politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » UKIP 2015 could be like Cleggasm 2010 – putting on votes wh

SystemSystem Posts: 12,250
edited September 2013 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » UKIP 2015 could be like Cleggasm 2010 – putting on votes where it doesn’t matter

The above chart seeks to graphically represent data in Denis Kavanagh’s and Philip Cowley’s The British General Election of 2010 showing the mean vote changes of the main parties in different categories of seats based on which came first and second in 2005. In doing it gives an interesting picture of what happened with, perhaps, some pointers to next time.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited September 2013
    FPT Tim.

    150 quid was indeed the sum touted and conhome mentions a total cost of 550m quid. not sure what that equates to in terms of 'per marriage' amounts.

    I'm just saying Cam has given Nick a big propaganda tool here. If I was Cameron, i'd have wanted more than 150 quid in return.
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    The Register comes up with the IT angle for the Scottish Independence debate:
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/18/could_scotland_declare_tech_independence/

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    FPT

    taffys said:
    s there any evidence that a £150 pa marriage tax break will increase take up given that the average cost of a wedding is reportedly £18k?

    How do you know its going to be 150 quid?

    If I was Cameron, I'd have wanted much more than that for giving the lib dems free school meals.
    -----------------

    £600m. Work out how many married couples @ say 25% MTR.

    So, MCA will be circa £2400m. There are, of course, many who do not pay any tax whatsoever.

    But, I understood there was no money because we had to pay down debt. Even if this came out of "extra savings", what stopped these "savings" to reduce debt even further.

    I think Tories feel they are laying a trap for Labour ! Some trap !!
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    "looking at the detailed Ashcroft data I wonder whether the same will happen at GE2015 – the biggest UKIP shares being in the non-battleground seats."

    The UKIP targets identified by Survation after the 2013 locals are often 'safe conservative' seats.

    http://survation.com/2013/05/ukip-won-in-8-westminster-constituencies-last-thursday/

    The descriptions below are from UK Polling Report

    Aylesbury - very safe conservative seat
    Bognor Regis and Littlehampton - very safe conservative seat
    Boston and Skegness - very safe conservative seat
    Cambridgeshire North West - very safe conservative seat
    Castle Point - semi marginal conservative seat
    Forest of Dean - safe conservative seat
    Great Yarmouth - marginal conservative seat
    Thanet South - semi-marginal
    Thanet North - very safe conservative seat
    Sittingborne and Sheppey - safe conservative seat
    Worthing East and Shoreham - very safe conservative seat
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    I highly doubt UKIP will win any seats at the next General Election. Certainly not a serious number like 50+ needed to make any dent in Parliament.

    A vote for UKIP is a wasted vote and likely doesn't matter anywhere. Where it doesn't matter then is basically everywhere.
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    tim said:

    taffys said:

    FPT Tim.

    150 quid was indeed the sum touted and conhome mentions a total cost of 550m quid. not sure what that equates to in terms of 'per marriage' amounts.

    I'm just saying Cam has given Nick a big propaganda tool here. If I was Cameron, i'd have wanted more than 150 quid in return.


    In fairness the Lib Dems have been smart in picking this particular evidence based policy that will have broad support.
    Cameron has picked in return a policy which is neither fish nor fowl.
    It can't decide whether it's aimed at benefiting children, which the Lib Dem one indisputably does and the Tory one may do slightly and tangentially, or incentivising marriage to a meaningful degree, which £150 per year will not do.
    I'd agree with that, but really free school meals versus marriage tax support - which feels more Tory?
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    I think Tories feel they are laying a trap for Labour ! Some trap !!

    I think that's a fair point. But there are problems with labour saying in response 'what happened to that austerity you loved so much??

    Plus, government receipts could turn out better than expected, I suppose.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Married people shouldn't have a tax allowance to "incentivise" marriage but simply because it is FAIR.

    Which pays much more tax currently: A couple who have 2 earners on £30k each or a couple with 1 earner on £60k.

    If the one on £60k gets a bit of a rebate because their partner isn't working then that seems fair. As far as I understand it if both partners are working then they don't get the allowance?
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    As far as I understand it if both partners are working then they don't get the allowance?

    I think if it is 150 quid then it's such a pittance it's an insult. The tories would be better off having no allowance at all.


  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited September 2013
    The Tories aren't trying to lay a trap for anyone, they are trying to address the unfairness of the tax system which discriminates against couples where the mother stays at home to look after the children. A transferable tax allowance (a long-standing proposal) would address that unfairness to some extent. Naturally it would have no impact for the case where both parents work, who already get two personal allowances (and, if they are high-earners, the advantage of two basic-rate bands) between them
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Another of Mikes threads on wishful thinking.
    Talk about looking into crystal balls.

    Well let me make a prediction that UKIP will win more seats than the L/Dems.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    tim said:

    Why shouldn't a couple who aren't married but whose circumstances are the same be treated differently?

    Because if they can't be bothered to register their relationship with the state, why should they expect to be treated as though they had?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    taffys said:

    As far as I understand it if both partners are working then they don't get the allowance?

    I think if it is 150 quid then it's such a pittance it's an insult. The tories would be better off having no allowance at all.

    I don't know, my wife and I got married earlier this year and we're now expecting for early next year. In the past we've been DINKY's (Dual Income No Kids Yet) but after she goes on maternity leave we're considering her staying at home until the kids are old enough to go to school and we'll rely on my wages. We're going to have extra people to look after and less income.

