UKIP aren't even winning council elections right now, let alone having a field day with the white working class. Look at Calais crisis, in which no one in Westminster appears to have any answers to, yet white working class people are hardly flocking to UKIP.
Corbyn isn't leader yet.
Doesn't matter. If UKIP were going to make en mass in roads with the white working classes it would have happened by now - as I mentioned with the Calais crisis, yet even after that they're actually losing elections. Corbyn's views are also starting to come to prominence.
It did happen three months ago. It's why Ukip went from 3% to 12.5%
I say this as a disabled bisexual 6th former
Vote-share in FPTP doesn't mean much when all that totals to is 1MP though, and that's in a former Conservative Seat, not even a former Labour seat. Given the hype after the Euro elections in 2014 - that UKIP were expected to get anything from 5 MPs to MPs in double figures - actually losing seats in a GE (Reckless) and your leader failing to win a seat is hardly getting there. Second doesn't mean anything in FPTP.
So what? You said wwc hadn't gone to UKIP nothing to do with seats won but votes cast
I see the WWC going to UKIP as significant in terms of seats - after all, that's the product of electoral success. If it's not in seats why else would it matter?
You're talking absolute rubbish because you can't admit you're wrong. No one mentioned seats, you said wwc were not going to UKIP.
It is conceivable that the entire wwc could vote for a party and they get very few seats, that wouldn't mean they hadn't voted for them
God you just don't know how it feels to be an orphaned, transgender 19 year old
You think I'M talking rubbish - you're saying it's conceivable that the entire WWC could vote for a party (presumably UKIP) and they get few seats. Given how many seats Labour represent in the North are WWC that's not conceivable at ALL.
I'm not wrong - and while no one explicitly mentioned seats, it was first talked of UKIP damaging Labour, which would obviously be in terms of seats!
@HYUFD Euro elections don't mean anything since an equivalent/similar result to it wasn't seen in the GE, and that most voters don't take the Euros seriously anyway. It's more viewed as an GE to kick the governing party/establishment than anything else.
Maybe, but the higher voteshare won in the Euros helped produce their increased voteshare at the general
On Monday I saved my mate over a thousand quid a year £760 on gas and electric (British Gas to Sainsburys via USwitch) and £240 Sky although he still pays £40 a month for exactly the same package I pay £23.50 for.
He bought me a pint generosity no bounds!!
Yes. Some prices are so out of whack with the competitive prices. They exist to feed off lazy consumers, for those that default to BT for phone, BG for Gas and their local (old) regional energy generator for electricity.
You have to be smart and it isnt hard, the comparison sites do it all for you.
Am always skeptical that the good rates are only for the first year, and then they rack up the prices.
Most have 28 day cancellation and maximum £30 per fuel penalty and can usually save hundreds. It is my hobby since I retired.
My Gas and Electric has been moved twice in 2 years saved £250 when moved from British Gas and a further £120 when moved to first utility. U Switch is brilliant site.
You should mention this to comrade Corbyn. Indeed you might get to like life in the gulag.
I know you're fighting off allcomers, but you didn't actually read my post properly. The issue is about damage to labour, not whether UKIP gain as a result.
I thought I did address that in my post - I said I thought the impact of it would be a split distribution in terms of votes: some would stay with Labour (for the reasons I gave) and some would go to other parties.
I say this as a 16 yr old who just got her GCSE results
You're a 16 year old? Hadn't expected that. Hope the GCSEs were good?
A 16/18/19 yr old GCSE/A-Level transgender ophaned student
That is rubbish. I know for a fact that isam is a Cambridge blue and is on the fringes of selection for the England Rugby World Cup squad. This is a remarkable achievement for a boy who was until very recently a member of a popular young singing group.
Yet Ed Miliband did not do worse than Brown, across the UK his voteshare was higher than Brown won and outside of Scotland he gained seats, Brown lost over 90. Polls normally swing to the government in the closing stages and the Tories still had a 7 point lead over Labour
He did do worse than Brown - Labour have a lower seat share total than in 2010. If anything it's the pure incompetence of Ed Miliband and his team that Labour gained votes in places were it generally didn't matter anyway. Under Ed Miliband marginal seats with small majorities weren't even taken! On Brown as I said before: Brown was leading Labour after 13 years and a financial crisis. Ed Miliband was leading an opposition against a party that didn't even a majority last time, and wasn't even that popular.
