In Oldham West and Royton, Labour have a lead over UKIP of 14,738 Votes
Of the 232 labour seats: 127 have leads less than this. 104 have leads more than this.
(this includes seats were UKIP are 2nd, 3rd, 4th....)
So depending on how tonight goes, possibly more than half the Labour seats could be vulnerable to UKIP, if another By-election happens.
I have given quite a bit of thought to this over the summer. My conclusion is that swing required is not the best measure for UKIP to determine target seats. By my preferred measure, Oldham West & Royton is a relatively good prospect for UKIP (though it would still be a gigantic success for the kippers to take it).
I suppose that might be worth a thread header.
Is interesting that seat isn't even in UKIP's top 150 target seats for 2020 says a lot about the way this by election has panned out.
To be fair it's distorted, Ukip have limited resources which was a major issue at the GE and Bickley is a very good candidate which can't be said of them all. In fighting to one degree or other 600 seats Ukip are massively disadvantaged.
I think next May's locals will help UKIP immensely for 2020.
The seats being contested next May will be the ones that will be contested again in May 2020.
Should help with targeting the right parliamentary seats.
Is that right? The locals don't map to constituencies most of the time and Cameron is cutting number of constituencies from 650 to 600.
Mr. Thompson, there's that, but it's also worth noting that there is effective free movement since Mad Merkel decided even pretending to have borders was *so* last century.
Of course, as we're not in Schengen and only have a land border with the Republic of Ireland, we're not quite in the same kettle of monkeys.
Schengen was not Merkel's invention. Though either way we are not in it as you say.
Deselection? MPs would broadly follow party policy. Why would they not? And they would broadly follow collective responsibility drawn up as per meetings of the shadow cabinet and PLP. If there is a free vote then that is a free vote. So why would deselection be an issue over a free vote? I think we all know the answer to that but it hardly justifies the policy.
In Oldham West and Royton, Labour have a lead over UKIP of 14,738 Votes
Of the 232 labour seats: 127 have leads less than this. 104 have leads more than this.
(this includes seats were UKIP are 2nd, 3rd, 4th....)
So depending on how tonight goes, possibly more than half the Labour seats could be vulnerable to UKIP, if another By-election happens.
I have given quite a bit of thought to this over the summer. My conclusion is that swing required is not the best measure for UKIP to determine target seats. By my preferred measure, Oldham West & Royton is a relatively good prospect for UKIP (though it would still be a gigantic success for the kippers to take it).
I suppose that might be worth a thread header.
Is interesting that seat isn't even in UKIP's top 150 target seats for 2020 says a lot about the way this by election has panned out.
To be fair it's distorted, Ukip have limited resources which was a major issue at the GE and Bickley is a very good candidate which can't be said of them all. In fighting to one degree or other 600 seats Ukip are massively disadvantaged.
I think next May's locals will help UKIP immensely for 2020.
The seats being contested next May will be the ones that will be contested again in May 2020.
Should help with targeting the right parliamentary seats.
How many locals are there next year? We did pretty well in those in May
131 councils in England and 21 out of 22 in Wales and all the Scottish ones.
I think over 3, 000 seats up for grab in England.
These are the 2012 English results. This was peak Miliband and UKIP were polling around 4% nationally
In Oldham West and Royton, Labour have a lead over UKIP of 14,738 Votes
Of the 232 labour seats: 127 have leads less than this. 104 have leads more than this.
(this includes seats were UKIP are 2nd, 3rd, 4th....)
So depending on how tonight goes, possibly more than half the Labour seats could be vulnerable to UKIP, if another By-election happens.
I have given quite a bit of thought to this over the summer. My conclusion is that swing required is not the best measure for UKIP to determine target seats. By my preferred measure, Oldham West & Royton is a relatively good prospect for UKIP (though it would still be a gigantic success for the kippers to take it).
I suppose that might be worth a thread header.
Is interesting that seat isn't even in UKIP's top 150 target seats for 2020 says a lot about the way this by election has panned out.
To be fair it's distorted, Ukip have limited resources which was a major issue at the GE and Bickley is a very good candidate which can't be said of them all. In fighting to one degree or other 600 seats Ukip are massively disadvantaged.
I think next May's locals will help UKIP immensely for 2020.
The seats being contested next May will be the ones that will be contested again in May 2020.
Should help with targeting the right parliamentary seats.
Is that right? The locals don't map to constituencies most of the time and Cameron is cutting number of constituencies from 650 to 600.
It gives a rough indication of where parties should direct their attention in 2020.
Run some late numbers, and get to Lab 40%, UKIP 37%, Con 16%, LD 5%, Grn 1% for #OldhamWest at 32% turnout. Hey, what do I know?
