David. Good analysis except that it is based on YouGov which does not produce it's data in a way that can be analysed like this. It is the worst of all the pollsters on this point.
Could you let us know how you went about the data collection task? How actually were the above number calculated?
The best pollsters from a data presentation point of view are Populus and Lord Ashcroft.
The data is based on an analysis of sets of five consecutive YouGov polls taken from the end of October 2014, October 2012 and January 2011, using the current VI figures for subsamples of the split by 2010 vote. I took an average of the five figures given for each instance (Con-UKIP, say) to produce a weekly score and then multiplied by the relevant 2010 total to produce the current dynamic.
I accept that this methodology isn't flawless but I don't think it'll be far off. I accept that YouGov has its faults too but unfortunately for something like this, it's the only game in town as Ashcroft wasn't polling in 2012, never mind early 2011 and Populus changed their methodology significantly in July 2012 after six months without a poll (I accept that YouGov made some alterations to their methodology more recently but these were to bring it back in line with reality and I don't think made as much difference in a study like that as it would comparing figures for Oct 2014 with, say, June 2014). YouGov also produce far more polls which makes aggregated subsamples possible over a short timeframe and therefore (hopefully) more reliable.
If you included MoE isn't there actually no discernible change.
I think the right way to frame that assertion is that if we include MoE, we can't be certain that there's a change for any of the swings bar Con-UKIP and LD-Lab (and even then there'd be great uncertainty about the scale). However, given the consistency of the data, I'm not sure I'd ignore the findings too readily.
I would say that the only thing the data really supports is a consistent shift from CON-UKIP, a consistent shift from LD->LAB with maybe a smaller shift emerging from LAB-UKIP. And that's it.
Given that each poll is fishing from the same panel, I am not sure we gain much from averaging (each poll is not an independent sample) and trends are very sketchy.
ALLEN, David English Democrats – “Putting England First!” 2,044 BILLINGS, Alan Labour Party Candidate 15,006 CLARKSON, Jack UK Independence Party (UKIP) 14,228 WALKER, Ian The Conservative Party Candidate 3,936
Not much change in the Labour vote, but the anti-Labour vote uniting behind a single party.
After the next GE there could be a whole bunch of Northern UKIP-Labour marginals.
Good analysis David. I always enjoy your Saturday threads. Re. your comment 'The common thread of course is that all the major parties have lost support to the minor ones' … doesn't this happen every mid-term parliament? I'd love to see some comparison with like-for-like mid-term polling in previous parliaments because my hunch is that this always happens.
People flirt with alternatives in mid-terms and by elections. That's what they are for. When it comes to the real thing, people get serious. I base that on decades of observation and what people are telling me on the street right now.
Just going semi O/T, but which relates to your Scotland paragraph, I would be extremely interested to see some London polling because I have a strong sense (hunch again) that Labour are going to out-perform in London to their national share, and if every seat counts this could be very important.
We are no longer mid term. We are six months off the GE. Normally the trend to 3rd (or 4th and 5th) party is stalled or reversing at this point, but instead it is accelerating.
As Dorothy remarked - We are not in Kansas anymore.
No I don't agree. We are still mid-term. As Lord A remarked based on polling this autumn: 'the general election might as well be 8 years away rather than 8 months'
Fixed term parliaments changed the narrative. Few people outside cliques like this are thinking one iota about a general election.
It's mid-term.
No it isn't.
Fixed-term parliaments mean that after month + 1 and up to months -3 the remaining 56 months are mid-term. It will remain mid-term until February 2015.
No one else out there gives a sh*t about the election and have no idea it's coming. Sorry you don't like this, but it's true.
Mid-term.
If you look at the Fisher analysis, Labour's support is moving downward in line with historical expectations, but the Conservatives are failing to attract those swing voters.
Interesting to look at fishers overall result prediction: Tories 24 short, liberals have 26. This is incredibly tight for another coalition. Charles Kennedy for one might just say no this time. Looks like a deal with NI parties will also be needed.
If my maths are right, Tories 24 short, LibDems on 26 would mean Tory/LD coalition with overall majority of 50. Should be OK.
OM, maths obviously wrong! Majority would be 28, May be OK.
The PCC results are irrelevant for analysing any kind of snapshot. 86% of people didnt even bother with it, and nearly 80% of the votes casted were postal. That means only 3% actually bothered to go to a polling station.
Not exactly good for anyone. Only a die hard Labour supporter would fail to see that actually people do not want an elected bus inspector.
Not to mention that the right was split three ways, and Labour was the only perceived 'left' vote. It wont be the same come May, the Labour share will fall when the LDs and the greens are in the mix.
Fraser Nelson @FraserNelson 28m28 minutes ago Lymington, South East Who ruined David Cameron's immigration target? (clue in picture). http://fw.to/cKUPqQT
The next question is: would we actually want to exclude this particular set of immigrants?
David. Good analysis except that it is based on YouGov which does not produce it's data in a way that can be analysed like this. It is the worst of all the pollsters on this point.
Could you let us know how you went about the data collection task? How actually were the above number calculated?
The best pollsters from a data presentation point of view are Populus and Lord Ashcroft.
The data is based on an analysis of sets of five consecutive YouGov polls taken from the end of October 2014, October 2012 and January 2011, using the current VI figures for subsamples of the split by 2010 vote. I took an average of the five figures given for each instance (Con-UKIP, say) to produce a weekly score and then multiplied by the relevant 2010 total to produce the current dynamic.
I accept that this methodology isn't flawless but I don't think it'll be far off. I accept that YouGov has its faults too but unfortunately for something like this, it's the only game in town as Ashcroft wasn't polling in 2012, never mind early 2011 and Populus changed their methodology significantly in July 2012 after six months without a poll (I accept that YouGov made some alterations to their methodology more recently but these were to bring it back in line with reality and I don't think made as much difference in a study like that as it would comparing figures for Oct 2014 with, say, June 2014). YouGov also produce far more polls which makes aggregated subsamples possible over a short timeframe and therefore (hopefully) more reliable.
If you included MoE isn't there actually no discernible change.
I think the right way to frame that assertion is that if we include MoE, we can't be certain that there's a change for any of the swings bar Con-UKIP and LD-Lab (and even then there'd be great uncertainty about the scale). However, given the consistency of the data, I'm not sure I'd ignore the findings too readily.
I would say that the only thing the data really supports is a consistent shift from CON-UKIP, a consistent shift from LD->LAB with maybe a smaller shift emerging from LAB-UKIP. And that's it.
Given that each poll is fishing from the same panel, I am not sure we gain much from averaging (each poll is not an independent sample) and trends are very sketchy.
The Yougov panel is big enough not to worry so much about independence from one panel to the next, I think.
If the "nearest parallel" is indeed MacDonald's third government it's astonishing that no one else has noticed it. Alas you have not assuaged my worry. The Weimar analogy is based on collapse of identity coupled with falling incomes. The causes of the identity crisis may be very different, but the political consequences will, I fear, show themselves to be most comparable.
It's been a long time since I looked at Weimar, but IIRC a huge part of the problem was that there were outside forces - notably the Bolsheviks - who were actively funding and stirring up trouble through their local agents.
I suppose, at a stretch, you could compare the role of the EU to the "dolchstoss" myth that did so much to support the growth of the nationalists: the same potent mix of powerlessness and betrayal resulting in a desire to reassert German strength and independence.
Good analysis David. I always enjoy your Saturday threads. Re. your comment 'The common thread of course is that all the major parties have lost support to the minor ones' … doesn't this happen every mid-term parliament? I'd love to see some comparison with like-for-like mid-term polling in previous parliaments because my hunch is that this always happens.
People flirt with alternatives in mid-terms and by elections. That's what they are for. When it comes to the real thing, people get serious. I base that on decades of observation and what people are telling me on the street right now.
Just going semi O/T, but which relates to your Scotland paragraph, I would be extremely interested to see some London polling because I have a strong sense (hunch again) that Labour are going to out-perform in London to their national share, and if every seat counts this could be very important.
We are no longer mid term. We are six months off the GE. Normally the trend to 3rd (or 4th and 5th) party is stalled or reversing at this point, but instead it is accelerating.
As Dorothy remarked - We are not in Kansas anymore.
No I don't agree. We are still mid-term. As Lord A remarked based on polling this autumn: 'the general election might as well be 8 years away rather than 8 months'
Fixed term parliaments changed the narrative. Few people outside cliques like this are thinking one iota about a general election.
It's mid-term.
Few people outside cliques like this even know it's a fixed-term Parliament.
Absolutely.
I mentioned the General Election to someone quite highly educated on Thursday and she remarked 'oh is there an election next year?'
The key difference is that the media isn't running "Will Cameron go to the polls in autumn" stories which will attract people's attention. Eventually.
Leave Sheffield out ( so including boroughs of Barnsley, Rotherham, Doncaster only), an area with ten MPs, all Labour, and the voting proportion is as follows:
Lab - 41,193 (45.6%) UKIP - 32,197 (35.6%) C - 11,388 (12.5%) ED - 5,646 (6.3%)
So had the election not included Sheffield, it would have gone to second preferences and with the other three parties being "right wing" most second votes would have gone to UKIP giving them victory
Had it been first past the post in those three districts, Farage would have been saying Vote Conservative, wake up with Ed Miliband.
Plus Labours vote was inflated by Greens and Libdems not standing.
For this to happen in what is one of Labours rock solid core areas, while not on the scale of the Scottish Meltdown, is fairly disastrous for Labour. It means that come the 2015 election lots of resources will need to be put into TEN Labour seats that previously the proverbial donkey with a red rosette would have won. If that voting pattern is repeated in 2015, UKIP would win some of those seats in the 2015 election
This means far less activist resources available for marginal seats that Labour need to win off the tories to gain power which is not good news for them at all.
This result is far more significant than some would have you believe.
If you removed from the vote all those whose birthdays fell on Thursdays, lesbians, Asians living in Sheffield, people whose names begin with C and anyone else you don't particularly like and whose vote you don't agree with then, yep, UKIP would have won.
It's called democracy, and UKIP flopped. Get over it. Although I grant you that fascists never did like the concept.
UKIP won three times as many votes as the Conservatives, the party you allegedly support.
In a Labour heartland Sean and where the Tories put in no effort. Unlike UKIP who piled in masses and had high hopes, even expectations, of winning. I read back some of the comments yesterday morning and it's hilarious. People posting things like 'there is no chance UKIP won't win this' etc. Even I succumbed to your Farage hype, predicting a 12% UKIP lead.
You know UKIP flopped. How does it feel to have so publicly switched to losers Sean?
There's only one party that's pushing up its vote share by double-digits in every by-election. And, I'm happy to be a part of it.
Can you honestly say that you believe Farage would make a better PM than Cameron?
Had it been first past the post in those three districts, Farage would have been saying Vote Conservative, wake up with Ed Miliband.
Plus Labours vote was inflated by Greens and Libdems not standing.
