politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The biggest source of Farage’s support in Thanet South: non

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The biggest source of Farage’s support in Thanet South: non voters at the last election

There’s little doubt that one of the great successes that UKIP has had has been in engaging within the political process those who have never, or not recently, used their vote.

Read the full story here

bigjohnowls

First

Foundations built on quicksand?

Scrapheap_as_was

Comfort poll

Scarpia

People who don't vote are unlikely to change their habits. I would guess at least two-thirds of the non voting 2010 support wont be arsed to turn out in May.

Grandiose

FTPT

coolagorna said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

ONS (for our new Labour poster)
73.2% of people aged 16-64 employed in Oct-Dec 2014. A record high http://ow.ly/JJlEC pic.twitter.com/vbZbCyecIf

"Employed" but...

Workfare counts as employed but they only get paid their JSA money

Zero hours counts as employed (thats a million plus) but no guaranteed hours (so of course no guarantee of wages)

Self employed count as employed though many of the newly self employed in the last 5 years are simply doing a few hours s/employment just to avoid the hassle of the job centre with no real genuine business or career prospects

No wonder the tax take is a disaster area and if the Lib Dems
harebrained idea to keep on raising the rate at which tax is levied at the bottom continues half the country soon wont be paying any tax..no wonder there is a black hole in NHS funding and the deficit has barely.come down at all in ths last 2 years (most of the fall.in the deficit was as a result of the aftermath of Darlings budgets in 09 and 10)

The poor need to be helped by higher incomes, higher benefits and having better public services NOT by being taken out of tax

Many people on zero hours contracts work a considerable, regular, number of hours. For years the number of people on zero hours contracts has been systematically underestimated through the Labour Force Survey, which (generally) requires the participant to identify their own employment status.

When the government first asked, as part of a consultation, "whether further action should be taken to address the potential abuse of zero hours contracts" the year was 1998 and the consultation was Blair's.

rcs1000

FPT:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Farage UKIP would back the Tories deficit reduction plans to ensure the deficit is eliminated by 2018, they would also end ringfencing of overseas aid, axe HS2 and quit the EU
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31656700

Quitting the EU would eliminate a lot of "overseas" aid too, £10bn a year net.

UKIP apparently want to join EFTA. That would mean they would pay around £15bn to the EU with no rebate.

What a load of garbage.

1. UKIP do not want to join EFTA.
2. Even if they did the cost to the UK would be no where near £15 billion.

As with so many occasions in the past you show your complete ignorance of the EU.

If we joined EFTA and paid the same 'toll' as the Norwegians on a per £ of GDP basis, we'd pay a little less than £4bn. If we paid the same on a per person basis, we'd pay about £2.5bn. If we had the Swiss arrangement it would be even less - although that is slightly confused by the Swiss allowing the EU to capture the "common external tariff" on some goods imported into Switzerland via EU ports.

rcs1000

@Scarpia: if you are right (and I don't think you are), then there is free money to be made on selling Farage on Betfair.

rcs1000

FPT:

Hengists_Gift said:

Artist said:

HYUFD said:

Farage UKIP would back the Tories deficit reduction plans to ensure the deficit is eliminated by 2018.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31656700

That could put off some Labour tactical voters. The opposite of anti-austerity as you were.

Yes but it is 'austerity' which is largely invisible to the voter. The things they want to cut are:

EU payments
International Aid
Renewable Energy subsidies
HS2
Barnett Formula
Closing the DCMS and DCCE

http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people

Now that lot will get the Islington and Primrose Hill sets and the rest of the Guardianistas frothing in their glasses of Bollinger. But hardworking working class Labour voters. I doubt it will upset them too much.

Although some of these are more symbolic than real. Take renewable energy subsidies: we actually subsidise remarkably little, even compared to the US, Canada or Australia. Our electricity costs are determined by the international prices of gas and seaborne coal, not by wind subsidies. On a 'price-per-kilowatt hour' basis, we pay less than anyone else in developed Europe (whether in the EU or not), and less than the Australians (who have massive coals and gas reserves).

On the same vane, closing the DCCE - well, we've always had a department of energy. Is the policy to return to that? Or is it to have no energy policy and allow the market to function? I would prefer the latter, but I suspect the policy is really the former.

Alanbrooke

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Farage UKIP would back the Tories deficit reduction plans to ensure the deficit is eliminated by 2018, they would also end ringfencing of overseas aid, axe HS2 and quit the EU
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31656700

Quitting the EU would eliminate a lot of "overseas" aid too, £10bn a year net.

UKIP apparently want to join EFTA. That would mean they would pay around £15bn to the EU with no rebate.

What a load of garbage.

1. UKIP do not want to join EFTA.
2. Even if they did the cost to the UK would be no where near £15 billion.

As with so many occasions in the past you show your complete ignorance of the EU.

If we joined EFTA and paid the same 'toll' as the Norwegians on a per £ of GDP basis, we'd pay a little less than £4bn. If we paid the same on a per person basis, we'd pay about £2.5bn. If we had the Swiss arrangement it would be even less - although that is slightly confused by the Swiss allowing the EU to capture the "common external tariff" on some goods imported into Switzerland via EU ports.

Any idea if HMG would be better off if multinats were restricted on the EU luxembourg tax wheeze ?

isam

Survation's first Clacton poll overstated UKIP

This was used to cast doubt on Survation's first Rochester poll by people desperate for Reckless to lose.. as it turns out that poll also overstated UKIP

In fact both over stated UKIP by the same proportion... I said pre Rochester that if the initial Survation poll overstated by the same factor as their Clacton effort, Reckless would win by 7.2%

The rest is history

Lump on Farage at 4/7 with Hills, its a gift. Should be 1/4 or shorter

If you have opposed.. here is your chance to get out - The first cut is the cheapest

rottenborough

If this is true then the UKIP operation needs to be a massive get-out-the-vote of those who they have canvassed and have said they will vote UKIP. Has the party got the experience and people to do this on the day? The other issue is: are these non-voters actually registered?

Grandiose

isam said:

Survation's first Clacton poll overstated UKIP

This was used to cast doubt on Survation's first Rochester poll by people desperate for Reckless to lose.. as it turns out that poll also overstated UKIP

In fact both over stated UKIP by the same proportion... I said pre Rochester that if the initial Survation poll overstated by the same factor as their Clacton effort, Reckless would win by 7.2%

The rest is history

Lump on Farage at 4/7 with Hills, its a gift. Should be 1/4 or shorter

If you have opposed.. here is your chance to get out - The first cut is the cheapest

If you applied the same overstatement to this poll what do you get?

isam

Grandiose said:

isam said:

Survation's first Clacton poll overstated UKIP

This was used to cast doubt on Survation's first Rochester poll by people desperate for Reckless to lose.. as it turns out that poll also overstated UKIP

In fact both over stated UKIP by the same proportion... I said pre Rochester that if the initial Survation poll overstated by the same factor as their Clacton effort, Reckless would win by 7.2%

The rest is history

Lump on Farage at 4/7 with Hills, its a gift. Should be 1/4 or shorter

If you have opposed.. here is your chance to get out - The first cut is the cheapest

If you applied the same overstatement to this poll what do you get?

8.8% lead for Farage I think

Exactly the same arguments were made by the same people in Rochester as are being made here

Reliance on 2010 DNV's & Tactical voting from Lab or Cons would mean trouble for UKIP

Didn't happen, just as it didn't in Clacton. I have been consistent in my logic both times and proven correct, and it holds true for Farage in Thanet also

rcs1000

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Farage UKIP would back the Tories deficit reduction plans to ensure the deficit is eliminated by 2018, they would also end ringfencing of overseas aid, axe HS2 and quit the EU
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31656700

Quitting the EU would eliminate a lot of "overseas" aid too, £10bn a year net.