    Neither of us have ever really taken benefits and don't want to rely on benefits, but if we could pay somewhat less tax (even if its just a tenner a month) then every little helps. I don't want it to be a major handout as a Tory I'm against handouts, I just want a bit of fairness and less of a tax burden.

    My ideal solution would be transferable tax allowances.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    taffys said:

    I think Tories feel they are laying a trap for Labour ! Some trap !!

    I think that's a fair point. But there are problems with labour saying in response 'what happened to that austerity you loved so much??

    Plus, government receipts could turn out better than expected, I suppose.

    And the answer is 'the tax burden is too high. Although we're constrained by the appaling legacy of wasteful over-spending of the last government, where possible - as with the increase in the personal allowance - we are trying to make things a little easier for hard working families. This change will... Blah blah blah."
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    Completely OT, but anyone for beaver-arse ice cream?
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/18/beaver_bum_juice_tastes_of_vanilla_says_sweden/

  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Philip_Thompson said:

    If the one on £60k gets a bit of a rebate because their partner isn't working then that seems fair.

    If their partner isn't working then presumably they don't have the same childcare costs [and sometimes home maintenance costs] as a couple where both are working.

    In fact, the non-worker is effectively working tax-free. Bloody stay-at-home wives, cheating the Exchequer.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    MikeK said:

    Another of Mikes threads on wishful thinking.
    Talk about looking into crystal balls.

    Well let me make a prediction that UKIP will win more seats than the L/Dems.

    Well there's a fruitcake cum loony prediction for the general election !!

    LOL !!

  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    tim said:

    a married couple with one working partner but no children will get a tax break

    Not really a tax break, they'll get to be able to use the personal allowance (or part of it) which is currently wasted. That seems fair.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited September 2013
    tim said:

    @RichardNabavi

    The Tories aren't trying to lay a trap for anyone, they are trying to address the unfairness of the tax system which discriminates against couples where the mother stays at home to look after the children.

    No they aren't the tax break is related to marriage, not children.
    You just want to introduce a system which is aimed at marriage no matter whether there are children or not.
    A couple who arent married but who fit the rest of your criteria will still be "discriminated against" and a married couple with one working partner but no children will get a tax break

    Why SHOULD a married couple with 1 working partner pay so much more tax on that 1 partners earnings than a married couple with 2 working partners earning the same amount? Its not a handout, its a relief on the excess tax they're already paying.

    As for unmarried couples - the welfare system is a mess that gives a lot of handouts to people who live separately and penalises those who live together. I know many people who are in long-term relationships and essentially live together but technically keep two homes (with Housing Benefit for both of course) in order to maximise their welfare. Is that appropriate?

    I don't see how fixing one bug needs to fix them all, short of tearing up everything and starting again its not possible.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited September 2013
    tim said:

    RichardNabavi said:

    tim said:

    Why shouldn't a couple who aren't married but whose circumstances are the same be treated differently?

    Because if they can't be bothered to register their relationship with the state, why should they expect to be treated as though they had?
    Blimey, not sure I can argue against hardcore Stalinism from the shandy belt.
    Just a practical argument. Marriage, from the state's point of view, is simply the act of a couple registering the fact that they wish to be treated as a long-term family unit. The bizarre thing is the ideological opposition which some have to this simple act of administration, expecting the state to somehow guess that they do.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    RichardNabavi said:

    tim said:

    Why shouldn't a couple who aren't married but whose circumstances are the same be treated differently?

    Because if they can't be bothered to register their relationship with the state, why should they expect to be treated as though they had?
    An unmarried person stopping work and relying on their partner? Shows a high degree of trust: tim just how many of these cases are there?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited September 2013
    tim said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Married people shouldn't have a tax allowance to "incentivise" marriage but simply because it is FAIR.

    Which pays much more tax currently: A couple who have 2 earners on £30k each or a couple with 1 earner on £60k.

    If the one on £60k gets a bit of a rebate because their partner isn't working then that seems fair. As far as I understand it if both partners are working then they don't get the allowance?


    Why shouldn't a couple who aren't married but whose circumstances are the same be treated differently?
    If you want to build an argument based on fairness then that falls down straight away.
    If they want to be treated as married then they can be whenever they choose to. Its that simple.

    A couple can't however simply choose to divide their income between both partners and reduce their taxes accordingly - that would be tax fraud.

    EDIT: Fixed typos.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,723
    MikeK said:

    Another of Mikes threads on wishful thinking.
    Talk about looking into crystal balls.

    Well let me make a prediction that UKIP will win more seats than the L/Dems.

    No they won't. As a UKIP member I would love that to be true but there is no way on earth that UKIP will get more seats than the Lib Dems even if they beat them on votes.

    UKIP might get a single seat if the conditions are perfect. More realistically I believe they will rack up probably 10% of the national vote but will remain without a seat.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    tim said:

    @RichardNabavi

    Marriage, from the state's point of view, is simply the act of a couple registering the fac that they wish to be treated as a long-term family unit

    Yet Dave's tax break will apply to second and third marriages
    No "Three strikes and you're out" clause?

    It's bullshit and you know it, and it also makes the "there's no money left" line look farcical.

    The State isn't making a judgement call on somebodies marriage so why should it matter whether its second or third marriages? Or 10th or 11th?