For this to happen in what is one of Labours rock solid core areas, while not on the scale of the Scottish Meltdown, is fairly disastrous for Labour. It means that come the 2015 election lots of resources will need to be put into TEN Labour seats that previously the proverbial donkey with a red rosette would have won. If that voting pattern is repeated in 2015, UKIP would win some of those seats in the 2015 election
This means far less activist resources available for marginal seats that Labour need to win off the tories to gain power which is not good news for them at all.
This result is far more significant than some would have you believe.
If you removed from the vote all those whose birthdays fell on Thursdays, lesbians, Asians living in Sheffield, people whose names begin with C and anyone else you don't particularly like and whose vote you don't agree with then, yep, UKIP would have won.
It's called democracy, and UKIP flopped. Get over it. Although I grant you that fascists never did like the concept.
UKIP won three times as many votes as the Conservatives, the party you allegedly support.
In a Labour heartland Sean and where the Tories put in no effort. Unlike UKIP who piled in masses and had high hopes, even expectations, of winning. I read back some of the comments yesterday morning and it's hilarious. People posting things like 'there is no chance UKIP won't win this' etc. Even I succumbed to your Farage hype, predicting a 12% UKIP lead.
You know UKIP flopped. How does it feel to have so publicly switched to losers Sean?
Against their aspirations, UKIP came up short. On any objective basis, they did extremely well: they trebled their 2012 vote and overtook the Tories and ED to finish second. Bear in mind that Labour has won every election (AFAIK) - local, county, general, Euro, PCC - in S Yorks or its equivalent since at least 1935.
Sheffield is a mighty Labour Stronghold. Outside Sheffield, I'd say the results were pretty good for UKIP.
A mighty stronghold where the main opposition, also the main vote shifter to labour, didn't run
If the "nearest parallel" is indeed MacDonald's third government it's astonishing that no one else has noticed it. Alas you have not assuaged my worry. The Weimar analogy is based on collapse of identity coupled with falling incomes. The causes of the identity crisis may be very different, but the political consequences will, I fear, show themselves to be most comparable.
It's been a long time since I looked at Weimar, but IIRC a huge part of the problem was that there were outside forces - notably the Bolsheviks - who were actively funding and stirring up trouble through their local agents.
I suppose, at a stretch, you could compare the role of the EU to the "dolchstoss" myth that did so much to support the growth of the nationalists: the same potent mix of powerlessness and betrayal resulting in a desire to reassert German strength and independence.
"Nearest parallel" does not mean "one-to-one correspondence"! Although thank you for allowing me to suggest a parallel between the Bolsheviks in Weimar and US corporations in this country to-day...
Fraser Nelson @FraserNelson 28m28 minutes ago Lymington, South East Who ruined David Cameron's immigration target? (clue in picture). http://fw.to/cKUPqQT
The next question is: would we actually want to exclude this particular set of immigrants?
That is a very pejorative comment on the merits of individuals based solely on nationality,
Where people are from doesn't matter if the numbers are controlled
Amongst the accusations of racism, homophobia and other isms directed at Ukip, I sense another gut feeling towards them from some.
Snobbery ... the feeling that they are ignorant, untutored and not really on the same intellectual plane as the "proper" politiciansm and that supporters of the "cultured" parties are intellectually superior. Another reason for the intense betrayal felt when Reckless defected.
It's overt enough to be picked up by Ukip supporters and a reason why the many of the insults are counterproductive.
The rats and he ferrets are swarming into Toad Hall.
Hence the sneering assumptions it appeals to the "left behind". The poor, the old, the uneducated.
After all, no "proper" (educated, well off, young) would vote for them. Would they....
It's not all sneering assumptions. The book "revolt on the right" academically analysed the ukip vote.
Had it been first past the post in those three districts, Farage would have been saying Vote Conservative, wake up with Ed Miliband.
Plus Labours vote was inflated by Greens and Libdems not standing.
For this to happen in what is one of Labours rock solid core areas, while not on the scale of the Scottish Meltdown, is fairly disastrous for Labour. It means that come the 2015 election lots of resources will need to be put into TEN Labour seats that previously the proverbial donkey with a red rosette would have won. If that voting pattern is repeated in 2015, UKIP would win some of those seats in the 2015 election
This means far less activist resources available for marginal seats that Labour need to win off the tories to gain power which is not good news for them at all.
This result is far more significant than some would have you believe.
If you removed from the vote all those whose birthdays fell on Thursdays, lesbians, Asians living in Sheffield, people whose names begin with C and anyone else you don't particularly like and whose vote you don't agree with then, yep, UKIP would have won.
It's called democracy, and UKIP flopped. Get over it. Although I grant you that fascists never did like the concept.
UKIP won three times as many votes as the Conservatives, the party you allegedly support.
In a Labour heartland Sean and where the Tories put in no effort. Unlike UKIP who piled in masses and had high hopes, even expectations, of winning. I read back some of the comments yesterday morning and it's hilarious. People posting things like 'there is no chance UKIP won't win this' etc. Even I succumbed to your Farage hype, predicting a 12% UKIP lead.
You know UKIP flopped. How does it feel to have so publicly switched to losers Sean?
Against their aspirations, UKIP came up short. On any objective basis, they did extremely well: they trebled their 2012 vote and overtook the Tories and ED to finish second. Bear in mind that Labour has won every election (AFAIK) - local, county, general, Euro, PCC - in S Yorks or its equivalent since at least 1935.
Sheffield is a mighty Labour Stronghold. Outside Sheffield, I'd say the results were pretty good for UKIP.
A mighty stronghold where the main opposition, also the main vote shifter to labour, didn't run
Pretty clear which two seats UKIP should target their efforts in at GE2015 in South Yorkshire in my opinion.
I wouldn't pretend for a minute that yesterday's poll for the by election was anything other than bad news for the Tories but for Labour it was truly disastrous and a very good example of what David is talking about. In a seat they held relatively recently they were down to 15% with their votes going all over the place.
My only reservation is that if they are bleeding votes on such a scale in Scotland and the South and the North where is their 32% in the polls coming from? They must be doing better somewhere. They better hope it is not in Tory lib dem marginals where it will do them no good
I don't know anything about Rochester or the by-election, but I'd think that Labour voters there are getting the impression that we're not trying very hard and are considering how best to vote anti-Tory. We think of parties as neatly lined up from left to right, but for lots of Labour voters being anti-Tory is a very ingrained reflex. A lot of LibDem seats are down to that, rather than only because of the qualities of the MP.
FWIW we think we're doing well in the East Midlands. Doesn't mean that by-election dynamics wouldn't do funny things here too, but we should make gains in May.
Fixed-term parliaments mean that after month + 1 and up to months -3 the remaining 56 months are mid-term. It will remain mid-term until February 2015.
No one else out there gives a sh*t about the election and have no idea it's coming. Sorry you don't like this, but it's true.
Mid-term.
Sorry, but that's absolutely not true of marginal seats. In current canvassing, maybe 60% of people are telling me instantly how they're going to vote. Another 20% simply don't vote, ever. The remaining 20% do say they're still thinking about it, but some of those are kenly interested, want to discuss issues, etc. I know it's anecdotal but I see several hundred people every week, and people in passing cars shout out encouragement or derision and shoppers stop me as I buy my muesli (yes, going for that LibDem vote, where's the sandals section?) to ask how I think it's going. I wouldn't say it's quite election fever, but it certainly feels like mid-election. It's pretty good fun.
@NicholasPegg: Ukip's Roger Helmer, who said gays undermine marriage, to divorce after visiting "massage parlour". Damn those gays. http://t.co/NahT8z6J3m
Had it been first past the post in those three districts, Farage would have been saying Vote Conservative, wake up with Ed Miliband.
Plus Labours vote was inflated by Greens and Libdems not standing.
For this to happen in what is one of Labours rock solid core areas, while not on the scale of the Scottish Meltdown, is fairly disastrous for Labour. It means that come the 2015 election lots of resources will need to be put into TEN Labour seats that previously the proverbial donkey with a red rosette would have won. If that voting pattern is repeated in 2015, UKIP would win some of those seats in the 2015 election
This means far less activist resources available for marginal seats that Labour need to win off the tories to gain power which is not good news for them at all.
This result is far more significant than some would have you believe.
If you removed from the vote all those whose birthdays fell on Thursdays, lesbians, Asians living in Sheffield, people whose names begin with C and anyone else you don't particularly like and whose vote you don't agree with then, yep, UKIP would have won.
It's called democracy, and UKIP flopped. Get over it. Although I grant you that fascists never did like the concept.
UKIP won three times as many votes as the Conservatives, the party you allegedly support.
In a Labour heartland Sean and where the Tories put in no effort. Unlike UKIP who piled in masses and had high hopes, even expectations, of winning. I read back some of the comments yesterday morning and it's hilarious. People posting things like 'there is no chance UKIP won't win this' etc. Even I succumbed to your Farage hype, predicting a 12% UKIP lead.
You know UKIP flopped. How does it feel to have so publicly switched to losers Sean?
Against their aspirations, UKIP came up short. On any objective basis, they did extremely well: they trebled their 2012 vote and overtook the Tories and ED to finish second. Bear in mind that Labour has won every election (AFAIK) - local, county, general, Euro, PCC - in S Yorks or its equivalent since at least 1935.
Sheffield is a mighty Labour Stronghold. Outside Sheffield, I'd say the results were pretty good for UKIP.
A mighty stronghold where the main opposition, also the main vote shifter to labour, didn't run
Off the top of my head and further to my analysis yesterday I'd estimate the Lib Dems would get about 4000-5000 votes in the Sheffield area (I'm assuming Hallam vote holds up ~ 38%, and Central vote collapses)
Fraser Nelson @FraserNelson 28m28 minutes ago Lymington, South East Who ruined David Cameron's immigration target? (clue in picture). http://fw.to/cKUPqQT
The next question is: would we actually want to exclude this particular set of immigrants?
I actually found that article not one of Fraser's best. Yes, the desire of people to immigrate to a nation can be a great sign of a nation's economic and political success. Yes, immigrants would still want to reach the UK if we left the EU. But we would also be able to fully control our own borders, and impose caps if we wished. It's more practical for us to do this, in fact, that the continental EU and US as we have no real external land borders. The evidence of the cut in non-EU migrants over the last 4 years or so also shows it's possible.
What this really boils down to, as you say, is whether we 'want' to or not. Not whether we ever can, the EU notwithstanding.
If the Tories are 24 short with the Libdems on 26 then the coalition has a nominal majority of 4.
Sinn Fein abstensions make it effectively 8.
Supply and confidence from DUP would effectively make it up to 28.
Whether the Libdems would want to be in such a coalition remains to be seen, but even if the DUP were onboard, the combined majority is still small enough for both Libdem and especially Tory backbenchers to make the governments life a misery.
David. Good analysis except that it is based on YouGov which does not produce it's data in a way that can be analysed like this. It is the worst of all the pollsters on this point.
Could you let us know how you went about the data collection task? How actually were the above number calculated?
The best pollsters from a data presentation point of view are Populus and Lord Ashcroft.