UKIP apparently want to join EFTA. That would mean they would pay around £15bn to the EU with no rebate.

What a load of garbage.

1. UKIP do not want to join EFTA.
2. Even if they did the cost to the UK would be no where near £15 billion.

As with so many occasions in the past you show your complete ignorance of the EU.

If we joined EFTA and paid the same 'toll' as the Norwegians on a per £ of GDP basis, we'd pay a little less than £4bn. If we paid the same on a per person basis, we'd pay about £2.5bn. If we had the Swiss arrangement it would be even less - although that is slightly confused by the Swiss allowing the EU to capture the "common external tariff" on some goods imported into Switzerland via EU ports.

Any idea if HMG would be better off if multinats were restricted on the EU luxembourg tax wheeze ?

Well, there are several different tax wheezes that flow through Luxembourg...

But the answer is: probably not, unfortunately. If we were to leave the EU, we would almost certainly enter into a free trade agreement with it along the lines of Switzerland or the EFTA countries. (And rightly so - because the free flow of goods and services across the border is essential to our country.)

TBH, if you want to stop multinat tax dodging you have to either (a) clamp down on tax competition between countries (which is ethically wrong and/or increases the power of Brussels/international bodies), or (b) become a lot harsher on transfer pricing (which is tough),

Grandiose

isam said:

Grandiose said:

isam said:

Survation's first Clacton poll overstated UKIP

This was used to cast doubt on Survation's first Rochester poll by people desperate for Reckless to lose.. as it turns out that poll also overstated UKIP

In fact both over stated UKIP by the same proportion... I said pre Rochester that if the initial Survation poll overstated by the same factor as their Clacton effort, Reckless would win by 7.2%

The rest is history

Lump on Farage at 4/7 with Hills, its a gift. Should be 1/4 or shorter

If you have opposed.. here is your chance to get out - The first cut is the cheapest

If you applied the same overstatement to this poll what do you get?

8.8% lead for Farage I think

Exactly the same arguments were made by the same people in Rochester as are being made here

Reliance on 2010 DNV's & Tactical voting from Lab or Cons would mean trouble for UKIP

Didn't happen, just as it didn't in Clacton. I have been consistent in my logic both times and proven correct, and it holds true for Farage in Thanet also

There are some differences, obviously. But an 8.8% lead is pretty resilient to small errors. Not sure 1/4 is right, but you might be right about 4/7...

SimonStClare

Evening all.

This could be problematic - the obvious question is will these previous ‘non-voters’ bother to vote next time?

FrancisUrquhart

FFS....Sky reporting "Jihadi John" as a promising undergraduate...no he wasn't, he went to one of the shittest universities in the UK and struggled to get a 2:2. And no he didn't do "effectively" Computer Science...f##king idiots on Sky.

Is it too hard to accurately report the facts?

Speedy

Thanet North would have been better for Farage, however in Thanet South the anti-UKIP tactical voters are split between 2 even parties that have about the same chance to beat him.
So any potential left-wing tactical voters will vote Labour and any potential liberal tactical voters will vote Tory.
There is the added problem that the Tories can't play the anti-UKIP tactical vote very well because their candidate is the former deputy leader of UKIP.

Also because of the publicity there will be a lot of joke candidates that will suck some anti-UKIP votes that will matter in a close contest (Al Murray gets 1% with Survation).

MTimT

I don't always agree with Peggy Noonan, but this piece on Jeb Bush's candidacy rings true in several places, not least:

"What is most missing so far is a fierce sense of engagement, a passionate desire to lead America out of the morass, a fiery—or Churchillian—certainty that he is the man for the moment. In its place we see a softer, wanner I’m smart, accomplished, know policy, and it’s my turn.'"

I have already said that I think if he were to win the nomination, Bush should be clear of the pack already, because his name recognition advantage will only diminish with time. And the lack of fire in the belly compared to, say, Walker, Rubio or even Cruz is evident. It is why I am also so underwhelmed by Hillary's campaign. She has not articulated why she is right for America right now. Just being a woman is not enough.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/sorry-jeb-the-race-is-wide-open-1424994157

logical_song

Climate change denier did not disclose funding from fossil-fuel companies.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27028-climate-change-sceptics-work-called-into-question.html#.VPDCI_msXw8

HYUFD

TimT Indeed, Christie has more fire in his belly, which is why I still think he could be GOP nominee and Jeb won't run. Hillary however, will run on a restoration of the Clinton years, her tough nature and the first woman president, I remain of the view she will therefore narrowly win

Richard_Tyndall

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Farage UKIP would back the Tories deficit reduction plans to ensure the deficit is eliminated by 2018, they would also end ringfencing of overseas aid, axe HS2 and quit the EU
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31656700

Quitting the EU would eliminate a lot of "overseas" aid too, £10bn a year net.

UKIP apparently want to join EFTA. That would mean they would pay around £15bn to the EU with no rebate.

What a load of garbage.

1. UKIP do not want to join EFTA.
2. Even if they did the cost to the UK would be no where near £15 billion.

As with so many occasions in the past you show your complete ignorance of the EU.

If we joined EFTA and paid the same 'toll' as the Norwegians on a per £ of GDP basis, we'd pay a little less than £4bn. If we paid the same on a per person basis, we'd pay about £2.5bn. If we had the Swiss arrangement it would be even less - although that is slightly confused by the Swiss allowing the EU to capture the "common external tariff" on some goods imported into Switzerland via EU ports.

Thanks Robert. Those were the figures I was working with as well but couldn't check them as I am on train at Newcastle at the moment. Dair really should check his facts before making wild claims

Scrapheap_as_was

I've only just seen the ONS slapping down by twitter that false Labour claim about the number of people on zero hour contracts. A Govt. in waiting????

Speedy

MTimT said:

I don't always agree with Peggy Noonan, but this piece on Jeb Bush's candidacy rings true in several places, not least:

"What is most missing so far is a fierce sense of engagement, a passionate desire to lead America out of the morass, a fiery—or Churchillian—certainty that he is the man for the moment. In its place we see a softer, wanner I’m smart, accomplished, know policy, and it’s my turn.'"

I have already said that I think if he were to win the nomination, Bush should be clear of the pack already, because his name recognition advantage will only diminish with time. And the lack of fire in the belly compared to, say, Walker, Rubio or even Cruz is evident. It is why I am also so underwhelmed by Hillary's campaign. She has not articulated why she is right for America right now. Just being a woman is not enough.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/sorry-jeb-the-race-is-wide-open-1424994157

Most GOP contenders (actually any contender not just a republican) look and feel like men of density not destiny.

HYUFD

TimT Apparently some CPAC attendees will walk out when Jeb speaks
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/26/cpac-attendees-plan-walk-out-jeb-bush/

Speedy

HYUFD said:

TimT Apparently some CPAC attendees will walk out when Jeb speaks
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/26/cpac-attendees-plan-walk-out-jeb-bush/

He's speaking right now.

Speedy

Jeb Bush speaking about immigration at the moment and that many immigrants died to get to America.

HYUFD

PPP national general election poll today

Clinton 47
Paul 40

Clinton 48
Christie 40

Clinton 48
Carson 40

Clinton 48
Perry 41

Clinton 48
Rubio 41

Clinton 48
Walker 40

Clinton 50
Huckabee 41

Clinton 50
Bush 40

Clinton 50
Cruz 40

Bush 45
Biden 39

Bush 43
Warren 41

http://race42016.com/2015/02/27/poll-watch-ppp-d-2016-national-presidential-survey-10/

chestnut

Survation with comparison to final scores plus over statement percentages for the winning margins

Newark 1: Con 36 (-9) UKIP 28 (+2.1) : Total overstatement 11.1%
Newark 2: Con 42 (-3) UKIP 27 (+1.1) : Total overstatement 4.1%
Clacton: Con 20 (-4.6) UKIP 64 (+4.3) : Total overstatement 8.9%
Rochester 1: Con 31 (-3.7) UKIP 40 (-2.1) : Total overstatement 1.6%
Rochester 2: Con 33 (-1.7) UKIP 48 (+5.9) : Total overstatement 7.6%

All that tells me is that Survation are a bit hit and miss.

