Nice quote from an unnamed Labour MP in the Independent today, saying "As a retail proposition, Miliband is dreadful....even people who aren't interested in politics have an opinion on him: he's weird".
At least somebody in Labour gets it. Perhaps they'll defect to UKIP....
I was looking at some YouTube vids yesterday. There was one of Mr Miliband with the winner of the Heywood election. He reminded me of Mr Brown, smile-2-3, lift hand-2-3..
I don't agree about them becoming less likely, because despite all the downsides as a device, the media pressure will be enormous for a bit of blood sport. And speaking with my Tory hat on, our guy is a crack shot compared to yours.
I think a four/five-way plus a Future PM's debate would be one option. That gives all Parties with seats in Parly a shot at winning hearts and minds - and removes the historical advantage Cleggers had. I can't see a logical reason to give him a place at the top table, if Faggers is polling twice as highly.
On your point of *all ganging up on him* - I can see that working in favour of the politically disaffected > feeling they're being kicked in the mush again by the Establishment. How to address Faggers consistencies without going too far will be a delight to watch. Last time, it was Clegg's own manifesto that got a bit of limelight. IIRC quite a few projecting voters weren't happy to discover he was keen on the EU, votes for prisoners, amnesty and a few other things.
The debates do seem to be becoming less likely, since excluding UKIP would be daft and including them would seem unwelcome to the current beneficiaries of the system. But it's possible that it's in Conservatives' and Labour's interest. Farage hasn't really been tested by top-level debating challenge, apart from Clegg's attempt, and polls show he isn't all that popular - it's not a question of "let's not debate Bill Clinton as he always wins".
A debate format that had one debate which was Cameron vs Miliband as the potential PMs and one with Clegg and Farage would reflect reality in the way that would be seen to be fair. The big debate would give the old parties a shot at taking UKIP's inconsistencies apart. It might backfire - "they're all ganging up on him" - but on the whole if three people are pointing out idiocies and embarrassment (and all parties have them) it has a fair chance of an impact.
The two-party debate would be a crap shoot - maybe Cameron would "win" as the smoother performer, maybe Miliband would "win" by beating low expectations. The prize would be a greater chance of one of them getting a government with a workable majority, and they might both feel that it was worth taking the risk, rather than the poisoned chalice of "winning" without a debate and getting a minority government with a hostile Commons.
Sky: Covering UKIP campaigning in Rochester. c.100 activists waiting for the opening of the campaign shop. Will leaflet the whole constituency today. They're off
While the Tories holding an open primary should get a better candidate, each day that passes without a candidate chosen, they're falling behind on the campaigning front.
Wonder if we will see Labour defections now? Would have looked better for them to do it before this really.
That would be fun.
Better yet, I'd like is a jittery MP in a safe seat (someone with some truly awful expense claims) to make a public "I'm UKIP" statement, and then have UKIP turn him down. :-)
Sky: Covering UKIP campaigning in Rochester. c.100 activists waiting for the opening of the campaign shop. Will leaflet the whole constituency today. They're off
While the Tories holding an open primary should get a better candidate, each day that passes without a candidate chosen, they're falling behind on the campaigning front.
Morning all,
We don't have a date yet do we? Has the writ been moved?
Sky: Covering UKIP campaigning in Rochester. c.100 activists waiting for the opening of the campaign shop. Will leaflet the whole constituency today. They're off
On Thursday I spoke with one of the activists, who is also standing as an MP next year... he reckons the canvass returns in Rochester last week had UKIP on 40-45%... whether the Clacton bounce helps this, or the Tory candidate reduces it is for us to judge, betting wise
[David,] The thrust of your argument seems to be that 1. it's too early to say the change is marked but 2. changes happen incrementally and we're going through them.
I'm not sure those two points make easy bedfellows. It's entirely possible that you're right about 1. and wrong about 2. In other words, that UKIP may be making a lot of waves right now, but may yet fade away. I will be shot down by some of the rabid right for daring to suggest that, but my money is that after the General Election we will settle back to two party politics. UKIP will make a lot of noise, but I doubt they will poll 15% in the GE, and the LibDems will have a relatively poor election but retain 20+ seats.
Yesterday still feels like a protest to me. And people tend not to do protests at the real thing. Yesterday wasn't the real thing.
You're right that the two points don't necessarily follow but the reality now is that we just don't know where things will end up; our system is in a tremendous state of flux, more so than at any time since at least 1981-3.
Organic changes do by definition happen incrementally. There are occasions where change is rapid - Labour's splits on the formation of the SDP or earlier, the forming of the national government - but mostly it happens like an incoming (or outgoing) tide. Each wave may or may not surpass the last one and few have great significance except perhaps as milestones, but the direction of travel is unmistakable. The direction of travel with UKIP is unmistakable: it's ten years ago that they scored their first third place in a Westminster by-election, in Hartlepool; it's five years ago that they were celebrating a new PB at the Norwich North by-election, with just over four thousand votes (albeit in fourth place). But we don't know where it will end.
And for that reason, It is indeed too early to say that the change is defined and embedded. UKIP may yet fade away or self-implode but even if they do, they've shown that the present system is ripe for reform. For that reason alone, I don't expect things to settle back to two parties: there are just too many people disillusioned with the Conservatives and with Labour, and too many other alternative options out there.
One little footnote. I referenced Winchester 1997 in the thread lead; the last by-election in which anyone polled more than Carswell's 21113 votes. There's a curious mirror to the two elections. In that one, the Lib Dems polled way over half the votes (indeed, more than two-thirds), and UKIP scored around 1%; in Clacton, the positions were reversed: UKIP took nigh-on three-fifths of the vote and the Lib Dems just 1.4%).
18 months ago I had a go at identifying UKIP friendly seats that might be worth a bet.. This was justy going off 2010 Election data not any knowledge of the areas
List 1.. Good things
Barking Boston & Skegness Bromsgrove Dag & Rain Lads 20s Dudley North 25s McL Halesown & Rowley Regis Morley & Outwood Lads 33s Newcastle Under Lyme** Plymouth Moor View 16s S Bas & E Thurrock 20s Staffordshire Moorlands Stoke on Trent South Telford 25 Thanet North Thanet South 5/2 Thurrock Walsall North Lads are 16s Walsall South West Bromwich West Wolverhampton NE 33s
Some labour marginals are a bit deceptive because there is a large Lib dem vote. In other words in some constituencies there is a very big left of centre majority that UKIP will find impossible to beat.
Some labour constituencies are not like that. There is a relatively small lib dem vote, and a split but quite significant right wing/ protest vote.
Rosie Winterton's Doncaster central is a prime example.
I'm liking Stoke. Just the sort of place Labour has taken its WWC for granted for ever. Stoke South in particular, but if you want a real shocker for 2015, how about posh boy Tristram Hunt, with his majority of 5,000. Now, what was Andrew Pierce saying about shadow Ministers with 5,00 majorities panicking?
Bexhill & Battle Birmingham Yardley Bournemouth East Bridgewater & W Somerset Brirmingham Northfield Broadland Burton Cannock Chase Christchurch Dartford Dover East Devon Erith & Thamesmead Folkestone & Hythe Great Yarmouth Hastings & Rye Hx & Upm Kingswood Ludlow N Devon McLads 20 N Warks Lads are 50s Newton Abbot Lads are 50s Peterborough Poole SE Cornwall McLads ar 33s Solihull Spelthorne Stoke on Trent Central Stoke on Trent North Stourbridge Torridge & W Devon Totnes Wells Lads are 50s West Brom East West Suffolk
I don't agree about them becoming less likely, because despite all the downsides as a device, the media pressure will be enormous for a bit of blood sport. And speaking with my Tory hat on, our guy is a crack shot compared to yours.
I think a four/five-way plus a Future PM's debate would be one option. That gives all Parties with seats in Parly a shot at winning hearts and minds - and removes the historical advantage Cleggers had. I can't see a logical reason to give him a place at the top table, if Faggers is polling twice as highly.
On your point of *all ganging up on him* - I can see that working in favour of the politically disaffected > feeling they're being kicked in the mush again by the Establishment. How to address Faggers consistencies without going too far will be a delight to watch. Last time, it was Clegg's own manifesto that got a bit of limelight. IIRC quite a few projecting voters weren't happy to discover he was keen on the EU, votes for prisoners, amnesty and a few other things.
The debates do seem to be becoming less likely, since excluding UKIP would be daft and including them would seem unwelcome to the current beneficiaries of the system. But it's possible that it's in Conservatives' and Labour's interest. Farage hasn't really been tested by top-level debating challenge, apart from Clegg's attempt, and polls show he isn't all that popular - it's not a question of "let's not debate Bill Clinton as he always wins".
A debate format that had one debate which was Cameron vs Miliband as the potential PMs and one with Clegg and Farage would reflect reality in the way that would be seen to be fair. The big debate would give the old parties a shot at taking UKIP's inconsistencies apart. It might backfire - "they're all ganging up on him" - but on the whole if three people are pointing out idiocies and embarrassment (and all parties have them) it has a fair chance of an impact.
The two-party debate would be a crap shoot - maybe Cameron would "win" as the smoother performer, maybe Miliband would "win" by beating low expectations. The prize would be a greater chance of one of them getting a government with a workable majority, and they might both feel that it was worth taking the risk, rather than the poisoned chalice of "winning" without a debate and getting a minority government with a hostile Commons.
And what about the Greens? Who have an MP and poll close to LibDems?
Aldershot Bognor & Littlehampton Bournemouth West Cambourne & Redruth Chatham & Aylseford Coventry NW East Surrey Eltham Gill & Rain Harlow Hereford & S Herefordshire Lads are 50s Horsham IoW Luton North N Swindon Norwich N NW Cambs Redditch Reigate S Cambs Sittingbourne & Sheppey Stratford on Avon Wolverhampton SE
Bexhill & Battle Birmingham Yardley Bournemouth East Bridgewater & W Somerset Brirmingham Northfield Broadland Burton Cannock Chase Christchurch Dartford Dover East Devon Erith & Thamesmead Folkestone & Hythe Great Yarmouth Hastings & Rye Hx & Upm Kingswood Ludlow N Devon McLads 20 N Warks Lads are 50s Newton Abbot Lads are 50s Peterborough Poole SE Cornwall McLads ar 33s Solihull Spelthorne Stoke on Trent Central Stoke on Trent North Stourbridge Torridge & W Devon Totnes Wells Lads are 50s West Brom East West Suffolk
Save your tenner on Totnes. Dr Sarah Wollaston MP is going nowhere if she stands again. A fiery member of the Awkward Squad, she will hoover up ex-LibDem votes.