Certainly plausible enough, although I'd be surprised if turnout is quite as low as that. He might have access to canvassing data, though, whereas I'm just guessing.
Is Ian Warren working for a political party at the moment?
Moronic image. We don't have free movement with non EU nationals. Idiots.
Deleted
They are very odd arrows!
My first impression was that it read as I originally posted. On closer inspection it does not, and although it gives the impression of Arabic text disguised, I cannot make out anything that really makes sense, except the first two do spell Laa.
Deselection? MPs would broadly follow party policy. Why would they not? And they would broadly follow collective responsibility drawn up as per meetings of the shadow cabinet and PLP. If there is a free vote then that is a free vote. So why would deselection be an issue over a free vote? I think we all know the answer to that but it hardly justifies the policy.
The MPs are free to vote as they wish, and the constituency parties are free to decide who their candidate will be at the next election. It's the new kinder and gentler politics in action. Or something.
Run some late numbers, and get to Lab 40%, UKIP 37%, Con 16%, LD 5%, Grn 1% for #OldhamWest at 32% turnout. Hey, what do I know?
Certainly plausible enough, although I'd be surprised if turnout is quite as low as that. He might have access to canvassing data, though, whereas I'm just guessing.
Is Ian Warren working for a political party at the moment?
I'm not sure. I believe he was working for Labour in Oldham, and maybe he still is. However, he's left the Labour Party.
In Oldham West and Royton, Labour have a lead over UKIP of 14,738 Votes
Of the 232 labour seats: 127 have leads less than this. 104 have leads more than this.
(this includes seats were UKIP are 2nd, 3rd, 4th....)
So depending on how tonight goes, possibly more than half the Labour seats could be vulnerable to UKIP, if another By-election happens.
I have given quite a bit of thought to this over the summer. My conclusion is that swing required is not the best measure for UKIP to determine target seats. By my preferred measure, Oldham West & Royton is a relatively good prospect for UKIP (though it would still be a gigantic success for the kippers to take it).
I suppose that might be worth a thread header.
Is interesting that seat isn't even in UKIP's top 150 target seats for 2020 says a lot about the way this by election has panned out.
To be fair it's distorted, Ukip have limited resources which was a major issue at the GE and Bickley is a very good candidate which can't be said of them all. In fighting to one degree or other 600 seats Ukip are massively disadvantaged.
I think next May's locals will help UKIP immensely for 2020.
The seats being contested next May will be the ones that will be contested again in May 2020.
Should help with targeting the right parliamentary seats.
How many locals are there next year? We did pretty well in those in May
131 councils in England and 21 out of 22 in Wales and all the Scottish ones.
I think over 3, 000 seats up for grab in England.
These are the 2012 English results. This was peak Miliband and UKIP were polling around 4% nationally
FWIW, I'm still not convinced by the sincerity of Trump's candidacy. It feels too much like he's playing a character, a caricature. It feels like a joke that has gone too far.
I am with you there. There are many here who are convinced that this is all just a protracted publicity stunt to further build the Trump brand. And why not? It's all free advertising.
The danger is that his polling lead holds up and he starts to take his candidacy seriously. FWIW I think we have passed that point, alas.
I agree: we are past that point. It's two months until the first real votes are cast in the election, and we can write at least half a month off for Christmas and New Year. He's led in the polls for well over three months. Why *wouldn't* he take himself seriously when so many others do?
@BBCBenWright: In call with Merkel David Cameron accepts he will not get EU renegotiation deal at December European Council.
Lol. Didn't he say he will campaign to leave if he doesn't get a deal this month?
No I don't think he did. I think he said he was hopeful of a deal this month but it will be difficult. We have a deadline of two more years for the referendum.
If he said what you think then I'd love to see a source for that.
Run some late numbers, and get to Lab 40%, UKIP 37%, Con 16%, LD 5%, Grn 1% for #OldhamWest at 32% turnout. Hey, what do I know?
I was getting 42/33/16/4 (LD)/3 (Grn). Sky Kippers then?
What are you basing these numbers off ?
Talking to political parties asking about their canvass returns. My Labour source is normally most spot on. He likes to brag and is a know all so he gives me good stuff. I find Labour are better at giving right numbers (GE they were right, they couldn't admit it - they told me Tory 312 seats on election morning). Main point is those saying they are UKIP voters are not high enough. But if turnout is low, they might win. Certainly all canvass returns, all election have said Labour, but!!
I'm curious to know what "our own migration policy" constitutes.
In respect of the people represented by those arrows, it comprises taking 20,000 asylum seekers over 5 years, but mostly direct from refugee camps in the region of origin.
