@OldKingCole All I am pointing out is that if you discover a nest of vermin, don't assume it is the only nest in the vicinity or that it is the one species.
So: Pakistanis are "vermin" in your view, and - looking at your previous post - you think the police don't spend enough time preventing consenting adult gays from hooking up with one another.
Have you by any chance been expelled by Ukip for the views you hold? It would explain your bitterness against them.
"I thought most child sexual abuse was carried out my members of the family, whether parents, step-parents, fosterers, etc? "
Indeed and more interesting still two thirds of those in social security care in Rotherham were there because of abuse at home.
Did the abuse consist of allowing them to hear their parents giving pro UKIP opinions while under the age of 18?
The problem is that when the word abuse is thrown around it is assumed to mean sexual child molesting. However Social Services in the UK appear to assume that smacking a naughty child or even shouting at them (heaven forfend) or not giving them enough pocket money to be "physical" and "emotional" abuse and grounds for removal and enrichment of the fostering and adoption industry, so the word "abuse" is utterly meaningless without more context.
Lets hope Lord A's Scottish constituency polls aren't riddled with rickets eh?
I think it's best for Lord A to doublecheck all his constituency polls just in case.
He found some errors that changed the result just a few percentage points here and there, but he has published many constituency polls that have shown a close result, a correction might change the party in lead and there are many such seats:
Seats like Dudley North, Great Grimsby , Southampton Itchen, Plymouth Moor View and Rother Valley for Labour.
Birmingham Yardley, Portsmouth South, North Devon, Hazel Grove, Chelthennham, Brecon&Radnorshire, Bermondsey&Old Southwark (SIMON HUGHES), Torbay, Taunton Dean, St. Ives, St. Austell, North Cornwall, Mid Dorset, Cheadle and Cambridge for the LD's.
Amber Valley, Great Yarmouth, Morecambe, Thurrock, Stockton South, Cannock Chase, Camborne, Watford, Thanet North, Gloucester, Halesowen, Hove, Ipswich, Nuneaton, Pudsey, Blackpool North, Chester, Croydon, Keighley, Kingswood, Loughborough, Northampton North, Wirral West, Worcester, ROCHESTER, Wyre Forest, Ealing, Elmet, Harrow East, Pendle, Swindon South, Stevenage and Warwick for the Tories.
The only reason Tories are favourites in Rochester is a Lord Ashcroft poll...
The perils of following polls rather than doing your own homework
Constituency polls will come with a higher % variance due to greater issues in getting representative samples. And thus should only give a broad indication of where the parties are rather than a precise voting figure. I would give them a 5% spread, or more.
Lets hope Lord A's Scottish constituency polls aren't riddled with rickets eh?
They agree broadly with Populus & Ipsos Mori, if anything use a weighting method which should be better for Labour and confirm the "Yes"/SNP correlation.
They could be wrong but appear to fit - errors could be in either direction too also.
It really is that bad. The Scottish version of Newsnight is fronted by John Smith's daughter and if you search the web you will find a long list of the close ties between Scottish Labour and BBC Scotland from Kirsty Wark downwards. Interviews with Jim Murphy are basically Smith or another flunky nodding along not daring to interrupt. SNP interviews are not so pleasant.
The main difference is that in England people seem to accept the way the media portray Scottish Politics (perhaps understandably). In Scotland there is a much clearer realisation by the public that the media is lying through their teeth.
I've been though all the constituencies to see which have at least at least a very small chance of being won by UKIP. The figure I got was 126 which is almost exactly 20% of all seats. I split them into 5 bands: the 1st (most likely) contained 14 seats, 2nd: 21, 3rd: 28, 4th: 31, 5th: 32. I suppose the first band roughly corresponds to seats UKIP would have a decent chance of winning if they poll 15% nationally, and then you add 2.5% for each of the other bands, so the final one is for a 25% UKIP share.
First band (14): Basildon South, Boston, Camborne, Castle Point, Clacton, Dudley North, Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Rochester, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Thanet South, Thurrock, Walsall North.
I've been though all the constituencies to see which have at least at least a very small chance of being won by UKIP. The figure I got was 126 which is almost exactly 20% of all seats. I split them into 5 bands: the 1st (most likely) contained 14 seats, 2nd: 21, 3rd: 28, 4th: 31, 5th: 32. I suppose the first band roughly corresponds to seats UKIP would have a decent chance of winning if they poll 15% nationally, and then you add 2.5% for each of the other bands, so the final one is for a 25% UKIP share.
First band (14): Basildon South, Boston, Camborne, Castle Point, Clacton, Dudley North, Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Rochester, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Thanet South, Thurrock, Walsall North.
Well I did say that there was a possibility of UKIP ending up with 102 seats. Now you see a possibility of 126 UKIP bottoms ending up in the House of Commons. Thats very interesting; indeed.
@JohnLilburne Is it worse to be raped by a Pakistani taxi driver than your local MP? You only wish to see what you want, and as such, you are an enabler.
It's not a question of worse it's a question of why a deep rooted, widespread and apparently well known and acknowledged problem with Muslim males in Rotherham and at least a half dozen other towns was not dealt with.
It's about why multi-culturalism has completely failed as an experiment from its early days with the Jim Crow Laws to its adoption by the left despite it's origin and has allowed cultural practises like Kuffar to go completely and utterly unchecked and unaddressed.
Saying that it's wrong to address the issue because there is an obvious cultural profile (and I use that word very deliberately) is enabling. Saying it's wrong to address the issue because other rape exists is enabling. Being the local MP and blaming Single White Males from child abuse when there is no evidence and it does not apply to the immediate problem is enabling.
It is clear that the dogmatic agenda has not been removed from this problem.
I've been though all the constituencies to see which have at least at least a very small chance of being won by UKIP. The figure I got was 126 which is almost exactly 20% of all seats. I split them into 5 bands: the 1st (most likely) contained 14 seats, 2nd: 21, 3rd: 28, 4th: 31, 5th: 32. I suppose the first band roughly corresponds to seats UKIP would have a decent chance of winning if they poll 15% nationally, and then you add 2.5% for each of the other bands, so the final one is for a 25% UKIP share.
First band (14): Basildon South, Boston, Camborne, Castle Point, Clacton, Dudley North, Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Rochester, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Thanet South, Thurrock, Walsall North.