I don't agree about them becoming less likely, because despite all the downsides as a device, the media pressure will be enormous for a bit of blood sport. And speaking with my Tory hat on, our guy is a crack shot compared to yours.
I think a four/five-way plus a Future PM's debate would be one option. That gives all Parties with seats in Parly a shot at winning hearts and minds - and removes the historical advantage Cleggers had. I can't see a logical reason to give him a place at the top table, if Faggers is polling twice as highly.
On your point of *all ganging up on him* - I can see that working in favour of the politically disaffected > feeling they're being kicked in the mush again by the Establishment. How to address Faggers consistencies without going too far will be a delight to watch. Last time, it was Clegg's own manifesto that got a bit of limelight. IIRC quite a few projecting voters weren't happy to discover he was keen on the EU, votes for prisoners, amnesty and a few other things.
The debates do seem to be becoming less likely, since excluding UKIP would be daft and including them would seem unwelcome to the current beneficiaries of the system. But it's possible that it's in Conservatives' and Labour's interest. Farage hasn't really been tested by top-level debating challenge, apart from Clegg's attempt, and polls show he isn't all that popular - it's not a question of "let's not debate Bill Clinton as he always wins".
A debate format that had one debate which was Cameron vs Miliband as the potential PMs and one with Clegg and Farage would reflect reality in the way that would be seen to be fair. The big debate would give the old parties a shot at taking UKIP's inconsistencies apart. It might backfire - "they're all ganging up on him" - but on the whole if three people are pointing out idiocies and embarrassment (and all parties have them) it has a fair chance of an impact.
The two-party debate would be a crap shoot - maybe Cameron would "win" as the smoother performer, maybe Miliband would "win" by beating low expectations. The prize would be a greater chance of one of them getting a government with a workable majority, and they might both feel that it was worth taking the risk, rather than the poisoned chalice of "winning" without a debate and getting a minority government with a hostile Commons.
The logical reason is that we have a system based around winning MPs, and the LDs are going to have more of them after the election than UKIP.
I'd bet on the Lib Dems being there, given the decisions made thus far. Plus I think OFCOM prefers results to polling.
How many of the politically disaffected are going to watch the debates?
Cameron Farage would be box office. I'd love to see that. So would the media and millions of voters.
That said, I think that even if Cameron and Miliband manage to exclude Farage from the debates, Farage will still be 'there'. That is, another channel (be it TV, radio, internet) will give him airtime at the same time that the debates go out. Perhaps like someone giving a running commentary on PMQs.
Besides, it's not only rude to talk about people behind their backs, it's wrong in law to not allow someone the right of reply, so the story about Farage being excluded would gain as much traction as the debates themselves. If they shut him out, they cast themselves as cowards and Farage as Robin Hood. They can't have it both ways.
Sky: Covering UKIP campaigning in Rochester. c.100 activists waiting for the opening of the campaign shop. Will leaflet the whole constituency today. They're off
While the Tories holding an open primary should get a better candidate, each day that passes without a candidate chosen, they're falling behind on the campaigning front.
Morning all,
We don't have a date yet do we? Has the writ been moved?
No. But there has been speculation that Carswell might try to move it.......apparently the question hinges on whether Reckless resigned his seat as a Tory MP or a UKIP one......
Sky: Covering UKIP campaigning in Rochester. c.100 activists waiting for the opening of the campaign shop. Will leaflet the whole constituency today. They're off
While the Tories holding an open primary should get a better candidate, each day that passes without a candidate chosen, they're falling behind on the campaigning front.
Not if it is a candidate selected with much local publicity. Which has to be the Tories' initial objective. Worked a treat for them in Totnes (see my comments below).
Sky: Covering UKIP campaigning in Rochester. c.100 activists waiting for the opening of the campaign shop. Will leaflet the whole constituency today. They're off
While the Tories holding an open primary should get a better candidate, each day that passes without a candidate chosen, they're falling behind on the campaigning front.
Morning all,
We don't have a date yet do we? Has the writ been moved?
No. But there has been speculation that Carswell might try to move it.......apparently the question hinges on whether Reckless resigned his seat as a Tory MP or a UKIP one......
Any MP can move it. It's only convention that the incumbent party does so.
Sky: Covering UKIP campaigning in Rochester. c.100 activists waiting for the opening of the campaign shop. Will leaflet the whole constituency today. They're off
While the Tories holding an open primary should get a better candidate, each day that passes without a candidate chosen, they're falling behind on the campaigning front.
Morning all,
We don't have a date yet do we? Has the writ been moved?
No. But there has been speculation that Carswell might try to move it.......apparently the question hinges on whether Reckless resigned his seat as a Tory MP or a UKIP one......
Any MP can move it. It's only convention that the incumbent party does so.
Looking at the numbers, the fundamental question will be is there an anti-UKIP tactical vote that will come into play? Will 3rd place (in polls) Labour voters swallow hard and pick the Tory to stop Farage? Or, will they switch to UKIP in order to be part of the bandwagon and protest?
A very reasonable article and as a UKIP voter I would say David is one of the few commentators on UKIP who seems to be able to keep his emotions in check and talk objectively about them. However much as I do not question his observations here they are predicated on the idea that qualification for the election debates should be based on past performance yet at the same time he highlights the paradox of the Libdems whose past performance dictates they should be included but whose present rating dictate they shouldn't. Similarly the UKIP paradox provides the opposite scenario where past performance would exclude them but current ratings would include them.
All this though indicates that the qualifying criteria is based on performance and by its very nature creates a closed shop that in reality is very hard to break into. However surely from the voters perspective it is not how the parties are doing that is important but what are the choices for Government, ALL the choices.
Now as I understand it there will be 5 parties who will be standing candidates in pretty much every seat: the three establishment parties, UKIP and the Greens. Technically anyone of these parties' could form a government if enough of its candidates is elected (that in reality it might be only two of the parties is neither here nor there) by standing candidates in sufficient seats to have any sort of possibility of forming a government should be enough to qualify them for any and all debates.
After all, if we were selecting using prior performance criteria which candidates should appear in the Presidential Primary debates in 2007 would Obama have been given a spot? The debates should be about informing the voters about the serious candidates not about allowing the established parties to peddle their wares in some sanitised version of PMQ's.
Qualifying criteria for debates should be based on past performance, the question is what should be included in that past record.
Some take the view that only previous GE results should count as these are the only truly comparable situations. While that argument has merit, I disagree. Past GE performance should have added weight but performance in interim elections - local, Euro, PCC, by-elections and so on - and also in polling over a reasonable period, should also count. Unless there was an extremely complex formula, that implies more of a judgement call but then such a judgement could be backed up with polling as to what the public though would be fair coverage.
As an aside, if the Greens past record is anything to go by, they won't stand everywhere. They federation of Green Parties (the Scottish and NI ones are entirely independent of that covering England and Wales), put up 334 candidates between them: only just over half. Irrespective of their one elected MP, they're not in the same division as UKIP, never mind the Lib Dems, Labour or Tories.
Sky: Covering UKIP campaigning in Rochester. c.100 activists waiting for the opening of the campaign shop. Will leaflet the whole constituency today. They're off
While the Tories holding an open primary should get a better candidate, each day that passes without a candidate chosen, they're falling behind on the campaigning front.
Morning all,
We don't have a date yet do we? Has the writ been moved?
No. But there has been speculation that Carswell might try to move it.......apparently the question hinges on whether Reckless resigned his seat as a Tory MP or a UKIP one......
Any MP can move it. It's only convention that the incumbent party does so.
But which was the incumbent party?
Hard to say. There's not an official process as far as I know. Hansard records party if a member speaks.
But like I said, if Carswell wants to do it he can whether Reckless was counted as Tory or UKIP.
Sky: Covering UKIP campaigning in Rochester. c.100 activists waiting for the opening of the campaign shop. Will leaflet the whole constituency today. They're off
While the Tories holding an open primary should get a better candidate, each day that passes without a candidate chosen, they're falling behind on the campaigning front.
Morning all,
We don't have a date yet do we? Has the writ been moved?
No. But there has been speculation that Carswell might try to move it.......apparently the question hinges on whether Reckless resigned his seat as a Tory MP or a UKIP one......
Any MP can move it. It's only convention that the incumbent party does so.
But which was the incumbent party?
Reckless resigned as a Conservative specifically to stand for UKIP, indeed to make that point, therefore the incumbent is the Conservatives.
Aldershot Bognor & Littlehampton Bournemouth West Cambourne & Redruth Chatham & Aylseford Coventry NW East Surrey Eltham Gill & Rain Harlow Hereford & S Herefordshire Lads are 50s Horsham IoW Luton North N Swindon Norwich N NW Cambs Redditch Reigate S Cambs Sittingbourne & Sheppey Stratford on Avon Wolverhampton SE
I think you should reassess those lists because for example Sittingbourne & Sheppey should be higher than Dover based on the County Council and Euro results. Personally I'd put Sittingbourne in List 1 and I'd move all the Medway seats to list 2 along with Gravesham and Dartford. I imagine there are other seats elsewhere in the country that could be shuffled about in much the same way.
The galvanising effect would have been had they lost.
So winning H&M is worse for Labour than losing? are you Dan Hodges?
No, winning is definitely better than losing. On the other hand, not really reacting to a real threat is worse than taking it seriously. The two need not be related but I suspect are.
A very reasonable article and as a UKIP voter I would say David is one of the few commentators on UKIP who seems to be able to keep his emotions in check and talk objectively about them. However much as I do not question his observations here they are predicated on the idea that qualification for the election debates should be based on past performance yet at the same time he highlights the paradox of the Libdems whose past performance dictates they should be included but whose present rating dictate they shouldn't. Similarly the UKIP paradox provides the opposite scenario where past performance would exclude them but current ratings would include them.
All this though indicates that the qualifying criteria is based on performance and by its very nature creates a closed shop that in reality is very hard to break into. However surely from the voters perspective it is not how the parties are doing that is important but what are the choices for Government, ALL the choices.
[snip] Qualifying criteria for debates should be based on past performance, the question is what should be included in that past record.
Some take the view that only previous GE results should count as these are the only truly comparable situations. While that argument has merit, I disagree. Past GE performance should have added weight but performance in interim elections - local, Euro, PCC, by-elections and so on - and also in polling over a reasonable period, should also count. Unless there was an extremely complex formula, that implies more of a judgement call but then such a judgement could be backed up with polling as to what the public though would be fair coverage.
As an aside, if the Greens past record is anything to go by, they won't stand everywhere. They federation of Green Parties (the Scottish and NI ones are entirely independent of that covering England and Wales), put up 334 candidates between them: only just over half. Irrespective of their one elected MP, they're not in the same division as UKIP, never mind the Lib Dems, Labour or Tories.
