse with more traffic. (2) There's nothing directly in it for local residents, but the construction will piss me off for a year (why don't all developers bung residents within 500m a monkey or two?) (3) Given ongoing mass immigration and displacement from London, I can't see any end to it - where will the development stop?
I'm trying to fight it, and not be selfish, but that's how I feel.
Thanks :-)
There's a strong case for sending some direct and immediate benefits to locales where housing is constructed (so bunging a few hundred quid to residents is a real legitimate way of doing it). And, of course, if the transport infrastructure (and other infrastructure) is sorted out as well, you'd find it far easier to fight the NIMBY feelings.
Obviously in my opinion the best way of doing this is through Land Value Tax - if the land value goes down (because of additional surrounding housing) then you pay less tax. If infrastructure improves (you get a new tube line) then you pay more tax for the privilege.
Just read an amusing tweet from OGH on UKIP popularity in areas where there are Butlins holiday camps.
You might like to read Fraser Nelson's article.
"...the poverty in Clacton-on-Sea is a very modern phenomenon. The rise of cheap flights diverted holidaymakers from seaside towns, and the lack of business has had several knock-on effects. The Centre For Social Justice (on whose advisory board I sit) produced a report about new phenomenon last year – a problem that effects not just Clacton-on-Sea but Blackpool, Great Yarmouth, Margate and Rhyl. They have become studies in modern poverty.
When work moves out, welfare moves in. The cost of renting a house falls without salaried workers to compete for them. What marks seaside towns out is the availability of cheap accommodation. What once attracted holidaymakers now attracts local authorities placing children in care and ex-offenders. The B&Bs that once accommodated British holidaymakers start to house welfare tenants – not ideal for landlords, but better than facing months of vacancies. This has a cluster effect; poverty attracts poverty. "
I canvassed in Jaywick yesterday.. a truly extraordinary place.. people live in pebbledashed caravans supported bricks.. cats and dogs running about everywhere, roads are not worthy of the name, few streetlights.. quite amazing that its in the same constituency as Frinton
Even the densest Labour spinner can see that turning safe seats into marginals is not a good winning strategy. .
Exactly, Heywood was Labour's 154th safest seat - overnight it’s become an ultra-marginal.
The complacency/bravado/spin shown on PB today has been quite an eye opener.
Someone needs to take the fingers our of their ears.
The Tories know they've got a problem. Labour supporters are in denial.
Not really ,only one of 2 parties will govern come May . Who governs will depend on who UKIP hurt the most . Labour should be happy about UKIP's rise .I am sure they are
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.
Andy, great to see you back. Please post more often.
I really like your last paragraph. That's a very perceptive point on infrastructure. It shows how many of us are stuck in 1-D thinking.
There's a housing development going up v.near me soon. I live in a large historic village in the south-East. Now, I want to support it - there aren't enough homes - but I'm instinctively NIMBY (as we almost all are) for several reasons:
(1) It's a battle to park my car every night, this will make it worse with more traffic. (2) There's nothing directly in it for local residents, but the construction will piss me off for a year (why don't all developers bung residents within 500m a monkey or two?) (3) Given ongoing mass immigration and displacement from London, I can't see any end to it - where will the development stop?
I'm trying to fight it, and not be selfish, but that's how I feel.
Thanks :-)
There's a strong case for sending some direct and immediate benefits to locales where housing is constructed (so bunging a few hundred quid to residents is a real legitimate way of doing it). And, of course, if the transport infrastructure (and other infrastructure) is sorted out as well, you'd find it far easier to fight the NIMBY feelings.
Obviously in my opinion the best way of doing this is through Land Value Tax - if the land value goes down (because of additional surrounding housing) then you pay less tax. If infrastructure improves (you get a new tube line) then you pay more tax for the privilege.
Who's going to value the value of land for the entire country every year for that to work?
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.
In the TV Clacton debate there was also the question; "where are the jobs?". If you build all these new houses, where are the new inhabitants going to work?