Well I did say that there was a possibility of UKIP ending up with 102 seats. Now you see a possibility of 126 UKIP bottoms ending up in the House of Commons. Thats very interesting; indeed.
@Ishmael_X Most reasonable people would assume I was talking about paedophiles. Some others might draw a different conclusion.
Why would they assume that, of someone who believes that the police ought to spend more time harassing consenting gay adults?
And while you are taking questions - if a 20% racial grouping has had 1,400 victims in Rotherham it follows from your views that there are 7,000* or more unidentified victims of other racial groupings in Rotherham. Do you in fact believe that?
* 5,600 is the technical minimum, assuming every single one of the 1,400 was also a victim of the remaining 80%.
I've been though all the constituencies to see which have at least at least a very small chance of being won by UKIP. The figure I got was 126 which is almost exactly 20% of all seats. I split them into 5 bands: the 1st (most likely) contained 14 seats, 2nd: 21, 3rd: 28, 4th: 31, 5th: 32. I suppose the first band roughly corresponds to seats UKIP would have a decent chance of winning if they poll 15% nationally, and then you add 2.5% for each of the other bands, so the final one is for a 25% UKIP share.
First band (14): Basildon South, Boston, Camborne, Castle Point, Clacton, Dudley North, Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Rochester, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Thanet South, Thurrock, Walsall North.
I've been though all the constituencies to see which have at least at least a very small chance of being won by UKIP. The figure I got was 126 which is almost exactly 20% of all seats. I split them into 5 bands: the 1st (most likely) contained 14 seats, 2nd: 21, 3rd: 28, 4th: 31, 5th: 32. I suppose the first band roughly corresponds to seats UKIP would have a decent chance of winning if they poll 15% nationally, and then you add 2.5% for each of the other bands, so the final one is for a 25% UKIP share.
First band (14): Basildon South, Boston, Camborne, Castle Point, Clacton, Dudley North, Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Rochester, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Thanet South, Thurrock, Walsall North.
The Tories have 30 selections still to make in England.
8 of them are in South Yorkshire: Don Valley, Doncaster Central, Doncaster North, Penistone & Stocksbridge, Sheffield Central, Sheffield Brightside & Hillsborough, Barnsley Central, Barnsley East.
Don Valley and Stocksbridge & Penistone have Labour majorities of under 4000 are demographically trending rightwards and are the sort of places where UKIP will take as least as many Labour votes as Conservatives.
Does CCHQ know anything about electoral strategy ?
You pick up on the increase in exurban commuters / Conservative voters.
But you miss the associated demographic changes within urban areas - which are pro-Labour.
Which, for example, makes the likes of Enfield North and Brentford (and Enfield Southgate and Ilford North) far more likely to change hands than their majorities suggest.
While Enfield North is in Greater London, this particular part of London Politically goes out of London in reality into what is better described as Hertfordshire Green Belt.
For Brentford and Isleworth, I said "Tory Chiswick, Labour Isleworth. Good barometer seat for London.Another one Labour need to win if they are serious" which aligns with your view
Enfield Southgate and Ilford North are not considered as they are not among the thirty most marginal seats, however I think them more likely to change hands than Enfield North, because they are areas that said commuters are moving out from!
The demographics have been changing fast in Enfield North.
It now has much more in common with Edmonton than with Hertfordshire.
I've been though all the constituencies to see which have at least at least a very small chance of being won by UKIP. The figure I got was 126 which is almost exactly 20% of all seats. I split them into 5 bands: the 1st (most likely) contained 14 seats, 2nd: 21, 3rd: 28, 4th: 31, 5th: 32. I suppose the first band roughly corresponds to seats UKIP would have a decent chance of winning if they poll 15% nationally, and then you add 2.5% for each of the other bands, so the final one is for a 25% UKIP share.
First band (14): Basildon South, Boston, Camborne, Castle Point, Clacton, Dudley North, Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Rochester, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Thanet South, Thurrock, Walsall North.
Well I did say that there was a possibility of UKIP ending up with 102 seats. Now you see a possibility of 126 UKIP bottoms ending up in the House of Commons. Thats very interesting; indeed.
I'm presuming that by the election UKIP will be on 20% -22% ±, or even 40 seats will be a big ask.
I've been though all the constituencies to see which have at least at least a very small chance of being won by UKIP. The figure I got was 126 which is almost exactly 20% of all seats. I split them into 5 bands: the 1st (most likely) contained 14 seats, 2nd: 21, 3rd: 28, 4th: 31, 5th: 32. I suppose the first band roughly corresponds to seats UKIP would have a decent chance of winning if they poll 15% nationally, and then you add 2.5% for each of the other bands, so the final one is for a 25% UKIP share.
First band (14): Basildon South, Boston, Camborne, Castle Point, Clacton, Dudley North, Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Rochester, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Thanet South, Thurrock, Walsall North.
I've been though all the constituencies to see which have at least at least a very small chance of being won by UKIP. The figure I got was 126 which is almost exactly 20% of all seats. I split them into 5 bands: the 1st (most likely) contained 14 seats, 2nd: 21, 3rd: 28, 4th: 31, 5th: 32. I suppose the first band roughly corresponds to seats UKIP would have a decent chance of winning if they poll 15% nationally, and then you add 2.5% for each of the other bands, so the final one is for a 25% UKIP share.
First band (14): Basildon South, Boston, Camborne, Castle Point, Clacton, Dudley North, Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Rochester, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Thanet South, Thurrock, Walsall North.
I've been though all the constituencies to see which have at least at least a very small chance of being won by UKIP. The figure I got was 126 which is almost exactly 20% of all seats. I split them into 5 bands: the 1st (most likely) contained 14 seats, 2nd: 21, 3rd: 28, 4th: 31, 5th: 32. I suppose the first band roughly corresponds to seats UKIP would have a decent chance of winning if they poll 15% nationally, and then you add 2.5% for each of the other bands, so the final one is for a 25% UKIP share.
First band (14): Basildon South, Boston, Camborne, Castle Point, Clacton, Dudley North, Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Rochester, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Thanet South, Thurrock, Walsall North.
Well I did say that there was a possibility of UKIP ending up with 102 seats. Now you see a possibility of 126 UKIP bottoms ending up in the House of Commons. Thats very interesting; indeed.
I'm presuming that by the election UKIP will be on 20% -22% ±, or even 40 seats will be a big ask.