In Heywood they were wrong with Lab/UKIP by 16.8%

OblitusSumMe

SimonStClare said:

Evening all.

This could be problematic - the obvious question is will these previous ‘non-voters’ bother to vote next time?

If none of them vote then it makes Thanet South pretty much a dead heat between UKIP, Con and Lab. UKIP only need a modest proportion of them to turnout to put them over the line. One thing worth bearing in mind is Farage's approval ratings in Ipsos-MORI polls among UKIP voters, which is at a net +91 (Cameron +65, Clegg +2, Miliband 0, amongst supporters of their respective parties). There is surely massive enthusiasm among potential UKIP voters to turn out where they are fortunate enough to be able to vote for Farage directly.

Speedy

Bush is talking about his record and makes a jab at Perry at this moment.

HYUFD

Speedy Well assume some must have left then

rcs1000

OblitusSumMe said:

SimonStClare said:

Evening all.

This could be problematic - the obvious question is will these previous ‘non-voters’ bother to vote next time?

If none of them vote then it makes Thanet South pretty much a dead heat between UKIP, Con and Lab. UKIP only need a modest proportion of them to turnout to put them over the line. One thing worth bearing in mind is Farage's approval ratings in Ipsos-MORI polls among UKIP voters, which is at a net +91 (Cameron +65, Clegg +2, Miliband 0, amongst supporters of their respective parties). There is surely massive enthusiasm among potential UKIP voters to turn out where they are fortunate enough to be able to vote for Farage directly.

UKIP is giving voice to views that were previously unheard, so it is no great surprise that so many - previously disenfranchised - voters are giving them their support.

I would expect UKIP to hold on to most of the non-voters.

However, I would also expect some squeezing of the Labour, LibDem and Other votes, to the benefit of the Conservatives. My money would be on Farage getting just around 40%, with the Conservatives in the low to mid 30s, and Labour getting 20% of so.

MP_SE

The fieldwork was done before Meet the Kippers so 3/1 for the Conservatives is looking like good value. It is difficult to say how damaging the program was as it does not reflect overly well on the local party. The Channel 4 hatchet job was clear propaganda, however, the BBC documentary actually filmed local activists and councillors.

I have topped up my Tory bet as in my opinion it represents value.

HYUFD

Jeb Bush mainly doing a Q and A format now on Middle East

philiph

isam said:

Grandiose said:

isam said:

Survation's first Clacton poll overstated UKIP

This was used to cast doubt on Survation's first Rochester poll by people desperate for Reckless to lose.. as it turns out that poll also overstated UKIP

In fact both over stated UKIP by the same proportion... I said pre Rochester that if the initial Survation poll overstated by the same factor as their Clacton effort, Reckless would win by 7.2%

The rest is history

Lump on Farage at 4/7 with Hills, its a gift. Should be 1/4 or shorter

If you have opposed.. here is your chance to get out - The first cut is the cheapest

If you applied the same overstatement to this poll what do you get?

8.8% lead for Farage I think

Exactly the same arguments were made by the same people in Rochester as are being made here

Reliance on 2010 DNV's & Tactical voting from Lab or Cons would mean trouble for UKIP

Didn't happen, just as it didn't in Clacton. I have been consistent in my logic both times and proven correct, and it holds true for Farage in Thanet also

Is there a linear comparison of a mid term bye election and a general election?

Speedy

Summary of Jeb Bush's main points:

Love immigration.
Common curriculum is bad.
Tax cuts are good.
Build a coalition against ISIS
Invade Syria to overthrow Assad.
No deal with Iran.
No jobs for islamists.
Netanyahu is good.
Tax cuts for companies are good.
Abortion is bad.
No gay marriage.
No to drugs.
Obama is a failure.
America uber alles.
Expanding love for America.

FalseFlag

Jeb Bush has no chance, the good thing is the establishment has wasted a decent sum in contributions for him. No chance in being nominated and he will drop out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jeb-bush-flubs-his-speech/2015/02/18/ff9ba502-b7ba-11e4-9423-f3d0a1ec335c_story.html

China warns US on the Ukraine.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0LV0H120150227?irpc=932

Hengists_Gift

Speedy said:

Thanet North would have been better for Farage, however in Thanet South the anti-UKIP tactical voters are split between 2 even parties that have about the same chance to beat him.
So any potential left-wing tactical voters will vote Labour and any potential liberal tactical voters will vote Tory.
There is the added problem that the Tories can't play the anti-UKIP tactical vote very well because their candidate is the former deputy leader of UKIP.

Also because of the publicity there will be a lot of joke candidates that will suck some anti-UKIP votes that will matter in a close contest (Al Murray gets 1% with Survation).

Why would Thanet North have been better for Farage? Its been a Tory stronghold with the same MP since its conception in 1983 and it was a Conservative / Unionist stronghold before that going back to 1885 when Thanet first got representation. What is now Thanet North has always been Tory territory. Roger Gale is standing again this time around having been MP for 32 years whereas Thanet South fell to Labour in 1997 only to return to the Tory fold in 2010 with Laura Sandys who has in turn decided to stand down in May. Mckinley is a new candidate. Not only that Gale had almost twice the majority (over 13k) that Sandys (7.5k) had. Furthermore the demographics are such that Thanet South is probably marginally more working class than Thanet North. Its obvious in Thanet North what the tactical anti-UKIP vote (vote Tory) would be whereas in Thanet South as you point out it is unclear.

To me Thanet South was always the obvious choice for Farage (even before the very pro-Europe Sandys decided to stand down)

rcs1000

Speedy said:

Summary of Jeb Bush's main points:

Love immigration.
Common curriculum is bad.
Tax cuts are good.
Build a coalition against ISIS
Invade Syria to overthrow Assad.
No deal with Iran.
No jobs for islamists.
Netanyahu is good.
Tax cuts for companies are good.
Abortion is bad.
No gay marriage.
No to drugs.
Obama is a failure.
America uber alles.
Expanding love for America.

No deal with Iran is good for the US oil industry, of course. Pretty shitty for us oil importers, mind. Although it is great news for Richard Tyndall and Patrick :-)

Speedy

HYUFD said:

PPP national general election poll today

Clinton 47
Paul 40

Clinton 48
Christie 40

Clinton 48
Carson 40

Clinton 48
Perry 41

Clinton 48
Rubio 41

Clinton 48
Walker 40

Clinton 50
Huckabee 41

Clinton 50
Bush 40

Clinton 50
Cruz 40

Bush 45
Biden 39

Bush 43
Warren 41

http://race42016.com/2015/02/27/poll-watch-ppp-d-2016-national-presidential-survey-10/

As I pointed out, no one can beat Hillary in 2016, just look at those numbers.
All republican candidates get the same number of votes, it doesn't matter who the candidate is, they all get 40%.

Speedy

Hengists_Gift said:

Speedy said:

Thanet North would have been better for Farage, however in Thanet South the anti-UKIP tactical voters are split between 2 even parties that have about the same chance to beat him.
So any potential left-wing tactical voters will vote Labour and any potential liberal tactical voters will vote Tory.
There is the added problem that the Tories can't play the anti-UKIP tactical vote very well because their candidate is the former deputy leader of UKIP.