The data is based on an analysis of sets of five consecutive YouGov polls taken from the end of October 2014, October 2012 and January 2011, using the current VI figures for subsamples of the split by 2010 vote. I took an average of the five figures given for each instance (Con-UKIP, say) to produce a weekly score and then multiplied by the relevant 2010 total to produce the current dynamic.
I accept that this methodology isn't flawless but I don't think it'll be far off. I accept that YouGov has its faults too but unfortunately for something like this, it's.
If you included MoE isn't there actually no discernible change.
I think the right way to frame that assertion is that if we include MoE, we can't be certain that there's a change for any of the swings bar Con-UKIP and LD-Lab (and even then there'd be great uncertainty about the scale). However, given the consistency of the data, I'm not sure I'd ignore the findings too readily.
I'm going to come to your defence here
It was the Yougov subsamples that lead me to the conclusion that "something" was probably going on in Scotland.
Subsamples are a perfectly valid tool to base evidence on, providing that you use enough of them to achieve statistical significance. I remember @TSE pointing out a subsample recently on a poll where Labour lead the SNP in VI, and I pointed out that obviously as subsamples are unweighted raw data they will have ridiculous margin of error individually as to be meaningless.
But look at enough and there are patterns and clues.
Thanks, and I'd agree with your comments. There is a great deal of value to be found in the subsample data, providing it's treated with due caution.
Good article, David. Do you have a view on the likely % of returners from UKIP to Con at the general election? For instance, in tight Lab-Con marginals on a 'stop Ed' ticket?
I was toying with a figure of 20-25% of current UKIP polled voters, but that's just a feel.
Interesting to look at fishers overall result prediction: Tories 24 short, liberals have 26. This is incredibly tight for another coalition. Charles Kennedy for one might just say no this time. Looks like a deal with NI parties will also be needed.
If the Tories reached an accord with the SNP on EV4EL and Devo-supermax, it would be pretty comfortable.
UKIP would probably support it, as would the Welsh and NI parties if given similar autonomy.
The blocking coalition of LibLab would come up short.
For fucks sake, will council websites ever be as concerned with putting up actual results as they are with the fucking "Notice of poll" etc procedural niceties ?:????????????????
Interesting to look at fishers overall result prediction: Tories 24 short, liberals have 26. This is incredibly tight for another coalition. Charles Kennedy for one might just say no this time. Looks like a deal with NI parties will also be needed.
If the Tories reached an accord with the SNP on EV4EL and Devo-supermax, it would be pretty comfortable.
The more Tory England is looking, the better the SNP seem to do in Scotland too if the indy ref questions were anything to go by.
Leave Sheffield out ( so including boroughs of Barnsley, Rotherham, Doncaster only), an area with ten MPs, all Labour, and the voting proportion is as follows:
Lab - 41,193 (45.6%) UKIP - 32,197 (35.6%) C - 11,388 (12.5%) ED - 5,646 (6.3%)
So had the election not included Sheffield, it would have gone to second preferences and with the other three parties being "right wing" most second votes would have gone to UKIP giving them victory
Had it been first past the post in those three districts, Farage would have been saying Vote Conservative, wake up with Ed Miliband.
Plus Labours vote was inflated by Greens and Libdems not standing.
For this to happen in what is one of Labours rock solid core areas, while not on the scale of the Scottish Meltdown, is fairly disastrous for Labour. It means that come the 2015 election lots of resources will need to be put into TEN Labour seats that previously the proverbial donkey with a red rosette would have won. If that voting pattern is repeated in 2015, UKIP would win some of those seats in the 2015 election
This means far less activist resources available for marginal seats that Labour need to win off the tories to gain power which is not good news for them at all.
This result is far more significant than some would have you believe.
If you removed from the vote all those whose birthdays fell on Thursdays, lesbians, Asians living in Sheffield, people whose names begin with C and anyone else you don't particularly like and whose vote you don't agree with then, yep, UKIP would have won.
It's called democracy, and UKIP flopped. Get over it. Although I grant you that fascists never did like the concept.
UKIP won three times as many votes as the Conservatives, the party you allegedly support.
In a Labour heartland Sean and where the Tories put in no effort. Unlike UKIP who piled in masses and had high hopes, even expectations, of winning. I read back some of the comments yesterday morning and it's hilarious. People posting things like 'there is no chance UKIP won't win this' etc. Even I succumbed to your Farage hype, predicting a 12% UKIP lead.
You know UKIP flopped. How does it feel to have so publicly switched to losers Sean?
There's only one party that's pushing up its vote share by double-digits in every by-election. And, I'm happy to be a part of it.
Can you honestly say that you believe Farage would make a better PM than Cameron?
At this stage, I'd say not. Farage is an outstanding campaigner, but has no experience oh handling bureaucracy.
Amongst the accusations of racism, homophobia and other isms directed at Ukip, I sense another gut feeling towards them from some.
Snobbery ... the feeling that they are ignorant, untutored and not really on the same intellectual plane as the "proper" politiciansm and that supporters of the "cultured" parties are intellectually superior. Another reason for the intense betrayal felt when Reckless defected.
It's overt enough to be picked up by Ukip supporters and a reason why the many of the insults are counterproductive.
The rats and he ferrets are swarming into Toad Hall.
Hence the sneering assumptions it appeals to the "left behind". The poor, the old, the uneducated.
After all, no "proper" (educated, well off, young) would vote for them. Would they....
It's not all sneering assumptions. The book "revolt on the right" academically analysed the ukip vote.
While I'm sure the trend is true, it is still sneering. It is verboten nowadays to point out the very real statistical differences between certain groups but not others. In all cases, there are plenty of exceptions. I know 4 members, all of whom went to Oxford, and your post just reminded me to join them in that subset.
For fucks sake, will council websites ever be as concerned with putting up actual results as they are with the fucking "Notice of poll" etc procedural niceties ?:????????????????
I think you'll find they do what the law requires. The law probably assumes that the private sector is capable of disseminating those results in whom anyone is actually interested.
Right, that's me done for this morning. See you all to-morrow, God willing.
Fraser Nelson @FraserNelson 28m28 minutes ago Lymington, South East Who ruined David Cameron's immigration target? (clue in picture). http://fw.to/cKUPqQT
The next question is: would we actually want to exclude this particular set of immigrants?
I actually found that article not one of Fraser's best. Yes, the desire of people to immigrate to a nation can be a great sign of a nation's economic and political success. Yes, immigrants would still want to reach the UK if we left the EU. But we would also be able to fully control our own borders, and impose caps if we wished. It's more practical for us to do this, in fact, that the continental EU and US as we have no real external land borders. The evidence of the cut in non-EU migrants over the last 4 years or so also shows it's possible.
What this really boils down to, as you say, is whether we 'want' to or not. Not whether we ever can, the EU notwithstanding.
@NicholasPegg: Ukip's Roger Helmer, who said gays undermine marriage, to divorce after visiting "massage parlour". Damn those gays. http://t.co/NahT8z6J3m
That doesn't mean that other things don't undermine marriage, too.
Great article David Herdson, better than anything I have read elsewhere today on politics. Shame on the main newspapers for doing so little fundamental research.
From David's article, the phenomenon of the LD 2010 voters going to Lab has radically reduced. Today Lab have only a nett 4% gain from the LDs compared to the Conservatives gain from the LDs. Remarkable how under EdM Labour have managed to reduce that advantage and there is still 6 months to go to the GE.
For the LDs, they have increased the bile, smearing and attacks on their coalition partners. It has resulted in their % falling even lower. Are the 2010 LD voters recoiling at an untrustworthy party? Furthermore these tactics are being "rewarded" by pushing 3% of GE 2010 LDs into the Conservatives VI.
Fraser Nelson @FraserNelson 28m28 minutes ago Lymington, South East Who ruined David Cameron's immigration target? (clue in picture). http://fw.to/cKUPqQT
The next question is: would we actually want to exclude this particular set of immigrants?
I actually found that article not one of Fraser's best. Yes, the desire of people to immigrate to a nation can be a great sign of a nation's economic and political success. Yes, immigrants would still want to reach the UK if we left the EU. But we would also be able to fully control our own borders, and impose caps if we wished. It's more practical for us to do this, in fact, that the continental EU and US as we have no real external land borders. The evidence of the cut in non-EU migrants over the last 4 years or so also shows it's possible.
What this really boils down to, as you say, is whether we 'want' to or not. Not whether we ever can, the EU notwithstanding.
So, N.Ireland has left the UK, has it?
No 'real' land borders, not no land borders. EIRE is part of the common travel area, not part of Schengen and also an island. If we did leave the EU, and EIRE remained, I expect much fuller checks and controls would be applied at transit between ports and airports between NI and GB.
Leave Sheffield out ( so including boroughs of Barnsley, Rotherham, Doncaster only), an area with ten MPs, all Labour, and the voting proportion is as follows:
Lab - 41,193 (45.6%) UKIP - 32,197 (35.6%) C - 11,388 (12.5%) ED - 5,646 (6.3%)
............................ This means far less activist resources available for marginal seats that Labour need to win off the tories to gain power which is not good news for them at all.
This result is far more significant than some would have you believe.
If you removed from the vote all those whose birthdays fell on Thursdays, lesbians, Asians living in Sheffield, people whose names begin with C and anyone else you don't particularly like and whose vote you don't agree with then, yep, UKIP would have won.
It's called democracy, and UKIP flopped. Get over it. Although I grant you that fascists never did like the concept.
UKIP won three times as many votes as the Conservatives, the party you allegedly support.
......................
You know UKIP flopped. How does it feel to have so publicly switched to losers Sean?
There's only one party that's pushing up its vote share by double-digits in every by-election. And, I'm happy to be a part of it.
Can you honestly say that you believe Farage would make a better PM than Cameron?
At this stage, I'd say not. Farage is an outstanding campaigner, but has no experience oh handling bureaucracy.
Thanks for the honesty. The problem with our structure of Govt is that the ability to direct is not part of the criteria in selecting an MP. The American system of having a President appointing their own team seems IMHO better. I judge that on simple GDP growth going back 100+ years. Their economy grows faster than ours. Having amateur Directors in charge of Departments filled by Civil Servants that are virtually unsackable would be the recipe for bankruptcy in the private sector. Dominic Cummings recent article illustrates this. (Yes he is also a prize s h 1 t).
Leave Sheffield out ( so including boroughs of Barnsley, Rotherham, Doncaster only), an area with ten MPs, all Labour, and the voting proportion is as follows:
Lab - 41,193 (45.6%) UKIP - 32,197 (35.6%) C - 11,388 (12.5%) ED - 5,646 (6.3%)
............................ This means far less activist resources available for marginal seats that Labour need to win off the tories to gain power which is not good news for them at all.
This result is far more significant than some would have you believe.
If you removed from the vote all those whose birthdays fell on Thursdays, lesbians, Asians living in Sheffield, people whose names begin with C and anyone else you don't particularly like and whose vote you don't agree with then, yep, UKIP would have won.
It's called democracy, and UKIP flopped. Get over it. Although I grant you that fascists never did like the concept.
UKIP won three times as many votes as the Conservatives, the party you allegedly support.
......................