Perhaps base your expecation on what the usually quite accurate polls would indicate. A vote share for UKIP between 12% and 16% and 1 to 3 seats.
If you really refuse to accept this, go find some supporters of the Liberals or SNP and ask them what use even 30% vote share from a standing start works out at in terms of seats.
The Tories have 30 selections still to make in England.
8 of them are in South Yorkshire: Don Valley, Doncaster Central, Doncaster North, Penistone & Stocksbridge, Sheffield Central, Sheffield Brightside & Hillsborough, Barnsley Central, Barnsley East.
Don Valley and Stocksbridge & Penistone have Labour majorities of under 4000 are demographically trending rightwards and are the sort of places where UKIP will take as least as many Labour votes as Conservatives.
Does CCHQ know anything about electoral strategy ?
May just have recruited someone to fill one of them!
I've been though all the constituencies to see which have at least at least a very small chance of being won by UKIP. The figure I got was 126 which is almost exactly 20% of all seats. I split them into 5 bands: the 1st (most likely) contained 14 seats, 2nd: 21, 3rd: 28, 4th: 31, 5th: 32. I suppose the first band roughly corresponds to seats UKIP would have a decent chance of winning if they poll 15% nationally, and then you add 2.5% for each of the other bands, so the final one is for a 25% UKIP share.
First band (14): Basildon South, Boston, Camborne, Castle Point, Clacton, Dudley North, Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Rochester, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Thanet South, Thurrock, Walsall North.
Well I did say that there was a possibility of UKIP ending up with 102 seats. Now you see a possibility of 126 UKIP bottoms ending up in the House of Commons. Thats very interesting; indeed.
I'm presuming that by the election UKIP will be on 20% -22% ±, or even 40 seats will be a big ask.
Perhaps base your expecation on what the usually quite accurate polls would indicate. A vote share for UKIP between 12% and 16% and 1 to 3 seats.
If you really refuse to accept this, go find some supporters of the Liberals or SNP and ask them what use even 30% vote share from a standing start works out at in terms of seats.
I think that's a bit pessimistic for UKIP, 4 seats is what I'm thinking at the moment.
I've been though all the constituencies to see which have at least at least a very small chance of being won by UKIP. The figure I got was 126 which is almost exactly 20% of all seats. I split them into 5 bands: the 1st (most likely) contained 14 seats, 2nd: 21, 3rd: 28, 4th: 31, 5th: 32. I suppose the first band roughly corresponds to seats UKIP would have a decent chance of winning if they poll 15% nationally, and then you add 2.5% for each of the other bands, so the final one is for a 25% UKIP share.
First band (14): Basildon South, Boston, Camborne, Castle Point, Clacton, Dudley North, Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Rochester, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Thanet South, Thurrock, Walsall North.
Well I did say that there was a possibility of UKIP ending up with 102 seats. Now you see a possibility of 126 UKIP bottoms ending up in the House of Commons. Thats very interesting; indeed.
I'm presuming that by the election UKIP will be on 20% -22% ±, or even 40 seats will be a big ask.
Perhaps base your expecation on what the usually quite accurate polls would indicate. A vote share for UKIP between 12% and 16% and 1 to 3 seats.
If you really refuse to accept this, go find some supporters of the Liberals or SNP and ask them what use even 30% vote share from a standing start works out at in terms of seats.
Even if UKIP "only" gets 16%, I suspect 1-3 seats is too low.
I think people forget that, when the Alliance was getting 20-odd percent and 20-odd seats, it was 20% behind the leading party.
Now, you have neither the Labour Party nor the Conservatives on more than 31-33%. That means the 'hurdle' in individual seats is going to be much lower than people think,
It's also why - should the LibDems limp into double digits - that they're likely to retain 25+ seats.
I've been though all the constituencies to see which have at least at least a very small chance of being won by UKIP. The figure I got was 126 which is almost exactly 20% of all seats. I split them into 5 bands: the 1st (most likely) contained 14 seats, 2nd: 21, 3rd: 28, 4th: 31, 5th: 32. I suppose the first band roughly corresponds to seats UKIP would have a decent chance of winning if they poll 15% nationally, and then you add 2.5% for each of the other bands, so the final one is for a 25% UKIP share.
First band (14): Basildon South, Boston, Camborne, Castle Point, Clacton, Dudley North, Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Rochester, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Thanet South, Thurrock, Walsall North.
Well I did say that there was a possibility of UKIP ending up with 102 seats. Now you see a possibility of 126 UKIP bottoms ending up in the House of Commons. Thats very interesting; indeed.
I'm presuming that by the election UKIP will be on 20% -22% ±, or even 40 seats will be a big ask.
Perhaps base your expecation on what the usually quite accurate polls would indicate. A vote share for UKIP between 12% and 16% and 1 to 3 seats.
If you really refuse to accept this, go find some supporters of the Liberals or SNP and ask them what use even 30% vote share from a standing start works out at in terms of seats.
I think that's a bit pessimistic for UKIP, 4 seats is what I'm thinking at the moment.
With UKIP & the SNP it is not just vote share but having a credible candidate in place. People are electing individuals not ranking parties in a popularity contest
I've been though all the constituencies to see which have at least at least a very small chance of being won by UKIP. The figure I got was 126 which is almost exactly 20% of all seats. I split them into 5 bands: the 1st (most likely) contained 14 seats, 2nd: 21, 3rd: 28, 4th: 31, 5th: 32. I suppose the first band roughly corresponds to seats UKIP would have a decent chance of winning if they poll 15% nationally, and then you add 2.5% for each of the other bands, so the final one is for a 25% UKIP share.
First band (14): Basildon South, Boston, Camborne, Castle Point, Clacton, Dudley North, Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Rochester, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Thanet South, Thurrock, Walsall North.
Well I did say that there was a possibility of UKIP ending up with 102 seats. Now you see a possibility of 126 UKIP bottoms ending up in the House of Commons. Thats very interesting; indeed.
I'm presuming that by the election UKIP will be on 20% -22% ±, or even 40 seats will be a big ask.
Perhaps base your expecation on what the usually quite accurate polls would indicate. A vote share for UKIP between 12% and 16% and 1 to 3 seats.
If you really refuse to accept this, go find some supporters of the Liberals or SNP and ask them what use even 30% vote share from a standing start works out at in terms of seats.