Also because of the publicity there will be a lot of joke candidates that will suck some anti-UKIP votes that will matter in a close contest (Al Murray gets 1% with Survation).

Why would Thanet North have been better for Farage? Its been a Tory stronghold with the same MP since its conception in 1983 and it was a Conservative / Unionist stronghold before that going back to 1885 when Thanet first got representation. What is now Thanet North has always been Tory territory. Roger Gale is standing again this time around having been MP for 32 years whereas Thanet South fell to Labour in 1997 only to return to the Tory fold in 2010 with Laura Sandys who has in turn decided to stand down in May. Mckinley is a new candidate. Not only that Gale had almost twice the majority (over 13k) that Sandys (7.5k) had. Furthermore the demographics are such that Thanet South is probably marginally more working class than Thanet North. Its obvious in Thanet North what the tactical anti-UKIP vote (vote Tory) would be whereas in Thanet South as you point out it is unclear.

To me Thanet South was always the obvious choice for Farage (even before the very pro-Europe Sandys decided to stand down)

To answer your question, in North Thanet Lord A has UKIP at the same position as in South Thanet but without Farage.
The last constituency poll for Thanet North was:
CON 33, UKIP 32, LAB 24, LD 6.

It is debatable if the presence of Farage increases the UKIP score, however it is not unreasonable to believe that is the case, if so then he would be doing better in Thanet North.
It's simple: N.Thanet=S.Thanet+Farage.

Scrapheap_as_was

Breaking news...

After today's farcical and drug-like addiction to pension damage, I have ruled out voting Labour at the coming General Election.

I will not be making any further comments to the media on this matter.

HYUFD

Speedy But Hillary is under 50% it will be closer than these numbers but she should win.

Thanks for the summary, I think you are exaggerating some of his points, he did not specifically say topple Assad for example and on gay marriage he is more nuanced but overall a useful outline

Smarmeron

@Scrapheap_as_was
The civilized world reels in shock

Paul_Mid_Beds

1992: Electorate: 43,261,356

Tory: 14,093,007
Lab: 11,560,484
Lib: 5,999,384


2010: Electorate: 45,603,078

Tory: 10,703,654
Lab: 8,606,517
Lib: 6,836,248

Tory and Labour between them lost 6,343,220 voters, which resulted in the Torys winning in 2010 despite getting nearly a million votes less than Kinnocks Labour polled in 1992.

This despite the electorate growing by nearly 2,5 million between 1992 and 2010. (2,341,722). That means nearly nine million voters have gone missing. (8,684,942)

If every single voter who voted in 2010 voted the same way in 2015, all UKIP need is 50% of those missing voters to turn out and vote for them to add to their 919,471 voters in 2010 to take their vote to over five million million 5,261,942. or 15.4% of the vote.

If, as well as this, 10% of voters who voted for other parties in 2010 switched to UKIP in 2015, that gives them another 2,876,813 votes bringing their total to 8,138,755 (or just under 24% of the popular vote)


---------------------------------


In road traffic management there is something called suppressed demand. For example a new relief road like the A12 is built in east London. Almost immediately it is full to bursting point and the old road within weeks is back to being jammed too. It is what killed the idea of urban motorways.

The extra journeys were made by people who often made no journey at all previously.

Similarly, if large numbers of people have not voted since 1992 because they felt no candidate represented them, rather than out of apathy, a new party that could harness this suppressed demand could get extraordinary results very quickly

FalseFlag

More wars and more immigration, even Romney pretended to be anti immigration to get nominated.

Hilary, no chance either. Old white privileged women with a sense of entitlement don't do it for the coalition of the disgruntled that constitutes the Democrats. Polling means nothing at this stage.

DecrepitJohnL

MTimT said:

I don't always agree with Peggy Noonan, but this piece on Jeb Bush's candidacy rings true in several places, not least:

"What is most missing so far is a fierce sense of engagement, a passionate desire to lead America out of the morass, a fiery—or Churchillian—certainty that he is the man for the moment. In its place we see a softer, wanner I’m smart, accomplished, know policy, and it’s my turn.'"

I have already said that I think if he were to win the nomination, Bush should be clear of the pack already, because his name recognition advantage will only diminish with time. And the lack of fire in the belly compared to, say, Walker, Rubio or even Cruz is evident. It is why I am also so underwhelmed by Hillary's campaign. She has not articulated why she is right for America right now. Just being a woman is not enough.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/sorry-jeb-the-race-is-wide-open-1424994157

Your point on Clinton is perhaps answered by your point on Bush and name recognition. Everyone with a functioning memory knows who Clinton is and what she stands for, and more detailed positioning on the great issues of the day can wait until nearer the time.

HYUFD

FalseFlag With a year to go before the election Obama led Romney and Romney led the GOP race, Bush led Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000 and the GOP field, Dole the GOP field in 1996, by this stage most candidates are on the radar. Coalitions of the disgruntled do not generally win, certainly outside of economic catasrophe, which is why Hillary is the only Democrat leading the GOP top tier

Richard_Tyndall

rcs1000 said:

Speedy said:

Summary of Jeb Bush's main points:

Love immigration.
Common curriculum is bad.
Tax cuts are good.
Build a coalition against ISIS
Invade Syria to overthrow Assad.
No deal with Iran.
No jobs for islamists.
Netanyahu is good.
Tax cuts for companies are good.
Abortion is bad.
No gay marriage.
No to drugs.
Obama is a failure.
America uber alles.
Expanding love for America.

No deal with Iran is good for the US oil industry, of course. Pretty shitty for us oil importers, mind. Although it is great news for Richard Tyndall and Patrick :-)

I am afraid Jet Bush standing on that platform undermines any attempt he might make to distance himself from his brother. I certainly don't see it being a winning position.

isam

chestnut said:

Survation with comparison to final scores plus over statement percentages for the winning margins

Newark 1: Con 36 (-9) UKIP 28 (+2.1) : Total overstatement 11.1%
Newark 2: Con 42 (-3) UKIP 27 (+1.1) : Total overstatement 4.1%
Clacton: Con 20 (-4.6) UKIP 64 (+4.3) : Total overstatement 8.9%
Rochester 1: Con 31 (-3.7) UKIP 40 (-2.1) : Total overstatement 1.6%
Rochester 2: Con 33 (-1.7) UKIP 48 (+5.9) : Total overstatement 7.6%

All that tells me is that Survation are a bit hit and miss.

In Heywood they were wrong with Lab/UKIP by 16.8%

Did they get the winner every time?

Flightpath

logical_song said:

Climate change denier did not disclose funding from fossil-fuel companies.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27028-climate-change-sceptics-work-called-into-question.html#.VPDCI_msXw8

This is part of a long standing smear campaign.
Big Oil funds global warming research. And global warmist are falling over themselves to get money out of Big Oil. Our own East Anglia CRU for instance.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/

Global warming is a huge money machine.

corporeal

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

1992: Electorate: 43,261,356

Tory: 14,093,007
Lab: 11,560,484
Lib: 5,999,384


2010: Electorate: 45,603,078

Tory: 10,703,654
Lab: 8,606,517
Lib: 6,836,248

Tory and Labour between them lost 6,343,220 voters, which resulted in the Torys winning in 2010 despite getting nearly a million votes less than Kinnocks Labour polled in 1992.

This despite the electorate growing by nearly 2,5 million between 1992 and 2010. (2,341,722). That means nearly nine million voters have gone missing. (8,684,942)

If every single voter who voted in 2010 voted the same way in 2015, all UKIP need is 50% of those missing voters to turn out and vote for them to add to their 919,471 voters in 2010 to take their vote to over five million million 5,261,942. or 15.4% of the vote.