Greens will have more GE candidates this time. Maybe 3/4 as I understand things. Other than polling they are easily the equal of UKIP (1 MP, 100-odd local council seats, have run a couple or so of councils e.g. Oxford, Brighton, Stroud), 3 MEPs, and that's just England.
Thing that strikes me about that video of Miliband is the fakery: the rythmic clapping of the ordinary people who came to the town hall of their own will to greet the new MP, the smile in Miliband's voice, his learnt mannerisms. It's as obviously orchestrated and fake as media stunts in the USSR or North Korea. Compare that with the spontaneity of the media scrum interviews in Clacton.
Looking at the numbers, the fundamental question will be is there an anti-UKIP tactical vote that will come into play? Will 3rd place (in polls) Labour voters swallow hard and pick the Tory to stop Farage? Or, will they switch to UKIP in order to be part of the bandwagon and protest?
Why would they do that? It would be pure madness
Its in Labours interests for UKIP to stop the Tories and vice versa
That said, numbers on a spreadsheet are one thing, but money, manpower, organisation and belief are another.
On manpower, in H&M there were twitter reports that Labour was shocked by the the amount UKIP had. I wondered whether UKIP tried to mask the scale of their operation. But that's a one-off by election.
I wonder, for instance, what resources UKIP has in place in eg Rhondda - do they even have a local association there? In these circs, you can see why UKIP are going big on the grassroots strategy.
I think the UKIP numbers depend on volunteers turning up. They've only got 400-ish councillors, and very few party employees.
The day before the by-election Election Data put up a post saying that Labour were going to cruise it. (he'd been volunteering for Labour in the seat.). The post has now been deleted.
Interesting that he got H&M so wrong. Mind you, he's just a (very good) cartographer. Goodwin implied 30% was at the upper end of expectations. The polls - both way out. Kellner was right though - on the night.
No wonder Labour are frightened - to mash up a cliche - they know the UKIP elephant is in the room but they don't know how big it is, and it's invisible.
Every poll in both seats overstated Labour's share of the vote. This is a highly significant secondary tale from this week.
I'm beginning to think Labour will poll less than 30% in May.
Indeed, the resurrection of the Liberal / Liberal Democrats was largely because Labour abandoned the middle ground in the 1980's. Whatever the current breathlessness over UKIP, victory at a General Election is won by controlling the middle, not the margins. To give him his due, Douglas Carswell is sharp enough to realise that.
Nice quote from an unnamed Labour MP in the Independent today, saying "As a retail proposition, Miliband is dreadful....even people who aren't interested in politics have an opinion on him: he's weird".
At least somebody in Labour gets it. Perhaps they'll defect to UKIP....
I did think of doing that as today's piece but decided it was too speculative. It will be difficult, however, for UKIP to continue to primarily target Labour and ex-Labour voters while simultaneously welcoming a stream (or trickle) of uniformly ex-Tory MPs.
Lot's of speculation about potential UKIP gains. Though here in the real world I think no more than 3 or 4 seats are likely, Nobody seems to look at the very obvious possibles in NW and NE Cambridgeshire.
That said, numbers on a spreadsheet are one thing, but money, manpower, organisation and belief are another.
On manpower, in H&M there were twitter reports that Labour was shocked by the the amount UKIP had. I wondered whether UKIP tried to mask the scale of their operation. But that's a one-off by election.
I wonder, for instance, what resources UKIP has in place in eg Rhondda - do they even have a local association there? In these circs, you can see why UKIP are going big on the grassroots strategy.
I think the UKIP numbers depend on volunteers turning up. They've only got 400-ish councillors, and very few party employees.
The day before the by-election Election Data put up a post saying that Labour were going to cruise it. (he'd been volunteering for Labour in the seat.). The post has now been deleted.
Interesting that he got H&M so wrong. Mind you, he's just a (very good) cartographer. Goodwin implied 30% was at the upper end of expectations. The polls - both way out. Kellner was right though - on the night.
No wonder Labour are frightened - to mash up a cliche - they know the UKIP elephant is in the room but they don't know how big it is, and it's invisible.
Every poll in both seats overstated Labour's share of the vote. This is a highly significant secondary tale from this week.
I'm beginning to think Labour will poll less than 30% in May.
Indeed, the resurrection of the Liberal / Liberal Democrats was largely because Labour abandoned the middle ground in the 1980's. Whatever the current breathlessness over UKIP, victory at a General Election is won by controlling the middle, not the margins. To give him his due, Douglas Carswell is sharp enough to realise that.
Sorry to quote myself, which is a bit of a solipsism, but I meant to add that my reason for thinking Labour will poll below 30% is that their working man's vote has never been so under threat, not even when Maggie won some of them over with the sale of council housing. I suspect UKIP are going to bite a sizeable chunk out of what used to be Labour's bedrock.
Sky: Covering UKIP campaigning in Rochester. c.100 activists waiting for the opening of the campaign shop. Will leaflet the whole constituency today. They're off
While the Tories holding an open primary should get a better candidate, each day that passes without a candidate chosen, they're falling behind on the campaigning front.
Morning all,
We don't have a date yet do we? Has the writ been moved?
No. But there has been speculation that Carswell might try to move it.......apparently the question hinges on whether Reckless resigned his seat as a Tory MP or a UKIP one......
Any MP can move it. It's only convention that the incumbent party does so.
But which was the incumbent party?
Reckless resigned as a Conservative specifically to stand for UKIP, indeed to make that point, therefore the incumbent is the Conservatives.
House of Commons library on by-elections:
"The writ for a by-election is usually issued on the same day as or the day following a motion in the Commons for the Speaker to make out the warrant for the issue of a writ. By Parliamentary convention the Chief Whip of the party to which the previous Member belonged will usually arrange for the motion to be moved."
Sky: Covering UKIP campaigning in Rochester. c.100 activists waiting for the opening of the campaign shop. Will leaflet the whole constituency today. They're off
While the Tories holding an open primary should get a better candidate, each day that passes without a candidate chosen, they're falling behind on the campaigning front.
Morning all,
We don't have a date yet do we? Has the writ been moved?
No. But there has been speculation that Carswell might try to move it.......apparently the question hinges on whether Reckless resigned his seat as a Tory MP or a UKIP one......
Any MP can move it. It's only convention that the incumbent party does so.
But which was the incumbent party?
Reckless resigned as a Conservative specifically to stand for UKIP, indeed to make that point, therefore the incumbent is the Conservatives.
I think he was appointed to the Chiltern Hundreds (September 30) after he announced his resignation from the Conservatives (September 27) - so technically was a UKIP MP.......
When Carswell resigned, under convention, only the Tories could move the writ as there were no UKIP MPs in the house. Now UKIP have an MP, and a candidate, its probably in their interest to get the thing going as quickly as possible.....will they?
Lot's of speculation about potential UKIP gains. Though here in the real world I think no more than 3 or 4 seats are likely, Nobody seems to look at the very obvious possibles in NW and NE Cambridgeshire.
They are pretty confident in those seats, they'll be having a right go, I know that
Nice quote from an unnamed Labour MP in the Independent today, saying "As a retail proposition, Miliband is dreadful....even people who aren't interested in politics have an opinion on him: he's weird".
At least somebody in Labour gets it. Perhaps they'll defect to UKIP....
I did think of doing that as today's piece but decided it was too speculative. It will be difficult, however, for UKIP to continue to primarily target Labour and ex-Labour voters while simultaneously welcoming a stream (or trickle) of uniformly ex-Tory MPs.
Not sure that's true. It's a case of common interest and if ex-Labour voters are concerned about immigration and they understand it is related to the UK's relationship with the EU then they may well put up with anti EU ex-Tories.
Of course it would be better to get a Labour MP on board as well, easily acceptable if they are anti EU.
Aldershot Bognor & Littlehampton Bournemouth West Cambourne & Redruth Chatham & Aylseford Coventry NW East Surrey Eltham Gill & Rain Harlow Hereford & S Herefordshire Lads are 50s Horsham IoW Luton North N Swindon Norwich N NW Cambs Redditch Reigate S Cambs Sittingbourne & Sheppey Stratford on Avon Wolverhampton SE
I think you should reassess those lists because for example Sittingbourne & Sheppey should be higher than Dover based on the County Council and Euro results. Personally I'd put Sittingbourne in List 1 and I'd move all the Medway seats to list 2 along with Gravesham and Dartford. I imagine there are other seats elsewhere in the country that could be shuffled about in much the same way.
YEs you are prtobably right. This isn't a definitive list its just some stats I did 18 months ago, so any results since/candidates chosen etc aren't factored in
Really Im printing them so people can refine them for me I guess, so feel free!!
That said, numbers on a spreadsheet are one thing, but money, manpower, organisation and belief are another.
On manpower, in H&M there were twitter reports that Labour was shocked by the the amount UKIP had. I wondered whether UKIP tried to mask the scale of their operation. But that's a one-off by election.
I wonder, for instance, what resources UKIP has in place in eg Rhondda - do they even have a local association there? In these circs, you can see why UKIP are going big on the grassroots strategy.
I think the UKIP numbers depend on volunteers turning up. They've only got 400-ish councillors, and very few party employees.
The day before the by-election Election Data put up a post saying that Labour were going to cruise it. (he'd been volunteering for Labour in the seat.). The post has now been deleted.
Interesting that he got H&M so wrong. Mind you, he's just a (very good) cartographer. Goodwin implied 30% was at the upper end of expectations. The polls - both way out. Kellner was right though - on the night.
No wonder Labour are frightened - to mash up a cliche - they know the UKIP elephant is in the room but they don't know how big it is, and it's invisible.
Every poll in both seats overstated Labour's share of the vote. This is a highly significant secondary tale from this week.
I'm beginning to think Labour will poll less than 30% in May.
Indeed, the resurrection of the Liberal / Liberal Democrats was largely because Labour abandoned the middle ground in the 1980's. Whatever the current breathlessness over UKIP, victory at a General Election is won by controlling the middle, not the margins. To give him his due, Douglas Carswell is sharp enough to realise that.
Depends what you mean by "system". Throughout the post-War period the Liberals clung on to their Celtic fringes and returned half a dozen or a dozen MPs. They had leaders like Jo Grimond who were involved in the national political discussion and also had a sort of pact agreement with Lab in 1970s. So, yes the two main parties had 95% or more of the vote, but its wasn't a pure two party system.