    This isn't a tax break for marriage, if it was then ALL married couples would get it even if both partner's worked full time. It is allowing a partner to use a PORTION of THEIR tax allowance rather than wasting it.
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    MikeK said:

    Another of Mikes threads on wishful thinking.
    Talk about looking into crystal balls.

    Well let me make a prediction that UKIP will win more seats than the L/Dems.

    No they won't. As a UKIP member I would love that to be true but there is no way on earth that UKIP will get more seats than the Lib Dems even if they beat them on votes.

    UKIP might get a single seat if the conditions are perfect. More realistically I believe they will rack up probably 10% of the national vote but will remain without a seat.
    And what is the probable outcome for Tory seats if UKIP are on 10%?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,723
    DaemonBarber said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    MikeK said:

    Another of Mikes threads on wishful thinking.
    Talk about looking into crystal balls.

    Well let me make a prediction that UKIP will win more seats than the L/Dems.

    No they won't. As a UKIP member I would love that to be true but there is no way on earth that UKIP will get more seats than the Lib Dems even if they beat them on votes.

    UKIP might get a single seat if the conditions are perfect. More realistically I believe they will rack up probably 10% of the national vote but will remain without a seat.
    And what is the probable outcome for Tory seats if UKIP are on 10%?
    No idea but hopefully they will lose.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    DaemonBarber said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    MikeK said:

    Another of Mikes threads on wishful thinking.
    Talk about looking into crystal balls.

    Well let me make a prediction that UKIP will win more seats than the L/Dems.

    No they won't. As a UKIP member I would love that to be true but there is no way on earth that UKIP will get more seats than the Lib Dems even if they beat them on votes.

    UKIP might get a single seat if the conditions are perfect. More realistically I believe they will rack up probably 10% of the national vote but will remain without a seat.
    And what is the probable outcome for Tory seats if UKIP are on 10%?
    Probably not completely different to the Tory seats if UKIP are on 4% since a large portion of UKIP voters are not "Tories on strike" but protest voters who would be attracted to the Lib Dems or others until they became part of the establishment.
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083
    RichardNabavi said:

    tim said:

    RichardNabavi said:

    tim said:

    Why shouldn't a couple who aren't married but whose circumstances are the same be treated differently?

    Because if they can't be bothered to register their relationship with the state, why should they expect to be treated as though they had?
    Blimey, not sure I can argue against hardcore Stalinism from the shandy belt.
    Just a practical argument. Marriage, from the state's point of view, is simply the act of a couple registering the fact that they wish to be treated as a long-term family unit. The bizarre thing is the ideological opposition which some have to this simple act of administration, expecting the state to somehow guess that they do.
    If that's genuinely the motivation for the policy, presumably it would be OK to have a box to tick on your self-assessment tax return stating that you and the other parent of your children wish to be treated as a long-term family unit for tax purposes? That way the state wouldn't have to guess. Think of it as the equivalent of documenting which home is your principal private residence for tax purposes.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Just to report that I had an argument with a car in Glasgow yesterday. Nothing too serious except lots of cuts and brusies. It could have been a whole lot worse.

    I'm feeling very sorry for myself.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Why SHOULD a married couple with 1 working partner pay so much more tax on that 1 partners earnings than a married couple with 2 working partners earning the same amount? Its not a handout, its a relief on the excess tax they're already paying.

    Because the non-working partner is providing tax-free labour to the marriage? e.g. childcare, domestic work.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Glad you're OK Mike, feel better soon.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,192
    I think in fairness to Mike I don't think he is suggesting that the votes for UKIP will matter hugely to them. I think the chances of them having a single anywhere MP are slight to non-existent.

    The point he is making is that they will pile up votes where it does not matter to the result, in safe tory and possibly safe Labour seats. I think that must be right. The temptation to vote frivolously to make a point will inevitably be greater where no real harm is being done.

    It may even have the effect of reducing Labour's apparent advantage in the efficiency of their votes. A large, pointless collection of UKIP votes in the SE would greatly improve the efficiency of tory votes to elected MPs.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited September 2013
    MikeSmithson said:

    Just to report that I had an argument with a car in Glasgow yesterday. Nothing too serious except lots of cuts and brusies. It could have been a whole lot worse.

    I'm feeling very sorry for myself.

    We don't want you damaged, Mike. Get well quickly, these so called minor injuries can be a bugger to heal.
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    MikeSmithson said:

    Just to report that I had an argument with a car in Glasgow yesterday. Nothing too serious except lots of cuts and brusies. It could have been a whole lot worse.

    I'm feeling very sorry for myself.

    Could have been worse - most cars carry chibs in weegie land...

    Seriously though, hope you're ok.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Tissue_Price said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Why SHOULD a married couple with 1 working partner pay so much more tax on that 1 partners earnings than a married couple with 2 working partners earning the same amount? Its not a handout, its a relief on the excess tax they're already paying.

    Because the non-working partner is providing tax-free labour to the marriage? e.g. childcare, domestic work.

    At the moment we share the domestic work tax-free already when we're at home (it still needs to be done even if both work) and childcare doesn't necessarily cost as much as a full time income.

    But that is a good point and why the policy almost certainly won't be for the full amount of the tax-free allowance and instead just a portion of it.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    MikeSmithson said:

    Just to report that I had an argument with a car in Glasgow yesterday. Nothing too serious except lots of cuts and brusies. It could have been a whole lot worse.

    I'm feeling very sorry for myself.