Get your "libertarian" MP to help crush all new economic activity by government fiat, then wonder why you don't have enough jobs. Oh, Essex.
By-elections used to be about giving the Government a kicking without changing the Government. But electors reverted to type at the general elections because they were choosing a new Government.
In the current by-elections many voters are giving both the government parties and the opposition party a kicking by voting UKIP. Will the voters revert to type at the general election when they have to choose a new Government?
By-elections used to be about giving the Government a kicking without changing the Government. But electors reverted to type at the general elections because they were choosing a new Government.
In the current by-elections many voters are giving both the government parties and the opposition party a kicking by voting UKIP. Will the voters revert to type at the general election when they have to choose a new Government?
To am extent they will I'm sure. I am worried though that UKIP will get a big enough share to get maybe 3 seats (who cares about that?) but mainly to hand labour seats in lab/con marginals
Immigration is a MASSIVE issue that Labour and the Tories can't talk about. Several reasons for this: 1. ****You can't stop immigration as a member of the EU**** 2. For so many British people the available work doesn't cover the cost of childcare. So they don't work and immigrants come to fill the void. That the migrants hold down wages is entirely the agenda that Labservatives have applied for their establishment masters 3. People are now at breaking point yet neither Labour or the Tories offer any honest analysis or new policies or even a recognition there is a problem.
Which is why UKIP are winning so many votes. I think their economic and social policies are genuinely scary but they are right that we need to leave the EU. In the Labour Party, even on the left which has a proud tradition of europhobia, my views are very much in the (tiny) minority. Kippers have it right that society is broken, they have part of the analysis right, but they are wrong on everything else.
But here's the thing. Get people angry AND offer them an alternative, and you have revolution. That people may not have the same aims and views as the leaders of the revolution won't stop them joining in. I'm making the point to left-leaning comrades that trying to attack UKIP with facts is relatively ineffective - people are angry, they've stopped listening, and want change. Any change.
Ed has to offer a referendum if he is going to win back wc support
@David_Evershed It would depend on UKIP's position and policies closer to the election which voters are going to "revert"? At the moment, all the parties can be fairly vague and paint with broad brushes.
All UKIP have to do in Rochester is get the share they polled in Heywood and they should win. 39% should be enough given that the Labour vote probably won't go lower than 20%.
Just before I go, saw this on the BBC ticker (no story link yet): "Responding to by-elections Ed Miliband says Tories are "party that cannot win at next election""
Not a wise line. Conservatives in Labour 'safe' seats might be encouraged to vote tactically against Labour.
Just read an amusing tweet from OGH on UKIP popularity in areas where there are Butlins holiday camps.
You might like to read Fraser Nelson's article.
"...the poverty in Clacton-on-Sea is a very modern phenomenon. The rise of cheap flights diverted holidaymakers from seaside towns, and the lack of business has had several knock-on effects. The Centre For Social Justice (on whose advisory board I sit) produced a report about new phenomenon last year – a problem that effects not just Clacton-on-Sea but Blackpool, Great Yarmouth, Margate and Rhyl. They have become studies in modern poverty.
When work moves out, welfare moves in. The cost of renting a house falls without salaried workers to compete for them. What marks seaside towns out is the availability of cheap accommodation. What once attracted holidaymakers now attracts local authorities placing children in care and ex-offenders. The B&Bs that once accommodated British holidaymakers start to house welfare tenants – not ideal for landlords, but better than facing months of vacancies. This has a cluster effect; poverty attracts poverty. "
I canvassed in Jaywick yesterday.. a truly extraordinary place.. people live in pebbledashed caravans supported bricks.. cats and dogs running about everywhere, roads are not worthy of the name, few streetlights.. quite amazing that its in the same constituency as Frinton
It is indeed extraordinary. And deeply sad.
So Britain has astounding levels of inequality, even within a constituency. What's UKIP's answer: leave the EU.