You know UKIP flopped. How does it feel to have so publicly switched to losers Sean?
There's only one party that's pushing up its vote share by double-digits in every by-election. And, I'm happy to be a part of it.
Can you honestly say that you believe Farage would make a better PM than Cameron?
At this stage, I'd say not. Farage is an outstanding campaigner, but has no experience oh handling bureaucracy.
Thanks for the honesty. The problem with our structure of Govt is that the ability to direct is not part of the criteria in selecting an MP. The American system of having a President appointing their own team seems IMHO better. I judge that on simple GDP growth going back 100+ years. Their economy grows faster than ours. Having amateur Directors in charge of Departments filled by Civil Servants that are virtually unsackable would be the recipe for bankruptcy in the private sector. Dominic Cummings recent article illustrates this. (Yes he is also a prize s h 1 t).
The idea that GDP growth is primarily driven by the administrative abilities of department heads in whitehall is certainly an... interesting one.
Amongst the accusations of racism, homophobia and other isms directed at Ukip, I sense another gut feeling towards them from some.
Snobbery ... the feeling that they are ignorant, untutored and not really on the same intellectual plane as the "proper" politiciansm and that supporters of the "cultured" parties are intellectually superior. Another reason for the intense betrayal felt when Reckless defected.
It's overt enough to be picked up by Ukip supporters and a reason why the many of the insults are counterproductive.
The rats and he ferrets are swarming into Toad Hall.
Hence the sneering assumptions it appeals to the "left behind". The poor, the old, the uneducated.
After all, no "proper" (educated, well off, young) would vote for them. Would they....
It's not all sneering assumptions. The book "revolt on the right" academically analysed the ukip vote.
1. "Left Behind voters" is one hypothesis, not gospel truth.
"...The archetypal Ukiper is a successful plumber, comfortable retiree or construction foreman, not an unemployed, deskilled casualty of globalisation.
They are ‘left out’ of the status elite, and therefore resentful, but are not left behind by the modern economy. "
2. UKIP's voter coalition has been growing throughout this parliament. Plato made the point the other day that UKIP's success has now made it a mainstream choice, rather than a fringe option. ComRes' "seriously consider voting for..." question put their current ceiling at 34%.
If the Tories are 24 short with the Libdems on 26 then the coalition has a nominal majority of 4.
Sinn Fein abstensions make it effectively 8.
Supply and confidence from DUP would effectively make it up to 28.
Whether the Libdems would want to be in such a coalition remains to be seen, but even if the DUP were onboard, the combined majority is still small enough for both Libdem and especially Tory backbenchers to make the governments life a misery.
Look, I realise my maths have been a bit poor today, but... If the Tories are 24 short of an overall majority (i.e. with the LibDems in the opposition camp) then a Con/LD coalition would have 26 more, cancelling out the Tory shortfall of 24 and adding 2. But also the opposition would have 26 fewer MPs. So the coalition majority would be 28.
@NicholasPegg: Ukip's Roger Helmer, who said gays undermine marriage, to divorce after visiting "massage parlour". Damn those gays. http://t.co/NahT8z6J3m
That doesn't mean that other things don't undermine marriage, too. Adultery, for one.
I would welcome the day when these matters are private. Maybe politicians should agree not to talk about matters of private morality in return for privacy in their ugandan affairs? Helmer added no value to the personal matter of same sex marriage. It is a matter for each person to decide - not be "guided" by politicians. Maybe these laws should be set by a referendum?
ALLEN, David English Democrats – “Putting England First!” 2,044 BILLINGS, Alan Labour Party Candidate 15,006 CLARKSON, Jack UK Independence Party (UKIP) 14,228 WALKER, Ian The Conservative Party Candidate 3,936
That will look very good on an election leaflet at GE2015.
It appears that UKIP are building up a track record to use in FPTP elections.
F1: seems Vettel will start from the pit lane due to replacing every single part of whatever stupid term is technically correct to describe the engine and extra bits (turbo, and MGUs).
As mentioned down the thread, I am beginning to feel sorry for Ed. Taking the piss out of him for giving a beggar something shows how his stock has plummeted. Then for HIGNFY, he was just a figure of fun.
Ed is the new Ukip.
But he means well, is ambitious, and er ... er ... that's it, really.
If he could get rid of the ambition, he could join the Greens.
If the Tories are 24 short with the Libdems on 26 then the coalition has a nominal majority of 4.
Sinn Fein abstensions make it effectively 8.
Supply and confidence from DUP would effectively make it up to 28.
Whether the Libdems would want to be in such a coalition remains to be seen, but even if the DUP were onboard, the combined majority is still small enough for both Libdem and especially Tory backbenchers to make the governments life a misery.
Look, I realise my maths have been a bit poor today, but... If the Tories are 24 short of an overall majority (i.e. with the LibDems in the opposition camp) then a Con/LD coalition would have 26 more, cancelling out the Tory shortfall of 24 and adding 2. But also the opposition would have 26 fewer MPs. So the coalition majority would be 28.
No, it wouldn't. The maths is:
For every x seats under 326, you are x seats "short" of a majority. For every y seats over 325, you have a majority of 2y.
The confusion arises because you only start counting double (in the common expressions) once you get into majority territory. If the Tories had a majority of 8, and then added 26 LDs anyway, they'd then have a majority of 8 + (2*26) = 60.
Leave Sheffield out ( so including boroughs of Barnsley, Rotherham, Doncaster only), an area with ten MPs, all Labour, and the voting proportion is as follows: ............................ It's called democracy, and UKIP flopped. Get over it. Although I grant you that fascists never did like the concept.
UKIP won three times as many votes as the Conservatives, the party you allegedly support.
...................... You know UKIP flopped. How does it feel to have so publicly switched to losers Sean?
There's only one party that's pushing up its vote share by double-digits in every by-election. And, I'm happy to be a part of it.
Can you honestly say that you believe Farage would make a better PM than Cameron?
At this stage, I'd say not. Farage is an outstanding campaigner, but has no experience oh handling bureaucracy.
Thanks for the honesty. The problem with our structure of Govt is that the ability to direct is not part of the criteria in selecting an MP. The American system of having a President appointing their own team seems IMHO better. I judge that on simple GDP growth going back 100+ years. Their economy grows faster than ours. Having amateur Directors in charge of Departments filled by Civil Servants that are virtually unsackable would be the recipe for bankruptcy in the private sector. Dominic Cummings recent article illustrates this. (Yes he is also a prize s h 1 t).
The idea that GDP growth is primarily driven by the administrative abilities of department heads in whitehall is certainly an... interesting one.
Is America a more successful country than ours over that period? The answer is yes in GDP per capita terms. The reasons for it probably have more to do with the laws, policies and administration of their respective government apparatus than other factors. I have no doubt from my own previous involvement with UK and other governments that the way these operate is a massive factor in our economic prosperity. When selecting people for a job the best practice is to look for matches with a well thought through Job Spec and the candidates experience and abilities. Our Govt operates by a PM selecting 100 people from a pool of just 325+ many of whom they owe favours and depend upon support from. It is a corrupting process that does not get the best person in each role. They then preside over departments in which they can only hire and fire less than 0.0001% of the staff.
@NicholasPegg: Ukip's Roger Helmer, who said gays undermine marriage, to divorce after visiting "massage parlour". Damn those gays. http://t.co/NahT8z6J3m
That doesn't mean that other things don't undermine marriage, too.
If the Tories are 24 short with the Libdems on 26 then the coalition has a nominal majority of 4.
Sinn Fein abstensions make it effectively 8.
Supply and confidence from DUP would effectively make it up to 28.
Whether the Libdems would want to be in such a coalition remains to be seen, but even if the DUP were onboard, the combined majority is still small enough for both Libdem and especially Tory backbenchers to make the governments life a misery.
Look, I realise my maths have been a bit poor today, but... If the Tories are 24 short of an overall majority (i.e. with the LibDems in the opposition camp) then a Con/LD coalition would have 26 more, cancelling out the Tory shortfall of 24 and adding 2. But also the opposition would have 26 fewer MPs. So the coalition majority would be 28.
No, it wouldn't. The maths is:
For every x seats under 326, you are x seats "short" of a majority. For every y seats over 325, you have a majority of 2y.
The confusion arises because you only start counting double (in the common expressions) once you get into majority territory. If the Tories had a majority of 8, and then added 26 LDs anyway, they'd then have a majority of 8 + (2*26) = 60.
If there are 26 LDs and they switch from opposition to coalition they make a difference of 52, isn't that correct?
UKIP surely have a call to make at some stage: to switch to being a socially conservative, broadly left of centre party; or to be what they seem to be now, which is a socially conservative, right wing party. They can't be both. They actually have a harder task than the LDs ever did, because the LDs pitched themselves in the centre and so could accommodate Orange Bookers long side former SDP members. Doing the same thing with right wing former Tories and anti-EU former Labour supporters just does not seem possible to me. Put it another way, Farage will get a hearing in English Labour heartlands on immigration, but as a self-confessed Thatcherite he is going to struggle to connect when the conversation moves beyond that. And at some stage it will.
Amongst the accusations of racism, homophobia and other isms directed at Ukip, I sense another gut feeling towards them from some.
Snobbery ... the feeling that they are ignorant, untutored and not really on the same intellectual plane as the "proper" politiciansm and that supporters of the "cultured" parties are intellectually superior. Another reason for the intense betrayal felt when Reckless defected.
It's overt enough to be picked up by Ukip supporters and a reason why the many of the insults are counterproductive.
The rats and he ferrets are swarming into Toad Hall.
Hence the sneering assumptions it appeals to the "left behind". The poor, the old, the uneducated.
After all, no "proper" (educated, well off, young) would vote for them. Would they....
I don't think that's sneering (or need not be), more an honest attempt to understand what UKIP's appeal is.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that, for example, the people who are most opposed to immigration are those who face the greatest economic challenge from immigration.
"Farage will get a hearing in English Labour heartlands on immigration, but as a self-confessed Thatcherite he is going to struggle to connect when the conversation moves beyond that."
Exactly so.
Assuming that they get half a dozen MPs, they will have to make that decision.
If the Tories are 24 short with the Libdems on 26 then the coalition has a nominal majority of 4.
Sinn Fein abstensions make it effectively 8.
Supply and confidence from DUP would effectively make it up to 28.
Whether the Libdems would want to be in such a coalition remains to be seen, but even if the DUP were onboard, the combined majority is still small enough for both Libdem and especially Tory backbenchers to make the governments life a misery.
Look, I realise my maths have been a bit poor today, but... If the Tories are 24 short of an overall majority (i.e. with the LibDems in the opposition camp) then a Con/LD coalition would have 26 more, cancelling out the Tory shortfall of 24 and adding 2. But also the opposition would have 26 fewer MPs. So the coalition majority would be 28.
No, it wouldn't. The maths is:
For every x seats under 326, you are x seats "short" of a majority. For every y seats over 325, you have a majority of 2y.
The confusion arises because you only start counting double (in the common expressions) once you get into majority territory. If the Tories had a majority of 8, and then added 26 LDs anyway, they'd then have a majority of 8 + (2*26) = 60.