Sky: Covering UKIP campaigning in Rochester. c.100 activists waiting for the opening of the campaign shop. Will leaflet the whole constituency today. They're off
While the Tories holding an open primary should get a better candidate, each day that passes without a candidate chosen, they're falling behind on the campaigning front.
Morning all,
We don't have a date yet do we? Has the writ been moved?
No. But there has been speculation that Carswell might try to move it.......apparently the question hinges on whether Reckless resigned his seat as a Tory MP or a UKIP one......
Any MP can move it. It's only convention that the incumbent party does so.
But which was the incumbent party?
Reckless resigned as a Conservative specifically to stand for UKIP, indeed to make that point, therefore the incumbent is the Conservatives.
I think he was appointed to the Chiltern Hundreds (September 30) after he announced his resignation from the Conservatives (September 27) - so technically was a UKIP MP.......
When Carswell resigned, under convention, only the Tories could move the writ as there were no UKIP MPs in the house. Now UKIP have an MP, and a candidate, its probably in their interest to get the thing going as quickly as possible.....will they?
Hmm. I don't think the Speaker is going to buy this. It's Gove's call.
Nice quote from an unnamed Labour MP in the Independent today, saying "As a retail proposition, Miliband is dreadful....even people who aren't interested in politics have an opinion on him: he's weird".
At least somebody in Labour gets it. Perhaps they'll defect to UKIP....
I did think of doing that as today's piece but decided it was too speculative. It will be difficult, however, for UKIP to continue to primarily target Labour and ex-Labour voters while simultaneously welcoming a stream (or trickle) of uniformly ex-Tory MPs.
Not sure that's true. It's a case of common interest and if ex-Labour voters are concerned about immigration and they understand it is related to the UK's relationship with the EU then they may well put up with anti EU ex-Tories.
Of course it would be better to get a Labour MP on board as well, easily acceptable if they are anti EU.
Yes, immigration is now a question of national survival for many, other issues just decline in significance once that is taken into account.
Block voting means people put aside their petty differences and focus on the common good.
Qualifying criteria for debates should be based on past performance, the question is what should be included in that past record.
Some take the view that only previous GE results should count as these are the only truly comparable situations. While that argument has merit, I disagree. Past GE performance should have added weight but performance in interim elections - local, Euro, PCC, by-elections and so on - and also in polling over a reasonable period, should also count. Unless there was an extremely complex formula, that implies more of a judgement call but then such a judgement could be backed up with polling as to what the public though would be fair coverage.
As an aside, if the Greens past record is anything to go by, they won't stand everywhere. They federation of Green Parties (the Scottish and NI ones are entirely independent of that covering England and Wales), put up 334 candidates between them: only just over half. Irrespective of their one elected MP, they're not in the same division as UKIP, never mind the Lib Dems, Labour or Tories.
Then we will have to agree to disagree then. The use of performance is just a convenient excuse to protect the Westminster closed shop. The general election debates should not be about sustaining that closed shop of increasingly defective establishment parties.
Our democracy should not be so controlled by the whims of the Prime Minister and Leader Of HM Opposition. Election debates should be about informing the electorate of the options on offer!
As for the Greens if they do not put up sufficient candidates (and I'd accept they need to put up 475 candidates (or 75%) or more) then I agree they should be excluded but if they do put up sufficient candidates then they should be included end of story.
So, what does "small c conservative" really mean? It means immigration, it means the uneasy fear amongst white people (whatever their level of education) that white = racist & more specifically the thought that Labour has ridden two horses at once and is now falling off at least one of them. Race is the most basic of all social cleavages, far more basic than class.
It is the elephant in the room of contemporary political debate.
I don't find myself agreeing with you very often, but here I think you've put your finger on something many find uncomfortable, particularly the metropolitan Labourite.
It's interesting/instructive/peculiar [pick your motivation] that whilst immigration is a Red Button issue, Labour has been going off the deep end about Class War as if it was 1973.
I dislike all forms of identity politics myself and see class as just another variant, as is race or religion = it's all Not Us. Immigration is particularly poisonous when race and religion combine to show how much a group are Not Us. We make exceptions for those who are our friends [some of my best friends are...] but the cold truth is that we're a tribal species and we don't like feeling overrun by another that feels so different/has values and rules that aren't ours.
Here I see very clearly why small *c* social conservatives are flocking to the Kippers. Too often, Labour isn't listening/calls them names/seems frankly embarrassed by their vulgarity. This is visceral stuff and the longer Labour ignores this problem, the harder it will be to win them back. Are the metropolitan Tories any better here? Debatable, I though think we do wrap ourselves in the flag more willingly so aren't as uncomfortable. The LDs are stuffed outside their core vote either way.
Nice quote from an unnamed Labour MP in the Independent today, saying "As a retail proposition, Miliband is dreadful....even people who aren't interested in politics have an opinion on him: he's weird".
At least somebody in Labour gets it. Perhaps they'll defect to UKIP....
... It will be difficult, however, for UKIP to continue to primarily target Labour and ex-Labour voters while simultaneously welcoming a stream (or trickle) of uniformly ex-Tory MPs.
It doesn't have to be difficult, as I have said before it wasn't that long ago that Conservatives could win seats in what are now regarded as Labour's heartlands in the big northern cities as well as the leafy lanes of the gin and Jaguar belt. What it requires is for the Party to make a pitch to the common ground; to do a Disraeli, if you like, a bit one one nation small c conservatism.
I would guess that as long as UKIP keep listening and keep concentrating on the things the electorate say they care about then UKIP will continue to prosper.
Indeed, the resurrection of the Liberal / Liberal Democrats was largely because Labour abandoned the middle ground in the 1980's. Whatever the current breathlessness over UKIP, victory at a General Election is won by controlling the middle, not the margins. To give him his due, Douglas Carswell is sharp enough to realise that.
If elections are won by controlling the 'middle', Margaret Thatcher would have lost to the Liberals in the 1980's. She didn't -she redefined what the centre ground was. The 'middle' is a meaningless concept -if the Nazi party were an electoral force in this country, the 'middle' would be 'nice' nazis. If Britain were a Communist stronghold, the 'middle' would be Lenin. All the middle represents is a temporarily comfortable triangulation between two arbitrary points that depend on political trends.
Look at the Lib Dems who are in the 'middle' now. The reality is that both the Tories and Labour in terms of policy are left wing, pro-EU social democrats (abuse of the word, but still), who subscribe to accepting vast uncontrolled immigration whilst swelling the country's debt to unimaginable levels. The only difference is Labour would choose to direct what's left of the debt driven largesse to their client vote, where the Conservatives are giving it to their supporters. There's no room in the 'middle' of those two poles, as the Lib Dems squeezed support is showing. Where there is a completely abandoned ground is in a sound centre-right approach to these issues, which is why UKIP have found a completely unprotected flank in the Tories, and will mop up votes because of it.
Sky: Covering UKIP campaigning in Rochester. c.100 activists waiting for the opening of the campaign shop. Will leaflet the whole constituency today. They're off
While the Tories holding an open primary should get a better candidate, each day that passes without a candidate chosen, they're falling behind on the campaigning front.
Morning all,
We don't have a date yet do we? Has the writ been moved?
No. But there has been speculation that Carswell might try to move it.......apparently the question hinges on whether Reckless resigned his seat as a Tory MP or a UKIP one......
Any MP can move it. It's only convention that the incumbent party does so.
But which was the incumbent party?
Reckless resigned as a Conservative specifically to stand for UKIP, indeed to make that point, therefore the incumbent is the Conservatives.
I think he was appointed to the Chiltern Hundreds (September 30) after he announced his resignation from the Conservatives (September 27) - so technically was a UKIP MP.......
When Carswell resigned, under convention, only the Tories could move the writ as there were no UKIP MPs in the house. Now UKIP have an MP, and a candidate, its probably in their interest to get the thing going as quickly as possible.....will they?
Hmm. I don't think the Speaker is going to buy this. It's Gove's call.
No, it's any MP's call. There are precedents for parties spinning out the process for one of their own MPs (without any complications about dfection) and other parties threatrning to move the writ themselves. Gove can tell his members to vote it down if he wants.
I don't agree about them becoming less likely, because despite all the downsides as a device, the media pressure will be enormous for a bit of blood sport. And speaking with my Tory hat on, our guy is a crack shot compared to yours.
I think a four/five-way plus a Future PM's debate would be one option. That gives all Parties with seats in Parly a shot at winning hearts and minds - and removes the historical advantage Cleggers had. I can't see a logical reason to give him a place at the top table, if Faggers is polling twice as highly.
On your point of *all ganging up on him* - I can see that working in favour of the politically disaffected > feeling they're being kicked in the mush again by the Establishment. How to address Faggers consistencies without going too far will be a delight to watch. Last time, it was Clegg's own manifesto that got a bit of limelight. IIRC quite a few projecting voters weren't happy to discover he was keen on the EU, votes for prisoners, amnesty and a few other things.
And what about the Greens? Who have an MP and poll close to LibDems?
What about them? The debates were described as being between PM candidates last time. That might have been a little generous to the Lib Dems but once they were polling 30%+ afterwards, it wasn't. The Greens, by contrast, only *contested* 334 constituencies; barely enough to win a majority even if they'd swept the lot. That isn't a sign of a party operating on a scale to justify inclusion.
Their polling and electoral record is also poor. Again, unlike the Big Four, the Greens have opted not to contest a sizable number of this parliament's by-elections, and of those they have contested, they've lost their deposit in every one. As for the polls, yes, they're within touching distance of the Lib Dems but then I wouldn't give the Lib Dems a place if they were polling their current level and had the Greens' number of seats; it's only their 50+ MPs - and hence, their potential influence on the parliament and government after an election - that justifies their inclusion.
The SNP should rank higher in the running order than the Greens, especially if the SNP did a nationalist timeshare arrangement with Plaid (and others), to increase their totals of candidates and MPs.
That said, numbers on a spreadsheet are one thing, but money, manpower, organisation and belief are another.
On manpower, in H&M there were twitter reports that Labour was shocked by the the amount UKIP had. I wondered whether UKIP tried to mask the scale of their operation. But that's a one-off by election.
I wonder, for instance, what resources UKIP has in place in eg Rhondda - do they even have a local association there? In these circs, you can see why UKIP are going big on the grassroots strategy.
I think the UKIP numbers depend on volunteers turning up. They've only got 400-ish councillors, and very few party employees.
The day before the by-election Election Data put up a post saying that Labour were going to cruise it. (he'd been volunteering for Labour in the seat.). The post has now been deleted.
Interesting that he got H&M so wrong. Mind you, he's just a (very good) cartographer. Goodwin implied 30% was at the upper end of expectations. The polls - both way out. Kellner was right though - on the night.