@BBCBenWright: In call with Merkel David Cameron accepts he will not get EU renegotiation deal at December European Council.
Lol. Didn't he say he will campaign to leave if he doesn't get a deal this month?
No I don't think he did. I think he said he was hopeful of a deal this month but it will be difficult. We have a deadline of two more years for the referendum.
If he said what you think then I'd love to see a source for that.
Miss Plato has the answer. He said he would campaign to leave if he was unable to restrict benefits for migrants. I have switched off from all things EU so not fully up to speed.
I'm curious to know what "our own migration policy" constitutes.
In respect of the people represented by those arrows, it comprises taking 20,000 asylum seekers over 5 years, but mostly direct from refugee camps in the region of origin.
What's UKIP's policy?
Approx 300000 came from outside the EU last year which is why I queried what our migration policy is. If you don't know, just say "I don't know".
Anyone even remotely sane will accept that there have been some events recently which will have meant that our EU renegotiations haven't exactly been the highest priority of key leaders such as François Hollande.
I severly doubt bookies have taken much on the Labour side tbh - casual punters don't really go for that and no tales of "serious money" (£10,000 placed on Labour @ 1-8 e.g.) that you normally get from a by-election.
I'm curious to know what "our own migration policy" constitutes.
In respect of the people represented by those arrows, it comprises taking 20,000 asylum seekers over 5 years, but mostly direct from refugee camps in the region of origin.
What's UKIP's policy?
Approx 300000 came from outside the EU last year which is why I queried what our migration policy is. If you don't know, just say "I don't know".
I know exactly what the government's policy is, indeed I wrote a paper on the subject recently. I'll send you a copy if you like.
I've no idea what UKIP's policy is, though. Some people in UKIP seem to think that the UK leaving the EU would somehow make a difference in respect of the migration crisis, but I haven't the faintest idea how they arrive at that bizarre conclusion. Perhaps you can explain?
Anyone even remotely sane will accept that there have been some events recently which will have meant that our EU renegotiations haven't exactly been the highest priority of key leaders such as François Hollande.
Mr Salmond must have missed the tweet sent last night by Stewart McDonald, a younger but evidently more mature SNP colleague.
“I voted differently to Hilary Benn,” wrote Mr McDonald, the MP for Glasgow South. “Using his father’s death to make a political point – ‘spinning in his grave’ – is repulsive.”
Well, well. We have a Commons first: an SNP MP, expressing a different view from his superiors.
@BBCBenWright: In call with Merkel David Cameron accepts he will not get EU renegotiation deal at December European Council.
Lol. Didn't he say he will campaign to leave if he doesn't get a deal this month?
To be fair no. He had said he will campaign to leave us he doesn't get a deal but he didn't put a time limit on it.
There's an effective 18 month deadline on a deal I believe. Since there is a 2 year deadline on the referendum and I believe the Electoral Commission demands a six month period for the run up to the referendum.
I'm curious to know what "our own migration policy" constitutes.
In respect of the people represented by those arrows, it comprises taking 20,000 asylum seekers over 5 years, but mostly direct from refugee camps in the region of origin.
What's UKIP's policy?
Approx 300000 came from outside the EU last year which is why I queried what our migration policy is. If you don't know, just say "I don't know".
I know exactly what the government's policy is, indeed I wrote a paper on the subject recently. I'll send you a copy if you like.
I've no idea what UKIP's policy is, though. Some people in UKIP seem to think that the UK leaving the EU would somehow make a difference in respect of the migration crisis, but I haven't the faintest idea how they arrive at that bizarre conclusion. Perhaps you can explain?
Thanks, I'd like to see a copy of that document.
Does it pledge to admit 600000 to the UK with a net figure of 300000?
Does it pledge to admit 600000 to the UK with a net figure of 300000?
It doesn't pledge or advocate anything, but explores the figures and the choices. If you VanillaMail me your email address, I'll happily send you a copy.
Does it pledge to admit 600000 to the UK with a net figure of 300000?
It doesn't pledge or advocate anything, but explores the figures and the choices. If you VanillaMail me your email address, I'll happily send you a copy.
What's vanilla mail?
We're going round in circles here, I simply want you to tell me what govt migration policy is, you've written a paper on it. If the policy is to admit 600000 a year I'd say they're doing very well and on target.
Hilary Benn isn’t going to become Labour leader. His speech backing war in Syria does not mark a turning point in Labour history or the moment that the party wakes up to the idiocy of Corbynism and starts the long painful march back to the centre ground. It was a good speech, easily the best of the day. But really, it wasn’t much more than that.