If there are 26 LDs and they switch from opposition to coalition they make a difference of 52, isn't that correct?
That is correct. But when the Tories are 24 seats short of a majority, they actually have a notional "majority" of -46 (NB not -48, since at 1 seat short, the notional majority is 0), which is where your error has crept in.
As mentioned down the thread, I am beginning to feel sorry for Ed. Taking the piss out of him for giving a beggar something shows how his stock has plummeted. Then for HIGNFY, he was just a figure of fun.
Ed is the new Ukip.
But he means well, is ambitious, and er ... er ... that's it, really.
If he could get rid of the ambition, he could join the Greens.
Ed deserves everything he gets. If he had any self-awareness he would have stood down as Labour leader a long time ago - and actually would not have stood in the first place. Not only is he personally a liability, but under his leadership Labour has seen its vote in one major heartland collapse, while it is coming under significant pressure in others. And he has made no effort at all to broaden Labour's appeal. Indeed, his complete lack of self aware ness is another reason why he is completely unfit to lead a political party, let alone a government. I am sure he is a very nice bloke, but he is clearly not up to doing the job he currently has - and his risible efforts to change perceptions deserve all the opprobrium they get. He is taking the British electorate fools.
Amongst the accusations of racism, homophobia and other isms directed at Ukip, I sense another gut feeling towards them from some.
Snobbery ... the feeling that they are ignorant, untutored and not really on the same intellectual plane as the "proper" politiciansm and that supporters of the "cultured" parties are intellectually superior. Another reason for the intense betrayal felt when Reckless defected.
It's overt enough to be picked up by Ukip supporters and a reason why the many of the insults are counterproductive.
The rats and he ferrets are swarming into Toad Hall.
Hence the sneering assumptions it appeals to the "left behind". The poor, the old, the uneducated.
After all, no "proper" (educated, well off, young) would vote for them. Would they....
It's not all sneering assumptions. The book "revolt on the right" academically analysed the ukip vote.
Looking at the average Labour seat it should perhaps be more appropriate to say it is Labour who are the party of the poor, dispossessed, and, by extension, uneducated. Was this not the premise of the book, that UKIP was fishing in the same pool of voters as Labour?
Except no one would sneer at Labour voters in that way of course.
As mentioned down the thread, I am beginning to feel sorry for Ed. Taking the piss out of him for giving a beggar something shows how his stock has plummeted. Then for HIGNFY, he was just a figure of fun.
Ed is the new Ukip.
But he means well, is ambitious, and er ... er ... that's it, really.
If he could get rid of the ambition, he could join the Greens.
Ed deserves everything he gets. If he had any self-awareness he would have stood down as Labour leader a long time ago - and actually would not have stood in the first place. Not only is he personally a liability, but under his leadership Labour has seen its vote in one major heartland collapse, while it is coming under significant pressure in others. And he has made no effort at all to broaden Labour's appeal. Indeed, his complete lack of self aware ness is another reason why he is completely unfit to lead a political party, let alone a government. I am sure he is a very nice bloke, but he is clearly not up to doing the job he currently has - and his risible efforts to change perceptions are worthy only of mockery. He is taking the British electorate fools.
Amongst the accusations of racism, homophobia and other isms directed at Ukip, I sense another gut feeling towards them from some.
Snobbery ... the feeling that they are ignorant, untutored and not really on the same intellectual plane as the "proper" politiciansm and that supporters of the "cultured" parties are intellectually superior. Another reason for the intense betrayal felt when Reckless defected.
It's overt enough to be picked up by Ukip supporters and a reason why the many of the insults are counterproductive.
The rats and he ferrets are swarming into Toad Hall.
Hence the sneering assumptions it appeals to the "left behind". The poor, the old, the uneducated.
After all, no "proper" (educated, well off, young) would vote for them. Would they....
I don't think that's sneering (or need not be), more an honest attempt to understand what UKIP's appeal is.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that, for example, the people who are most opposed to immigration are those who face the greatest economic challenge from immigration.
The lower middle class and working working-class are the most affected. Left behind by no means, the strivers who win elections for who they vote. The bottom of society does not care and will remain Labour as they promise most sweeties.
If the "nearest parallel" is indeed MacDonald's third government it's astonishing that no one else has noticed it. Alas you have not assuaged my worry. The Weimar analogy is based on collapse of identity coupled with falling incomes. The causes of the identity crisis may be very different, but the political consequences will, I fear, show themselves to be most comparable.
It's been a long time since I looked at Weimar, but IIRC a huge part of the problem was that there were outside forces - notably the Bolsheviks - who were actively funding and stirring up trouble through their local agents.
I suppose, at a stretch, you could compare the role of the EU to the "dolchstoss" myth that did so much to support the growth of the nationalists: the same potent mix of powerlessness and betrayal resulting in a desire to reassert German strength and independence.
"Nearest parallel" does not mean "one-to-one correspondence"! Although thank you for allowing me to suggest a parallel between the Bolsheviks in Weimar and US corporations in this country to-day...
You can suggest all you like, but US corporations aren't inciting violence, riots and attempting to overthrow the government.
UKIP surely have a call to make at some stage: to switch to being a socially conservative, broadly left of centre party; or to be what they seem to be now, which is a socially conservative, right wing party. They can't be both. They actually have a harder task than the LDs ever did, because the LDs pitched themselves in the centre and so could accommodate Orange Bookers long side former SDP members. Doing the same thing with right wing former Tories and anti-EU former Labour supporters just does not seem possible to me. Put it another way, Farage will get a hearing in English Labour heartlands on immigration, but as a self-confessed Thatcherite he is going to struggle to connect when the conversation moves beyond that. And at some stage it will.
True. But, it took more than 10 years for the LDs to actually have their real policies understood by their voters. The trigger was getting into Govt. UKIP may be able to avoid that level of voter scrutiny for many many years. But, the seeds of their eventual split are there and clear to the politically informed. They cannot be Thatcherite and Socialist. If UKIP had just focused on being anti-Eu then these divisions would not have mattered.
323 seats: 3 short 324 seats: 2 short 325 seats: 1 short 326 seats: Maj of 2 327 seats: Maj of 4 328 seats: Maj of 6
Of course, then making allowances for Speaker / Sinn Fein / SNP complicates everything still further.
Out of interest, what prospects are there of Sinn Fein abandoning abstentionism in the event that their votes might make a significant difference to the arithmetic? Slim, or non-existent?
UKIP surely have a call to make at some stage: to switch to being a socially conservative, broadly left of centre party; or to be what they seem to be now, which is a socially conservative, right wing party. They can't be both. They actually have a harder task than the LDs ever did, because the LDs pitched themselves in the centre and so could accommodate Orange Bookers long side former SDP members. Doing the same thing with right wing former Tories and anti-EU former Labour supporters just does not seem possible to me. Put it another way, Farage will get a hearing in English Labour heartlands on immigration, but as a self-confessed Thatcherite he is going to struggle to connect when the conversation moves beyond that. And at some stage it will.
Nah. All the time UKIP aren't in power and don't have to take responsibility for anything they can play the old different-things-to-suit-your-audience card. The Lib Dems dined out on that for years.
As mentioned down the thread, I am beginning to feel sorry for Ed. Taking the piss out of him for giving a beggar something shows how his stock has plummeted. Then for HIGNFY, he was just a figure of fun.
Ed is the new Ukip.
But he means well, is ambitious, and er ... er ... that's it, really.
If he could get rid of the ambition, he could join the Greens.
Ed deserves everything he gets. If he had any self-awareness he would have stood down as Labour leader a long time ago - and actually would not have stood in the first place. Not only is he personally a liability, but under his leadership Labour has seen its vote in one major heartland collapse, while it is coming under significant pressure in others. And he has made no effort at all to broaden Labour's appeal. Indeed, his complete lack of self aware ness is another reason why he is completely unfit to lead a political party, let alone a government. I am sure he is a very nice bloke, but he is clearly not up to doing the job he currently has - and his risible efforts to change perceptions deserve all the opprobrium they get. He is taking the British electorate fools.
UKIP surely have a call to make at some stage: to switch to being a socially conservative, broadly left of centre party; or to be what they seem to be now, which is a socially conservative, right wing party. They can't be both. They actually have a harder task than the LDs ever did, because the LDs pitched themselves in the centre and so could accommodate Orange Bookers long side former SDP members. Doing the same thing with right wing former Tories and anti-EU former Labour supporters just does not seem possible to me. Put it another way, Farage will get a hearing in English Labour heartlands on immigration, but as a self-confessed Thatcherite he is going to struggle to connect when the conversation moves beyond that. And at some stage it will.
And yet Thatcher was able to connect with traditional Labour voters in a way that very few Tory leaders have ever achieved. That's one of the reasons why she was so hated by the tribal left.
I don't think the Thatcherite label in itself says anything about the limits of Farage's electoral appeal.
If the Tories are 24 short with the Libdems on 26 then the coalition has a nominal majority of 4.
Sinn Fein abstensions make it effectively 8.
Supply and confidence from DUP would effectively make it up to 28.
Whether the Libdems would want to be in such a coalition remains to be seen, but even if the DUP were onboard, the combined majority is still small enough for both Libdem and especially Tory backbenchers to make the governments life a misery.
Look, I realise my maths have been a bit poor today, but... If the Tories are 24 short of an overall majority (i.e. with the LibDems in the opposition camp) then a Con/LD coalition would have 26 more, cancelling out the Tory shortfall of 24 and adding 2. But also the opposition would have 26 fewer MPs. So the coalition majority would be 28.
No, it wouldn't. The maths is:
For every x seats under 326, you are x seats "short" of a majority. For every y seats over 325, you have a majority of 2y.
The confusion arises because you only start counting double (in the common expressions) once you get into majority territory. If the Tories had a majority of 8, and then added 26 LDs anyway, they'd then have a majority of 8 + (2*26) = 60.
If there are 26 LDs and they switch from opposition to coalition they make a difference of 52, isn't that correct?
That is correct. But when the Tories are 24 seats short of a majority, they actually have a notional "majority" of -46 (NB not -48, since at 1 seat short, the notional majority is 0), which is where your error has crept in.
323 seats: 3 short 324 seats: 2 short 325 seats: 1 short 326 seats: Maj of 2 327 seats: Maj of 4 328 seats: Maj of 6
Of course, then making allowances for Speaker / Sinn Fein / SNP complicates everything still further.
Out of interest, what prospects are there of Sinn Fein abandoning abstentionism in the event that their votes might make a significant difference to the arithmetic? Slim, or non-existent?
UKIP surely have a call to make at some stage: to switch to being a socially conservative, broadly left of centre party; or to be what they seem to be now, which is a socially conservative, right wing party. They can't be both. They actually have a harder task than the LDs ever did, because the LDs pitched themselves in the centre and so could accommodate Orange Bookers long side former SDP members. Doing the same thing with right wing former Tories and anti-EU former Labour supporters just does not seem possible to me. Put it another way, Farage will get a hearing in English Labour heartlands on immigration, but as a self-confessed Thatcherite he is going to struggle to connect when the conversation moves beyond that. And at some stage it will.