If, as well as this, 10% of voters who voted for other parties in 2010 switched to UKIP in 2015, that gives them another 2,876,813 votes bringing their total to 8,138,755 (or just under 24% of the popular vote)


---------------------------------


In road traffic management there is something called suppressed demand. For example a new relief road like the A12 is built in east London. Almost immediately it is full to bursting point and the old road within weeks is back to being jammed too. It is what killed the idea of urban motorways.

The extra journeys were made by people who often made no journey at all previously.

Similarly, if large numbers of people have not voted since 1992 because they felt no candidate represented them, rather than out of apathy, a new party that could harness this suppressed demand could get extraordinary results very quickly

Easy as that is it?

Hengists_Gift

Speedy said:

Hengists_Gift said:

Speedy said:

Thanet North would have been better for Farage, however in Thanet South the anti-UKIP tactical voters are split between 2 even parties that have about the same chance to beat him.
So any potential left-wing tactical voters will vote Labour and any potential liberal tactical voters will vote Tory.
There is the added problem that the Tories can't play the anti-UKIP tactical vote very well because their candidate is the former deputy leader of UKIP.

Also because of the publicity there will be a lot of joke candidates that will suck some anti-UKIP votes that will matter in a close contest (Al Murray gets 1% with Survation).

Why would Thanet North have been better for Farage? Its been a Tory stronghold with the same MP since its conception in 1983 and it was a Conservative / Unionist stronghold before that going back to 1885 when Thanet first got representation. What is now Thanet North has always been Tory territory. Roger Gale is standing again this time around having been MP for 32 years whereas Thanet South fell to Labour in 1997 only to return to the Tory fold in 2010 with Laura Sandys who has in turn decided to stand down in May. Mckinley is a new candidate. Not only that Gale had almost twice the majority (over 13k) that Sandys (7.5k) had. Furthermore the demographics are such that Thanet South is probably marginally more working class than Thanet North. Its obvious in Thanet North what the tactical anti-UKIP vote (vote Tory) would be whereas in Thanet South as you point out it is unclear.

To me Thanet South was always the obvious choice for Farage (even before the very pro-Europe Sandys decided to stand down)

To answer your question, in North Thanet Lord A has UKIP at the same position as in South Thanet but without Farage.
The last constituency poll for Thanet North was:
CON 33, UKIP 32, LAB 24, LD 6.

It is debatable if the presence of Farage increases the UKIP score, however it is not unreasonable to believe that is the case, if so then he would be doing better in Thanet North.
It's simple: N.Thanet=S.Thanet+Farage.

So you are comparing a North Thanet poll from Survation of just 571 people against an Ashcroft South Thanet poll of 1003 but doesn't name Farage specifically? OK......

http://survation.com/new-constituency-polling-for-alan-bown/

Ishmael_X

logical_song said:

Climate change denier did not disclose funding from fossil-fuel companies.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27028-climate-change-sceptics-work-called-into-question.html#.VPDCI_msXw8

C on a b.

He isn't a "climate change denier". No one denies that the climate changes, so rather a silly thing to call anyone, surely?

Here is a link http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/9/12/warming-study-draws-fire-a-study/ to an article from 2003 (not a typo, 2003, 12 years ago) disclosing the non-amazing fact that his research is sponsored by oil companies. Do you not have access to a search engine, or do you belong to some Amish-type sect which prohibits their use?

Sponsorship is a fact of academic life. There is no suggestion that he has ever massaged his figures to make a case, unlike the UEA emails.

His work has been endorsed by Freeman Dyson, who knows even more about Ther Science than you do. Here is Dyson's view on the AGW thing:

Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that "[one] of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."[46] However, he believes that existing simulation models of climate fail to account for some important factors, and hence the results will contain too much error to reliably predict future trends:

The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world we live in ...[46]

See? Not denying anything, just pointing out the limitations of modelling of complex and chaotic systems.

So if you think you can save the world by inserting LED light bulbs up your own fundament and driving around in a Prius, crack on, but stop embarrassing yourself by repeatedly exposing your fundamental ignorance of what science is and what it can and cannot achieve.

Speedy

HYUFD said:

Speedy But Hillary is under 50% it will be closer than these numbers but she should win.

Thanks for the summary, I think you are exaggerating some of his points, he did not specifically say topple Assad for example and on gay marriage he is more nuanced but overall a useful outline

No problem.
Here's the video collection of the speeches on CPAC of those who matter for 2016 by order of last appearance.

Jeb Bush: www.youtube.com/watch?v=amTEpZBl9jY
Rand Paul: www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDJNZRaDrQg
Rick Perry: www.youtube.com/watch?v=suLuitd-Ksc
Marco Rubio: www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wEvYA08Ypk
Scott Walker: www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_v7KT_0VFE
Ted Cruz: www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYkdxc6GkjA
Chris Christie: www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2DuWQInjng
Ben Carson: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iJ3MJN7iC4

The Oscar for best stage acting goes to Walker.
The Oscar for best articulation goes to Carson.
The Oscar for biggest mistake goes to Huckabee, for not showing up.

Bonus speeches.
Donald Trump: www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOktR-FbzvU
Sarah Palin: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh7Hk1CFSso
Nigel Farage: www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMUmfeklWXc

If nothing else happens tonight I'm off.
Goodnight.

Speedy

Hengists_Gift said:

Speedy said:

Hengists_Gift said:

Speedy said:

Thanet North would have been better for Farage, however in Thanet South the anti-UKIP tactical voters are split between 2 even parties that have about the same chance to beat him.
So any potential left-wing tactical voters will vote Labour and any potential liberal tactical voters will vote Tory.
There is the added problem that the Tories can't play the anti-UKIP tactical vote very well because their candidate is the former deputy leader of UKIP.

Also because of the publicity there will be a lot of joke candidates that will suck some anti-UKIP votes that will matter in a close contest (Al Murray gets 1% with Survation).

Why would Thanet North have been better for Farage? Its been a Tory stronghold with the same MP since its conception in 1983 and it was a Conservative / Unionist stronghold before that going back to 1885 when Thanet first got representation. What is now Thanet North has always been Tory territory. Roger Gale is standing again this time around having been MP for 32 years whereas Thanet South fell to Labour in 1997 only to return to the Tory fold in 2010 with Laura Sandys who has in turn decided to stand down in May. Mckinley is a new candidate. Not only that Gale had almost twice the majority (over 13k) that Sandys (7.5k) had. Furthermore the demographics are such that Thanet South is probably marginally more working class than Thanet North. Its obvious in Thanet North what the tactical anti-UKIP vote (vote Tory) would be whereas in Thanet South as you point out it is unclear.

To me Thanet South was always the obvious choice for Farage (even before the very pro-Europe Sandys decided to stand down)

To answer your question, in North Thanet Lord A has UKIP at the same position as in South Thanet but without Farage.
The last constituency poll for Thanet North was:
CON 33, UKIP 32, LAB 24, LD 6.

It is debatable if the presence of Farage increases the UKIP score, however it is not unreasonable to believe that is the case, if so then he would be doing better in Thanet North.
It's simple: N.Thanet=S.Thanet+Farage.

So you are comparing a North Thanet poll from Survation of just 571 people against an Ashcroft South Thanet poll of 1003 but doesn't name Farage specifically? OK......

http://survation.com/new-constituency-polling-for-alan-bown/

Sorry I though that was a Lord A poll, he's done so many.