Even if UKIP "only" gets 16%, I suspect 1-3 seats is too low.
I think people forget that, when the Alliance was getting 20-odd percent and 20-odd seats, it was 20% behind the leading party.
Now, you have neither the Labour Party nor the Conservatives on more than 31-33%. That means the 'hurdle' in individual seats is going to be much lower than people think,
It's also why - should the LibDems limp into double digits - that they're likely to retain 25+ seats.
How many of the Alliance's 20-odd seats were not inherited from the Liberals and the Gang of Four? The point I was making is that it takes a long term 20% to 25% vote share to convert that into seats from a standing start. One election isn't enough (unless you inherit some seats of course but this barely applies to UKIP who inherit two).
I've been though all the constituencies to see which have at least at least a very small chance of being won by UKIP. The figure I got was 126 which is almost exactly 20% of all seats. I split them into 5 bands: the 1st (most likely) contained 14 seats, 2nd: 21, 3rd: 28, 4th: 31, 5th: 32. I suppose the first band roughly corresponds to seats UKIP would have a decent chance of winning if they poll 15% nationally, and then you add 2.5% for each of the other bands, so the final one is for a 25% UKIP share.
First band (14): Basildon South, Boston, Camborne, Castle Point, Clacton, Dudley North, Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Rochester, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Thanet South, Thurrock, Walsall North.
Well I did say that there was a possibility of UKIP ending up with 102 seats. Now you see a possibility of 126 UKIP bottoms ending up in the House of Commons. Thats very interesting; indeed.
I'm presuming that by the election UKIP will be on 20% -22% ±, or even 40 seats will be a big ask.
Perhaps base your expecation on what the usually quite accurate polls would indicate. A vote share for UKIP between 12% and 16% and 1 to 3 seats.
If you really refuse to accept this, go find some supporters of the Liberals or SNP and ask them what use even 30% vote share from a standing start works out at in terms of seats.
I think that's a bit pessimistic for UKIP, 4 seats is what I'm thinking at the moment.
With UKIP & the SNP it is not just vote share but having a credible candidate in place. People are electing individuals not ranking parties in a popularity contest
As someone who is very interested in politics and always votes, I can say with utter certainty that I have never voted for a candidate in my entire life. Every vote I have ever cast has been for a party.
I would find it hard to believe I am unusual in this. If you're basing this on some evidence is it perhaps evidence for incumbency and not candidature?
Evening all. Prompted by DavidL, I've been thinking about which Lib Dems look set to survive in May, and what that might mean for post-election coalition negotiations:
'I can say with utter certainty that I have never voted for a candidate in my entire life. Every vote I have ever cast has been for a party.'
Ditto,if there is a problem with my local candidate I will no doubt hear about it via the local media otherwise I couldn't give a monkey's.Too many other more important things to worry about.
Evening all. Prompted by DavidL, I've been thinking about which Lib Dems look set to survive in May, and what that might mean for post-election coalition negotiations:
Evening all. Prompted by DavidL, I've been thinking about which Lib Dems look set to survive in May, and what that might mean for post-election coalition negotiations:
I can forsee one or two of those in the safe column losing their seats (Hughes,Kennedy ?) and perhaps one or two in the doomed column hanging on... Does Crockart have a chance ?
But of course shocks are equally likely on both sides of the equation and so don't actually need consideration
As ever it's a fantastic article, Clegg in particular losing his seat changes the dynamic a huge amount as Farron surely takes over the reigns.
I've been though all the constituencies to see which have at least at least a very small chance of being won by UKIP. The figure I got was 126 which is almost exactly 20% of all seats. I split them into 5 bands: the 1st (most likely) contained 14 seats, 2nd: 21, 3rd: 28, 4th: 31, 5th: 32. I suppose the first band roughly corresponds to seats UKIP would have a decent chance of winning if they poll 15% nationally, and then you add 2.5% for each of the other bands, so the final one is for a 25% UKIP share.
First band (14): Basildon South, Boston, Camborne, Castle Point, Clacton, Dudley North, Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Rochester, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Thanet South, Thurrock, Walsall North.
Well I did say that there was a possibility of UKIP ending up with 102 seats. Now you see a possibility of 126 UKIP bottoms ending up in the House of Commons. Thats very interesting; indeed.
I'm presuming that by the election UKIP will be on 20% -22% ±, or even 40 seats will be a big ask.
Perhaps base your expecation on what the usually quite accurate polls would indicate. A vote share for UKIP between 12% and 16% and 1 to 3 seats.
If you really refuse to accept this, go find some supporters of the Liberals or SNP and ask them what use even 30% vote share from a standing start works out at in terms of seats.
I think that's a bit pessimistic for UKIP, 4 seats is what I'm thinking at the moment.
With UKIP & the SNP it is not just vote share but having a credible candidate in place. People are electing individuals not ranking parties in a popularity contest
As someone who is very interested in politics and always votes, I can say with utter certainty that I have never voted for a candidate in my entire life. Every vote I have ever cast has been for a party.
I would find it hard to believe I am unusual in this. If you're basing this on some evidence is it perhaps evidence for incumbency and not candidature?
I am the same. My vote is for the party, every time.
London is becoming like Paris - affluence in the centre with increasingly deprived and/or 'ethnic' outer suburbs.
Indeed, and that's part of the Tories' London problem.
The change in the centre isn't quick enough for them, while the outward drift is losing them marginals and pushing places like Hornchurch, Romford etc towards UKIP as people kick against the change.
Mike, On the previous thread I noticed odds of 8-1 for a others, would this also cover a rainbow coalition do you know? I'm very tempted to put £100 on this !
Due to the current cold weather and technical difficulties with our software, the "crossover" month has been moved to June. We apologise for any inconvinience caused. Particularly, to those who were expecting a guaranteed payout.
Mike, On the previous thread I noticed odds of 8-1 for a others, would this also cover a rainbow coalition do you know? I'm very tempted to put £100 on this !
I'm afraid "Others" in the Hills market now excludes the following:
Conservative-DUP only coalition might be the only viable method it pays out but the probability of that is ~ 1500-1 against or so ?
Even if the numbers mean it makes sense (UKIP routed, Conservatives on 320 seats, Lib Dems reduced to a very left wing rump), the DUP will back up Dave in a minority rather than take cabinet seats.