They are a long, long, long way from having to make that call - the Lib Dems have been doing it for years with their north/south split... only really bitten them in the bum when they've come into Gov't.
2020 or so would be perhaps an earliest date when UKIP need to get serious about that sort of thing as I can see them potentially sharing power by then.
UKIP surely have a call to make at some stage: to switch to being a socially conservative, broadly left of centre party; or to be what they seem to be now, which is a socially conservative, right wing party. They can't be both. They actually have a harder task than the LDs ever did, because the LDs pitched themselves in the centre and so could accommodate Orange Bookers long side former SDP members. Doing the same thing with right wing former Tories and anti-EU former Labour supporters just does not seem possible to me. Put it another way, Farage will get a hearing in English Labour heartlands on immigration, but as a self-confessed Thatcherite he is going to struggle to connect when the conversation moves beyond that. And at some stage it will.
And yet Thatcher was able to connect with traditional Labour voters in a way that very few Tory leaders have ever achieved. That's one of the reasons why she was so hated by the tribal left.
I don't think the Thatcherite label in itself says anything about the limits of Farage's electoral appeal.
She did not connect in the heartlands that UKIP is targeting.
Interestingly, the Labour candidate for the police commissioner role not only spoke about Rotherham, but he is also spoke about Hillsbrough and Orgreave. In the heartlands people have long memories, which is why the Tory brand is just so toxic in such places - and why the SNP's Red Tory attack on Labour is so effective.
Great article David Herdson, better than anything I have read elsewhere today on politics. Shame on the main newspapers for doing so little fundamental research.
From David's article, the phenomenon of the LD 2010 voters going to Lab has radically reduced. Today Lab have only a nett 4% gain from the LDs compared to the Conservatives gain from the LDs. Remarkable how under EdM Labour have managed to reduce that advantage and there is still 6 months to go to the GE.
For the LDs, they have increased the bile, smearing and attacks on their coalition partners. It has resulted in their % falling even lower. Are the 2010 LD voters recoiling at an untrustworthy party? Furthermore these tactics are being "rewarded" by pushing 3% of GE 2010 LDs into the Conservatives VI.
Yes, it is remarkable how the quality of analysis in newspapers has gone down, but magazines have stayed constant and analysis by "amateurs" on the web sometimes best the lot. I hardly buy a newspaper these days. Interestingly, this seems to be mirrored in political parties nowadays.
Perhaps diversity was being crushed by technology in both cases, print and FPTP. Also, perhaps both newspapers and parties relied on "legacy" readers and voters; Labour in Scotland being a particularly egregious example.
As for the LibDems, they campaigned at GE2015 to the left of Labour, but ended up in coalition with the Tories. I suppose being consistently untrustworthy is at least sort of being straight with the voters.
UKIP surely have a call to make at some stage: to switch to being a socially conservative, broadly left of centre party; or to be what they seem to be now, which is a socially conservative, right wing party. They can't be both. They actually have a harder task than the LDs ever did, because the LDs pitched themselves in the centre and so could accommodate Orange Bookers long side former SDP members. Doing the same thing with right wing former Tories and anti-EU former Labour supporters just does not seem possible to me. Put it another way, Farage will get a hearing in English Labour heartlands on immigration, but as a self-confessed Thatcherite he is going to struggle to connect when the conversation moves beyond that. And at some stage it will.
Nah. All the time UKIP aren't in power and don't have to take responsibility for anything they can play the old different-things-to-suit-your-audience card. The Lib Dems dined out on that for years.
As I said, the LDs were (and are, I guess) pitching for the centre ground and could manage the compromises internally. Getting right wing Tories to find sustainable common ground with Scargillite former Labour voters in South Yorkshire is a lot trickier.
323 seats: 3 short 324 seats: 2 short 325 seats: 1 short 326 seats: Maj of 2 327 seats: Maj of 4 328 seats: Maj of 6
Of course, then making allowances for Speaker / Sinn Fein / SNP complicates everything still further.
Out of interest, what prospects are there of Sinn Fein abandoning abstentionism in the event that their votes might make a significant difference to the arithmetic? Slim, or non-existent?
0.1% chance ?
Essentially, you can safely add 5 to those figures (4 Sinn Fein and 1 Squeaker who will abstain 100% of time), so:
324 seats: Maj of 4 325 seats: Maj of 5 326 seats: Maj of 7 327 seats: Maj of 9 328 seats: Maj of 11
SF actually won 5 seats in 2010, but as one of them was only won by four votes you can't rely on them winning that in 2015.
DUP won 8 seats last time. I suspect they will keep them all plus may well win Belfast East if alliance suffer similar losses to the Libdems, so they are possible kingmakers in 2015 if the tories are just short.
With DUP support the tories would have a majority of 1 with 315 seats, only eight more than they have now. If they deposed the squeaker and elected a new speaker from another party then they could, with DUP support have a majority of 1 with 314 seats, only 7 seats than they have now.
If they depose the Squeaker and replace with a labour MP, DUP win Belfast East and SF retain Fermangh & South Tyrone, then, with DUP support they would have a majority of 1 with 311 seats, only 4 more than they have now.
Farage will get a hearing in English Labour heartlands on immigration, but as a self-confessed Thatcherite he is going to struggle to connect when the conversation moves beyond that. And at some stage it will.
While immigration is blamed for GP waiting times, the International health Service, Child Benefit to Poland, midwives struggling with workloads, rising rents, suppressed wages and many significant law and order problems like child abuse and beheadings he's probably got plenty of leeway.
As ever though, how he copes when getting some power will be the test, as it has disastrously been for the Lib Dems and successfully been for the SNP.
As mentioned down the thread, I am beginning to feel sorry for Ed. Taking the piss out of him for giving a beggar something shows how his stock has plummeted. Then for HIGNFY, he was just a figure of fun.
Ed is the new Ukip.
But he means well, is ambitious, and er ... er ... that's it, really.
If he could get rid of the ambition, he could join the Greens.
Ed deserves everything he gets. If he had any self-awareness he would have stood down as Labour leader a long time ago - and actually would not have stood in the first place. Not only is he personally a liability, but under his leadership Labour has seen its vote in one major heartland collapse, while it is coming under significant pressure in others. And he has made no effort at all to broaden Labour's appeal. Indeed, his complete lack of self aware ness is another reason why he is completely unfit to lead a political party, let alone a government. I am sure he is a very nice bloke, but he is clearly not up to doing the job he currently has - and his risible efforts to change perceptions deserve all the opprobrium they get. He is taking the British electorate fools.
SO you need to get off the fence WRT Ed.
Ha, ha. I have never been his greatest fan, have I? And it looks like this is one thing I did get right.
UKIP surely have a call to make at some stage: to switch to being a socially conservative, broadly left of centre party; or to be what they seem to be now, which is a socially conservative, right wing party. They can't be both. They actually have a harder task than the LDs ever did, because the LDs pitched themselves in the centre and so could accommodate Orange Bookers long side former SDP members. Doing the same thing with right wing former Tories and anti-EU former Labour supporters just does not seem possible to me. Put it another way, Farage will get a hearing in English Labour heartlands on immigration, but as a self-confessed Thatcherite he is going to struggle to connect when the conversation moves beyond that. And at some stage it will.
Nah. All the time UKIP aren't in power and don't have to take responsibility for anything they can play the old different-things-to-suit-your-audience card. The Lib Dems dined out on that for years.
As I said, the LDs were (and are, I guess) pitching for the centre ground and could manage the compromises internally. Getting right wing Tories to find sustainable common ground with Scargillite former Labour voters in South Yorkshire is a lot trickier.
Cannock voted Tory last election. Some of the biggest swings were in ex mining areas, I believe.
European populist right parties have been hoovering up support from ex industrial areas that were socialist.
UKIP surely have a call to make at some stage: to switch to being a socially conservative, broadly left of centre party; or to be what they seem to be now, which is a socially conservative, right wing party. They can't be both. They actually have a harder task than the LDs ever did, because the LDs pitched themselves in the centre and so could accommodate Orange Bookers long side former SDP members. Doing the same thing with right wing former Tories and anti-EU former Labour supporters just does not seem possible to me. Put it another way, Farage will get a hearing in English Labour heartlands on immigration, but as a self-confessed Thatcherite he is going to struggle to connect when the conversation moves beyond that. And at some stage it will.
At some stage, yes. But we're a long way from that point. Right across Europe insurgent right wing parties have been able to take and hold on to left wing votes.
Ed deserves everything he gets. If he had any self-awareness he would have stood down as Labour leader a long time ago - and actually would not have stood in the first place...
I am about halfway convinced that Ed stood for the leadership with the hope of a half-decent showing that would make it acceptable for his brother to appoint him to a senior role within the shadow cabinet without having to worry about charges of nepotism.
It's not his fault that his brother ran a spectacularly inept leadership campaign, or that the Union leaders alighted upon Ed as their best hope to stop the Blairites. David Miliband wasn't even able to reach out to the Union leaders/members in his campaign for the leadership.
I strongly think that of the candidates in 2010 Ed Miliband was the best choice for Labour. The best of a bad bunch, perhaps, but there you have it. I also think that most of Labour's problems now have little to do with Ed Miliband, though Ed hasn't done enough to try to fix them in the last few years.
UKIP surely have a call to make at some stage: to switch to being a socially conservative, broadly left of centre party; or to be what they seem to be now, which is a socially conservative, right wing party. They can't be both. They actually have a harder task than the LDs ever did, because the LDs pitched themselves in the centre and so could accommodate Orange Bookers long side former SDP members. Doing the same thing with right wing former Tories and anti-EU former Labour supporters just does not seem possible to me. Put it another way, Farage will get a hearing in English Labour heartlands on immigration, but as a self-confessed Thatcherite he is going to struggle to connect when the conversation moves beyond that. And at some stage it will.
And yet Thatcher was able to connect with traditional Labour voters in a way that very few Tory leaders have ever achieved. That's one of the reasons why she was so hated by the tribal left.
I don't think the Thatcherite label in itself says anything about the limits of Farage's electoral appeal.
She did not connect in the heartlands that UKIP is targeting.
Interestingly, the Labour candidate for the police commissioner role not only spoke about Rotherham, but he is also spoke about Hillsbrough and Orgreave. In the heartlands people have long memories, which is why the Tory brand is just so toxic in such places - and why the SNP's Red Tory attack on Labour is so effective.
Labour lost to UKIP in Rotherham at the local elections in 2014, they narrowly beat them here.
The fact that the English Dems stood in the PCC but not the locals and a few greens/respect/trade union stood in the locals is probably to blame for the discrepancy.
In particular if you sum the UKIP and Labour votes to 100%, UKIP were on 53.5% in Rother Valley at the 2014 LEs and if you take their 48.7% in Rotherham PCC and renormalise to the 52.2% they achieved overall at the Rotherham region then actually you end up with a statistical dead heat for the PCC in the Rother Valley region.