No he did better than Brown in voteshare across the UK and in seats in England and Wales, he only lost seats in Scotland because of post indyref which would have also hit Brown too. Brown was leading Labour with a comfortable 60 seat majority and a financial crisis he helped cause. Miliband was leading a party with a 29% voteshare left to him by Brown
As I said before vote-share doesn't matter in FPTP.
Seats in Scotland matter just as much as seats in England and Wales, we can hardly take out Scotland to try and make Miliband look good in an GE of the UK. As said before, Miliband wasn't powerless on the Scotland issue - it was already there as a problem in 2011, he had more than three years to deal with issue and didn't. We can't assume therefore that Brown would have ignored the issue to such a degree that the post-indyref fallout occurred.
Brown was as associated with Better Together and Scottish Labour as Miliband and it was Brown who made 'The Vow', none of that saved Scottish Labour's bacon
UKIP aren't even winning council elections right now, let alone having a field day with the white working class. Look at Calais crisis, in which no one in Westminster appears to have any answers to, yet white working class people are hardly flocking to UKIP.
Corbyn isn't leader yet.
Doesn't matter. If UKIP were going to make en mass in roads with the white working classes it would have happened by now - as I mentioned with the Calais crisis, yet even after that they're actually losing elections. Corbyn's views are also starting to come to prominence.
It did happen three months ago. It's why Ukip went from 3% to 12.5%
I say this as a disabled bisexual 6th former
Vote-share in FPTP doesn't mean much when all that totals to is 1MP though, and that's in a former Conservative Seat, not even a former Labour seat. Given the hype after the Euro elections in 2014 - that UKIP were expected to get anything from 5 MPs to MPs in double figures - actually losing seats in a GE (Reckless) and your leader failing to win a seat is hardly getting there. Second doesn't mean anything in FPTP.
Finishing a close second is important under FPTP. A political party finishing a close second is far more likely to attract potential voters than if they are a million miles off.
UKIP came second in around 120 seats. Of those 120, I believe in around a dozen or so it was a close second. At the General Election in 2020, in those dozen seats, it cannot be argued that a vote for UKIP is a wasted vote as they are now in with a realistic shot at winning the seat.
I thought the whole second place in FPTP means nothing argument got debunked a long while ago.
UKIP aren't even winning council elections right now, let alone having a field day with the white working class. Look at Calais crisis, in which no one in Westminster appears to have any answers to, yet white working class people are hardly flocking to UKIP.
Corbyn isn't leader yet.
Doesn't matter. If UKIP were going to make en mass in roads with the white working classes it would have happened by now - as I mentioned with the Calais crisis, yet even after that they're actually losing elections. Corbyn's views are also starting to come to prominence.
It did happen three months ago. It's why Ukip went from 3% to 12.5%
I say this as a disabled bisexual 6th former
Vote-share in FPTP doesn't mean much when all that totals to is 1MP though, and that's in a former Conservative Seat, not even a former Labour seat. Given the hype after the Euro elections in 2014 - that UKIP were expected to get anything from 5 MPs to MPs in double figures - actually losing seats in a GE (Reckless) and your leader failing to win a seat is hardly getting there. Second doesn't mean anything in FPTP.
So what? You said wwc hadn't gone to UKIP nothing to do with seats won but votes cast
I see the WWC going to UKIP as significant in terms of seats - after all, that's the product of electoral success. If it's not in seats why else would it matter?
You're talking absolute rubbish because you can't admit you're wrong. No one mentioned seats, you said wwc were not going to UKIP.
It is conceivable that the entire wwc could vote for a party and they get very few seats, that wouldn't mean they hadn't voted for them
God you just don't know how it feels to be an orphaned, transgender 19 year old
You think I'M talking rubbish - you're saying it's conceivable that the entire WWC could vote for a party (presumably UKIP) and they get few seats. Given how many seats Labour represent in the North are WWC that's not conceivable at ALL.
I'm not wrong - and while no one explicitly mentioned seats, it was first talked of UKIP damaging Labour, which would obviously be in terms of seats!