By-elections used to be about giving the Government a kicking without changing the Government. But electors reverted to type at the general elections because they were choosing a new Government.
In the current by-elections many voters are giving both the government parties and the opposition party a kicking by voting UKIP. Will the voters revert to type at the general election when they have to choose a new Government?
They might revert to the government, as per historical precedent. It's hard to see how they're going to revert to the Opposition, though.
I wonder if X happens, then Y will happen and Labour will be in real trouble. What could happen is Z and that will lead to A and then B and C and Labour will be screwed.
Sounds like Kobane is finally falling. Turkey must never, will never, be forgiven for their inaction.
Well that's fine for the yanks and other countries who have been fighting in Syria to say .I am not sure Britain can complain as we smugly do not allow action in Syria due to possible legal problems which presumably apply to Turkey as much as the UK
All UKIP have to do in Rochester is get the share they polled in Heywood and they should win. 39% should be enough given that the Labour vote probably won't go lower than 20%.
Are you sure about that ?
The Conservative vote in Heywood went from 27.2% to 12% and the Labour vote in Clacton from 25% to 11.2%.
Labour start from 28.5% and are a betting certainty to finish 3rd in Rochester and Strood. That means a squeeze as per the above, probably to around 13.5% or so would be my guess.
For me, Heywood and Middleton showed there is such a thing as the anti-labour vote.
Lets apply that to Ed Miliband's own constituency, Donny North.
20k voted for him. Against that we have cons (8.7k), Libs (6.1) BNP (2.8) English dems (2.1) and UKIP (1.8).
If the same principles apply, ed miliband, the leader of the opposition, could be standing in a marginal....???
I think its proved more that there are Tories who will vote tactically
Yes, there were definite signs in Heywood that they are begining to get the hang of FPTP.
PtP, it's not as if they didn't understand FPTP before - but to vote tactically you need to have a plausible 2nd party that at least looks vaguely aligned with your own politics. The LD's came across as Labour-lite from 1993-2010 so it's unsurprising that Northern Tories continued to vote what-the-hell-I-know-they're-gonna-lose Tory.
A great article which pretty much asks the unanswerable question for the Tories - why aren't these your voters? Aren't we benefiting from the fantastic recovering economy and millions of new jobs and prosperity and debt being paid off? What do you mean no? Off to UKIP with you, we don't need you loonies.
Its this simple. The economy is literally broken for millions of people in towns across the country. They see society as not much better, they feel let down and ignored by politicians who won't even recognise the mess never mind do anything about it.
These SHOULD be Labour votes to win. Except we don't seem to want to talk much about the broken economy apart from teeny bits of it - and we can't see a solution either.
OK so UKIP don't have a magic wand. They aren't offering instant utopia. But in appearing to be the man down the pub, hearing and understanding, and offering both an identity and a solution to a key driver for the mess, they are resonating with more and more people. Tories can't accept it because they believe the broken economy isn't broken. Labour can't accept it because they can't accept that so many people have petty bigotry and dislike multiculturalism. The LibDems are, well.
Its that people are surprised by UKIP thats the surprise.
By-elections used to be about giving the Government a kicking without changing the Government. But electors reverted to type at the general elections because they were choosing a new Government.
In the current by-elections many voters are giving both the government parties and the opposition party a kicking by voting UKIP. Will the voters revert to type at the general election when they have to choose a new Government?
They might revert to the government, as per historical precedent. It's hard to see how they're going to revert to the Opposition, though.
If Conservatives who have switched to UKIP in the current 'by-election period' revert to Conservative at the general election then at the general election UKIP will not take seats from Labour in the North nor from Conservatives in the South.
I wonder if X happens, then Y will happen and Labour will be in real trouble. What could happen is Z and that will lead to A and then B and C and Labour will be screwed.
In Bobawhatever world.
You seem obsessed about what other posters think.