Hengists_Gift

chestnut said:

Survation with comparison to final scores plus over statement percentages for the winning margins

Newark 1: Con 36 (-9) UKIP 28 (+2.1) : Total overstatement 11.1%
Newark 2: Con 42 (-3) UKIP 27 (+1.1) : Total overstatement 4.1%
Clacton: Con 20 (-4.6) UKIP 64 (+4.3) : Total overstatement 8.9%
Rochester 1: Con 31 (-3.7) UKIP 40 (-2.1) : Total overstatement 1.6%
Rochester 2: Con 33 (-1.7) UKIP 48 (+5.9) : Total overstatement 7.6%

All that tells me is that Survation are a bit hit and miss.

In Heywood they were wrong with Lab/UKIP by 16.8%

If you are going to judge polls in that way you have to consider how long the poll was taken before the election result. Some of those polls were taken months before the final election. Unsurprisingly things can change rapidly in by elections given the resources that are poured into them. Without knowing the context of the poll in that regard your assertion is meaningless.

Paul_Mid_Beds

corporeal said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

1992: Electorate: 43,261,356

Tory: 14,093,007
Lab: 11,560,484
Lib: 5,999,384


2010: Electorate: 45,603,078

Tory: 10,703,654
Lab: 8,606,517
Lib: 6,836,248

Tory and Labour between them lost 6,343,220 voters, which resulted in the Torys winning in 2010 despite getting nearly a million votes less than Kinnocks Labour polled in 1992.

This despite the electorate growing by nearly 2,5 million between 1992 and 2010. (2,341,722). That means nearly nine million voters have gone missing. (8,684,942)

If every single voter who voted in 2010 voted the same way in 2015, all UKIP need is 50% of those missing voters to turn out and vote for them to add to their 919,471 voters in 2010 to take their vote to over five million million 5,261,942. or 15.4% of the vote.

If, as well as this, 10% of voters who voted for other parties in 2010 switched to UKIP in 2015, that gives them another 2,876,813 votes bringing their total to 8,138,755 (or just under 24% of the popular vote)


---------------------------------


In road traffic management there is something called suppressed demand. For example a new relief road like the A12 is built in east London. Almost immediately it is full to bursting point and the old road within weeks is back to being jammed too. It is what killed the idea of urban motorways.

The extra journeys were made by people who often made no journey at all previously.

Similarly, if large numbers of people have not voted since 1992 because they felt no candidate represented them, rather than out of apathy, a new party that could harness this suppressed demand could get extraordinary results very quickly

Easy as that is it?

Look back through history, powerful nations decline but this can be masked for decades or even centuries as no other power exists to take them on. Then one emerges, and the nation collapses like a pack of cards - perhaps the fall of the Western Roman Empire is the best example of this.

And so it is with political parties, their votes go down every election, but they are still the big three and dominate the plains as the missing voters are silent, but the more the missing voters, the more savage the change when someone comes along and persuades the missing voters to vote for them.

FalseFlag

Speedy said:

Summary of Jeb Bush's main points:

Love immigration.
Common curriculum is bad.
Tax cuts are good.
Build a coalition against ISIS
Invade Syria to overthrow Assad.
No deal with Iran.
No jobs for islamists.
Netanyahu is good.
Tax cuts for companies are good.
Abortion is bad.
No gay marriage.
No to drugs.
Obama is a failure.
America uber alles.
Expanding love for America.

The oligarchs wishlist, apart from gay marriage. Also Hilary's platform, apart from gay marriage.

corporeal

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

corporeal said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

1992: Electorate: 43,261,356

Tory: 14,093,007
Lab: 11,560,484
Lib: 5,999,384


2010: Electorate: 45,603,078

Tory: 10,703,654
Lab: 8,606,517
Lib: 6,836,248

Tory and Labour between them lost 6,343,220 voters, which resulted in the Torys winning in 2010 despite getting nearly a million votes less than Kinnocks Labour polled in 1992.

This despite the electorate growing by nearly 2,5 million between 1992 and 2010. (2,341,722). That means nearly nine million voters have gone missing. (8,684,942)

If every single voter who voted in 2010 voted the same way in 2015, all UKIP need is 50% of those missing voters to turn out and vote for them to add to their 919,471 voters in 2010 to take their vote to over five million million 5,261,942. or 15.4% of the vote.

If, as well as this, 10% of voters who voted for other parties in 2010 switched to UKIP in 2015, that gives them another 2,876,813 votes bringing their total to 8,138,755 (or just under 24% of the popular vote)


---------------------------------


In road traffic management there is something called suppressed demand. For example a new relief road like the A12 is built in east London. Almost immediately it is full to bursting point and the old road within weeks is back to being jammed too. It is what killed the idea of urban motorways.

The extra journeys were made by people who often made no journey at all previously.

Similarly, if large numbers of people have not voted since 1992 because they felt no candidate represented them, rather than out of apathy, a new party that could harness this suppressed demand could get extraordinary results very quickly

Easy as that is it?

Look back through history, powerful nations decline but this can be masked for decades or even centuries as no other power exists to take them on. Then one emerges, and the nation collapses like a pack of cards - perhaps the fall of the Western Roman Empire is the best example of this.

And so it is with political parties, their votes go down every election, but they are still the big three and dominate the plains as the missing voters are silent, but the more the missing voters, the more savage the change when someone comes along and persuades the missing voters to vote for them.

Your mixing vote share and total votes very casually. Their total votes has risen in the last two electuions.

If Perot had won more votes there'd have been an independent President.

justin124

FrancisUrquhart said:

FFS....Sky reporting "Jihadi John" as a promising undergraduate...no he wasn't, he went to one of the shittest universities in the UK and struggled to get a 2:2.

Back in the 1960s and 1970s a 2:2 was the normal degree in the UK. People were quite chuffed to get anything better. Indeed there is quite a list of eminent people who only managed Thirds - Barbara Castle- David Steel- Neil Kinnock - David Dimbleby - Edward Boyle - Jack Cunningham. Grade inflation has undermined perspectives so much.

FrancisUrquhart

justin124 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

FFS....Sky reporting "Jihadi John" as a promising undergraduate...no he wasn't, he went to one of the shittest universities in the UK and struggled to get a 2:2.

Back in the 1960s and 1970s a 2:2 was the normal degree in the UK. People were quite chuffed to get anything better. Indeed there is quite a list of eminent people who only managed Thirds - Barbara Castle- David Steel- Neil Kinnock - David Dimbleby - Edward Boyle - Jack Cunningham. Grade inflation has undermined perspectives so much.

We also didn't have 100+ universities in 1960/70's. Grade inflation, plus the standard of degrees are not equal across the institutions.

A 2:1 is now the minimum to get on pretty much an graduate scheme of any standing. So, actually I do also believe students are a lot more focused than they used to be, as they know it is not good enough to attend somewhere and get your third, you actually have to do some work.

Smarmeron

I had a certain amount of sympathy for the "degreeless" university system posited in Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance.
Basically you went to be taught and learn stuff you were interested in or needed in your work. but no bit of paper.

bigjohnowls

http://m.on.aol.com/video/518667067

Only Lefties will find this amusing

chestnut

Hengists_Gift said:

If you are going to judge polls in that way you have to consider how long the poll was taken before the election result. Some of those polls were taken months before the final election. Unsurprisingly things can change rapidly in by elections given the resources that are poured into them. Without knowing the context of the poll in that regard your assertion is meaningless.

Presumably you're dismissing the latest one as cobblers then?

justin124

FrancisUrquhart said:

justin124 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

FFS....Sky reporting "Jihadi John" as a promising undergraduate...no he wasn't, he went to one of the shittest universities in the UK and struggled to get a 2:2.

Back in the 1960s and 1970s a 2:2 was the normal degree in the UK. People were quite chuffed to get anything better. Indeed there is quite a list of eminent people who only managed Thirds - Barbara Castle- David Steel- Neil Kinnock - David Dimbleby - Edward Boyle - Jack Cunningham. Grade inflation has undermined perspectives so much.