It is possible for Labour to lose seats as a result of a substantial proportion of their core vote going to UKIP, without UKIP being the direct (seat) beneficiary. If one leaves UKIP out of it, and just talks about WWC deserting Labour it doesn't even matter where they go.
Yet Ed Miliband did not do worse than Brown, across the UK his voteshare was higher than Brown won and outside of Scotland he gained seats, Brown lost over 90. Polls normally swing to the government in the closing stages and the Tories still had a 7 point lead over Labour
He did do worse than Brown - Labour have a lower seat share total than in 2010. If anything it's the pure incompetence of Ed Miliband and his team that Labour gained votes in places were it generally didn't matter anyway. Under Ed Miliband marginal seats with small majorities weren't even taken! On Brown as I said before: Brown was leading Labour after 13 years and a financial crisis. Ed Miliband was leading an opposition against a party that didn't even a majority last time, and wasn't even that popular.
No he did better than Brown in voteshare across the UK and in seats in England and Wales, he only lost seats in Scotland because of post indyref which would have also hit Brown too. Brown was leading Labour with a comfortable 60 seat majority and a financial crisis he helped cause. Miliband was leading a party with a 29% voteshare left to him by Brown
As I said before vote-share doesn't matter in FPTP.
Seats in Scotland matter just as much as seats in England and Wales, we can hardly take out Scotland to try and make Miliband look good in an GE of the UK. As said before, Miliband wasn't powerless on the Scotland issue - it was already there as a problem in 2011, he had more than three years to deal with issue and didn't. We can't assume therefore that Brown would have ignored the issue to such a degree that the post-indyref fallout occurred.
Brown was as associated with Better Together and Scottish Labour as Miliband and it was Brown who made 'The Vow', none of that saved Scottish Labour's bacon
Better Together was the only platform offered to argue a YES position essentially so of course he was involved.
UKIP aren't even winning council elections right now, let alone having a field day with the white working class. Look at Calais crisis, in which no one in Westminster appears to have any answers to, yet white working class people are hardly flocking to UKIP.
Corbyn isn't leader yet.
Doesn't matter. If UKIP were going to make en mass in roads with the white working classes it would have happened by now - as I mentioned with the Calais crisis, yet even after that they're actually losing elections. Corbyn's views are also starting to come to prominence.
It did happen three months ago. It's why Ukip went from 3% to 12.5%
I say this as a disabled bisexual 6th former
Vote-share ineven a former Labour seat. Given the hype after the Euro elections in 2014 - that UKIP were failing to win a seat is hardly getting there. Second doesn't mean anything in FPTP.
So what? You said wwc hadn't gone to UKIP nothing to do with seats won but votes cast
I see the WWC going to UKIP as significant in terms of seats - after all, that's the product of electoral success. If it's not in seats why else would it matter?
You're talking absolute rubbish because you can't admit you're wrong. No one mentioned seats, you said wwc were not going to UKIP.
It is conceivable that the entire wwc could vote for a party and they get very few seats, that wouldn't mean they hadn't voted for them
God you just don't know how it feels to be an orphaned, transgender 19 year old
You think I'M talking rubbish - you're saying it's conceivable that the entire WWC could vote for a party (presumably UKIP) and they get few seats. Given how many seats Labour represent in the North are WWC that's not conceivable at ALL.
I'm not wrong - and while no one explicitly mentioned seats, it was first talked of UKIP damaging Labour, which would obviously be in terms of seats!
You're moving the goal posts because lt is impossible to argue that a party that quadrupled its vote share, predominantly in areas where there are a lot of wwc, isn't eating into the wwc vote without doing so.
The only other option is to admit you made a mistake saying it wasn't happening... So I guess goalpost moving it is
God I wish I wasn't half Jewish half Muslim gay rights cnd activist aged 13 3/4
UKIP aren't even winning council elections right now, let alone having a field day with the white working class. Look at Calais crisis, in which no one in Westminster appears to have any answers to, yet white working class people are hardly flocking to UKIP.
Corbyn isn't leader yet.
Doesn't matter. If UKIP were going to make en mass in roads with the white working classes it would have happened by now - as I mentioned with the Calais crisis, yet even after that they're actually losing elections. Corbyn's views are also starting to come to prominence.