    May be you shouldn't write so many mean things about Vince Cable. ;-)
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    MikeK said:

    Another of Mikes threads on wishful thinking.
    Talk about looking into crystal balls.

    Well let me make a prediction that UKIP will win more seats than the L/Dems.

    Seeing as we are on PB.com, are you willing to put money on that? Name your odds and I'll name my limit.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    Polruan said:

    If that's genuinely the motivation for the policy, presumably it would be OK to have a box to tick on your self-assessment tax return stating that you and the other parent of your children wish to be treated as a long-term family unit for tax purposes? That way the state wouldn't have to guess. Think of it as the equivalent of documenting which home is your principal private residence for tax purposes.

    Yes, but it's not just tax, it's the whole chabanc of property rights, inheritance, mutual obligations, etc etc, and those can't just be undone at the end of the tax year. Hence the need for a specific act of marriage, to be undone only by a specific (and usually costly!) act of divorce.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,723
    Polruan said:

    RichardNabavi said:

    tim said:

    RichardNabavi said:

    tim said:

    Why shouldn't a couple who aren't married but whose circumstances are the same be treated differently?

    Because if they can't be bothered to register their relationship with the state, why should they expect to be treated as though they had?
    Blimey, not sure I can argue against hardcore Stalinism from the shandy belt.
    Just a practical argument. Marriage, from the state's point of view, is simply the act of a couple registering the fact that they wish to be treated as a long-term family unit. The bizarre thing is the ideological opposition which some have to this simple act of administration, expecting the state to somehow guess that they do.
    If that's genuinely the motivation for the policy, presumably it would be OK to have a box to tick on your self-assessment tax return stating that you and the other parent of your children wish to be treated as a long-term family unit for tax purposes? That way the state wouldn't have to guess. Think of it as the equivalent of documenting which home is your principal private residence for tax purposes.
    Impractical and wide open to abuse. A marriage or civil partnership is a legal contract. As such one does not simply drift in and out of it without the state being aware of ones status. There is a clear boundary between marriage and non- marriage.

    There is no such boundary between co-habitation and non co-habitation. One could easily tick the box to get the tax relief and then shortly afterwards stop living together. At what point does the state decide you are no longer entitled to the tax benefit?

    Using marriage or civil partnership as the defining feature makes perfect sense for dealing with a flaw in the current tax system.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited September 2013
    MikeSmithson said:

    Just to report that I had an argument with a car in Glasgow yesterday. Nothing too serious except lots of cuts and brusies. It could have been a whole lot worse.

    I'm feeling very sorry for myself.

    Sorry to hear that, Mike. A glass of very good wine is usually the best way to ameliorate the problem of feeling sorry for yourself, I find! (Edit: But can you get a glass of very good wine in Glasgow??)
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited September 2013
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    MikeK said:

    Another of Mikes threads on wishful thinking.
    Talk about looking into crystal balls.

    Well let me make a prediction that UKIP will win more seats than the L/Dems.

    No they won't. As a UKIP member I would love that to be true but there is no way on earth that UKIP will get more seats than the Lib Dems even if they beat them on votes.

    UKIP might get a single seat if the conditions are perfect. More realistically I believe they will rack up probably 10% of the national vote but will remain without a seat.
    Are you truly a UKIP supporter Tyndall, because you always put the darkest forcast for UKIP success? Not a ray of sunshine are you, and of course UKIP wont get any seats if all supporters and members had your outlook; thank the lord they don't.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    MikeSmithson said:

    Just to report that I had an argument with a car in Glasgow yesterday. Nothing too serious except lots of cuts and brusies. It could have been a whole lot worse.

    I'm feeling very sorry for myself.

    Cheer up Mike .... Clegg's speech shortly !!

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Quincel said:

    MikeK said:

    Another of Mikes threads on wishful thinking.
    Talk about looking into crystal balls.

    Well let me make a prediction that UKIP will win more seats than the L/Dems.

    Seeing as we are on PB.com, are you willing to put money on that? Name your odds and I'll name my limit.
    No, because I no longer bet with PB members.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Anyway I must be off as I have housework to do. Wife's at work now and I'm at work later so please someone just message me where I file my tax for my tax-free labour as I've already used my tax free allowance in my job. ;-)
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    tim said:

    Do cohabiting couples where one earner is over £50k lose child benefit as they are treated as couples?

    They do, tim. Isn't life messy?
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    MikeSmithson said:

    Just to report that I had an argument with a car in Glasgow yesterday. Nothing too serious except lots of cuts and brusies. It could have been a whole lot worse.

    I'm feeling very sorry for myself.

    Sorry to hear that Mike - were you on foot or in a vehicle?

    No doubt you received superlative care from the Scottish NHS, i.e. immediate treatment rather than the usual 2 hour wait south of the border, along with free tea and cakes with your stitches.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,688
    This UKIP supporter would vote Conservative in Luton South, given that it's a straight fight between Conservative and Labour.

    I'm sorry to hear about your accident, Mike. I hope you feel okay.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Married people shouldn't have a tax allowance to "incentivise" marriage but simply because it is FAIR.

    Which pays much more tax currently: A couple who have 2 earners on £30k each or a couple with 1 earner on £60k.

    If the one on £60k gets a bit of a rebate because their partner isn't working then that seems fair. As far as I understand it if both partners are working then they don't get the allowance?

    Anyone not working is unable to use their personal allowance.