We also didn't have 100+ universities in 1960/70's. Grade inflation, plus the standard of degrees are not equal across the institutions.

A 2:1 is now the minimum to get on pretty much an graduate scheme of any standing. So, actually I do also believe students are a lot more focused than they used to be, as they know it is not good enough to attend somewhere and get your third, you actually have to do some work.

I don't disagree - though many of the new universities were providing CNN degrees as polytechnics back in the 60s and 70s. There has also,of course, been a massive shift - beyond Oxbridge though even there it has made some appearance - to assessment by coursework rather than formal exams.
I would certainly argue that people who emerged from a good redbrick university in the 1970s with a 2:2 would now be given a comfortable 2:1.

Smarmeron

@bigjohnowls
Nahh.... a few right wingers will have a wry private smile as well.

FrancisUrquhart

Smarmeron said:

I had a certain amount of sympathy for the "degreeless" university system posited in Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance.
Basically you went to be taught and learn stuff you were interested in or needed in your work. but no bit of paper.

There is a big problem with the way the system has gone...it is increasingly becoming "I am paying, so tell me want I need to know to get my 2:1" and universities are under a certain about of pressure to deliver this.

Some of the best US colleges like MIT still manage to keep the "think the unthinkable, try the impossible", while still charging $50k a year. We have to make sure we still push this line to students, and not simply have a conveyor belt system.

surbiton

Speedy said:

Hengists_Gift said:

Speedy said:

Thanet North would have been better for Farage, however in Thanet South the anti-UKIP tactical voters are split between 2 even parties that have about the same chance to beat him.
So any potential left-wing tactical voters will vote Labour and any potential liberal tactical voters will vote Tory.
There is the added problem that the Tories can't play the anti-UKIP tactical vote very well because their candidate is the former deputy leader of UKIP.

Also because of the publicity there will be a lot of joke candidates that will suck some anti-UKIP votes that will matter in a close contest (Al Murray gets 1% with Survation).

Why would Thanet North have been better for Farage? Its been a Tory stronghold with the same MP since its conception in 1983 and it was a Conservative / Unionist stronghold before that going back to 1885 when Thanet first got representation. What is now Thanet North has always been Tory territory. Roger Gale is standing again this time around having been MP for 32 years whereas Thanet South fell to Labour in 1997 only to return to the Tory fold in 2010 with Laura Sandys who has in turn decided to stand down in May. Mckinley is a new candidate. Not only that Gale had almost twice the majority (over 13k) that Sandys (7.5k) had. Furthermore the demographics are such that Thanet South is probably marginally more working class than Thanet North. Its obvious in Thanet North what the tactical anti-UKIP vote (vote Tory) would be whereas in Thanet South as you point out it is unclear.

To me Thanet South was always the obvious choice for Farage (even before the very pro-Europe Sandys decided to stand down)

To answer your question, in North Thanet Lord A has UKIP at the same position as in South Thanet but without Farage.
The last constituency poll for Thanet North was:
CON 33, UKIP 32, LAB 24, LD 6.

It is debatable if the presence of Farage increases the UKIP score, however it is not unreasonable to believe that is the case, if so then he would be doing better in Thanet North.
It's simple: N.Thanet=S.Thanet+Farage.

They deserve Gale and Farage.

FrancisUrquhart

justin124 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

justin124 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

FFS....Sky reporting "Jihadi John" as a promising undergraduate...no he wasn't, he went to one of the shittest universities in the UK and struggled to get a 2:2.

Back in the 1960s and 1970s a 2:2 was the normal degree in the UK. People were quite chuffed to get anything better. Indeed there is quite a list of eminent people who only managed Thirds - Barbara Castle- David Steel- Neil Kinnock - David Dimbleby - Edward Boyle - Jack Cunningham. Grade inflation has undermined perspectives so much.

We also didn't have 100+ universities in 1960/70's. Grade inflation, plus the standard of degrees are not equal across the institutions.

A 2:1 is now the minimum to get on pretty much an graduate scheme of any standing. So, actually I do also believe students are a lot more focused than they used to be, as they know it is not good enough to attend somewhere and get your third, you actually have to do some work.

I don't disagree - though many of the new universities were providing CNN degrees as polytechnics back in the 60s and 70s. There has also,of course, been a massive shift - beyond Oxbridge though even there it has made some appearance - to assessment by coursework rather than formal exams.

I know of some courses at some very highly ranked institutions that have no formal exams and it is frankly a disgrace.

mincer

I'm really struggling to find this 34.7% figure for those intending to vote Farage / Ukip in in 2015 who 'did not vote' in 2010 - from the Survation tables here: http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/South-Thanet-Poll-Results.pdf . On page 9, I see 22.6? (Which is lower than the total average of 25.6). Where have I gone wrong?

Pulpstar

bigjohnowls said:

http://m.on.aol.com/video/518667067

Only Lefties will find this amusing

Did you make your Rother Valley trip yet ?

isam

chestnut said:

Hengists_Gift said:

If you are going to judge polls in that way you have to consider how long the poll was taken before the election result. Some of those polls were taken months before the final election. Unsurprisingly things can change rapidly in by elections given the resources that are poured into them. Without knowing the context of the poll in that regard your assertion is meaningless.

Presumably you're dismissing the latest one as cobblers then?

What price are you willing to lay Ukip in Thanet South?

Smarmeron

@FrancisUrquhart
Sometimes a radical rethink is necessary.
I have a strong desire to see governments stop throwing money at education, and instead concentrate on opportunity.
The standard of schooling is basic in a lot of the Third World, but the desire of the pupils shines out.
They believe education will improve them and their families lives, we lost that.

corporeal

FrancisUrquhart said:

justin124 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

FFS....Sky reporting "Jihadi John" as a promising undergraduate...no he wasn't, he went to one of the shittest universities in the UK and struggled to get a 2:2.

Back in the 1960s and 1970s a 2:2 was the normal degree in the UK. People were quite chuffed to get anything better. Indeed there is quite a list of eminent people who only managed Thirds - Barbara Castle- David Steel- Neil Kinnock - David Dimbleby - Edward Boyle - Jack Cunningham. Grade inflation has undermined perspectives so much.

We also didn't have 100+ universities in 1960/70's. Grade inflation, plus the standard of degrees are not equal across the institutions.

A 2:1 is now the minimum to get on pretty much an graduate scheme of any standing.

Tell me about it.

The other big point to make is the internet. Students can now access a far wider breadth of research, and do it faster and easier than ever before

chestnut

mincer said:

I'm really struggling to find this 34.7% figure for those intending to vote Farage / Ukip in in 2015 who 'did not vote' in 2010 - from the Survation tables here: http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/South-Thanet-Poll-Results.pdf . On page 9, I see 22.6? (Which is lower than the total average of 25.6). Where have I gone wrong?

Page 8.

Total UKIP voters; 269
Total UKIP voters saying they voted in 2010; 177 (add up all the 2010 voters)

FrancisUrquhart

Why waste words...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11441320/This-Australian-politicians-message-to-his-bitter-rival-must-be-the-shortest-press-release-ever.html

chestnut

What price are you willing to lay Ukip in Thanet South?

As I said last night, I think they're in front, but not by 11.

How many do you think they'll win by?

JosiasJessop

bigjohnowls said:

http://m.on.aol.com/video/518667067

Only Lefties will find this amusing

Look at the end of the last thread to see you're wrong. ;-)

(Although I've been called both a leftie and a PB Tory on here in the past. And an idiot more than a few times.) ;-)

Smarmeron

Off topic, but did anyone see the news that a research team had made jet engines using 3d printing (metal, nor plastic)?