Does it pledge to admit 600000 to the UK with a net figure of 300000?
It doesn't pledge or advocate anything, but explores the figures and the choices. If you VanillaMail me your email address, I'll happily send you a copy.
Mr nabavi this is what you said a little while ago:
I know exactly what the government's policy is
Therefore please confirm that it involves net migration figures of 300000+ per year. I'd like to judge how successful the govt has been on one of it's key pledges, as somebody who has written a paper on the subject I assume you can help me out.
Apparently there is a call doing the rounds on social media for a minute of noise at 7pm tonight against bombing ISIL. Go out of the house and bang a pan. I think the Icelandic people did something like this over banking scandals a few years back.
Mr nabavi this is what you said a little while ago:
I know exactly what the government's policy is
Therefore please confirm that it involves net migration figures of 300000+ per year. I'd like to judge how successful the govt has been on one of it's key pledges, as somebody who has written a paper on the subject I assume you can help me out.
The government failed to meet its targets. Is that all you are saying? Everyone knows that, and the reasons have been well explored. The question is: what policies should be adopted. In particular, were we to leave the EU, what difference would it make? Obviously, zero difference to non-EEA migration, a point which the Kippers seem oddly incapable of getting their heads round. And quite probably very little difference to EU migration, depending on the nature the trade deal we negotiated with our EU friends (you know, the same ones whom Cameron is negotiating with).
Apparently there is a call doing the rounds on social media for a minute of noise at 7pm tonight against bombing ISIL. Go out of the house and bang a pan. I think the Icelandic people did something like this over banking scandals a few years back.
Apparently there is a call doing the rounds on social media for a minute of noise at 7pm tonight against bombing ISIL. Go out of the house and bang a pan. I think the Icelandic people did something like this over banking scandals a few years back.
Will report back if I hear anything.
Not really the weather for it frankly. Still it is a better idea than 100s of people standing outside a single, female MPs house at night shouting abuse and death threats. Maybe progress is being made.
Apparently there is a call doing the rounds on Socialist media for a minute of noise at 7pm tonight against bombing ISIL. Go out of the house and bang a pan. I think the Icelandic people did something like this over banking scandals a few years back.
Mr nabavi this is what you said a little while ago:
I know exactly what the government's policy is
Therefore please confirm that it involves net migration figures of 300000+ per year. I'd like to judge how successful the govt has been on one of it's key pledges, as somebody who has written a paper on the subject I assume you can help me out.
The government failed to meet its targets. Is that all you are saying? Everyone knows that, and the reasons have been well explored. The question is: what policies should be adopted. In particular, were we to leave the EU, what difference would it make? Obviously, zero difference to non-EEA migration, a point which the Kippers seem oddly incapable of getting their heads round. And quite probably very little difference to EU migration, depending on the nature the trade deal we negotiated with our EU friends (you know, the same ones whom Cameon is negotiating with).
Lame Mr Nabavi, you stated quite clearly that
I know exactly what the government's policy is
now you're prevaricating and obfuscating. Anyway, thanks for your help.
Does it pledge to admit 600000 to the UK with a net figure of 300000?
It doesn't pledge or advocate anything, but explores the figures and the choices. If you VanillaMail me your email address, I'll happily send you a copy.
I am sure your paper is jolly erudite and worth reading. Politically though the issue is quite simple and doesn't require too much study. Cameron said his government will reduce net immigration to below 100,000 pa. it is currently running at above 300,000 and the last set of figures showed an increase not a decrease.
There is performance and there are excuses. Cameron has failed and is failing to perform to the criteria he himself set.
Still far fewer than voted for Dubya's war in 2003.
The Tory non-bombers would have been a lot higher had there been a free vote.
Probably, although it's unfortunate that is the case. Even the most loyal should be willing to rebel on matters like that. My MP, namechecked in Benn's speech, stated in the debate he has only rebelled against his party literally once, in the 2003 vote.
now you're prevaricating and obfuscating. Anyway, thanks for your help.
A wonderful insight into the Kipperish mind: explaining that life is not as simplistic as the Kippers think is 'prevaricating and obfuscating'.
What one actually needs to do is to analyse the problem in some detail - immigration is not a simple matter at all, with different groups of people coming here (and leaving here) in varying numbers for different reasons, and driven by different factors. But of course, you're not interested in any of that.
Apparently there is a call doing the rounds on social media for a minute of noise at 7pm tonight against bombing ISIL. Go out of the house and bang a pan. I think the Icelandic people did something like this over banking scandals a few years back.
Good luck with that, - there’ll be a hell of a racket in Islington North – but that’s about it...