    I suggest abolishing JSA and allowing unemployed people to sell their income tax allowance on the open market.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Sean_F said:

    This UKIP supporter would vote Conservative in Luton South, given that it's a straight fight between Conservative and Labour.

    I'm sorry to hear about your accident, Mike. I hope you feel okay.

    Sean do you believe that Ukip might edge a seat or two given a fair wind ?

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,723
    MikeK said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    MikeK said:

    Another of Mikes threads on wishful thinking.
    Talk about looking into crystal balls.

    Well let me make a prediction that UKIP will win more seats than the L/Dems.

    No they won't. As a UKIP member I would love that to be true but there is no way on earth that UKIP will get more seats than the Lib Dems even if they beat them on votes.

    UKIP might get a single seat if the conditions are perfect. More realistically I believe they will rack up probably 10% of the national vote but will remain without a seat.
    Are you truly a UKIP supporter Tyndall, because you always put the darkest forcast for UKIP success? Not a ray of sunshine are you, and of course UKIP wont get any seats if all supporters and members had your outlook; thank the lord they don't.
    Yes Mike I am a UKIP member and have been one for more than a decade. I also do research for a large number of different anti-EU organisations and have probably forgotten more about the infighting and splits within the anti-EU movement than you have ever known.

    What I am not is a party fanatic. I am a realist and am in UKIP because I want to see us out of the EU. I have no interest in stoking Farage's ego and think that he is a real hindrance to further success for the party. It is a great shame he won the last leadership election.

    I certainly don't think the party is going in the right direction as far as social liberalism is concerned. Hacking out a position as the party of reactionaries and bigots is not going to lead to widespread electoral appeal and is only going to hinder further success as far as exit from the EU is concerned.

    But as far as this specific discussion is concerned none of the above is important. What is important is that UKIP are simply not going to have real Parliamentary electoral success as long as they continue behaving as a bunch of amateurs. Even if they were the most efficient electoral machine in the world - far in advance of Labour or the Tories - they would still be hard pressed to win a seat under the present electoral system and with their current distribution of support. With the party machine they currently have and the growing discontent in places like the West Midlands and Lincolnshire over the way the party is managed they will even be hard pressed to win the Euro elections next year.
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Polruan said:

    RichardNabavi said:

    tim said:

    RichardNabavi said:

    tim said:

    Why shouldn't a couple who aren't married but whose circumstances are the same be treated differently?

    Because if they can't be bothered to register their relationship with the state, why should they expect to be treated as though they had?
    Blimey, not sure I can argue against hardcore Stalinism from the shandy belt.
    Just a practical argument. Marriage, from the state's point of view, is simply the act of a couple registering the fact that they wish to be treated as a long-term family unit. The bizarre thing is the ideological opposition which some have to this simple act of administration, expecting the state to somehow guess that they do.
    If that's genuinely the motivation for the policy, presumably it would be OK to have a box to tick on your self-assessment tax return stating that you and the other parent of your children wish to be treated as a long-term family unit for tax purposes? That way the state wouldn't have to guess. Think of it as the equivalent of documenting which home is your principal private residence for tax purposes.
    Impractical and wide open to abuse. A marriage or civil partnership is a legal contract. As such one does not simply drift in and out of it without the state being aware of ones status. There is a clear boundary between marriage and non- marriage.

    There is no such boundary between co-habitation and non co-habitation. One could easily tick the box to get the tax relief and then shortly afterwards stop living together. At what point does the state decide you are no longer entitled to the tax benefit?

    Using marriage or civil partnership as the defining feature makes perfect sense for dealing with a flaw in the current tax system.
    But if you're married, you're entitled to the benefit even if you stop living together...
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,295
    edited September 2013
    MikeK said:

    Another of Mikes threads on wishful thinking.
    Talk about looking into crystal balls.

    Well let me make a prediction that UKIP will win more seats than the L/Dems.

    Hi Mike, Want to make that our third bet? £100 evens that they don't?

    Update: saw your reply to another poster, but I'm sure you'll make an exception with me. After all, you're 2-0 down at the moment! And if I win, promise to add some of it (half?) to the pb drinks kitty!
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited September 2013
    MikeSmithson said:

    I'm feeling very sorry for myself.

    Aren’t you a little long in the tooth to be doing these Emily Davison, style militant protests?

    Get better soon Mike.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Davison
  • PFinchPFinch Posts: 9
    edited September 2013
    One wonders what the effect on the HoC would be should UKIP poll in GE 2015 around the 25% that they have in almost every actual poll in 2013.

    Maybe even more, should they comfortably exceed that figure in the Euro 2014 lottery voting.

    Conventional wisdom says they'll do exceptionally well to poll 10% - but the whole point about UKIP is that they are NOT a conventional party - still less a wise one!

    The same sages who say UKIP will poll under 10% would have said (in 1997-2009) that the SNP will never form a majority administration in Holyrood.............
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    JohnO said:

    MikeK said:

    Another of Mikes threads on wishful thinking.
    Talk about looking into crystal balls.

    Well let me make a prediction that UKIP will win more seats than the L/Dems.

    Hi Mike, Want to make that our third bet? £100 evens that they don't?
    Such generosity has surely only come from the broadening of the mind through travel !!

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    no such thing as a bad tax cut tim.

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Best wishes Mike.
    PFinch said:

    One wonders what the effect on the HoC would be should UKIP poll around the 25% that they have in almost every actual poll in 2013.

    Labour landslide.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,295
    JackW said:

    JohnO said:

    MikeK said:

    Another of Mikes threads on wishful thinking.
    Talk about looking into crystal balls.