Why not tell us why Labour shouldn't be worried that nearly lost iirc the 156th safest seat and putting on less than 1% since their all time worst general election results is great news for Labour?
Supporters of the establishment parties resist the idea that they are all the same and that they don't listen; that the so called LibLabCon is a fantasy but lets look at the big announcements from the party conferences.
Labour: A Mansion Tax to fund the NHS Tories: Extending the ringfence around the NHS Libdems: New mental health targets within the NHS
We get it. The establishment want to talk about the NHS. Labour and Tories want to be the administrators of the NHS and the Libdems want to run the Mental Health department (ironic)
What is the biggest issue for voters in poll after poll after poll
It really is fascinating. The lib dems have some big, fat majorities. Kingston and Surbiton. Twickenham. Are these vulnerable?
Kingston is a probable hold as Davey has 7k majority, but there are underlying problems with the local LDs there. The Conservatives took control of the Council this year and won 7 seats, the LDs lost 9.
Twickenham to go Tory, please, please, please, please!
Only if the current 71 yr old incumbent decides that he is not up to being an MP through to 2020 when he will be approaching his 77th birthday (June).
He opposed a Catholic school opening in Twickenham to cope with the burgeoning Catholic population. I will go and help the Tories myself if they can remove Cable.
All UKIP have to do in Rochester is get the share they polled in Heywood and they should win. 39% should be enough given that the Labour vote probably won't go lower than 20%.
Let's start from the poll, not the result:
Party Poll Result 2010
UKIP 40 - Con 31 49 Lab 25 29 LD 2 16
My hypothesis would be that the Labour --> UKIP sympathisers have already moved, and Labour's 25% incorporates most of the LD vote from 2010 [some anti-politics types will have gone to UKIP too].
So, assuming that Labour are giving up hope of coming through the middle, that 25% is squeezable and, qv Newark, perhaps in the Conservatives' favour.
I wonder if X happens, then Y will happen and Labour will be in real trouble. What could happen is Z and that will lead to A and then B and C and Labour will be screwed.
In Bobawhatever world.
You seem obsessed about what other posters think.
Why not tell us why Labour shouldn't be worried that nearly lost iirc the 156th safest seat and putting on less than 1% since their all time worst general election results is great news for Labour?
I have already said it was way too tight!
It was a dismal night for Labour, just like last night's polling was dismal for Labour.
The only thing that has been good about both are that the Tories are even worse.
Anecdote alert: I just saw Ed on the telly. He looked very tired.
A great article which pretty much asks the unanswerable question for the Tories - why aren't these your voters? Aren't we benefiting from the fantastic recovering economy and millions of new jobs and prosperity and debt being paid off? What do you mean no? Off to UKIP with you, we don't need you loonies.
Its this simple. The economy is literally broken for millions of people in towns across the country. They see society as not much better, they feel let down and ignored by politicians who won't even recognise the mess never mind do anything about it.
These SHOULD be Labour votes to win. Except we don't seem to want to talk much about the broken economy apart from teeny bits of it - and we can't see a solution either.
OK so UKIP don't have a magic wand. They aren't offering instant utopia. But in appearing to be the man down the pub, hearing and understanding, and offering both an identity and a solution to a key driver for the mess, they are resonating with more and more people. Tories can't accept it because they believe the broken economy isn't broken. Labour can't accept it because they can't accept that so many people have petty bigotry and dislike multiculturalism. The LibDems are, well.
Its that people are surprised by UKIP thats the surprise.
I think the make-up of MP's in general may point to why they are surprised. MP's these days are not normal people as they go to university and mainly read a degree involving a good dollop of politics and then get non-jobs usually within politics for a few years.
I think Andrew Marr recently commented on this . He said years ago the Tory Mp's had 'had a good war or National service' , set up a business or profession and Labour Mp's had worked manually in factories/mines /the post etc .
None of those MP's would have been surprised at UKIP's rise or think that Farage had made a gaffe today talking about HIV sufferers coming for NHS treatment.