It did happen three months ago. It's why Ukip went from 3% to 12.5%
I say this as a disabled bisexual 6th former
Vote-share in FPTP doesn't mean much when all that totals to is 1MP though, and that's in a former Conservative Seat, not even a former Labour seat. Given the hype after the Euro elections in 2014 - that UKIP were expected to get anything from 5 MPs to MPs in double figures - actually losing seats in a GE (Reckless) and your leader failing to win a seat is hardly getting there. Second doesn't mean anything in FPTP.
Finishing a close second is important under FPTP. A political party finishing a close second is far more likely to attract potential voters than if they are a million miles off.
UKIP came second in around 120 seats. Of those 120, I believe in around a dozen or so it was a close second. At the General Election in 2020, in those dozen seats, it cannot be argued that a vote for UKIP is a wasted vote as they are now in with a realistic shot at winning the seat.
I thought the whole second place in FPTP means nothing argument got debunked a long while ago.
I'm aware UKIP came second in a close number of seats - out of a dozen close results 5 of those seats are Labour seats - the other 7 are Tory seats. Secondly, finishing a close second once doesn't mean anything. UKIP actually won a by-election with a sitting MP, Mark Reckless in 2014, only to lose to seat when the GE came. It's about building up a local government base primarily that then means UKIP can become local challengers to that seat. How many voters in those five seats will know that UKIP came second, and therefore they are a plausible 'alternative' after all? Many will forget because they have better things to think about. By 2020 those voters will be thinking about voting for a potential government alongside the issues that concern them.
@isam I'm not moving goal-posts, the conversation started where seat-share was pretty much relevant. You keep on bringing up vote-share, but vote-share doesn't mean anything under FPTP. I've not made any mistake at all - it's you insisting vote-share is a reliable indicative of progress over seat-share, that I believe is mistaken.
Yet Ed Miliband did not do worse than Brown, across the UK his voteshare was higher than Brown won and outside of Scotland he gained seats, Brown lost over 90. Polls normally swing to the government in the closing stages and the Tories still had a 7 point lead over Labour
He did do worse than Brown - Labour have a lower seat share total than in 2010. If anything it's the pure incompetence of Ed Miliband and his team that Labour gained votes in places were it generally didn't matter anyway. Under Ed Miliband marginal seats with small majorities weren't even taken! On Brown as I said before: Brown was leading Labour after 13 years and a financial crisis. Ed Miliband was leading an opposition against a party that didn't even a majority last time, and wasn't even that popular.
No he did better than Brown in voteshare across the UK and in seats in England and Wales, he only lost seats in Scotland because of post indyref which would have also hit Brown too. Brown was leading Labour with a comfortable 60 seat majority and a financial crisis he helped cause. Miliband was leading a party with a 29% voteshare left to him by Brown
As I said before vote-share doesn't matter in FPTP.
Seats in Scotland matter just as much as seats in England and Wales, we can hardly take out Scotland to try and make Miliband look good in an GE of the UK. As said before, Miliband wasn't powerless on the Scotland issue - it was already there as a problem in 2011, he had more than three years to deal with issue and didn't. We can't assume therefore that Brown would have ignored the issue to such a degree that the post-indyref fallout occurred.
Brown was as associated with Better Together and Scottish Labour as Miliband and it was Brown who made 'The Vow', none of that saved Scottish Labour's bacon
Better Together was the only platform offered to argue a YES position essentially so of course he was involved.
Indeed, and he campaigned for SLAB too but although he won indyref even he could not save SLAB, anyway, off to bed, night!
@isam I'm not moving goal-posts, the conversation started where seat-share was pretty much relevant. You keep on bringing up vote-share, but vote-share doesn't mean anything under FPTP. I've not made any mistake at all - it's you insisting vote-share is a reliable indicative of progress over seat-share, that I believe is mistaken.
It is possible for Labour to lose seats as a result of a substantial proportion of their core vote going to UKIP, without UKIP being the direct (seat) beneficiary. If one leaves UKIP out of it, and just talks about WWC deserting Labour it doesn't even matter where they go.
Either way labour is damaged significantly.