Evening all. Prompted by DavidL, I've been thinking about which Lib Dems look set to survive in May, and what that might mean for post-election coalition negotiations:
I can forsee one or two of those in the safe column losing their seats (Hughes,Kennedy ?) and perhaps one or two in the doomed column hanging on... Does Crockart have a chance ?
But of course shocks are equally likely on both sides of the equation and so don't actually need consideration
As ever it's a fantastic article, Clegg in particular losing his seat changes the dynamic a huge amount as Farron surely takes over the reigns.
Kennedy will not lose. He is becoming an elder statesman while still young. He is untainted by this toxic coalition.
I really fancy a punt with this loose bit of birthday money I have left but I just don't know where at the moment, leaving it another month is going to be too late I fear.
Due to the current cold weather and technical difficulties with our software, the "crossover" month has been moved to June. We apologise for any inconvinience caused. Particularly, to those who were expecting a guaranteed payout.
Conservative-DUP only coalition might be the only viable method it pays out but the probability of that is ~ 1500-1 against or so ?
Even if the numbers mean it makes sense (UKIP routed, Conservatives on 320 seats, Lib Dems reduced to a very left wing rump), the DUP will back up Dave in a minority rather than take cabinet seats.
I would expect considerable bad blood between the DUP and Tories given the recent alliance between the UUP and Tories.
I really fancy a punt with this loose bit of birthday money I have left but I just don't know where at the moment, leaving it another month is going to be too late I fear.
If you want an adventurous bet, try the 11/4 on the SNP in Rutherglen & Hamilton West. It may not win but it should give you some excitement.
First band (14): Basildon South, Boston, Camborne, Castle Point, Clacton, Dudley North, Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Rochester, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Thanet South, Thurrock, Walsall North.
I'm presuming that by the election UKIP will be on 20% -22% ±, or even 40 seats will be a big ask.
Perhapding start works out at in terms of seats.
I think that's a bit pessimistic for UKIP, 4 seats is what I'm thinking at the moment.
With UKI
As ssual in this.
Absolutely not. It is one of the greatest lies in politics that people vote for candidates and not parties (before anyone jumps down my throat about that statement, hold on a moment). Or rather, it can be made to be a lie by giving the impression it means more than it does. We do vote for individuals in constituencies, and so people have the potential to develop a personal vote, but far away more common is that people like or dislike a particular party and have little idea of whether the candidate in their region is a good fit for the part of the party they personally like.
We also all know that in many places a donkey in the right colours can win and only very rarely does that come back to hurt the parties, again showing that it is the party not the person people are voting for. The rare exceptions do not change that, nor does our constituency system.
It's comparable to how in a few months people will talk about electing the PM, and someone will enlighten us all here and elsewhere that we do not elect PMs, we elect MPs, and the Queen will send for the MP who is capable of commanding a majority etc etc, as if this is come great revelation - it's a true statement, but does not refute the point people are generally making, which in that case is that the leader of a party can be central to the party's performance (that shall be tested hard this year)
In the case of electing people not parties, it can in the right circumstances tip the balance, and on rare occasions swing the situation, but in most cases if the party is doing well, things have to go very wrong with the person to mess that up.
Conservative-DUP only coalition might be the only viable method it pays out but the probability of that is ~ 1500-1 against or so ?
Even if the numbers mean it makes sense (UKIP routed, Conservatives on 320 seats, Lib Dems reduced to a very left wing rump), the DUP will back up Dave in a minority rather than take cabinet seats.
I would expect considerable bad blood between the DUP and Tories given the recent alliance between the UUP and Tories.
Indeed, my main point is that "Other" now in the Hills market is not worth anything.
I've been though all the constituencies to see which have at least at least a very small chance of being won by UKIP. The figure I got was 126 which is almost exactly 20% of all seats. I split them into 5 bands: the 1st (most likely) contained 14 seats, 2nd: 21, 3rd: 28, 4th: 31, 5th: 32. I suppose the first band roughly corresponds to seats UKIP would have a decent chance of winning if they poll 15% nationally, and then you add 2.5% for each of the other bands, so the final one is for a 25% UKIP share.
First band (14): Basildon South, Boston, Camborne, Castle Point, Clacton, Dudley North, Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Rochester, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Thanet South, Thurrock, Walsall North.
I've been though all the constituencies to see which have at least at least a very small chance of being won by UKIP. The figure I got was 126 which is almost exactly 20% of all seats. I split them into 5 bands: the 1st (most likely) contained 14 seats, 2nd: 21, 3rd: 28, 4th: 31, 5th: 32. I suppose the first band roughly corresponds to seats UKIP would have a decent chance of winning if they poll 15% nationally, and then you add 2.5% for each of the other bands, so the final one is for a 25% UKIP share.
First band (14): Basildon South, Boston, Camborne, Castle Point, Clacton, Dudley North, Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Rochester, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Thanet South, Thurrock, Walsall North.
Don't know if Socrates will be back any time soon, but here is another article about how and why Hillary may decide not to run. It is from American Thinker, so could be no more than wishful thinking. But I have a feeling in my gut that there is some truth to this. Still think it is more likely than not that she will run and be the nomination, but if you can get good odds on her not running, it might be worth a few quid>
Still astounding that 3 out of 10 in polls still support Labour after the week they have just had.
There remain many who believe in the magic money tree that the 2 Ed's invented.
That might well be of concern, but it doesn't seem that astounding to me. Labour are not even pretending they will cut nothing, just that for some bizarre reason, none of their cutting will hurt, and that is what people want to hear - that where money is needed it will be given, but that somehow finances will be repaired, and with no real pain (they cannot say none, but can give that impression). That's a winning argument right there.
I've been though all the constituencies to see which have at least at least a very small chance of being won by UKIP. The figure I got was 126 which is almost exactly 20% of all seats. I split them into 5 bands: the 1st (most likely) contained 14 seats, 2nd: 21, 3rd: 28, 4th: 31, 5th: 32. I suppose the first band roughly corresponds to seats UKIP would have a decent chance of winning if they poll 15% nationally, and then you add 2.5% for each of the other bands, so the final one is for a 25% UKIP share.
First band (14): Basildon South, Boston, Camborne, Castle Point, Clacton, Dudley North, Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Rochester, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Thanet South, Thurrock, Walsall North.
MM - Who do you see winning Torbay and how sure are you ...... as sure as Marcus Wood was in 2010 I wonder?