By-elections used to be about giving the Government a kicking without changing the Government. But electors reverted to type at the general elections because they were choosing a new Government.
In the current by-elections many voters are giving both the government parties and the opposition party a kicking by voting UKIP. Will the voters revert to type at the general election when they have to choose a new Government?
They might revert to the government, as per historical precedent. It's hard to see how they're going to revert to the Opposition, though.
If Conservatives who have switched to UKIP in the current 'by-election period' revert to Conservative at the general election then at the general election UKIP will not take seats from Labour in the North nor from Conservatives in the South.
Quite. But they'll be much easier to retain in the North, via a tactical voting appeal.
Also should we be worried about the accuracy of Lord Ashcroft's marginal polling?
Both polls (Survation and Ashcroft) on Clacton were in the region of the result. Both polls in Heywood (Survation and Ashcroft) massively overstated the Labour vote and under-estimated the UKIP vote.
Labour have a serious core of support in Rochester unlike Clacton or Newark. So they ought to win 20% IMO. That would still mean they'd lost more than a quarter of their 2010 vote of 28.5%.
It really is fascinating. The lib dems have some big, fat majorities. Kingston and Surbiton. Twickenham. Are these vulnerable?
Kingston is a probable hold as Davey has 7k majority, but there are underlying problems with the local LDs there. The Conservatives took control of the Council this year and won 7 seats, the LDs lost 9.
Twickenham to go Tory, please, please, please, please!
Only if the current 71 yr old incumbent decides that he is not up to being an MP through to 2020 when he will be approaching his 77th birthday (June).
He opposed a Catholic school opening in Twickenham to cope with the burgeoning Catholic population. I will go and help the Tories myself if they can remove Cable.
How can children be catholics? Or of any religion? They are not old enough to make up their minds.
You might as well open schools for Labour children, or Tory children.
The idea of adulthood is that we give people 18 years or more to decide upon these things, not daub them with our own view from age five.
Also should we be worried about the accuracy of Lord Ashcroft's marginal polling?
Both polls (Survation and Ashcroft) on Clacton were in the region of the result. Both polls in Heywood (Survation and Ashcroft) massively overstated the Labour vote and under-estimated the UKIP vote.
Labour have a serious core of support in Rochester unlike Clacton or Newark. So they ought to win 20% IMO. That would still mean they'd lost more than a quarter of their 2010 vote of 28.5%.
Tactical voting. 'Vote Labour get Cameron' should be one of the key UKIP messages in their areas of the constituency
(Go to sleep with Ed Miliband wake up with David Cameron)
Sounds like Kobane is finally falling. Turkey must never, will never, be forgiven for their inaction.
Well that's fine for the yanks and other countries who have been fighting in Syria to say .I am not sure Britain can complain as we smugly do not allow action in Syria due to possible legal problems which presumably apply to Turkey as much as the UK
At least we've done something - bombing ISIS in Iraq.
Besides, Kobane is on Turkey's fecking border, where they have 300 tanks about 300 yards from the Nazi rapists. If this was happening 300 yards from Britain's border we would intervene
Not only has Turkey failed to intervene, it has PREVENTED fighters and weapons from reinforcing the Kurds in Kobane.
Disgusting. We should throw them out of NATO and they can kiss their f*cking EU membership goodbye, forever.
The PKK are still on the official US terrorist list, so it's not just Turkey who are preventing fighters and weapons getting in.
Just read an amusing tweet from OGH on UKIP popularity in areas where there are Butlins holiday camps.
You might like to read Fraser Nelson's article.
"...the poverty in Clacton-on-Sea is a very modern phenomenon. The rise of cheap flights diverted holidaymakers from seaside towns, and the lack of business has had several knock-on effects. The Centre For Social Justice (on whose advisory board I sit) produced a report about new phenomenon last year – a problem that effects not just Clacton-on-Sea but Blackpool, Great Yarmouth, Margate and Rhyl. They have become studies in modern poverty.