I don't see that happening - the only other alternative where the seats would go is to the Tories, and in most Labour seats the Tory ceiling is far too low for that to happen. Nor would many of those voters want to risk a splitting of the vote and the Tories taking dozens of safe Labour seats, either. But I don't see a substantial amount of Labour's core vote going to UKIP anyway tbh.
I'm aware UKIP came second in a close number of seats - out of a dozen close results 5 of those seats are Labour seats - the other 7 are Tory seats. Secondly, finishing a close second once doesn't mean anything. UKIP actually won a by-election with a sitting MP, Mark Reckless in 2014, only to lose to seat when the GE came. It's about building up a local government base primarily that then means UKIP can become local challengers to that seat. How many voters in those five seats will know that UKIP came second, and therefore they are a plausible 'alternative' after all? Many will forget because they have better things to think about. By 2020 those voters will be thinking about voting for a potential government alongside the issues that concern them.
If UKIP target their resources in 2020 then virtually every voter in those constituencies should know they came a close second previously.
If you want keep on believing that second place under FPTP doesn't matter then go ahead. I would rather go by common sense and polling which suggests otherwise.
I'm aware UKIP came second in a close number of seats - out of a dozen close results 5 of those seats are Labour seats - the other 7 are Tory seats. Secondly, finishing a close second once doesn't mean anything. UKIP actually won a by-election with a sitting MP, Mark Reckless in 2014, only to lose to seat when the GE came. It's about building up a local government base primarily that then means UKIP can become local challengers to that seat. How many voters in those five seats will know that UKIP came second, and therefore they are a plausible 'alternative' after all? Many will forget because they have better things to think about. By 2020 those voters will be thinking about voting for a potential government alongside the issues that concern them.
If UKIP target their resources in 2020 then virtually every voter in those constituencies should know they came a close second previously.
If you want keep on believing that second place under FPTP doesn't matter then go ahead. I would rather go by common sense and polling which suggests otherwise.
If we're going to bet on UKIP targeting resources, then that's already a downside for them. Their ability to target resources was awful last time round, and I see no reason with Farage in charge why it should be different in 2020.
As for common sense, recent past history says that parties with significant vote-share who attempt to challenge the big two usually don't succeed.
Populist parties are rising in the polls in many European countries at the moment, especially in Scandinavia, Netherlands and France in response to rising immigration. I think it's a bit early to say the same thing won't happen in this country, although whether UKIP will be the vehicle for that sentiment is difficult to say.
The latest Dutch poll puts the PVV in first place:
The Times says 50 new Peers will be appointed this week.
Only 30 will be Con.
That looks pretty hopeless - 30 Con and 20 Lab/LD will only give Con a net gain of 10 votes which is nowhere near enough to make any material difference to Lords votes.
On Monday I saved my mate over a thousand quid a year £760 on gas and electric (British Gas to Sainsburys via USwitch) and £240 Sky although he still pays £40 a month for exactly the same package I pay £23.50 for.
He bought me a pint generosity no bounds!!
Yes. Some prices are so out of whack with the competitive prices. They exist to feed off lazy consumers, for those that default to BT for phone, BG for Gas and their local (old) regional energy generator for electricity.
You have to be smart and it isnt hard, the comparison sites do it all for you.
Am always skeptical that the good rates are only for the first year, and then they rack up the prices.
Most have 28 day cancellation and maximum £30 per fuel penalty and can usually save hundreds. It is my hobby since I retired.
My Gas and Electric has been moved twice in 2 years saved £250 when moved from British Gas and a further £120 when moved to first utility. U Switch is brilliant site.
You should mention this to comrade Corbyn. Indeed you might get to like life in the gulag.
Comrade Corbyn won't be interested in changes since 1983. That we have one of the more efficient industries and some of the best prices in the EU does not measure up to a dogma.
Not that chuffed with moving, though. Moved to NPower and the first thing they did was take over a neighbours Gas supply at 20a not ours at 20, and our Electric. Was via the Telegraph switching.
Took a year to sort out.
About to re-enter the fray since I'm not staying with a Scottish company.
I'm aware UKIP came second in a close number of seats - out of a dozen close results 5 of those seats are Labour seats - the other 7 are Tory seats. Secondly, finishing a close second once doesn't mean anything. UKIP actually won a by-election with a sitting MP, Mark Reckless in 2014, only to lose to seat when the GE came. It's about building up a local government base primarily that then means UKIP can become local challengers to that seat. How many voters in those five seats will know that UKIP came second, and therefore they are a plausible 'alternative' after all? Many will forget because they have better things to think about. By 2020 those voters will be thinking about voting for a potential government alongside the issues that concern them.