I think that the Blues have the best chance of Torbay in recent years. They have put in a lot of effort - more than the LibDems. It is still close, but the LibDems are undoubtedly shedding support. UKIP are working the best LibDem areas, but they are a way back in third.
Stinker for Kippers - Opinium used to be their banker.
I really do find the idea that Kippers can grow their support base to be almost comical. Their core xenophobic offer to the voters is one which is either immediately accepted or rejected.
Now they have lapped up pretty much all the EDL and BNP voters and non-voting supporters encouraged by media-hype they have reached their threshold.
Stinker for Kippers - Opinium used to be their banker.
I really do find the idea that Kippers can grow their support base to be almost comical. Their core xenophobic offer to the voters is one which is either immediately accepted or rejected.
Now they have lapped up pretty much all the EDL and BNP voters and non-voting supporters encouraged by media-hype they have reached their threshold.
I've been though all the constituencies to see which have at least at least a very small chance of being won by UKIP. The figure I got was 126 which is almost exactly 20% of all seats. I split them into 5 bands: the 1st (most likely) contained 14 seats, 2nd: 21, 3rd: 28, 4th: 31, 5th: 32. I suppose the first band roughly corresponds to seats UKIP would have a decent chance of winning if they poll 15% nationally, and then you add 2.5% for each of the other bands, so the final one is for a 25% UKIP share.
First band (14): Basildon South, Boston, Camborne, Castle Point, Clacton, Dudley North, Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Rochester, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Thanet South, Thurrock, Walsall North.
MM - Who do you see winning Torbay and how sure are you ...... as sure as Marcus Wood was in 2010 I wonder?
I think that the Blues have the best chance of Torbay in recent years. They have put in a lot of effort - more than the LibDems. It is still close, but the LibDems are undoubtedly shedding support. UKIP are working the best LibDem areas, but they are a way back in third.
Thanks for that ..... very much more cautious than Marcus was last time and reading between the lines, you don't seem too confident but are maybe giving the Blues an evens chance of winning .... yes?
"The real scandal is this: as this crime is at least equally prevalent among non-Pakistanis as among Pakistanis, and assuming a Pakistani population of 20% in Rotherham, there are at least 7,000 victims of the non-Pakistani child abuse rings in Rotherham none of whom have come to light. Why aren't you out campaigning for their rights, Roger?"
Another one of your reductio ad absurdums. You're turning them into a speciality. Interestingly when I first got a place in Soho I was told the Greeks ran the area so beware. Those were the days.......
Stinker for Kippers - Opinium used to be their banker.
I really do find the idea that Kippers can grow their support base to be almost comical. Their core xenophobic offer to the voters is one which is either immediately accepted or rejected.
Now they have lapped up pretty much all the EDL and BNP voters and non-voting supporters encouraged by media-hype they have reached their threshold.
Get used to laughing. UKIP's support has grown five-fold since 2010. 15% is 5 m votes, in a general election.
In other words, almost 8,000 votes per constituency.
Stinker for Kippers - Opinium used to be their banker.
I really do find the idea that Kippers can grow their support base to be almost comical. Their core xenophobic offer to the voters is one which is either immediately accepted or rejected.
Now they have lapped up pretty much all the EDL and BNP voters and non-voting supporters encouraged by media-hype they have reached their threshold.
A pretty decent threshold nonetheless.
The argument seems to be that people shouldn't support UKIP, therefore they don't support UKIP.
Quite a bit of down weighting being applied to UKIP/SNP by Opinium.
Labour vote retention seems higher with ICM, Populus (online) Comres (online) and Opinium (online) than it is with Yougov, Ashcroft (phone), Comres (phone) and Ipsos (phone).
I've been though all the constituencies to see which have at least at least a very small chance of being won by UKIP. The figure I got was 126 which is almost exactly 20% of all seats. I split them into 5 bands: the 1st (most likely) contained 14 seats, 2nd: 21, 3rd: 28, 4th: 31, 5th: 32. I suppose the first band roughly corresponds to seats UKIP would have a decent chance of winning if they poll 15% nationally, and then you add 2.5% for each of the other bands, so the final one is for a 25% UKIP share.
First band (14): Basildon South, Boston, Camborne, Castle Point, Clacton, Dudley North, Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Rochester, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Thanet South, Thurrock, Walsall North.
MM - Who do you see winning Torbay and how sure are you ...... as sure as Marcus Wood was in 2010 I wonder?
I have no idea who Marcus Wood is or was, but Kevin Foster is a very good campaigner and it will go close between him and Sanders.
I fully expect UKIP to end up 3rd here too.
IIRC Marcus Wood was the Conservative candidate for Torbay in 2010.
He gave it endless big talk here about how the voters were cheering him in the street and that he was certain to win etc etc etc.
And after he'd lost admitted he'd made it all up and speculated that CCHQ had stopped him from winning so as to make a coalition with the LibDems easier.
Opinium have changed their methodology, so wouldn't read too much into the UKIP drop
The effect of these changes has been to remove some of the variation and statistical noise we have seen between polls. It also has the effect of slightly upweighting the Conservatives and downweighting UKIP while leaving Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens broadly unchanged.
Stinker for Kippers - Opinium used to be their banker.
I really do find the idea that Kippers can grow their support base to be almost comical. Their core xenophobic offer to the voters is one which is either immediately accepted or rejected.
Now they have lapped up pretty much all the EDL and BNP voters and non-voting supporters encouraged by media-hype they have reached their threshold.
A pretty decent threshold nonetheless.
It's not enough. If you look at the history of the SNP from their emergence as an electoral possibility in the 1970s, with a core support of 25% well up on UKIPs starting point, it took them 30+ years and a change in the electoral system via devolution. Even building up a good record in hte few councils it gained influence in still wouldn't provide it with sufficient growth (but almost certainly helped once the devolved parliament became available).
Growing beyond your core is the real difficulty because the main way you do this is to provide a record of good governance and the options for doing this are incredibly rare.
Stinker for Kippers - Opinium used to be their banker.
I really do find the idea that Kippers can grow their support base to be almost comical. Their core xenophobic offer to the voters is one which is either immediately accepted or rejected.
Now they have lapped up pretty much all the EDL and BNP voters and non-voting supporters encouraged by media-hype they have reached their threshold.
Get used to laughing. UKIP's support has grown five-fold since 2010. 15% is 5 m votes, in a general election.