FrancisUrquhart

corporeal said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

justin124 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

FFS....Sky reporting "Jihadi John" as a promising undergraduate...no he wasn't, he went to one of the shittest universities in the UK and struggled to get a 2:2.

Back in the 1960s and 1970s a 2:2 was the normal degree in the UK. People were quite chuffed to get anything better. Indeed there is quite a list of eminent people who only managed Thirds - Barbara Castle- David Steel- Neil Kinnock - David Dimbleby - Edward Boyle - Jack Cunningham. Grade inflation has undermined perspectives so much.

We also didn't have 100+ universities in 1960/70's. Grade inflation, plus the standard of degrees are not equal across the institutions.

A 2:1 is now the minimum to get on pretty much an graduate scheme of any standing.

Tell me about it.

The other big point to make is the internet. Students can now access a far wider breadth of research, and do it faster and easier than ever before

Actually it depends...and it is interesting point. The best institutions pay for basically full access to all the major journals out there via online access portals, and that is very expensive. The shitty ones don't.*

It is pertinent question that prospective students / parents should ask at open days, rather than being taken in by some shiny new library building and the general BS spin cycle.

* There is a very good Storyville episode about one of the guys behind Reddit who was arrested (and ultimately killed himself) for "stealing" the full catalogue of one such portal by placing a bot on the MIT network, with the intention of making it available to the whole world.

MikeSmithson

chestnut said:

mincer said:

I'm really struggling to find this 34.7% figure for those intending to vote Farage / Ukip in in 2015 who 'did not vote' in 2010 - from the Survation tables here: http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/South-Thanet-Poll-Results.pdf . On page 9, I see 22.6? (Which is lower than the total average of 25.6). Where have I gone wrong?

Page 8.

Total UKIP voters; 269
Total UKIP voters saying they voted in 2010; 177 (add up all the 2010 voters)

Thank you for that. Saves me explaining. I like source split data like this and the only way you can works it out is do as you have done.

MikeSmithson

isam said:

chestnut said:

Hengists_Gift said:

If you are going to judge polls in that way you have to consider how long the poll was taken before the election result. Some of those polls were taken months before the final election. Unsurprisingly things can change rapidly in by elections given the resources that are poured into them. Without knowing the context of the poll in that regard your assertion is meaningless.

Presumably you're dismissing the latest one as cobblers then?

What price are you willing to lay Ukip in Thanet South?

What will you offer?

Pulpstar

Hi @Mincer reading your blog at the moment, very interesting.

JosiasJessop

Smarmeron said:

Off topic, but did anyone see the news that a research team had made jet engines using 3d printing (metal, nor plastic)?

I was just reading about that!

http://www.scienceinpublic.com.au/media-releases/monash-avalonairshow-2015

isam

chestnut said:

What price are you willing to lay Ukip in Thanet South?

As I said last night, I think they're in front, but not by 11.

How many do you think they'll win by?





8ish

bigjohnowls

JosiasJessop said:

bigjohnowls said:

http://m.on.aol.com/video/518667067

Only Lefties will find this amusing

Look at the end of the last thread to see you're wrong. ;-)

(Although I've been called both a leftie and a PB Tory on here in the past. And an idiot more than a few times.) ;-)

Oh dear too busy with my bottle of Bacardi to notice your link.

Credit to you I am probably one of the posters who gets carried away calling people PB Tories too.

isam

MikeSmithson said:

isam said:

chestnut said:

Hengists_Gift said:

If you are going to judge polls in that way you have to consider how long the poll was taken before the election result. Some of those polls were taken months before the final election. Unsurprisingly things can change rapidly in by elections given the resources that are poured into them. Without knowing the context of the poll in that regard your assertion is meaningless.

Presumably you're dismissing the latest one as cobblers then?

What price are you willing to lay Ukip in Thanet South?

What will you offer?

Well the betting market is underbroke on the frnt 3

UKIP 4/7
Cons 3
Lab 9

So you can get 2.857 by ditching Lab and Con

I will offer you 3 (2/1), effectively you are laying 1/2 Farage

Smarmeron

@JosiasJessop
Thanks, the article I read was lighter in detail to that one.

Hengists_Gift

chestnut said:

Hengists_Gift said:

If you are going to judge polls in that way you have to consider how long the poll was taken before the election result. Some of those polls were taken months before the final election. Unsurprisingly things can change rapidly in by elections given the resources that are poured into them. Without knowing the context of the poll in that regard your assertion is meaningless.

Presumably you're dismissing the latest one as cobblers then?

As Lord Ashcroft would say 'its a snapshot' and what it says is at the moment Farage is on course. It certainly doesn't guarantee him victory and come the end of March, let alone May, I doubt it will be of much value at all.

FrancisUrquhart

Well he's a fan...

"if any other Party had launched this policy there would be protests in the streets led by the Labour Party".

https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/571413236915920896

And I Front page isn't exactly what Miliband would have hoped for.

mincer

Pulpstar said:

Hi @Mincer reading your blog at the moment, very interesting.

Cheers Pulpstar, do you have any idea about where this 34.7% figure comes from in the Survation tables?

Y0kel

Wouldn't the above suggest that Farage isn't perhaps quite as strong a favorite as he is in the betting? This is not Scottish referendum territory, it isn't Fermanagh South Tyrone in the grand old days, its a UK general election where there no clear sense of a big upsurge in turnout.

chestnut

isam said:

8ish

So UKIP with a minus eight handicap to beat the Tories?

foxinsoxuk

FrancisUrquhart said:

Well he's a fan

https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/571413236915920896

And I Front page isn't exactly what Miliband would have hoped for.

The tuition fee promise may benefit some of the Sept 16 starters in England Wales and Scotland heve different systems). Most of these would be 16 or younger at May 15. Current students would not benefit.

Though on BBC AQ Bennett was the star (and Coburn the disaster) Natalie must have had excellent media training this week. Good on her!

isam

chestnut said:

isam said:

8ish

So UKIP with a minus eight handicap to beat the Tories?

No flies on you!!

That's prob a bit generous as I think UKIP by 1 is more likely than by 15

No_Offence_Alan

JosiasJessop said:

Smarmeron said:

Off topic, but did anyone see the news that a research team had made jet engines using 3d printing (metal, nor plastic)?

I was just reading about that!

http://www.scienceinpublic.com.au/media-releases/monash-avalonairshow-2015

I wonder when they will 3D print a 3D printer?

Pulpstar

MikeSmithson said:

chestnut said:

mincer said:

I'm really struggling to find this 34.7% figure for those intending to vote Farage / Ukip in in 2015 who 'did not vote' in 2010 - from the Survation tables here: http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/South-Thanet-Poll-Results.pdf . On page 9, I see 22.6? (Which is lower than the total average of 25.6). Where have I gone wrong?

Page 8.

Total UKIP voters; 269
Total UKIP voters saying they voted in 2010; 177 (add up all the 2010 voters)

Thank you for that. Saves me explaining. I like source split data like this and the only way you can works it out is do as you have done.

mincer said:

Pulpstar said:

Hi @Mincer reading your blog at the moment, very interesting.

Cheers Pulpstar, do you have any idea about where this 34.7% figure comes from in the Survation tables?

(269 - 177)/269 = 34.2...

Smarmeron

I am not sure UKIP's "support for the Tories" statement will endear them to those on the left of their targets. It could be taken as read by most, but seeing it spelled out makes it more "real"?

bigjohnowls

Pulpstar said:

bigjohnowls said:

http://m.on.aol.com/video/518667067

Only Lefties will find this amusing

Did you make your Rother Valley trip yet ?

I did we had a pint in the Crown

Did you recommend a better one if so I didnt see it.

Thankfully I missed The Karaoke evening!!