If UKIP target their resources in 2020 then virtually every voter in those constituencies should know they came a close second previously.
If you want keep on believing that second place under FPTP doesn't matter then go ahead. I would rather go by common sense and polling which suggests otherwise.
If we're going to bet on UKIP targeting resources, then that's already a downside for them. Their ability to target resources was awful last time round, and I see no reason with Farage in charge why it should be different in 2020.
As for common sense, recent past history says that parties with significant vote-share who attempt to challenge the big two usually don't succeed.
Rob Ford > Miss Apocalypse
“In many seats, Ukip support may currently be suppressed by the perception that they are a ‘wasted vote’ – a perception which a party with little electoral track record will find it hard to combat.”
Opinium > Miss Apocalypse
The phenomenal rise in support for Ukip is underlined by a new Opinium/Observer poll which shows almost one-third of voters would be prepared to back Nigel Farage’s party if they believed it could win in their own constituency.
@isam I'm not moving goal-posts, the conversation started where seat-share was pretty much relevant. You keep on bringing up vote-share, but vote-share doesn't mean anything under FPTP. I've not made any mistake at all - it's you insisting vote-share is a reliable indicative of progress over seat-share, that I believe is mistaken.
Happen to think you are both right. For established parties seeking to govern, seat share is all that counts.
Vote share is of more importance: 1. in the early days of a new party seeking to establish itself as representing an unignorable slice of the electorate; 2. to pressure groups (some on this site have argued that UKIP is not a party, but a single issue bundle pressure group)
Thus, while seats are the ultimate goal for UKIP, at this stage, I would agree that vote share is perhaps more vital to their credibility.
The Times says 50 new Peers will be appointed this week.
Only 30 will be Con.
That looks pretty hopeless - 30 Con and 20 Lab/LD will only give Con a net gain of 10 votes which is nowhere near enough to make any material difference to Lords votes.
“In many seats, Ukip support may currently be suppressed by the perception that they are a ‘wasted vote’ – a perception which a party with little electoral track record will find it hard to combat.”
Opinium > Miss Apocalypse
The phenomenal rise in support for Ukip is underlined by a new Opinium/Observer poll which shows almost one-third of voters would be prepared to back Nigel Farage’s party if they believed it could win in their own constituency.
I don't know how your first quote supports your argument - it seems to argue, that like many other parties UKIP will suffer from 'wasted vote syndrome' a product of FPTP, and will find it hard to combat this image. The idea that UKIP support is suppressed btw is not really news, nor typical to them. In FPTP many would probably like to vote for smaller, fringe parties - I bet green party support for example, is suppressed - that many left-wing people would vote Green if they thought it would make a difference. But because FPTP discourages this, and encourages people to vote for the big two out of the 'least worst' option therefore many opt to not vote for smaller parties.
But a fascinating new poll by YouGov for the Times's Red Box shows how Natalie Bennett's band could overtake Nigel Farage's.
Asked which party they would vote for if all candidates had a chance of winning in their constituency, 26 per cent said they would "likely" support the Greens, ahead of Ukip on 24 per cent. Most likely owing to Ukip's toxic status among many centrist and liberal voters, fewer are willing to consider supporting it than the left-wing alternative. The Tories and Labour were on 35 per cent each, with the Lib Dems in last place on 16 per cent.
It hardly means the Greens are going to do well in the future; just like the Opinium poll hardly means UKIP will. In that poll, notably 49% said they wouldn't vote UKIP (potentially leading to tactical voting against UKIP).
@isam I'm not moving goal-posts, the conversation started where seat-share was pretty much relevant. You keep on bringing up vote-share, but vote-share doesn't mean anything under FPTP. I've not made any mistake at all - it's you insisting vote-share is a reliable indicative of progress over seat-share, that I believe is mistaken.
Happen to think you are both right. For established parties seeking to govern, seat share is all that counts.