In other words, almost 8,000 votes per constituency.
That doesn't matter according to the history of British politics.
Take the Lib Dems. Let's take the 70s out the equation (and this helps your hopes). From the Alliance founding it took the Alliance/LibDems 15 years to translate their consistent 20% to 25% of the vote into a decent number of seats. Despite the 20% to 25% they only ever had 20 odd seats in 1983 (albeit as two parties) 1987 and 1992, not until 1997 did they move from 20-odd to 50+ seats and even then they haven't moved significantly in number of seats since then.
Opinium have changed their methodology, so wouldn't read too much into the UKIP drop
The effect of these changes has been to remove some of the variation and statistical noise we have seen between polls. It also has the effect of slightly upweighting the Conservatives and downweighting UKIP while leaving Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens broadly unchanged.
Opinium have changed their methodology, so wouldn't read too much into the UKIP drop
The effect of these changes has been to remove some of the variation and statistical noise we have seen between polls. It also has the effect of slightly upweighting the Conservatives and downweighting UKIP while leaving Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens broadly unchanged.
Stinker for Kippers - Opinium used to be their banker.
I really do find the idea that Kippers can grow their support base to be almost comical. Their core xenophobic offer to the voters is one which is either immediately accepted or rejected.
Now they have lapped up pretty much all the EDL and BNP voters and non-voting supporters encouraged by media-hype they have reached their threshold.
A pretty decent threshold nonetheless.
The argument seems to be that people shouldn't support UKIP, therefore they don't support UKIP.
My argument is not about my own personal views on UKIP. It is about the lack of acceptance of electoral reality by UKIP supporters. The idea they can win more than a handful of seats is beyond the realms of either realistic expectation and, more importantly, historical evidence.
Stinker for Kippers - Opinium used to be their banker.
I really do find the idea that Kippers can grow their support base to be almost comical. Their core xenophobic offer to the voters is one which is either immediately accepted or rejected.
Now they have lapped up pretty much all the EDL and BNP voters and non-voting supporters encouraged by media-hype they have reached their threshold.
Get used to laughing. UKIP's support has grown five-fold since 2010. 15% is 5 m votes, in a general election.
In other words, almost 8,000 votes per constituency.
That doesn't matter according to the history of British politics.
Take the Lib Dems. Let's take the 70s out the equation (and this helps your hopes). From the Alliance founding it took the Alliance/LibDems 15 years to translate their consistent 20% to 25% of the vote into a decent number of seats. Despite the 20% to 25% they only ever had 20 odd seats in 1983 (albeit as two parties) 1987 and 1992, not until 1997 did they move from 20-odd to 50+ seats and even then they haven't moved significantly in number of seats since then.
History is not on the side of the UKIP dreamers.
The Alliance's support was too evenly distributed across the country to win many seats. UKIP's support is more concentrated.
"He gave it endless big talk here about how the voters were cheering him in the street and that he was certain to win etc etc etc."
My memory is how Marcus gave up work to devote himself whole heartedly to winning Torbay. He spent five years on nothing else and at the end he lost. I thought it was sad
Labour holding up very well in London and doing enough in the North, perhaps outperforming slightly in Lancashire I reckon.
I think Labour could struggle in some of the former mill towns in Lancashire, like Pendle -- a lot of them are in such long-term decline that I feel they could have major UKIP potential, at Labour's expense.
They should sweep all the marginals in the Manchester/Liverpool area if they're going to be the biggest party, though.
Comments
Have you by any chance been expelled by Ukip for the views you hold? It would explain your bitterness against them.
The problem is that when the word abuse is thrown around it is assumed to mean sexual child molesting. However Social Services in the UK appear to assume that smacking a naughty child or even shouting at them (heaven forfend) or not giving them enough pocket money to be "physical" and "emotional" abuse and grounds for removal and enrichment of the fostering and adoption industry, so the word "abuse" is utterly meaningless without more context.
Most reasonable people would assume I was talking about paedophiles.
Some others might draw a different conclusion.
They could be wrong but appear to fit - errors could be in either direction too also.
The main difference is that in England people seem to accept the way the media portray Scottish Politics (perhaps understandably). In Scotland there is a much clearer realisation by the public that the media is lying through their teeth.
First band (14): Basildon South, Boston, Camborne, Castle Point, Clacton, Dudley North, Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Rochester, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Thanet South, Thurrock, Walsall North.
Second band: (21): Basildon, Brigg, Cannock, Cleethorpes, Dudley South, Eastleigh, Folkestone, Gillingham, Harlow, Hartlepool, Heywood, Isle of Wight, Louth, Plymouth Moor View, Portsmouth North, Portsmouth South, St Ives, Staffs Moorlands, Suffolk West, Thanet North, Torbay.
It's about why multi-culturalism has completely failed as an experiment from its early days with the Jim Crow Laws to its adoption by the left despite it's origin and has allowed cultural practises like Kuffar to go completely and utterly unchecked and unaddressed.
Saying that it's wrong to address the issue because there is an obvious cultural profile (and I use that word very deliberately) is enabling. Saying it's wrong to address the issue because other rape exists is enabling. Being the local MP and blaming Single White Males from child abuse when there is no evidence and it does not apply to the immediate problem is enabling.
It is clear that the dogmatic agenda has not been removed from this problem.
And while you are taking questions - if a 20% racial grouping has had 1,400 victims in Rotherham it follows from your views that there are 7,000* or more unidentified victims of other racial groupings in Rotherham. Do you in fact believe that?
* 5,600 is the technical minimum, assuming every single one of the 1,400 was also a victim of the remaining 80%.
Does CCHQ know anything about electoral strategy ?
When I'm King: Staying on message... http://batsby.blogspot.com/2015/02/staying-on-message.html?spref=tw …. Definitely worth a RT.
It now has much more in common with Edmonton than with Hertfordshire.
And its the sort of place which could be won on under 30% of the vote.
If you really refuse to accept this, go find some supporters of the Liberals or SNP and ask them what use even 30% vote share from a standing start works out at in terms of seats.
London is not as invulnerable to the appeal of UKIP as commonly reported, finds new research from Eric Kaufmann.
...and now I'm off for tea.
I'm the one who gets lumbered if someone sues.
Ilford North increasingly growing to resemble East Ham.