(UKIP 49.99%, Lab 50.01%)
Hence why I thought they were a good value bet there at 8-1 the other day.
There are multiple problems with this. 1) What about the bishops? Labour's ill-thought out constitutional meddling may yet cost us the UK itself, and they may end up disestablishing the Church by accident. 2) It's an attempt to entrench Balkanisation of the UK and inflicting Labour's dividing lines on an ancient country. He doesn't want 'constituency' Senators, as it were, but regional and city senators. 3) It does nothing to address the need for an English Parliament and, as mentioned above, seeks to actively make such a necessary step more difficult by carving England up into shitty little regions and city areas. It's not about resolving the Lords problem, but shafting England by taking a pre-emptive step to try and prevent a Parliament by creating dividing lines. 4) Why the rush? Labour doesn't want to back English votes for English laws, let alone an English Parliament. Indeed, they're prevaricating with the wish for a constitutional convention, but when it comes to the Lords they just want to impose their own will on the British constitution without even asking for cross-party consensus.
Once again, when it comes to changing the constitution in a way which may give England fairness, Labour couldn't give a damn.
Ed deserves everything he gets. If he had any self-awareness he would have stood down as Labour leader a long time ago - and actually would not have stood in the first place...
I am about halfway convinced that Ed stood for the leadership with the hope of a half-decent showing that would make it acceptable for his brother to appoint him to a senior role within the shadow cabinet without having to worry about charges of nepotism. It's not his fault that his brother ran a spectacularly inept leadership campaign, or that the Union leaders alighted upon Ed as their best hope to stop the Blairites. David Miliband wasn't even able to reach out to the Union leaders/members in his campaign for the leadership. .........
323 seats: 3 short 324 seats: 2 short 325 seats: 1 short 326 seats: Maj of 2 327 seats: Maj of 4 328 seats: Maj of 6
Of course, then making allowances for Speaker / Sinn Fein / SNP complicates everything still further.
Out of interest, what prospects are there of Sinn Fein abandoning abstentionism in the event that their votes might make a significant difference to the arithmetic? Slim, or non-existent?
0.1% chance ?
Essentially, you can safely add 5 to those figures (4 Sinn Fein and 1 Squeaker who will abstain 100% of time), so:
324 seats: Maj of 4 325 seats: Maj of 5 326 seats: Maj of 7 327 seats: Maj of 9 328 seats: Maj of 11
SF actually won 5 seats in 2010, but as one of them was only won by four votes you can't rely on them winning that in 2015.
DUP won 8 seats last time. I suspect they will keep them all plus may well win Belfast East if alliance suffer similar losses to the Libdems, so they are possible kingmakers in 2015 if the tories are just short.
With DUP support the tories would have a majority of 1 with 315 seats, only eight more than they have now. If they deposed the squeaker and elected a new speaker from another party then they could, with DUP support have a majority of 1 with 314 seats, only 7 seats than they have now.
If they depose the Squeaker and replace with a labour MP, DUP win Belfast East and SF retain Fermangh & South Tyrone, then, with DUP support they would have a majority of 1 with 311 seats, only 4 more than they have now.
SF won F&ST against a UUP/DUP unity candidate. If SF lose, it likely this MP will sign up with the Tories. Indeed I think the UUP (and this candidate) signed up in 2010. The UUP, of ocurse, won no seats.
As a lot of movement has taken place in 2014 and so taking the same stats as you, the YG 2010 VI, in this year and using the monthly averages from Jan to Oct the movement has been:
As mentioned down the thread, I am beginning to feel sorry for Ed. Taking the piss out of him for giving a beggar something shows how his stock has plummeted. Then for HIGNFY, he was just a figure of fun.
Ed is the new Ukip.
But he means well, is ambitious, and er ... er ... that's it, really.
If he could get rid of the ambition, he could join the Greens.
Ed deserves everything he gets. If he had any self-awareness he would have stood down as Labour leader a long time ago - and actually would not have stood in the first place. Not only is he personally a liability, but under his leadership Labour has seen its vote in one major heartland collapse, while it is coming under significant pressure in others. And he has made no effort at all to broaden Labour's appeal. Indeed, his complete lack of self aware ness is another reason why he is completely unfit to lead a political party, let alone a government. I am sure he is a very nice bloke, but he is clearly not up to doing the job he currently has - and his risible efforts to change perceptions deserve all the opprobrium they get. He is taking the British electorate fools.
Very very true. The one thing Conservative supporters do not want to see is Labour changing its Leader. But as i wrote earlier, the vast majority of our politicians do not come from backgrounds that give them a good understanding of what a good Manager or a good Director or a good CEO (such as a party Leader) looks like.
UKIP surely have a call to make at some stage: to switch to being a socially conservative, broadly left of centre party; or to be what they seem to be now, which is a socially conservative, right wing party. They can't be both. They actually have a harder task than the LDs ever did, because the LDs pitched themselves in the centre and so could accommodate Orange Bookers long side former SDP members. Doing the same thing with right wing former Tories and anti-EU former Labour supporters just does not seem possible to me. Put it another way, Farage will get a hearing in English Labour heartlands on immigration, but as a self-confessed Thatcherite he is going to struggle to connect when the conversation moves beyond that. And at some stage it will.
At some stage, yes. But we're a long way from that point. Right across Europe insurgent right wing parties have been able to take and hold on to left wing votes.
If you look at the FN in France, much of what they say is Scargillism - especially on protectionism and defending the French social model.
Speaking of the ill-considered Miliband leadership, he's come up with the idea of replacing the Lords with a Senate:
Ed'd idea is to subject the electorate to even more voting to elect even more politicians, who may well believe they have a legitimate right to reject the political will of those we've already voted into the House of Commons.
However, he doesn't think the people should get a vote on the EU, he doesn't think that English voters should have the same rights as their countrymen in other parts of the UK and he doesn't believe the Scots should be trusted to spend the tax raised on their incomes.
He'd be wise to just go and hide in a dark room until May.
Labour’s HoL proposal is by no means perfect but at least they and the LD’s are looking at reforming this unwieldy, obese body, stuffed full of place-persons and yesterday’s men (and women).
UKIP surely have a call to make at some stage: to switch to being a socially conservative, broadly left of centre party; or to be what they seem to be now, which is a socially conservative, right wing party. They can't be both. They actually have a harder task than the LDs ever did, because the LDs pitched themselves in the centre and so could accommodate Orange Bookers long side former SDP members. Doing the same thing with right wing former Tories and anti-EU former Labour supporters just does not seem possible to me. Put it another way, Farage will get a hearing in English Labour heartlands on immigration, but as a self-confessed Thatcherite he is going to struggle to connect when the conversation moves beyond that. And at some stage it will.
And yet Thatcher was able to connect with traditional Labour voters in a way that very few Tory leaders have ever achieved. That's one of the reasons why she was so hated by the tribal left.
I don't think the Thatcherite label in itself says anything about the limits of Farage's electoral appeal.
She did not connect in the heartlands that UKIP is targeting.
Interestingly, the Labour candidate for the police commissioner role not only spoke about Rotherham, but he is also spoke about Hillsbrough and Orgreave. In the heartlands people have long memories, which is why the Tory brand is just so toxic in such places - and why the SNP's Red Tory attack on Labour is so effective.
Labour lost to UKIP in Rotherham at the local elections in 2014, they narrowly beat them here.
The fact that the English Dems stood in the PCC but not the locals and a few greens/respect/trade union stood in the locals is probably to blame for the discrepancy.
In particular if you sum the UKIP and Labour votes to 100%, UKIP were on 53.5% in Rother Valley at the 2014 LEs and if you take their 48.7% in Rotherham PCC and renormalise to the 52.2% they achieved overall at the Rotherham region then actually you end up with a statistical dead heat for the PCC in the Rother Valley region.
(UKIP 49.99%, Lab 50.01%)
Hence why I thought they were a good value bet there at 8-1 the other day.
There's a lot of disaffection with Labour in parts of South Yorkshire. In 2010, their vote share was 45%, a historically low figure. But, a split opposition meant they held every seat bar Hallam. The danger for Labour is if the opposition vote unites behind one candidate in places like Rotherham, Rotherham Valley, and Don Valley.
"Perhaps the average WWC English Labour voter is more socially conservative than the hierarchy wish to acknowledge?"
Obviously they're not a homogenous bunch, but a socially conservative and economically leftish party would hoover up quite a few votes (and a few Labour MPs). The Labour party would then be competing with the LDs for the middle class "intellectuals", the ones who consider themselves progressive.
The SWP types would then be in a better position to infiltrate what was left.
It could disestablish the Church of England, and makes an English Parliament harder to achieve by carving this ancient land up into shitty little regions. Labour also appears to be promising to inflict this change regardless of whether it has consent of the people or other parties.
The Lords does need changing, but it has to be in a cross-party basis, and the more urgent matter is an English Parliament.
Labour's approach might be even worse than the Lib Dem madness of one-off 15 year terms.
Either way, their answer to fairness for England is to ignore the bloody question.
Comments
Given that each poll is fishing from the same panel, I am not sure we gain much from averaging (each poll is not an independent sample) and trends are very sketchy.
Not exactly good for anyone. Only a die hard Labour supporter would fail to see that actually people do not want an elected bus inspector.
Not to mention that the right was split three ways, and Labour was the only perceived 'left' vote. It wont be the same come May, the Labour share will fall when the LDs and the greens are in the mix.
Forest from the trees?
Fraser Nelson @FraserNelson 28m28 minutes ago Lymington, South East
Who ruined David Cameron's immigration target? (clue in picture). http://fw.to/cKUPqQT
The next question is: would we actually want to exclude this particular set of immigrants?
I suppose, at a stretch, you could compare the role of the EU to the "dolchstoss" myth that did so much to support the growth of the nationalists: the same potent mix of powerlessness and betrayal resulting in a desire to reassert German strength and independence.
Where people are from doesn't matter if the numbers are controlled
FWIW we think we're doing well in the East Midlands. Doesn't mean that by-election dynamics wouldn't do funny things here too, but we should make gains in May. Sorry, but that's absolutely not true of marginal seats. In current canvassing, maybe 60% of people are telling me instantly how they're going to vote. Another 20% simply don't vote, ever. The remaining 20% do say they're still thinking about it, but some of those are kenly interested, want to discuss issues, etc. I know it's anecdotal but I see several hundred people every week, and people in passing cars shout out encouragement or derision and shoppers stop me as I buy my muesli (yes, going for that LibDem vote, where's the sandals section?) to ask how I think it's going. I wouldn't say it's quite election fever, but it certainly feels like mid-election. It's pretty good fun.
@NicholasPegg: Ukip's Roger Helmer, who said gays undermine marriage, to divorce after visiting "massage parlour". Damn those gays. http://t.co/NahT8z6J3m
Lets have a look at 2012
What this really boils down to, as you say, is whether we 'want' to or not. Not whether we ever can, the EU notwithstanding.
Sinn Fein abstensions make it effectively 8.
Supply and confidence from DUP would effectively make it up to 28.