    Well let me make a prediction that UKIP will win more seats than the L/Dems.

    Hi Mike, Want to make that our third bet? £100 evens that they don't?
    Such generosity has surely only come from the broadening of the mind through travel !!

    I think the furthest destination for SW Trains is Weymouth......
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    The other aspect that is interesting, is that it was in the Lab/Con marginals that the LDs did best. Essentially, Labour voters wanted to register a protest vs the government, but was not prepared to vote for another party that could win (effectively a NOTA vote).

    Presumably some of the LD-Lab shift this parliament is the unwinding of that effect in these marginals. However, it's also clear that in many seats there was a very substantial direct switch from Lab to Con - which Labour has not won back at all.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    RT @JoelTaylorMetro: After spending ten minutes attacking Tories and Labour, #clegg now lays into 'us and them' politics
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,047
    edited September 2013
    I don't know if anyone's listening to Nick Clegg. He's become a fantasist. I think he's got a Napoleon complex. I feel sorry for his audience. They don't know whether he's being funny describing the glorious achievments of HIS government or whether he's lost his marbles.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    JohnO said:

    JackW said:

    JohnO said:

    MikeK said:

    Another of Mikes threads on wishful thinking.
    Talk about looking into crystal balls.

    Well let me make a prediction that UKIP will win more seats than the L/Dems.

    Hi Mike, Want to make that our third bet? £100 evens that they don't?
    Such generosity has surely only come from the broadening of the mind through travel !!

    I think the furthest destination for SW Trains is Weymouth......
    Ah it's Weymouth today but the world tomorrow.

  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    Unheard of - Lab defection to UKIP. I thought they were blue-notes only?

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband-is-weak-says-labour-ukip-defector-8824159.html
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    Unheard of - Lab defection to UKIP. I thought they were blue-notes only?

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband-is-weak-says-labour-ukip-defector-8824159.html

    Barking councillor Robert Douglas said he might not have quit Labour had Mr Miliband’s brother David been in charge.

    A rather unfortunate word-order choice, methinks!
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    JohnO said:

    JackW said:

    JohnO said:

    MikeK said:

    Another of Mikes threads on wishful thinking.
    Talk about looking into crystal balls.

    Well let me make a prediction that UKIP will win more seats than the L/Dems.

    Hi Mike, Want to make that our third bet? £100 evens that they don't?
    Such generosity has surely only come from the broadening of the mind through travel !!

    I think the furthest destination for SW Trains is Weymouth......
    Yes, but Richard has suggested the champagne bar at St Pancras International for the next PB Tory do. Think of the possibilities!
  • TwistedFireStopperTwistedFireStopper Posts: 2,538
    I don't care who gets a majority, I just don't want the Lib Dems anywhere near government again. Clegg's got delusions of grandeur. He's single handedly turned the country around, fixed the economy, made us all free, fixed the broken politics. He deserves canonisation.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    Unheard of - Lab defection to UKIP. I thought they were blue-notes only?

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband-is-weak-says-labour-ukip-defector-8824159.html

    I'm sure Andrea can tell us if he was recently deselected.

  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    JohnO said:

    JackW said:

    JohnO said:

    MikeK said:

    Another of Mikes threads on wishful thinking.
    Talk about looking into crystal balls.

    Well let me make a prediction that UKIP will win more seats than the L/Dems.

    Hi Mike, Want to make that our third bet? £100 evens that they don't?
    Such generosity has surely only come from the broadening of the mind through travel !!

    I think the furthest destination for SW Trains is Weymouth......
    SW trains go as far west as Paignton, but getting there from Weymouth is not, I think, easy.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    Clegg's role model?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InTAt2hI_kg
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,295
    Neil said:

    JohnO said:

    JackW said:

    JohnO said:

    MikeK said:

    Another of Mikes threads on wishful thinking.
    Talk about looking into crystal balls.

    Well let me make a prediction that UKIP will win more seats than the L/Dems.

    Hi Mike, Want to make that our third bet? £100 evens that they don't?
    Such generosity has surely only come from the broadening of the mind through travel !!

    I think the furthest destination for SW Trains is Weymouth......
    Yes, but Richard has suggested the champagne bar at St Pancras International for the next PB Tory do. Think of the possibilities!
    Ooooh Goody, but knowing my luck I'll end up at bloody Kettering.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    TwistedFireStopper said:

    [Clegg] deserves canonisation.

    I think Mr. Dancer would consider lending you his space-cannon to facilitate that...
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim said:

    TGOHF said:

    no such thing as a bad tax cut tim.


    Tax cut on cig?
    Best not lobby for that Dave may just go for it
    That's a duty not a tax ;)
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,260
    Neil said:

    JohnO said:

    JackW said:

    JohnO said:

    MikeK said:

    Another of Mikes threads on wishful thinking.
    Talk about looking into crystal balls.

    Well let me make a prediction that UKIP will win more seats than the L/Dems.

    Hi Mike, Want to make that our third bet? £100 evens that they don't?
    Such generosity has surely only come from the broadening of the mind through travel !!

    I think the furthest destination for SW Trains is Weymouth......
    Yes, but Richard has suggested the champagne bar at St Pancras International for the next PB Tory do. Think of the possibilities!
    That Searcy's champagne bar in St Pancras is awesome.

    After the PB meet on my way home I stopped and had a few drinks in there.