Meanwhile, pockets of inner London get increasingly affluent and increasingly immune to Labour's particular charms.
The Isle of Dogs now has several Tory councillors.
Is it ?
I think people forget that, when the Alliance was getting 20-odd percent and 20-odd seats, it was 20% behind the leading party.
Now, you have neither the Labour Party nor the Conservatives on more than 31-33%. That means the 'hurdle' in individual seats is going to be much lower than people think,
It's also why - should the LibDems limp into double digits - that they're likely to retain 25+ seats.
But if anyone wants to read the details, its on about page 8 of today's Times.
Then all it takes is a little thought.
Even down to the five year timescale he expected it to happen under.
I wonder if any of those who were so abusive towards him have feelings of regret.
And think of all the great publicity when you won ;-)
I would find it hard to believe I am unusual in this. If you're basing this on some evidence is it perhaps evidence for incumbency and not candidature?
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/blessed-are-kingmakers-who-will-lib.html
'I can say with utter certainty that I have never voted for a candidate in my entire life. Every vote I have ever cast has been for a party.'
Ditto,if there is a problem with my local candidate I will no doubt hear about it via the local media otherwise I couldn't give a monkey's.Too many other more important things to worry about.
But of course shocks are equally likely on both sides of the equation and so don't actually need consideration
As ever it's a fantastic article, Clegg in particular losing his seat changes the dynamic a huge amount as Farron surely takes over the reigns.
The change in the centre isn't quick enough for them, while the outward drift is losing them marginals and pushing places like Hornchurch, Romford etc towards UKIP as people kick against the change.
Latest Opinium poll poll (03 - 06 Feb):
LAB - 34% (+1)
CON - 32% (-)
UKIP - 15% (-3)
GRN - 8% (+2)
LDEM - 7% (+2)
EICIPM
On the previous thread I noticed odds of 8-1 for a others, would this also cover a rainbow coalition do you know? I'm very tempted to put £100 on this !
Any coalition involving the Greens or SNP or UKIP
Conservative and Labour Minority Gov'ts.
So it is worthless as a bet now.
Do you think this poll might be an error lo
Even if the numbers mean it makes sense (UKIP routed, Conservatives on 320 seats, Lib Dems reduced to a very left wing rump), the DUP will back up Dave in a minority rather than take cabinet seats.
Thank you that's very helpful
Betair Sportsbook revise Sheffield Hallam odds followin @LordAshcroft statement about his Dec poll
4/5 LD
6/5 LAB.
11:00 AM - 7 Feb 2015
By comparison, Paddy Power's 2/1 odds against Labour looks like cracking value, but DYOR.
It's just not been Tory/Labour.
There remain many who believe in the magic money tree that the 2 Ed's invented.
We also all know that in many places a donkey in the right colours can win and only very rarely does that come back to hurt the parties, again showing that it is the party not the person people are voting for. The rare exceptions do not change that, nor does our constituency system.
It's comparable to how in a few months people will talk about electing the PM, and someone will enlighten us all here and elsewhere that we do not elect PMs, we elect MPs, and the Queen will send for the MP who is capable of commanding a majority etc etc, as if this is come great revelation - it's a true statement, but does not refute the point people are generally making, which in that case is that the leader of a party can be central to the party's performance (that shall be tested hard this year)
In the case of electing people not parties, it can in the right circumstances tip the balance, and on rare occasions swing the situation, but in most cases if the party is doing well, things have to go very wrong with the person to mess that up.
I fully expect UKIP to end up 3rd here too.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/might_hillary_stay_out.html
Now they have lapped up pretty much all the EDL and BNP voters and non-voting supporters encouraged by media-hype they have reached their threshold.
Only I understand it is well overdue and there is now only 3 months to GE2015
"The real scandal is this: as this crime is at least equally prevalent among non-Pakistanis as among Pakistanis, and assuming a Pakistani population of 20% in Rotherham, there are at least 7,000 victims of the non-Pakistani child abuse rings in Rotherham none of whom have come to light. Why aren't you out campaigning for their rights, Roger?"
Another one of your reductio ad absurdums. You're turning them into a speciality. Interestingly when I first got a place in Soho I was told the Greeks ran the area so beware. Those were the days.......
In other words, almost 8,000 votes per constituency.
JUST
Seeing as you're far more bearish on the Lib Dems than I am, I'd have thought you'd get stuck into this !
Labour vote retention seems higher with ICM, Populus (online) Comres (online) and Opinium (online) than it is with Yougov, Ashcroft (phone), Comres (phone) and Ipsos (phone).
Shy Labour? Online panels swamped?
It looks like LAB lead has increased.
Wonder what is left for the Tories?
Glad i am not on Cameron next PM at 1.63
He gave it endless big talk here about how the voters were cheering him in the street and that he was certain to win etc etc etc.
And after he'd lost admitted he'd made it all up and speculated that CCHQ had stopped him from winning so as to make a coalition with the LibDems easier.
The effect of these changes has been to remove some of the variation and statistical noise we have seen between polls. It also has the effect of slightly upweighting the Conservatives and downweighting UKIP while leaving Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens broadly unchanged.
http://ourinsight.opinium.co.uk/opinium-blog/note-methodology
Growing beyond your core is the real difficulty because the main way you do this is to provide a record of good governance and the options for doing this are incredibly rare.
Take the Lib Dems. Let's take the 70s out the equation (and this helps your hopes). From the Alliance founding it took the Alliance/LibDems 15 years to translate their consistent 20% to 25% of the vote into a decent number of seats. Despite the 20% to 25% they only ever had 20 odd seats in 1983 (albeit as two parties) 1987 and 1992, not until 1997 did they move from 20-odd to 50+ seats and even then they haven't moved significantly in number of seats since then.
History is not on the side of the UKIP dreamers.
Now try reading what I wrote
one
word
at
a
time
Bad news for polling accuracy.
It was me who noticed, as it wasn't meant to be public.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/11/18/opinium-poll-that-slipped-out-has-con-ahead-with-the-lds-down-on-5/
"He gave it endless big talk here about how the voters were cheering him in the street and that he was certain to win etc etc etc."
My memory is how Marcus gave up work to devote himself whole heartedly to winning Torbay. He spent five years on nothing else and at the end he lost. I thought it was sad
They should sweep all the marginals in the Manchester/Liverpool area if they're going to be the biggest party, though.