When work moves out, welfare moves in. The cost of renting a house falls without salaried workers to compete for them. What marks seaside towns out is the availability of cheap accommodation. What once attracted holidaymakers now attracts local authorities placing children in care and ex-offenders. The B&Bs that once accommodated British holidaymakers start to house welfare tenants – not ideal for landlords, but better than facing months of vacancies. This has a cluster effect; poverty attracts poverty. "
I canvassed in Jaywick yesterday.. a truly extraordinary place.. people live in pebbledashed caravans supported bricks.. cats and dogs running about everywhere, roads are not worthy of the name, few streetlights.. quite amazing that its in the same constituency as Frinton
It is indeed extraordinary. And deeply sad.
So Britain has astounding levels of inequality, even within a constituency. What's UKIP's answer: leave the EU.
Quite. Jaywick has been Jaywick for many, many years. Efforts have been made in the past to “do something” but have either been abandoned before they started or they’ve been ineffectual. An EU regeneration grant might well help!
Farage not going to Heywood and Middleton on the day, as well as Labour not bombarding the constituency with activists and shadow ministers would suggest a massive on the day swing or a large on the day bout of apathy from Labour voters.
It was mentioned on here that there were big problems with Labour's local campaigning team in the seat.
Comments
That would make Rochester a straight head to head. The 3/1 looks about right.
And I am not sure it´s a gaffe. The great and the good are scandalised. The riff raff are supporting.
It wasn't so long ago people were saying labour were the value in this seat on a 'come through the middle' basis.
Nope.
That will be the most important and pivotal by election in this parliament.
(Unless I see a complete and utter rick and if certain PBers spot value)
That's true, but there are also plenty of not unhappy tories who are still voting tory...
Incumbent MP wins.
We are in uncharted waters.
At the moment I'm going through a long list of potential review sites (basically just e-mailing and asking them to review Journey to Altmortis or Sir Edric's Temple). Doing that ahead of time, if you've got a 'proper' deal and therefore pre-ordering can take place, may be a good way to get up a head of steam, as well as get some early reviews. [I buggered this up by doing it too late, so I'm playing catch-up rather than being ahead of the game. Hoping to be able to send ARCs/advanced review copies for Sir Edric's Treasure, though].
Edited extra bit: mail for you, Mr. Cooke.
Sorry but it takes a girl a while to freshen up after a late nite.
1. ****You can't stop immigration as a member of the EU****
2. For so many British people the available work doesn't cover the cost of childcare. So they don't work and immigrants come to fill the void. That the migrants hold down wages is entirely the agenda that Labservatives have applied for their establishment masters
3. People are now at breaking point yet neither Labour or the Tories offer any honest analysis or new policies or even a recognition there is a problem.
Which is why UKIP are winning so many votes. I think their economic and social policies are genuinely scary but they are right that we need to leave the EU. In the Labour Party, even on the left which has a proud tradition of europhobia, my views are very much in the (tiny) minority. Kippers have it right that society is broken, they have part of the analysis right, but they are wrong on everything else.
But here's the thing. Get people angry AND offer them an alternative, and you have revolution. That people may not have the same aims and views as the leaders of the revolution won't stop them joining in. I'm making the point to left-leaning comrades that trying to attack UKIP with facts is relatively ineffective - people are angry, they've stopped listening, and want change. Any change.
I really like your last paragraph. That's a very perceptive point on infrastructure. It shows how many of us are stuck in 1-D thinking.
There's a housing development going up v.near me soon. I live in a large historic village in the south-East. Now, I want to support it - there aren't enough homes - but I'm instinctively NIMBY (as we almost all are) for several reasons:
(1) It's a battle to park my car every night, this will make it worse with more traffic.
(2) There's nothing directly in it for local residents, but the construction will piss me off for a year (why don't all developers bung residents within 500m a monkey or two?)