    Though pricey, a little bottle of coke cost better part of 4 pounds.

    And they have a strict shoe and dress code.

  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    Neil said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    Unheard of - Lab defection to UKIP. I thought they were blue-notes only?

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband-is-weak-says-labour-ukip-defector-8824159.html

    I'm sure Andrea can tell us if he was recently deselected.

    Yep deselected for next year's elections
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Ooh Clegg being mean about Labour - they should've cut to Vince's face (assuming he's there)
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,295
    Neil said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    Unheard of - Lab defection to UKIP. I thought they were blue-notes only?

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband-is-weak-says-labour-ukip-defector-8824159.html

    I'm sure Andrea can tell us if he was recently deselected.

    I see he's a Barking Councillor. Obvious one for UKIP then.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Charles said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    Unheard of - Lab defection to UKIP. I thought they were blue-notes only?

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband-is-weak-says-labour-ukip-defector-8824159.html

    Barking councillor Robert Douglas said he might not have quit Labour had Mr Miliband’s brother David been in charge.

    A rather unfortunate word-order choice, methinks!
    “Ukip leader Nigel Farage said of Mr Douglas’s defection: “His decision is proof of the pudding that Ukip appeals across political boundaries.””

    I think Mirage has a point here – Four party politics is certainly shaking up the landscape.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    TwistedFireStopper said:

    I don't care who gets a majority, I just don't want the Lib Dems anywhere near government again. Clegg's got delusions of grandeur. He's single handedly turned the country around, fixed the economy, made us all free, fixed the broken politics. He deserves canonisation.

    It's the party leader speech. What did you expect - I agree with Ed and Dave ?

    It's actually a pretty average speech for punters but a better one for the converted.

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,953
    On topic, UKIP may well perform best in the 'safe seats' for the simple reason that those seats have less intense contests, so there's more space for other parties to make an impact (or, put another way, there are more potential floating voters - who may well be non-voters - because the depth of attachment isn't as great when there's less activity).

    On the other hand, UKIP is starting from well below where the Lib Dems were in 2010. This next election is the closest they've had to what the 1983 election was for the Alliance. While that didn't work out too well for the centre team, with a string of strong seconds and very few firsts, it did ultimately provide the boosts necessary to make eventual breakthroughs in the 1990s, once that tide had distilled into target seats.

    One point I would pick up from Mike's leader is the assertion that "the Labour vote showed ... the biggest drop-off in support in those seats where it didn’t matter – those where the Tories were in first place over Labour in 2005." Some of those were safe Tory seats to start with but by no means all (not least because the LDs are usually second in safe Tory seats); the kind of marginals the Cons gained in 2005 also fit into that category and some of those will be seats that Labour would quite like back given the chance.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,295
    edited September 2013
    SimonStClare said:

    Charles said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    Unheard of - Lab defection to UKIP. I thought they were blue-notes only?

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband-is-weak-says-labour-ukip-defector-8824159.html

    Barking councillor Robert Douglas said he might not have quit Labour had Mr Miliband’s brother David been in charge.

    A rather unfortunate word-order choice, methinks!
    “Ukip leader Nigel Farage said of Mr Douglas’s defection: “His decision is proof of the pudding that Ukip appeals across political boundaries.””

    I think Mirage has a point here – Four party politics is certainly shaking up the landscape.
    Mirage?? is that predictive text being wonderfully prescient?
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    SimonStClare said:

    Charles said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    Unheard of - Lab defection to UKIP. I thought they were blue-notes only?

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband-is-weak-says-labour-ukip-defector-8824159.html

    Barking councillor Robert Douglas said he might not have quit Labour had Mr Miliband’s brother David been in charge.

    A rather unfortunate word-order choice, methinks!
    “Ukip leader Nigel Farage said of Mr Douglas’s defection: “His decision is proof of the pudding that Ukip appeals across political boundaries.””

    I think Mirage has a point here – Four party politics is certainly shaking up the landscape.
    UKIP appeals to councillors of all political parties as soon as they have been deselected .
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,061
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Bah, I didn't realise Clegg's speech was today, and so didn't even check the bingo market on Ladbrokes (assuming there was one). Oh well. Hopefully I'll remember to do it for Miliband and Cameron.

    Does Shadsy still come around here?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,047
    He's seriously bad....so much so I can't listen to any more. Whatever I thought of IDS turning up the volume I take back. This is a full octave worse
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    Talking of predictive text, may I be the first to say Ed Miliband's speech was a barnstorming turning point next week and he is now surely heading to Downing Street in 2015.

    Congrats - Lab maj nailed on.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    MarkSenior said:

    SimonStClare said:

    Charles said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    Unheard of - Lab defection to UKIP. I thought they were blue-notes only?

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband-is-weak-says-labour-ukip-defector-8824159.html

    Barking councillor Robert Douglas said he might not have quit Labour had Mr Miliband’s brother David been in charge.

    A rather unfortunate word-order choice, methinks!
    “Ukip leader Nigel Farage said of Mr Douglas’s defection: “His decision is proof of the pudding that Ukip appeals across political boundaries.””

    I think Mirage has a point here – Four party politics is certainly shaking up the landscape.
    UKIP appeals to councillors of all political parties as soon as they have been deselected .
    Arf - deselection certainly refocuses the mind, but jumping ship to UKIP does not appeal to many.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    Nailed it! Much like the england footballers who get selected, the best we've got but no more.