Whether the Libdems would want to be in such a coalition remains to be seen, but even if the DUP were onboard, the combined majority is still small enough for both Libdem and especially Tory backbenchers to make the governments life a misery.
I was toying with a figure of 20-25% of current UKIP polled voters, but that's just a feel.
UKIP would probably support it, as would the Welsh and NI parties if given similar autonomy.
The blocking coalition of LibLab would come up short.
It's a hilarious situation if you are Labour.
I'll be sure to incorporate some of your lessons into my analysis!
Right, that's me done for this morning. See you all to-morrow, God willing.
Adultery, for one.
From David's article, the phenomenon of the LD 2010 voters going to Lab has radically reduced. Today Lab have only a nett 4% gain from the LDs compared to the Conservatives gain from the LDs. Remarkable how under EdM Labour have managed to reduce that advantage and there is still 6 months to go to the GE.
For the LDs, they have increased the bile, smearing and attacks on their coalition partners. It has resulted in their % falling even lower. Are the 2010 LD voters recoiling at an untrustworthy party? Furthermore these tactics are being "rewarded" by pushing 3% of GE 2010 LDs into the Conservatives VI.
Labour Majority Last matched 3.85.
My latest moves:
Labour Majority 3.45 £4.58
£11.22
Labour Majority 3.45 £95.42
£233.78
The pre-qualifying piece will be up this afternoon, hopefully. Later than usual due to the odd timezone.
Always have to remind myself that my Betfair position isn't actually a true one...
The idea that GDP growth is primarily driven by the administrative abilities of department heads in whitehall is certainly an... interesting one.
Today.
Newcastle to beat the mighty Liverpool.
Tomorrow
The Reds to defeat Citeh in the Manchester Derby
Villa to beat Spurs.
"...The archetypal Ukiper is a successful plumber, comfortable retiree or construction foreman, not an unemployed, deskilled casualty of globalisation.
They are ‘left out’ of the status elite, and therefore resentful, but are not left behind by the modern economy. "
http://quarterly.demos.co.uk/article/issue-4/the-dark-net-revolt-on-the-right-cricket/
2. UKIP's voter coalition has been growing throughout this parliament. Plato made the point the other day that UKIP's success has now made it a mainstream choice, rather than a fringe option. ComRes' "seriously consider voting for..." question put their current ceiling at 34%.
http://www.comres.co.uk/poll/1293/sunday-mirror-independent-on-sunday-poll.htm
If the Tories are 24 short of an overall majority (i.e. with the LibDems in the opposition camp) then a Con/LD coalition would have 26 more, cancelling out the Tory shortfall of 24 and adding 2. But also the opposition would have 26 fewer MPs. So the coalition majority would be 28.
Helmer added no value to the personal matter of same sex marriage. It is a matter for each person to decide - not be "guided" by politicians. Maybe these laws should be set by a referendum?
It appears that UKIP are building up a track record to use in FPTP elections.
As mentioned down the thread, I am beginning to feel sorry for Ed. Taking the piss out of him for giving a beggar something shows how his stock has plummeted. Then for HIGNFY, he was just a figure of fun.
Ed is the new Ukip.
But he means well, is ambitious, and er ... er ... that's it, really.
If he could get rid of the ambition, he could join the Greens.
For every x seats under 326, you are x seats "short" of a majority.
For every y seats over 325, you have a majority of 2y.
The confusion arises because you only start counting double (in the common expressions) once you get into majority territory. If the Tories had a majority of 8, and then added 26 LDs anyway, they'd then have a majority of 8 + (2*26) = 60.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that, for example, the people who are most opposed to immigration are those who face the greatest economic challenge from immigration.
"Farage will get a hearing in English Labour heartlands on immigration, but as a self-confessed Thatcherite he is going to struggle to connect when the conversation moves beyond that."
Exactly so.
Assuming that they get half a dozen MPs, they will have to make that decision.
Looking at the average Labour seat it should perhaps be more appropriate to say it is Labour who are the party of the poor, dispossessed, and, by extension, uneducated. Was this not the premise of the book, that UKIP was fishing in the same pool of voters as Labour?
Except no one would sneer at Labour voters in that way of course.
If UKIP had just focused on being anti-Eu then these divisions would not have mattered.
324 seats: 2 short
325 seats: 1 short
326 seats: Maj of 2
327 seats: Maj of 4
328 seats: Maj of 6
Of course, then making allowances for Speaker / Sinn Fein / SNP complicates everything still further.
Out of interest, what prospects are there of Sinn Fein abandoning abstentionism in the event that their votes might make a significant difference to the arithmetic? Slim, or non-existent?
"...but US corporations aren't inciting violence, riots and attempting to overthrow the government. "
They only do that sort of thing when there is profit to be had, and they can get away with it.
I don't think the Thatcherite label in itself says anything about the limits of Farage's electoral appeal.
2020 or so would be perhaps an earliest date when UKIP need to get serious about that sort of thing as I can see them potentially sharing power by then.
Interestingly, the Labour candidate for the police commissioner role not only spoke about Rotherham, but he is also spoke about Hillsbrough and Orgreave. In the heartlands people have long memories, which is why the Tory brand is just so toxic in such places - and why the SNP's Red Tory attack on Labour is so effective.
Perhaps diversity was being crushed by technology in both cases, print and FPTP. Also, perhaps both newspapers and parties relied on "legacy" readers and voters; Labour in Scotland being a particularly egregious example.
As for the LibDems, they campaigned at GE2015 to the left of Labour, but ended up in coalition with the Tories. I suppose being consistently untrustworthy is at least sort of being straight with the voters.
If the LDs get 26 then that puts them on 302+26=328
All other parties then have 650-328=322
Majority is 6.
Adjust for SF, Speaker, etc.
324 seats: Maj of 4
325 seats: Maj of 5
326 seats: Maj of 7
327 seats: Maj of 9
328 seats: Maj of 11
SF actually won 5 seats in 2010, but as one of them was only won by four votes you can't rely on them winning that in 2015.
DUP won 8 seats last time. I suspect they will keep them all plus may well win Belfast East if alliance suffer similar losses to the Libdems, so they are possible kingmakers in 2015 if the tories are just short.
With DUP support the tories would have a majority of 1 with 315 seats, only eight more than they have now. If they deposed the squeaker and elected a new speaker from another party then they could, with DUP support have a majority of 1 with 314 seats, only 7 seats than they have now.
If they depose the Squeaker and replace with a labour MP, DUP win Belfast East and SF retain Fermangh & South Tyrone, then, with DUP support they would have a majority of 1 with 311 seats, only 4 more than they have now.
As ever though, how he copes when getting some power will be the test, as it has disastrously been for the Lib Dems and successfully been for the SNP.
European populist right parties have been hoovering up support from ex industrial areas that were socialist.
It's not his fault that his brother ran a spectacularly inept leadership campaign, or that the Union leaders alighted upon Ed as their best hope to stop the Blairites. David Miliband wasn't even able to reach out to the Union leaders/members in his campaign for the leadership.
I strongly think that of the candidates in 2010 Ed Miliband was the best choice for Labour. The best of a bad bunch, perhaps, but there you have it. I also think that most of Labour's problems now have little to do with Ed Miliband, though Ed hasn't done enough to try to fix them in the last few years.
The fact that the English Dems stood in the PCC but not the locals and a few greens/respect/trade union stood in the locals is probably to blame for the discrepancy.
In particular if you sum the UKIP and Labour votes to 100%, UKIP were on 53.5% in Rother Valley at the 2014 LEs and if you take their 48.7% in Rotherham PCC and renormalise to the 52.2% they achieved overall at the Rotherham region then actually you end up with a statistical dead heat for the PCC in the Rother Valley region.
(UKIP 49.99%, Lab 50.01%)
Hence why I thought they were a good value bet there at 8-1 the other day.
Tolerant, but only to a level . And the level has been breached.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29857849
There are multiple problems with this.
1) What about the bishops? Labour's ill-thought out constitutional meddling may yet cost us the UK itself, and they may end up disestablishing the Church by accident.
2) It's an attempt to entrench Balkanisation of the UK and inflicting Labour's dividing lines on an ancient country. He doesn't want 'constituency' Senators, as it were, but regional and city senators.
3) It does nothing to address the need for an English Parliament and, as mentioned above, seeks to actively make such a necessary step more difficult by carving England up into shitty little regions and city areas. It's not about resolving the Lords problem, but shafting England by taking a pre-emptive step to try and prevent a Parliament by creating dividing lines.
4) Why the rush? Labour doesn't want to back English votes for English laws, let alone an English Parliament. Indeed, they're prevaricating with the wish for a constitutional convention, but when it comes to the Lords they just want to impose their own will on the British constitution without even asking for cross-party consensus.
Once again, when it comes to changing the constitution in a way which may give England fairness, Labour couldn't give a damn.
SF won F&ST against a UUP/DUP unity candidate. If SF lose, it likely this MP will sign up with the Tories. Indeed I think the UUP (and this candidate) signed up in 2010. The UUP, of ocurse, won no seats.
Good News for Labour then, not all of their 2010 Yes voters have jump ship to the SNP then.
And they already hold most of these seats with a comfortable majority.
As a lot of movement has taken place in 2014 and so taking the same stats as you, the YG 2010 VI, in this year and using the monthly averages from Jan to Oct the movement has been:
Cons Retention: 75.3-> 73.3
Cons-> LAB: 5.26-> 3.87
Cons - LD: 1.36 -> 1.4
Cons -> UKIP: 16.74 -> 19.5
Cons - Green: 0.4 -> 1.2
LAB Retention: 85.42 -> 78.0
LAB -> Cons: 4.53 -> 5.2
LAB -> LD: 1.63 -> 1.35
LAB -> UKIP: 5.05 -> 7.03
LAB -> Green: 0.71 -> 3.35
LD Retention: 35.26 -> 27.5
LD -> Cons: 12.15 -> 13.5
LD -> LAB: 34.21 -> 31.7
LD -> UKIP: 9.53 -> 12.2
LD -> Green: 5.37 -> 11.8
However, he doesn't think the people should get a vote on the EU, he doesn't think that English voters should have the same rights as their countrymen in other parts of the UK and he doesn't believe the Scots should be trusted to spend the tax raised on their incomes.
He'd be wise to just go and hide in a dark room until May.
"Perhaps the average WWC English Labour voter is more socially conservative than the hierarchy wish to acknowledge?"
Obviously they're not a homogenous bunch, but a socially conservative and economically leftish party would hoover up quite a few votes (and a few Labour MPs). The Labour party would then be competing with the LDs for the middle class "intellectuals", the ones who consider themselves progressive.
The SWP types would then be in a better position to infiltrate what was left.
It could disestablish the Church of England, and makes an English Parliament harder to achieve by carving this ancient land up into shitty little regions. Labour also appears to be promising to inflict this change regardless of whether it has consent of the people or other parties.
The Lords does need changing, but it has to be in a cross-party basis, and the more urgent matter is an English Parliament.
Labour's approach might be even worse than the Lib Dem madness of one-off 15 year terms.
Either way, their answer to fairness for England is to ignore the bloody question.