No wonder Labour are frightened - to mash up a cliche - they know the UKIP elephant is in the room but they don't know how big it is, and it's invisible.
Sky: Covering UKIP campaigning in Rochester. c.100 activists waiting for the opening of the campaign shop. Will leaflet the whole constituency today. They're off
While the Tories holding an open primary should get a better candidate, each day that passes without a candidate chosen, they're falling behind on the campaigning front.
Morning all,
We don't have a date yet do we? Has the writ been moved?
No. But there has been speculation that Carswell might try to move it.......apparently the question hinges on whether Reckless resigned his seat as a Tory MP or a UKIP one......
Any MP can move it. It's only convention that the incumbent party does so.
But which was the incumbent party?
Reckless resigned as a Conservative specifically to stand for UKIP, indeed to make that point, therefore the incumbent is the Conservatives.
I think he was appointed to the Chiltern Hundreds (September 30) after he announced his resignation from the Conservatives (September 27) - so technically was a UKIP MP.......
When Carswell resigned, under convention, only the Tories could move the writ as there were no UKIP MPs in the house. Now UKIP have an MP, and a candidate, its probably in their interest to get the thing going as quickly as possible.....will they?
Hmm. I don't think the Speaker is going to buy this. It's Gove's call.
I think Bercow hasn't much choice if Carswell follows the proper protocol.
Usual Parliamentary convention, codified by the Speaker's Conference in 1973, is that such a motion is moved by the Chief Whip of the party to which the former MP belonged. However, this convention is not always followed and such a motion is valid if correctly moved by any MP.
Sky: Covering UKIP campaigning in Rochester. c.100 activists waiting for the opening of the campaign shop. Will leaflet the whole constituency today. They're off
On Thursday I spoke with one of the activists, who is also standing as an MP next year... he reckons the canvass returns in Rochester last week had UKIP on 40-45%... whether the Clacton bounce helps this, or the Tory candidate reduces it is for us to judge, betting wise
A canvass return of 40-45 isn't wonderful. Knock off a quarter for optimism/politeness/canvassing in the most favourable areas first.
I think you know very little of Swiss culture, English people living there or their regard for Swiss culture.
Really? I lived there for 18 years, was active in Swiss politics and local culture, led a trade union organisation, and had numerous Swiss and English friends.
But I guess we each have different experiences and it's down to anecdotes, really. My point was that foreign-born people clustering together is not a uniquely Pakistani trait.
Lot's of speculation about potential UKIP gains. Though here in the real world I think no more than 3 or 4 seats are likely, Nobody seems to look at the very obvious possibles in NW and NE Cambridgeshire.
Labour had Bradford [was it West] recently as a massive Respect shocker too.
There's a trail of these going back quite a while. Mr @chestnut posted half a dozen Kipper results where their share of the vote was up by dozens of points = I find Labour's apparent complacency bizarre. It really is Ostrich Syndrome.
I am not so sure about the "no special local circumstances" in H&M. The local Labour Party was, apparently, a fairly fictional creature, and Party HQ thought they had stitched up the selection process only for the wheels to fall off:- http://thoughcowardsflinch.com/
For this reason the Labour HQ may actually be happier with a 600 majority than a 6,000 one: at the next by-election in a similar seat, whether in this Parliament or the next, they can say "look what happens when you're naughty little children"...
They've had what should have been wake-up calls like this before and not acted on it. A classic example would be the Glasgow East by-election, where the local party had done no work for years. Did it spur a renaissance in activity? The referendum results suggest not.
My guess would be that the reaction to H&M will be "well, we dodged a bullet there" and then life will fairly quickly go back to normal because the bottom line was that they won. The galvanising effect would have been had they lost.
I don't agree about them becoming less likely, because despite all the downsides as a device, the media pressure will be enormous for a bit of blood sport. And speaking with my Tory hat on, our guy is a crack shot compared to yours.
I think a four/five-way plus a Future PM's debate would be one option. That gives all Parties with seats in Parly a shot at winning hearts and minds - and removes the historical advantage Cleggers had. I can't see a logical reason to give him a place at the top table, if Faggers is polling twice as highly.
On your point of *all ganging up on him* - I can see that working in favour of the politically disaffected > feeling they're being kicked in the mush again by the Establishment. How to address Faggers consistencies without going too far will be a delight to watch. Last time, it was Clegg's own manifesto that got a bit of limelight. IIRC quite a few projecting voters weren't happy to discover he was keen on the EU, votes for prisoners, amnesty and a few other things.
The logical reason is that we have a system based around winning MPs, and the LDs are going to have more of them after the election than UKIP.
I'd bet on the Lib Dems being there, given the decisions made thus far. Plus I think OFCOM prefers results to polling.
How many of the politically disaffected are going to watch the debates?
In terms of Westminster results, these are the respective UKIP and Lib Dems by-election placings since 2010:
Lot's of speculation about potential UKIP gains. Though here in the real world I think no more than 3 or 4 seats are likely, Nobody seems to look at the very obvious possibles in NW and NE Cambridgeshire.
The 'real world' a month or so ago was UKIP getting not a single seat. The 'real world' a few years before that was them on 3%. Things change.
I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding of how the "major parties" rules work in this article.
Ofcom's definition of "major parties" then feeds into section 6 of the Broadcasting Code - specifically "due weight" during election periods and invitations to broadcast discussions (importantly only at constituency level). It also feeds into the rules on party political broadcasting.
It wouldn't be realistic to have three classes of party at this stage as David suggests, as that would require a more fundamental review of the Broadcasting Code and that isn't realistically going to happen before March (which is when it would need to be in place) given the requirement to consult and potential for judicial review.
Additionally, it isn't necessary because the rules refer to "due weight", not "equal weight". So broadcasters don't operate a stopwatch; they can and do differentiate between major parties in election periods (e.g. Labour got more airtime - whether they wanted it or not - over Bigotgate, because that was the main election story at that time). This applies to debates at the national - due weight doesn't necessarily mean all parties on the platform, and indeed it didn't last time (SNP, Plaid and NI parties are major parties at a regional level but the three party debates were broadcast in those areas of the country).
What will happen is that UKIP will certainly be designated by Ofcom as a major party in England - that isn't in issue any more - but may not be in the other UK nations. Cameron will argue to the broadcasters (Ofcom is an ex post regulator - they don't get involved in this discussion) that he and Miliband should debate and Clegg/Farage/Sturgeon etc fed in via vox pops or whatever. Clegg and Farage will both argue it should be a four party debate. Miliband will take a view based on how much he sees Farage as a threat or an opportunity post-Thursday. Either Cameron or Miliband might argue, as a fall-back, for a three party debate without Farage if UKIP is deemed a major party only in England - but this seems rather unrealistic even though it's possible within the rules.
Ultimately, I don't think broadcasters will buy Cameron's two party debate (or a three party debate). Not because it's totally impossible under the "due weight" rules but because the broadcasters don't want the public criticism and possible Ofcom ruling if they get the detail wrong. So it's four party or nothing. Clegg and Farage will support a four party debate. Miliband will probably go with it. So it falls to whether Cameron would rather risk it or be criticised for killing it.
Sky: Covering UKIP campaigning in Rochester. c.100 activists waiting for the opening of the campaign shop. Will leaflet the whole constituency today. They're off
On Thursday I spoke with one of the activists, who is also standing as an MP next year... he reckons the canvass returns in Rochester last week had UKIP on 40-45%... whether the Clacton bounce helps this, or the Tory candidate reduces it is for us to judge, betting wise
It doesn't surprise me because the polls suggested it was close to 40% and UKIP polled just over 40% in the Euros. If it turns out that Reckless wins Rochester on a vote share better than UKIP got in the Euros (as they did in Clacton) then it would create havoc in Westminster. For example, UKIP won every constituency in Kent except Tunbridge Wells in the Euros and most of them by more than 5 points and half of them by 15 points or more .
Nearly everyone underestimates the LibDems. They will lose MP's but I doubt it will be the wipe-out some here predict.
Anyone fancy a tenner that the LibDems will have at least 4 times as many MPs as UKIP come May 8th?!
Ill have an EVEN tenner with you.. I get the tie (ie 32/8 I win)
You're on! It's Peter the Punter who arbitrates these things, I think? So I say the LibDems will have 4 times as many MPs +1 as UKIP following the May 2015 General Election. £10 bet, even stakes.
Luke1983, that read like something out of a student A level politics textbook. This will appear more rude than I mean it to be (I've got things to do) but I really can't be bothered ...
I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding of how the "major parties" rules work in this article.
Ofcom's definition of "major parties" then feeds into section 6 of the Broadcasting Code - specifically "due weight" during election periods and invitations to broadcast discussions (importantly only at constituency level). It also feeds into the rules on party political broadcasting.
It wouldn't be realistic to have three classes of party at this stage as David suggests, as that would require a more fundamental review of the Broadcasting Code and that isn't realistically going to happen before March (which is when it would need to be in place) given the requirement to consult and potential for judicial review.
Additionally, it isn't necessary because the rules refer to "due weight", not "equal weight". So broadcasters don't operate a stopwatch; they can and do differentiate between major parties in election periods (e.g. Labour got more airtime - whether they wanted it or not - over Bigotgate, because that was the main election story at that time). This applies to debates at the national - due weight doesn't necessarily mean all parties on the platform, and indeed it didn't last time (SNP, Plaid and NI parties are major parties at a regional level but the three party debates were broadcast in those areas of the country).
What will happen is that UKIP will certainly be designated by Ofcom as a major party in England - that isn't in issue any more - but may not be in the other UK nations. Cameron will argue to the broadcasters (Ofcom is an ex post regulator - they don't get involved in this discussion) that he and Miliband should debate and Clegg/Farage/Sturgeon etc fed in via vox pops or whatever. Clegg and Farage will both argue it should be a four party debate. Miliband will take a view based on how much he sees Farage as a threat or an opportunity post-Thursday. Either Cameron or Miliband might argue, as a fall-back, for a three party debate without Farage if UKIP is deemed a major party only in England - but this seems rather unrealistic even though it's possible within the rules.
Ultimately, I don't think broadcasters will buy Cameron's two party debate (or a three party debate). Not because it's totally impossible under the "due weight" rules but because the broadcasters don't want the public criticism and possible Ofcom ruling if they get the detail wrong. So it's four party or nothing. Clegg and Farage will support a four party debate. Miliband will probably go with it. So it falls to whether Cameron would rather risk it or be criticised for killing it.