Vote share is of more importance: 1. in the early days of a new party seeking to establish itself as representing an unignorable slice of the electorate; 2. to pressure groups (some on this site have argued that UKIP is not a party, but a single issue bundle pressure group)
Thus, while seats are the ultimate goal for UKIP, at this stage, I would agree that vote share is perhaps more vital to their credibility.
I think the trouble with using vote-share is how difficult under FPTP it is to convert sizable vote-shares into significant seat-shares for smaller parties. The SDP, for example found in 1983 while they were only two percentages points off Labour's vote share, Labour had 209 seats to their 23. Even under the guise of the LDs, where they managed to build a successful local government base, and take advantage of Labour's move rightwards under Blair, with a string of by-election successes, reasonably popular leaders in Ashdown and Kennedy, and not being divisive they still were ultimately limited by the FPTP system. Given that UKIP, unlike the LDs are essentially a single-issue party, with no comparable government base, divisive, a controversial joke of a leader, and poor at resource-targeting I don't see them swimming to success in the coming years. Indeed with the EU looking pretty bad after the handling of Greece and Calais, that UKIP haven't made more inroads now is rather strange.
Given that UKIP, unlike the LDs are essentially a single-issue party, with no comparable government base, divisive, a controversial joke of a leader, and poor at resource-targeting I don't see them swimming to success in the coming years. Indeed with the EU looking pretty bad after the handling of Greece and Calais, that UKIP haven't made more inroads now is rather strange.
I believe that is what is commonly called "an opinion" rather than a "given". Forgive me but you are starting to sound like a Labour rapid rebuttal unit member under Mandelson. The goal posts in this debate are moving as if they were on castors.
Given that UKIP, unlike the LDs are essentially a single-issue party, with no comparable government base, divisive, a controversial joke of a leader, and poor at resource-targeting I don't see them swimming to success in the coming years. Indeed with the EU looking pretty bad after the handling of Greece and Calais, that UKIP haven't made more inroads now is rather strange.
I believe that is what is commonly called "an opinion" rather than a "given". Forgive me but you are starting to sound like a Labour rapid rebuttal unit member under Mandelson. The goal posts in this debate are moving as if they were on castors.
This goal-post argument keeps on coming up, but I've always been consistent with my use of seats as a measurement of success, and have never changed that position. So it's an strawman argument.
As for the above being an opinion, well UKIP's MO is the EU/Immigration. It's what they are best known for, what they talk about the most, and the issue in which voters agree with them most. Their other polices and aims are hardly talked about in comparison to the issue of Immigration and the EU.
As for a local government base - I also don't see how that's a matter of opinion. UKIP only control one council - Thanet.
I also don't see how UKIP's poor resource ability can be doubted, either. 1 MP, when expectations were signifcantly more around autumn 2014, and where UKIP assured all that Farage would win his seat (and he didn't) points to this.
Obviously, my own predictions on UKIP's future success is an opinion - but one backed up by the above factors.
The Times says 50 new Peers will be appointed this week.
Only 30 will be Con.
That looks pretty hopeless - 30 Con and 20 Lab/LD will only give Con a net gain of 10 votes which is nowhere near enough to make any material difference to Lords votes.
Even under the guise of the LDs, where they managed to build a successful local government base, and take advantage of Labour's move rightwards under Blair, with a string of by-election successes, reasonably popular leaders in Ashdown and Kennedy, and not being divisive they still were ultimately limited by the FPTP system. Given that UKIP, unlike the LDs are essentially a single-issue party, with no comparable government base, divisive, a controversial joke of a leader, and poor at resource-targeting I don't see them swimming to success in the coming years. Indeed with the EU looking pretty bad after the handling of Greece and Calais, that UKIP haven't made more inroads now is rather strange.
I think you underplay UKIP.
They now have 500 local councillors, for example, up from 23 at the start of 2013, and a membership nudging 50,000. And I'm not sure about the "single issue party" thing anymore.
Assumign Corbyn wins, there are a lot of places where UKIP may well benefit, and they have many times more troops on the ground to make it happen than very recently.
Agree that Farage focus and fissipariousness are perhaps their main problems.
It's interested that the Greens haven't built a similar local government base, and seem to be going backwards.
Comments
I'm not wrong - and while no one explicitly mentioned seats, it was first talked of UKIP damaging Labour, which would obviously be in terms of seats!