Apparently there is a call doing the rounds on social media for a minute of noise at 7pm tonight against bombing ISIL. Go out of the house and bang a pan. I think the Icelandic people did something like this over banking scandals a few years back.
I believe that's a common form of protest in south america isn't it?
Politically though the issue is quite simple and doesn't require too much study. Cameron said his government will reduce net immigration to below 100,000 pa. it is currently running at above 300,000 and the last set of figures showed an increase not a decrease.
There is performance and there are excuses. Cameron has failed and is failing to perform to the criteria he himself set.
True enough. However, the question is: does any other party have a better idea of what to do? One which is feasible and makes sense, I mean.
Still far fewer than voted for Dubya's war in 2003.
The Tory non-bombers would have been a lot higher had there been a free vote.
Probably. That's why they use a whip for matters of importance and weight. Tricky to govern effectively if you're constantly trying to herd (geddit) 330-odd cats.
now you're prevaricating and obfuscating. Anyway, thanks for your help.
A wonderful insight into the Kipperish mind: explaining that life is not as simplistic as the Kippers think is 'prevaricating and obfuscating'.
What one actually needs to do is to analyse the problem in some detail - immigration is not a simple matter at all, with different groups of people coming here (and leaving here) in varying numbers for different reasons, and driven by different factors. But of course, you're not interested in any of that.
While net migration is doubly complicated. Under the perverse logic of wanting low net migration more people enjoying life in the UK so deciding against emigrating is a failure.
Comments
MPs would broadly follow party policy. Why would they not? And they would broadly follow collective responsibility drawn up as per meetings of the shadow cabinet and PLP.
If there is a free vote then that is a free vote. So why would deselection be an issue over a free vote?
I think we all know the answer to that but it hardly justifies the policy.
I think over 3, 000 seats up for grab in England.
These are the 2012 English results. This was peak Miliband and UKIP were polling around 4% nationally
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/vote2012/council/england.stm
Mr. Thompson, no, but the errant nonsense of a migration policy was.
My understanding is that Oldham turnout very much on low side. Postal voter ‰age points to below 30-40%
With very odd looking arrows I agree in the other chat going on. Not so subtle arrows.
That said, deselection can be misleading, in reality it means the incumbent has to apply for (re)selection.
One does not live in fear of low-flying pigs, however.
If he said what you think then I'd love to see a source for that.
I would not turn out to vote Lab today.
Proud that Natascha indicated she would vote for the airstrikes myself, even though she couldn't as she is "Ways and means"
What's UKIP's policy?
Still far fewer than voted for Dubya's war in 2003.
I've no idea what UKIP's policy is, though. Some people in UKIP seem to think that the UK leaving the EU would somehow make a difference in respect of the migration crisis, but I haven't the faintest idea how they arrive at that bizarre conclusion. Perhaps you can explain?
Does it pledge to admit 600000 to the UK with a net figure of 300000?
If PV turnout is low, that could be bad for Labour. That said, is it still raining in Oldham? (no Pope catholic comments please!)
We're going round in circles here, I simply want you to tell me what govt migration policy is, you've written a paper on it. If the policy is to admit 600000 a year I'd say they're doing very well and on target.
Lab 40.9
UKIP 38.7
Con 12.3
LD 5.1
Grn 3.1
Majority 617 votes
turnout 36%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heywood_and_Middleton_by-election,_2014
I know exactly what the government's policy is
Therefore please confirm that it involves net migration figures of 300000+ per year. I'd like to judge how successful the govt has been on one of it's key pledges, as somebody who has written a paper on the subject I assume you can help me out.
It's not worth speculating on.
I'm getting more info about the very poor turnout in Oldham. Could be sub 30%. Question is who that favours
Those turnout bets are looking handy.
Mostly things look quiet until the post-work rush.
Hard to gauge until then, when, or course, things will mostly be over.
Not clear who low turnout favours.
The LibDems saving their deposit?
I know exactly what the government's policy is
now you're prevaricating and obfuscating. Anyway, thanks for your help.
I can confirm from my vantage point in Central Manchester it is pissing it down all over here and the Pennines.
This does not bold well for Labour and turnout.
My Kipper and turnout bets could be winners tonight.
Hmm.
As rain thwarted Zhuge Liang's plan to incinerate Sima Yi, could rain thwart Corbyn?
There is performance and there are excuses. Cameron has failed and is failing to perform to the criteria he himself set.
What one actually needs to do is to analyse the problem in some detail - immigration is not a simple matter at all, with different groups of people coming here (and leaving here) in varying numbers for different reasons, and driven by different factors. But of course, you're not interested in any of that.
That's why they haven't reduced the availability of postal voting.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/forecast/gcw2xg6np