"David Cameron will unveil tough plans to restrict immigration from the European Union within weeks ..." Really? Well, not quite,
"The Prime Minister is now poised to make a series of manifesto pledges designed to address the concerns of disaffected voters in the wake an overwhelming by-election victory"
There are so many good lines in the article but , for me, the best bit is,
""... the Tories must do more to appeal to UKIP voters concerned about immigration and the EU and promised a series of manifesto pledges designed to appeal to disaffected Conservatives.""
Now, how about that for treating voters whose votes you desperately want as idiots and with contempt.
Sky: Covering UKIP campaigning in Rochester. c.100 activists waiting for the opening of the campaign shop. Will leaflet the whole constituency today. They're off
On Thursday I spoke with one of the activists, who is also standing as an MP next year... he reckons the canvass returns in Rochester last week had UKIP on 40-45%... whether the Clacton bounce helps this, or the Tory candidate reduces it is for us to judge, betting wise
A canvass return of 40-45 isn't wonderful. Knock off a quarter for optimism/politeness/canvassing in the most favourable areas first.
I think you know very little of Swiss culture, English people living there or their regard for Swiss culture.
Really? I lived there for 18 years, was active in Swiss politics and local culture, led a trade union organisation, and had numerous Swiss and English friends.
But I guess we each have different experiences and it's down to anecdotes, really. My point was that foreign-born people clustering together is not a uniquely Pakistani trait.
I wasn't offering an opinion on the Rochester canvassing, just reporting what I heard,,, Tories look a good bet if you are right... I backed them last night on Betfair as it happens!
"My point was that foreign-born people clustering together is not a uniquely Pakistani trait"
I agree, it's human nature to be close to similar people... immigration is all about the numbers, that is all that has ever mattered.
Nonsense like tests for "Britishness" and deciding who might fit in better depending on where they come from would be totally unnecessary if we limited to numbers to the amounts that could easily be assimilated. Its only because we haven't controlled the numbers that sinister sounding tests etc are mooted
Mr. Dave, several thousand voted UKIP last time. But I think a strong UKIP will help Balls, as he has a 1,000 vote majority but the only close challenger is the Conservative Party. It'd take a bloody enormous turn-around for UKIP to win, and I don't think it has any prospect of happening. Balls will, I think, increase his majority.
Sky: Covering UKIP campaigning in Rochester. c.100 activists waiting for the opening of the campaign shop. Will leaflet the whole constituency today. They're off
On Thursday I spoke with one of the activists, who is also standing as an MP next year... he reckons the canvass returns in Rochester last week had UKIP on 40-45%... whether the Clacton bounce helps this, or the Tory candidate reduces it is for us to judge, betting wise
A canvass return of 40-45 isn't wonderful. Knock off a quarter for optimism/politeness/canvassing in the most favourable areas first.
I think you know very little of Swiss culture, English people living there or their regard for Swiss culture.
Really? I lived there for 18 years, was active in Swiss politics and local culture, led a trade union organisation, and had numerous Swiss and English friends.
But I guess we each have different experiences and it's down to anecdotes, really. My point was that foreign-born people clustering together is not a uniquely Pakistani trait.
So by your own admission you are talking about your own friends and your political allies.
All the English I know respect Swiss culture, specifically their representative democracy and their ability to tell their own Govt TGFT. They respect the law abiding nature of the Swiss and are in awe of their beautifully kept country, their education system and just about every other aspect of Swiss culture, including their obsession with cows.
As for clustering together, as far as I know there are no 'English quarters' anywhere in Switzerland.
"David Cameron will unveil tough plans to restrict immigration from the European Union within weeks ..." Really? Well, not quite,
"The Prime Minister is now poised to make a series of manifesto pledges designed to address the concerns of disaffected voters in the wake an overwhelming by-election victory"
There are so many good lines in the article but , for me, the best bit is,
""... the Tories must do more to appeal to UKIP voters concerned about immigration and the EU and promised a series of manifesto pledges designed to appeal to disaffected Conservatives.""
Now, how about that for treating voters whose votes you desperately want as idiots and with contempt.
Of course the reality is it's all too late.
The time to do that was 3-4 years ago and stick with it. Cameron didn't and instead rubbished those who raised concerns as part of his loony "de-tox". Now that he has suddenly realised he needs their votes his announcements look like what they are - an act of desperation.
Luke1983 actually that was a bit rude, so very quickly: the centre is defined by economics: the economic freedom of individuals and markets balanced by societal values. To the extreme left and right you have different forms of control: statist intervention through taxation or idealogical control.
In the early days Thatcher took the centre, with her laissez-faire economics under people like Keith Joseph (inspired by Milton Friedman). She talked the housewife's purse, the loaf of bread price. She counted the coppers, demonstrating that looking after the weekly shop was the micro version of the nation's macro-economics. To do this she had to slay the controlling ideologues of the unions who held this country to ransom under Heath and turned us into the 'sick man of Europe.' It wasn't until Maggie won her third term in 1987 that she really began to lose it: with the poll tax being the anathema to all she had proclaimed in 1979 (heck, she even quoted St Francis of Assisi on victory morning May 4th 1979).
Blair got all this and, devoid of almost any original thinking, simply kept it going controlling the centre with a more caring heart. In fact, the rich got more rich under 'call me Tony' than under Maggie.
The centre is where you win power in Britain: economic and fiscal common sense balanced by a social conscience.
p.s. I would never describe the LibDems as centrist. They are far too quirky and in many ways more left-wing than Labour … or at least until Miliband.
Now, how about that for treating voters whose votes you desperately want as idiots and with contempt.
Trouble is, immigration is a very complex issue covering many problems.
When people complain about immigration, they are sometimes talking about issues surrounding those who are already here, and may even be British citizens.
How can such an unoriginal thinker be successful in advertising?
Have you seen any adverts recently? The advertising industry is as unoriginal, clueless, moribund and living on borrowed time as the Labour Party.
Yes, I can think of three seemingly omnipresent TV adverts at the moment on the "nervous first date" theme.
Then there's the 'they're not mates rates, they're great rates' one where the customer thinks the servitor fancies them and is giving them a good rate. I think (but am not sure) quikfit was the first. It has since been followed by at least two others. A good concept in the first instance, but utterly useless in its copyability -you can't even remember what companies have used this theme.
There's the bizarre 'singing in a car' -two car adverts at the moment this features in -no idea which cars they are for.
Qualifying criteria for debates should be based on past performance, the question is what should be included in that past record.
Some take the view that only previous GE results should count as these are the only truly comparable situations. While that argument has merit, I disagree. Past GE performance should have added weight but performance in interim elections - local, Euro, PCC, by-elections and so on - and also in polling over a reasonable period, should also count. Unless there was an extremely complex formula, that implies more of a judgement call but then such a judgement could be backed up with polling as to what the public though would be fair coverage.
As an aside, if the Greens past record is anything to go by, they won't stand everywhere. They federation of Green Parties (the Scottish and NI ones are entirely independent of that covering England and Wales), put up 334 candidates between them: only just over half. Irrespective of their one elected MP, they're not in the same division as UKIP, never mind the Lib Dems, Labour or Tories.
Greens will have more GE candidates this time. Maybe 3/4 as I understand things. Other than polling they are easily the equal of UKIP (1 MP, 100-odd local council seats, have run a couple or so of councils e.g. Oxford, Brighton, Stroud), 3 MEPs, and that's just England.
The Greens are no-where near the equal of UKIP.
Yes, they have one MP each but that's it. Even in 2010, UKIP won 920k votes, against the various Greens' 285k, and while the Greens may have increased their support since then, UKIP's has soared a good deal further. UKIP is highly likely to stand in the vast majority of English and Welsh seats, and probably a fair few Scottish ones too (I wouldn't be overly surprised if they try to contest the lot), so even three-quarters would leave the Greens trailing.
As for election results, there are 19 Green county councillors, against 135 for UKIP; on unitary authorities, UKIP leads 57 to 38; on London boroughs, by 12 to 4; on Metro-authorities, by 38 to 30; and on District councils by 125 to 67. In Scotland there are 14 Greens and no Kippers while Wales has a solitary UKIP and no Greens. Bear in mind that the vast majority of UKIPs councillors were elected in the last half-cycle and it demonstrates further the disparity.
As for MEPs, well, the Greens did beat the Lib Dems but UKIP beat everybody.
The simple fact is that the Greens have been a minor party since the late 1980s and are still there. UKIP, by contrast, are aiming for the big league and are not far off it.
Luke1983 actually that was a bit rude, so very quickly: the centre is defined by economics: the economic freedom of individuals and markets balanced by societal values. To the extreme left and right you have different forms of control: statist intervention through taxation or idealogical control.
In the early days Thatcher took the centre, with her laissez-faire economics under people like Keith Joseph (inspired by Milton Friedman). She talked the housewife's purse, the loaf of bread price. She counted the coppers, demonstrating that looking after the weekly shop was the micro version of the nation's macro-economics. To do this she had to slay the controlling ideologues of the unions who held this country to ransom under Heath and turned us into the 'sick man of Europe.' It wasn't until Maggie won her third term in 1987 that she really began to lose it: with the poll tax being the anathema to all she had proclaimed in 1979 (heck, she even quoted St Francis of Assisi on victory morning May 4th 1979).
Blair got all this and, devoid of almost any original thinking, simply kept it going controlling the centre with a more caring heart. In fact, the rich got more rich under 'call me Tony' than under Maggie.
The centre is where you win power in Britain: economic and fiscal common sense balanced by a social conscience.
p.s. I would never describe the LibDems as centrist. They are far too quirky and in many ways more left-wing than Labour … or at least until Miliband.
Did anybody believe Maggie quoting St Francis. It just jarred and was unbelievable.
"David Cameron will unveil tough plans to restrict immigration from the European Union within weeks ..." Really? Well, not quite,
"The Prime Minister is now poised to make a series of manifesto pledges designed to address the concerns of disaffected voters in the wake an overwhelming by-election victory"
There are so many good lines in the article but , for me, the best bit is,
""... the Tories must do more to appeal to UKIP voters concerned about immigration and the EU and promised a series of manifesto pledges designed to appeal to disaffected Conservatives.""
Now, how about that for treating voters whose votes you desperately want as idiots and with contempt.
My recollection of that article (I can't be bothered to read it again) is that it was completely bereft of any policy detail. It was just some hollow empty rhetoric about jam tomorrow (which seems to be all the Tories have to offer these days)
Nearly everyone underestimates the LibDems. They will lose MP's but I doubt it will be the wipe-out some here predict.
Anyone fancy a tenner that the LibDems will have at least 4 times as many MPs as UKIP come May 8th?!