(3) Given ongoing mass immigration and displacement from London, I can't see any end to it - where will the development stop?
I'm trying to fight it, and not be selfish, but that's how I feel.
On a separate note, if Tory voters in Labour's Northern seats start to tactically vote UKIP, then the Tory vote will become much more efficient. It isn't solely the "piling up large majorities in Surrey" that affects the votes:seats ratio, it's also picking up 15-20% all over the place, whereas Labour's Southern vote is routinely down to the 5-10% because of tactical LD voting [which we might also expect to unwind a bit].
I note Paddys are in to 20/1 on Lab most votes, Con most seats. Ladbrokes are 33/1. Both were 100/1. I couldn't recommend it, but it's an interesting straw in the wind.
Just that it is less polite to talk about it in case the r-word crops up.
'For the record, are you predicting that outcome?'
For the record are you predicting that Tories won't vote tactically to keep Labour out?
Are you claiming that tactical voting will only happen in Lib / Con marginals?
Leaving aside the defection issue, is R&S closer to Newark or Clacton?
There's a strong case for sending some direct and immediate benefits to locales where housing is constructed (so bunging a few hundred quid to residents is a real legitimate way of doing it). And, of course, if the transport infrastructure (and other infrastructure) is sorted out as well, you'd find it far easier to fight the NIMBY feelings.
I have been clear about this forecast, a number of times.
What is your prediction? You don't actually say, preferring hypothetical rumination.
Immigration should be based upon a simple formula....when all plus's and minus's are taken into account are you a net benefit to the country.
Inputs should be earnings, likely costs on infrastructure such as nhs care etc, social costs such as housing pressure etc and downwards wage pressure, need for people in your line of work etc..(no point bringing in more plumbers when we have plumbers who cannot get work already etc), integration likelihood (ie will you not be at loggerheads with the culture of the uk, this is not to say you can't be different merely there are some attitudes we may not wish to import).
With all that done that seems to be a good basis for immigration decision frankly, note there is no mention of race, colour , creed or sexual orientation.
To suggest we shouldn't take long term health problems into account is barmy, they should certainly be an input into the decision they should not be the only input it is true (with some exceptions)
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/orderedseats.html
Heywood No 154.
Rochester and Strood has a working population with close to the national average income, low unemployment compared to the national average (3.5% at the end of 2012) and can be considered aside from significant sources of employment, professions and trades in Kent as part of the London Commuter Belt. Levels of reliance on social housing are similar to most of the region in this seat.
It's not a ex-seaside resort by any means.
The complacency/bravado/spin shown on PB today has been quite an eye opener.
'What is your prediction?'
The overall situation is still too fluid to make any firm predictions at this time.
Also, on @Tissue_Prices question about Rochester being closer to Newark or Clacton - I would estimate about half-way - it has the Kent/Essex coastal elements of Clacton, but is less deprived and has more London commuters than either (which I would regard as more akin to leafy parts of Newark)
Your post sounds as though it's describing the small town where I live! And reflects my feeling, too.
It would be better if we had decent road and rail access.
Although I describe myself as being in the East of England!
"Responding to by-elections Ed Miliband says Tories are "party that cannot win at next election""
Not a wise line. Conservatives in Labour 'safe' seats might be encouraged to vote tactically against Labour.
The Tories know they've got a problem. Labour supporters are in denial.
In the current by-elections many voters are giving both the government parties and the opposition party a kicking by voting UKIP. Will the voters revert to type at the general election when they have to choose a new Government?
Lets apply that to Ed Miliband's own constituency, Donny North.
20k voted for him. Against that we have cons (8.7k), Libs (6.1) BNP (2.8) English dems (2.1) and UKIP (1.8).
If the same principles apply, ed miliband, the leader of the opposition, could be standing in a marginal....???
"But it was an even worse result for Labour. In fact, it was a catastrophe."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100289196/after-the-catastrophe-of-heywood-labour-is-staring-down-the-barrels-of-ukips-tanks/
In other news, beer will be drunk tonight in pubs and it is Saturday tomorrow.