    Janan Ganesh@JananGanesh
    This lumbering Clegg speech shows why Cameron made it to the top. He's not a great politician but he is the best of a thin generation.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,061
    Mr. Roger, point of order: volume is measured in decibels. An octave higher would be a reference to pitch, rather than how loud the 'quiet man' is.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,037
    Seen a couple of nice types at Sandown so haven't listened to Nick Clegg's speech. It seems strange that those hostile to him would take the trouble to listen.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    JohnO said:

    SimonStClare said:

    Charles said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    Unheard of - Lab defection to UKIP. I thought they were blue-notes only?

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband-is-weak-says-labour-ukip-defector-8824159.html

    Barking councillor Robert Douglas said he might not have quit Labour had Mr Miliband’s brother David been in charge.

    A rather unfortunate word-order choice, methinks!
    “Ukip leader Nigel Farage said of Mr Douglas’s defection: “His decision is proof of the pudding that Ukip appeals across political boundaries.””

    I think Mirage has a point here – Four party politics is certainly shaking up the landscape.
    Mirage?? is that predictive text being wonderfully prescient?
    The latter obviously :-} - actually it's his nick name in Brussels by all accounts.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,295
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    Nailed it! Much like the england footballers who get selected, the best we've got but no more.

    Janan Ganesh@JananGanesh
    This lumbering Clegg speech shows why Cameron made it to the top. He's not a great politician but he is the best of a thin generation.

    Sad but true....if only George Galloway was a blue lovely rather than an indefatigable ****.
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    edited September 2013
    It looks like another Marque-Senile is about to happen:

    Look at English-Sterling against the Euro. Well below one pound to the Quisling!

    And - lo-and-behold - English money is below parity against the Septic - yes the Yanking - currency! Where would be without out on-site financial-wizards...?

    Now we need Wee-Timmy to predict along such noble lines...
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Mr Clegg ends his speech by saying: "Our mission is anchoring Britain to the centre ground. Our place is in Government again". Walks off stage to hugs from wife, standing ovation.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Bubble watch..

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/10317867/Chinas-credit-boom-is-spiralling-out-of-control-warns-Fitch.html

  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    Found it!
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited September 2013
    “Plebgate affair: Thirteen people arrested, including nine Metropolitan Police officers”

    Blimey - The sheer numbers of bobbies involved may account for the year long wait after all.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10318189/Plebgate-affair-Thirteen-people-arrested-including-nine-Metropolitan-Police-officers.html
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,688
    JackW said:

    Sean_F said:

    This UKIP supporter would vote Conservative in Luton South, given that it's a straight fight between Conservative and Labour.

    I'm sorry to hear about your accident, Mike. I hope you feel okay.

    Sean do you believe that Ukip might edge a seat or two given a fair wind ?

    It's just about possible, provided the party doesn't get over-ambitious, believing it can win dozens of seats and spreading its efforts thinly. The ideal situation for the party would be a seat located in the South, or East Anglia, with above-average numbers of pensioners and working class voters, with a sitting MP who's mired in scandal.

    The most sensible thing the party can do right now is to focus on building up its local council base.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    Seriously though - isn't it time pb ditched vanilla, changed to another commenting style so our post counts are all reset back to 0.

    Just saying...
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    PFinch said:

    One wonders what the effect on the HoC would be should UKIP poll in GE 2015 around the 25% that they have in almost every actual poll in 2013.

    Maybe even more, should they comfortably exceed that figure in the Euro 2014 lottery voting.

    Conventional wisdom says they'll do exceptionally well to poll 10% - but the whole point about UKIP is that they are NOT a conventional party - still less a wise one!

    The same sages who say UKIP will poll under 10% would have said (in 1997-2009) that the SNP will never form a majority administration in Holyrood.............

    I'd like to see some source on the notion that they've polled around 25% in almost every actual poll in 2013? The most recent ICM (aka Gold Standard) poll put them at 9% so the notion that they might poll around 10% is not exactly absurd according to that polling.

    In fact I can't find a single poll by any pollster where they have EVER hit 25% let alone that being the average that they're around. They've been around the 8-13% mark in recent months.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,985
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    Nailed it! Much like the england footballers who get selected, the best we've got but no more.

    Janan Ganesh@JananGanesh
    This lumbering Clegg speech shows why Cameron made it to the top. He's not a great politician but he is the best of a thin generation.

    Strange. I think Clegg's approval ratings were higher than Camron's at the last election. I'd suggest the most obvious reason Cameron is PM and not Clegg is that he's a Tory who inherited a party with 200 MPs not a Lib Dem who inherited a Party of 60 MPs.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,688
    MikeK said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    MikeK said:

    Another of Mikes threads on wishful thinking.
    Talk about looking into crystal balls.

    Well let me make a prediction that UKIP will win more seats than the L/Dems.

    No they won't. As a UKIP member I would love that to be true but there is no way on earth that UKIP will get more seats than the Lib Dems even if they beat them on votes.

    UKIP might get a single seat if the conditions are perfect. More realistically I believe they will rack up probably 10% of the national vote but will remain without a seat.
    Are you truly a UKIP supporter Tyndall, because you always put the darkest forcast for UKIP success? Not a ray of sunshine are you, and of course UKIP wont get any seats if all supporters and members had your outlook; thank the lord they don't.
    IMHO, the party will be doing well to win 7% nationwide in General Election conditions. That is, after all, more than 2 million votes.

This discussion has been closed.