UKIP came second in around 120 seats. Of those 120, I believe in around a dozen or so it was a close second. At the General Election in 2020, in those dozen seats, it cannot be argued that a vote for UKIP is a wasted vote as they are now in with a realistic shot at winning the seat.
I thought the whole second place in FPTP means nothing argument got debunked a long while ago.
Either way labour is damaged significantly.
The only other option is to admit you made a mistake saying it wasn't happening... So I guess goalpost moving it is
God I wish I wasn't half Jewish half Muslim gay rights cnd activist aged 13 3/4
If you want keep on believing that second place under FPTP doesn't matter then go ahead. I would rather go by common sense and polling which suggests otherwise.
As for common sense, recent past history says that parties with significant vote-share who attempt to challenge the big two usually don't succeed.
Here we are: https://www.partijvoordedieren.nl/downloads/www/2013/06/1371455350_PvdD_verkprogr_2012_Engels.pdf
Only 30 will be Con.
That looks pretty hopeless - 30 Con and 20 Lab/LD will only give Con a net gain of 10 votes which is nowhere near enough to make any material difference to Lords votes.
Not that chuffed with moving, though. Moved to NPower and the first thing they did was take over a neighbours Gas supply at 20a not ours at 20, and our Electric. Was via the Telegraph switching.
Took a year to sort out.
About to re-enter the fray since I'm not staying with a Scottish company.
Vote share is of more importance:
1. in the early days of a new party seeking to establish itself as representing an unignorable slice of the electorate;
2. to pressure groups (some on this site have argued that UKIP is not a party, but a single issue bundle pressure group)
Thus, while seats are the ultimate goal for UKIP, at this stage, I would agree that vote share is perhaps more vital to their credibility.
I don't know how your first quote supports your argument - it seems to argue, that like many other parties UKIP will suffer from 'wasted vote syndrome' a product of FPTP, and will find it hard to combat this image. The idea that UKIP support is suppressed btw is not really news, nor typical to them. In FPTP many would probably like to vote for smaller, fringe parties - I bet green party support for example, is suppressed - that many left-wing people would vote Green if they thought it would make a difference. But because FPTP discourages this, and encourages people to vote for the big two out of the 'least worst' option therefore many opt to not vote for smaller parties.
In fact YouGov did a poll which showed similar findings for the Greens: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/11/potential-support-greens-outweighs-potential-support-ukip
But a fascinating new poll by YouGov for the Times's Red Box shows how Natalie Bennett's band could overtake Nigel Farage's.
Asked which party they would vote for if all candidates had a chance of winning in their constituency, 26 per cent said they would "likely" support the Greens, ahead of Ukip on 24 per cent. Most likely owing to Ukip's toxic status among many centrist and liberal voters, fewer are willing to consider supporting it than the left-wing alternative. The Tories and Labour were on 35 per cent each, with the Lib Dems in last place on 16 per cent.
It hardly means the Greens are going to do well in the future; just like the Opinium poll hardly means UKIP will. In that poll, notably 49% said they wouldn't vote UKIP (potentially leading to tactical voting against UKIP).
http://www.bloomberg.com/energy
As for the above being an opinion, well UKIP's MO is the EU/Immigration. It's what they are best known for, what they talk about the most, and the issue in which voters agree with them most. Their other polices and aims are hardly talked about in comparison to the issue of Immigration and the EU.
As for a local government base - I also don't see how that's a matter of opinion. UKIP only control one council - Thanet.
I also don't see how UKIP's poor resource ability can be doubted, either. 1 MP, when expectations were signifcantly more around autumn 2014, and where UKIP assured all that Farage would win his seat (and he didn't) points to this.
Obviously, my own predictions on UKIP's future success is an opinion - but one backed up by the above factors.
They now have 500 local councillors, for example, up from 23 at the start of 2013, and a membership nudging 50,000. And I'm not sure about the "single issue party" thing anymore.
Assumign Corbyn wins, there are a lot of places where UKIP may well benefit, and they have many times more troops on the ground to make it happen than very recently.
Agree that Farage focus and fissipariousness are perhaps their main problems.
It's interested that the Greens haven't built a similar local government base, and seem to be going backwards.