Ill have an EVEN tenner with you.. I get the tie (ie 32/8 I win)
You're on! It's Peter the Punter who arbitrates these things, I think? So I say the LibDems will have 4 times as many MPs +1 as UKIP following the May 2015 General Election. £10 bet, even stakes.
Luke1983, that read like something out of a student A level politics textbook. This will appear more rude than I mean it to be (I've got things to do) but I really can't be bothered ...
You flatter me -I didn't realise I was at publishable level! It's actually based in the marketing theory, and I'm sure you'll agree, is quite sound.
Controlling immigration from Europe is missing the point, to my mind, and won;t win that many votes.
Its immigration from non-EU countries that people are most worried about, and complain about most. Immigration from Africa and countries where Islam predominates.
Boris admitted today that thousands of potential terrorists are being monitored by security forces.
And that is, from my POV, the Kippers USP. If the Tories and Labour fight the last war, not the current one - there's lots of room for entertaining upsets.
How effectively they shadow Kippers' manoeuvrings will be significant IMO. I imagine there'll be a larger number of political double-agents about too.
This is going to be the most interesting election in my lifetime. The only thing I'm pretty sure of is that the LibDems are going to be destroyed, they will end up with far fewer MPs and I can't see anyone wanting them as coalition partners. Five years later and it will be 'who?'.
UKIP should be speaking to the Tories through back-channels with a view to getting Tories to vote UKIP in the North and as a quid pro quo UKIP making a deal on some Tory seats elsewhere.
The above does of course depend on whether Cameron can swallow some pride, which I doubt.
If northern Tory voters do decide to vote UKIP the vagaries of the electoral system could produce some pretty strange/startling results.
Actually, UKIP may have come to the LDs rescue. Labour and Conservative parties will now have to divert resources to seats like Clacton and Heywood which were hitherto in their "safe" column.
I'm not sure that's true. UKIP will only be putting real effort into 10-30 seats at most.
What might be entertaining is the Con/Lab parties wasting their resources on an outdated map of marginals, as the UKIP surge changes the relative Lab:Con support in seats across the nation. Good.
I am sure you can make immigration as complex as you want to. From Cameron's point of view he is going to unveil some new pledges we are told and jolly well negotiate with the EU to see if actually he can do anything. Fair enough you might say. Except what did Cameron say about immigration before the last election?
How well has he performed against his last promise on the subject? Why should anyone believe a word he says this time? Until he acknowledges his failure he cannot hope to be trusted again especially when it is clear that he is being panicked into saying something.
Miliband admitted that disillusionment with Westminster politics, building for a long time, had led some traditional Labour communities to choose Ukip, adding in a direct message to Ukip supporters: “It is not prejudiced to worry about immigration.” But he said he would not make any false promises and resisted any immediate changes to a policy that he said had already been changed in 2010.
Comments
http://youtu.be/TA_db2iTPbY
I think a four/five-way plus a Future PM's debate would be one option. That gives all Parties with seats in Parly a shot at winning hearts and minds - and removes the historical advantage Cleggers had. I can't see a logical reason to give him a place at the top table, if Faggers is polling twice as highly.
On your point of *all ganging up on him* - I can see that working in favour of the politically disaffected > feeling they're being kicked in the mush again by the Establishment. How to address Faggers consistencies without going too far will be a delight to watch. Last time, it was Clegg's own manifesto that got a bit of limelight. IIRC quite a few projecting voters weren't happy to discover he was keen on the EU, votes for prisoners, amnesty and a few other things.
Better yet, I'd like is a jittery MP in a safe seat (someone with some truly awful expense claims) to make a public "I'm UKIP" statement, and then have UKIP turn him down. :-)
We don't have a date yet do we? Has the writ been moved?
Organic changes do by definition happen incrementally. There are occasions where change is rapid - Labour's splits on the formation of the SDP or earlier, the forming of the national government - but mostly it happens like an incoming (or outgoing) tide. Each wave may or may not surpass the last one and few have great significance except perhaps as milestones, but the direction of travel is unmistakable. The direction of travel with UKIP is unmistakable: it's ten years ago that they scored their first third place in a Westminster by-election, in Hartlepool; it's five years ago that they were celebrating a new PB at the Norwich North by-election, with just over four thousand votes (albeit in fourth place). But we don't know where it will end.
And for that reason, It is indeed too early to say that the change is defined and embedded. UKIP may yet fade away or self-implode but even if they do, they've shown that the present system is ripe for reform. For that reason alone, I don't expect things to settle back to two parties: there are just too many people disillusioned with the Conservatives and with Labour, and too many other alternative options out there.
One little footnote. I referenced Winchester 1997 in the thread lead; the last by-election in which anyone polled more than Carswell's 21113 votes. There's a curious mirror to the two elections. In that one, the Lib Dems polled way over half the votes (indeed, more than two-thirds), and UKIP scored around 1%; in Clacton, the positions were reversed: UKIP took nigh-on three-fifths of the vote and the Lib Dems just 1.4%).
List 1.. Good things
Barking
Boston & Skegness
Bromsgrove
Dag & Rain Lads 20s
Dudley North 25s McL
Halesown & Rowley Regis
Morley & Outwood Lads 33s
Newcastle Under Lyme**
Plymouth Moor View 16s
S Bas & E Thurrock 20s
Staffordshire Moorlands
Stoke on Trent South
Telford 25
Thanet North
Thanet South 5/2
Thurrock
Walsall North Lads are 16s
Walsall South
West Bromwich West
Wolverhampton NE 33s
Bexhill & Battle
Birmingham Yardley
Bournemouth East
Bridgewater & W Somerset
Brirmingham Northfield
Broadland
Burton
Cannock Chase
Christchurch
Dartford
Dover
East Devon
Erith & Thamesmead
Folkestone & Hythe
Great Yarmouth
Hastings & Rye
Hx & Upm
Kingswood
Ludlow
N Devon McLads 20
N Warks Lads are 50s
Newton Abbot Lads are 50s
Peterborough
Poole
SE Cornwall McLads ar 33s
Solihull
Spelthorne
Stoke on Trent Central
Stoke on Trent North
Stourbridge
Torridge & W Devon
Totnes
Wells Lads are 50s
West Brom East
West Suffolk
Aldershot
Bognor & Littlehampton
Bournemouth West
Cambourne & Redruth
Chatham & Aylseford
Coventry NW
East Surrey
Eltham
Gill & Rain
Harlow
Hereford & S Herefordshire Lads are 50s
Horsham
IoW
Luton North
N Swindon
Norwich N
NW Cambs
Redditch
Reigate
S Cambs
Sittingbourne & Sheppey
Stratford on Avon
Wolverhampton SE
The difference, people cheering, really cheering.
I'd bet on the Lib Dems being there, given the decisions made thus far. Plus I think OFCOM prefers results to polling.
How many of the politically disaffected are going to watch the debates?
And a pleasant good morning to all.
The total rank outsider I have a feeling about is Aberavon, where red prince offspring of trougher family supreme the kinnocks is standing for labour.
Couldn;t find Great Grimsby in your list.
Is that because its already in the bag?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/11153645/Nigel-Farage-to-target-nine-seats-at-General-Election.html
Looking at the numbers, the fundamental question will be is there an anti-UKIP tactical vote that will come into play? Will 3rd place (in polls) Labour voters swallow hard and pick the Tory to stop Farage? Or, will they switch to UKIP in order to be part of the bandwagon and protest?
Some take the view that only previous GE results should count as these are the only truly comparable situations. While that argument has merit, I disagree. Past GE performance should have added weight but performance in interim elections - local, Euro, PCC, by-elections and so on - and also in polling over a reasonable period, should also count. Unless there was an extremely complex formula, that implies more of a judgement call but then such a judgement could be backed up with polling as to what the public though would be fair coverage.
As an aside, if the Greens past record is anything to go by, they won't stand everywhere. They federation of Green Parties (the Scottish and NI ones are entirely independent of that covering England and Wales), put up 334 candidates between them: only just over half. Irrespective of their one elected MP, they're not in the same division as UKIP, never mind the Lib Dems, Labour or Tories.
But like I said, if Carswell wants to do it he can whether Reckless was counted as Tory or UKIP.
Betting PostBottas top 3 in qualifying, 1.85 (Betfair).
He was miles ahead of fourth-placed Ricciardo in P3 and very close to second-placed Rosberg.
More explanation and F1 thoughts in my pre-qualifying piece, up here: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/russia-pre-qualifying.html
Its in Labours interests for UKIP to stop the Tories and vice versa
I'm beginning to think Labour will poll less than 30% in May.
p.s. Whoever said we've always been a 3-party system should go away and look at their political history, especially 1945 - 1979 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/basics/4393283.stm
Indeed, the resurrection of the Liberal / Liberal Democrats was largely because Labour abandoned the middle ground in the 1980's. Whatever the current breathlessness over UKIP, victory at a General Election is won by controlling the middle, not the margins. To give him his due, Douglas Carswell is sharp enough to realise that.
I hope it's as profitable as my bet on Ind v Wi ;-)
I'll be interested to see how UKIP handles things after the election.
"The writ for a by-election is usually issued on the same day as or the day following a motion in the Commons for the Speaker to make out the warrant for the issue of a writ. By Parliamentary convention the Chief Whip of the party to which the previous Member belonged will usually arrange for the motion to be moved."
It's Gove's call.
I saw him Thursday and he refused to do several stunts the press tried to encourage him into, and this was at 4am after Carswell had just won...
So it was technically Friday!
When Carswell resigned, under convention, only the Tories could move the writ as there were no UKIP MPs in the house. Now UKIP have an MP, and a candidate, its probably in their interest to get the thing going as quickly as possible.....will they?
Of course it would be better to get a Labour MP on board as well, easily acceptable if they are anti EU.
Really Im printing them so people can refine them for me I guess, so feel free!!
Yep. Labour on 35 in the yougovs is unreliable. On that basis they should come close in Rochester.
Will they? No.
Another underperformance
Nearly everyone underestimates the LibDems. They will lose MP's but I doubt it will be the wipe-out some here predict.
Anyone fancy a tenner that the LibDems will have at least 4 times as many MPs as UKIP come May 8th?!
Block voting means people put aside their petty differences and focus on the common good.
Our democracy should not be so controlled by the whims of the Prime Minister and Leader Of HM Opposition. Election debates should be about informing the electorate of the options on offer!
As for the Greens if they do not put up sufficient candidates (and I'd accept they need to put up 475 candidates (or 75%) or more) then I agree they should be excluded but if they do put up sufficient candidates then they should be included end of story.
It's interesting/instructive/peculiar [pick your motivation] that whilst immigration is a Red Button issue, Labour has been going off the deep end about Class War as if it was 1973.