It would depend on UKIP's position and policies closer to the election which voters are going to "revert"?
At the moment, all the parties can be fairly vague and paint with broad brushes.
If UKIP had picked Peter Davies, the ex mayor of Doncaster for the seat I think he could have been in real trouble.
He was never elected under a Kipper banner though.
I wonder if X happens, then Y will happen and Labour will be in real trouble. What could happen is Z and that will lead to A and then B and C and Labour will be screwed.
The Conservative vote in Heywood went from 27.2% to 12% and the Labour vote in Clacton from 25% to 11.2%.
Labour start from 28.5% and are a betting certainty to finish 3rd in Rochester and Strood. That means a squeeze as per the above, probably to around 13.5% or so would be my guess.
A great article which pretty much asks the unanswerable question for the Tories - why aren't these your voters? Aren't we benefiting from the fantastic recovering economy and millions of new jobs and prosperity and debt being paid off? What do you mean no? Off to UKIP with you, we don't need you loonies.
Its this simple. The economy is literally broken for millions of people in towns across the country. They see society as not much better, they feel let down and ignored by politicians who won't even recognise the mess never mind do anything about it.
These SHOULD be Labour votes to win. Except we don't seem to want to talk much about the broken economy apart from teeny bits of it - and we can't see a solution either.
OK so UKIP don't have a magic wand. They aren't offering instant utopia. But in appearing to be the man down the pub, hearing and understanding, and offering both an identity and a solution to a key driver for the mess, they are resonating with more and more people. Tories can't accept it because they believe the broken economy isn't broken. Labour can't accept it because they can't accept that so many people have petty bigotry and dislike multiculturalism. The LibDems are, well.
Its that people are surprised by UKIP thats the surprise.
If Conservatives who have switched to UKIP in the current 'by-election period' revert to Conservative at the general election then at the general election UKIP will not take seats from Labour in the North nor from Conservatives in the South.
You seem obsessed about what other posters think.
Why not tell us why Labour shouldn't be worried that nearly lost iirc the 156th safest seat and putting on less than 1% since their all time worst general election results is great news for Labour?
Labour: A Mansion Tax to fund the NHS
Tories: Extending the ringfence around the NHS
Libdems: New mental health targets within the NHS
We get it. The establishment want to talk about the NHS. Labour and Tories want to be the administrators of the NHS and the Libdems want to run the Mental Health department (ironic)
What is the biggest issue for voters in poll after poll after poll
IMMIGRATION
Who is talking about Immigration?
Q.E.D
Populism IS Democracy
Heywood and Middleton by-election, 2014
Labour Liz McInnes 11,633
12.7% of the electorate
Manchester Central by-election, 2012
Labour Co-op Lucy Powell 11,507
14.4% of the electorate (Off 2010 constituency size)
So, assuming that Labour are giving up hope of coming through the middle, that 25% is squeezable and, qv Newark, perhaps in the Conservatives' favour.
It was a dismal night for Labour, just like last night's polling was dismal for Labour.
The only thing that has been good about both are that the Tories are even worse.
Anecdote alert: I just saw Ed on the telly. He looked very tired.
I think Andrew Marr recently commented on this . He said years ago the Tory Mp's had 'had a good war or National service' , set up a business or profession and Labour Mp's had worked manually in factories/mines /the post etc .
None of those MP's would have been surprised at UKIP's rise or think that Farage had made a gaffe today talking about HIV sufferers coming for NHS treatment.
Tactical voting? Shy Kippers?
You might as well open schools for Labour children, or Tory children.
The idea of adulthood is that we give people 18 years or more to decide upon these things, not daub them with our own view from age five.
(Go to sleep with Ed Miliband wake up with David Cameron)
An EU regeneration grant might well help!
It was mentioned on here that there were big problems with Labour's local campaigning team in the seat.