I dislike all forms of identity politics myself and see class as just another variant, as is race or religion = it's all Not Us. Immigration is particularly poisonous when race and religion combine to show how much a group are Not Us. We make exceptions for those who are our friends [some of my best friends are...] but the cold truth is that we're a tribal species and we don't like feeling overrun by another that feels so different/has values and rules that aren't ours.
Here I see very clearly why small *c* social conservatives are flocking to the Kippers. Too often, Labour isn't listening/calls them names/seems frankly embarrassed by their vulgarity. This is visceral stuff and the longer Labour ignores this problem, the harder it will be to win them back. Are the metropolitan Tories any better here? Debatable, I though think we do wrap ourselves in the flag more willingly so aren't as uncomfortable. The LDs are stuffed outside their core vote either way.
I would guess that as long as UKIP keep listening and keep concentrating on the things the electorate say they care about then UKIP will continue to prosper.
Look at the Lib Dems who are in the 'middle' now. The reality is that both the Tories and Labour in terms of policy are left wing, pro-EU social democrats (abuse of the word, but still), who subscribe to accepting vast uncontrolled immigration whilst swelling the country's debt to unimaginable levels. The only difference is Labour would choose to direct what's left of the debt driven largesse to their client vote, where the Conservatives are giving it to their supporters. There's no room in the 'middle' of those two poles, as the Lib Dems squeezed support is showing. Where there is a completely abandoned ground is in a sound centre-right approach to these issues, which is why UKIP have found a completely unprotected flank in the Tories, and will mop up votes because of it.
Agreed.
If Ed Miliband does harden his stance on immigration there will be plenty of opportunity for the lib dems in some constituencies
That said, I don't think Ed will.
Watching Farage, Carswell and Reckless on Sky News.
The difference, people cheering, really cheering."
How do they do it?
http://www.pzg.biz/victory_of_faith_3.jpg
Their polling and electoral record is also poor. Again, unlike the Big Four, the Greens have opted not to contest a sizable number of this parliament's by-elections, and of those they have contested, they've lost their deposit in every one. As for the polls, yes, they're within touching distance of the Lib Dems but then I wouldn't give the Lib Dems a place if they were polling their current level and had the Greens' number of seats; it's only their 50+ MPs - and hence, their potential influence on the parliament and government after an election - that justifies their inclusion.
The SNP should rank higher in the running order than the Greens, especially if the SNP did a nationalist timeshare arrangement with Plaid (and others), to increase their totals of candidates and MPs.
Usual Parliamentary convention, codified by the Speaker's Conference in 1973, is that such a motion is moved by the Chief Whip of the party to which the former MP belonged. However, this convention is not always followed and such a motion is valid if correctly moved by any MP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Parliamentary_by-elections
But I guess we each have different experiences and it's down to anecdotes, really. My point was that foreign-born people clustering together is not a uniquely Pakistani trait.
There's a trail of these going back quite a while. Mr @chestnut posted half a dozen Kipper results where their share of the vote was up by dozens of points = I find Labour's apparent complacency bizarre. It really is Ostrich Syndrome.
UKIP: 1 first, 8 seconds, 2 thirds, 4 fourths, 3 fifths.
Lib Dems: 1 first, 3 seconds, 3 thirds, 6 fourths, 1 fifth, 2 sixths, 1 seventh, 1 eighth.
The difference is more stark if only results since 2012 are included.
Ofcom's definition of "major parties" then feeds into section 6 of the Broadcasting Code - specifically "due weight" during election periods and invitations to broadcast discussions (importantly only at constituency level). It also feeds into the rules on party political broadcasting.
It wouldn't be realistic to have three classes of party at this stage as David suggests, as that would require a more fundamental review of the Broadcasting Code and that isn't realistically going to happen before March (which is when it would need to be in place) given the requirement to consult and potential for judicial review.
Additionally, it isn't necessary because the rules refer to "due weight", not "equal weight". So broadcasters don't operate a stopwatch; they can and do differentiate between major parties in election periods (e.g. Labour got more airtime - whether they wanted it or not - over Bigotgate, because that was the main election story at that time). This applies to debates at the national - due weight doesn't necessarily mean all parties on the platform, and indeed it didn't last time (SNP, Plaid and NI parties are major parties at a regional level but the three party debates were broadcast in those areas of the country).
What will happen is that UKIP will certainly be designated by Ofcom as a major party in England - that isn't in issue any more - but may not be in the other UK nations. Cameron will argue to the broadcasters (Ofcom is an ex post regulator - they don't get involved in this discussion) that he and Miliband should debate and Clegg/Farage/Sturgeon etc fed in via vox pops or whatever. Clegg and Farage will both argue it should be a four party debate. Miliband will take a view based on how much he sees Farage as a threat or an opportunity post-Thursday. Either Cameron or Miliband might argue, as a fall-back, for a three party debate without Farage if UKIP is deemed a major party only in England - but this seems rather unrealistic even though it's possible within the rules.
Ultimately, I don't think broadcasters will buy Cameron's two party debate (or a three party debate). Not because it's totally impossible under the "due weight" rules but because the broadcasters don't want the public criticism and possible Ofcom ruling if they get the detail wrong. So it's four party or nothing. Clegg and Farage will support a four party debate. Miliband will probably go with it. So it falls to whether Cameron would rather risk it or be criticised for killing it.
Luke1983, that read like something out of a student A level politics textbook. This will appear more rude than I mean it to be (I've got things to do) but I really can't be bothered ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11155570/David-Cameron-to-unveil-EU-immigration-crackdown-following-Ukip-victory.html
For example:
"David Cameron will unveil tough plans to restrict immigration from the European Union within weeks ..." Really? Well, not quite,
"The Prime Minister is now poised to make a series of manifesto pledges designed to address the concerns of disaffected voters in the wake an overwhelming by-election victory"
There are so many good lines in the article but , for me, the best bit is,
""... the Tories must do more to appeal to UKIP voters concerned about immigration and the EU and promised a series of manifesto pledges designed to appeal to disaffected Conservatives.""
Now, how about that for treating voters whose votes you desperately want as idiots and with contempt.
"My point was that foreign-born people clustering together is not a uniquely Pakistani trait"
I agree, it's human nature to be close to similar people... immigration is all about the numbers, that is all that has ever mattered.
Nonsense like tests for "Britishness" and deciding who might fit in better depending on where they come from would be totally unnecessary if we limited to numbers to the amounts that could easily be assimilated. Its only because we haven't controlled the numbers that sinister sounding tests etc are mooted
All the English I know respect Swiss culture, specifically their representative democracy and their ability to tell their own Govt TGFT. They respect the law abiding nature of the Swiss and are in awe of their beautifully kept country, their education system and just about every other aspect of Swiss culture, including their obsession with cows.
As for clustering together, as far as I know there are no 'English quarters' anywhere in Switzerland.
The time to do that was 3-4 years ago and stick with it. Cameron didn't and instead rubbished those who raised concerns as part of his loony "de-tox". Now that he has suddenly realised he needs their votes his announcements look like what they are - an act of desperation.
In the early days Thatcher took the centre, with her laissez-faire economics under people like Keith Joseph (inspired by Milton Friedman). She talked the housewife's purse, the loaf of bread price. She counted the coppers, demonstrating that looking after the weekly shop was the micro version of the nation's macro-economics. To do this she had to slay the controlling ideologues of the unions who held this country to ransom under Heath and turned us into the 'sick man of Europe.' It wasn't until Maggie won her third term in 1987 that she really began to lose it: with the poll tax being the anathema to all she had proclaimed in 1979 (heck, she even quoted St Francis of Assisi on victory morning May 4th 1979).
Blair got all this and, devoid of almost any original thinking, simply kept it going controlling the centre with a more caring heart. In fact, the rich got more rich under 'call me Tony' than under Maggie.
The centre is where you win power in Britain: economic and fiscal common sense balanced by a social conscience.
p.s. I would never describe the LibDems as centrist. They are far too quirky and in many ways more left-wing than Labour … or at least until Miliband.
Trouble is, immigration is a very complex issue covering many problems.
When people complain about immigration, they are sometimes talking about issues surrounding those who are already here, and may even be British citizens.
There's the bizarre 'singing in a car' -two car adverts at the moment this features in -no idea which cars they are for.
Yes, they have one MP each but that's it. Even in 2010, UKIP won 920k votes, against the various Greens' 285k, and while the Greens may have increased their support since then, UKIP's has soared a good deal further. UKIP is highly likely to stand in the vast majority of English and Welsh seats, and probably a fair few Scottish ones too (I wouldn't be overly surprised if they try to contest the lot), so even three-quarters would leave the Greens trailing.
As for election results, there are 19 Green county councillors, against 135 for UKIP; on unitary authorities, UKIP leads 57 to 38; on London boroughs, by 12 to 4; on Metro-authorities, by 38 to 30; and on District councils by 125 to 67. In Scotland there are 14 Greens and no Kippers while Wales has a solitary UKIP and no Greens. Bear in mind that the vast majority of UKIPs councillors were elected in the last half-cycle and it demonstrates further the disparity.
As for MEPs, well, the Greens did beat the Lib Dems but UKIP beat everybody.
The simple fact is that the Greens have been a minor party since the late 1980s and are still there. UKIP, by contrast, are aiming for the big league and are not far off it.
Did Mrs Thatcher change Britain for ever from the centre??
As Lord Tebbit recently observed, there is a big difference between the centre ground and the common ground
Its immigration from non-EU countries that people are most worried about, and complain about most. Immigration from Africa and countries where Islam predominates.
Boris admitted today that thousands of potential terrorists are being monitored by security forces.
Are they Europeans? bet they aren't.
How effectively they shadow Kippers' manoeuvrings will be significant IMO. I imagine there'll be a larger number of political double-agents about too.
I am sure you can make immigration as complex as you want to. From Cameron's point of view he is going to unveil some new pledges we are told and jolly well negotiate with the EU to see if actually he can do anything. Fair enough you might say. Except what did Cameron say about immigration before the last election?
How well has he performed against his last promise on the subject? Why should anyone believe a word he says this time? Until he acknowledges his failure he cannot hope to be trusted again especially when it is clear that he is being panicked into saying something.
Miliband admitted that disillusionment with Westminster politics, building for a long time, had led some traditional Labour communities to choose Ukip, adding in a direct message to Ukip supporters: “It is not prejudiced to worry about immigration.” But he said he would not make any false promises and resisted any immediate changes to a policy that he said had already been changed in 2010.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/10/ed-miliband-labour-immigration-policy-ukip-byelection
UKIP should take that direct quote and put it on its leaflets in northern constituencies.