I was amused to see the last election leaflet of the 2010 LibDem candidate in Thanet South (Peter Bucklitsch, whom I knew quite well in his Wealden District Council days):
"With the Conservatives out of the race, the choice is between Peter Bucklitsch and the Labour MP who has let us down."
I can see Antifrank's point about Thurrock, though. Combined with the BNP they got 15% there in 2010, while the top 2 got 36.x% each. 7.5% off each of those doesn't sound like a horrendously high hurdle.
It's a shame Thurrock didnt have elections this year. 2014 should give a good idea about whether they are better placed here than the seats where there were 2013 elections and UKIP topped the poll.
They got 28% in a Stifford Clays by election a fortnight ago finishing 3rd
Now its left to Anne Begg on the BBC Daily Politics to try and defend the fact that Ed Miliband hasn't published the party's internal report on the Falkirk scandal. Isn't it about time that Ed Miliband showed a bit of leadership here and finally put himself up for some questioning on the issue?
Ed has been told to lay low until this blows over - it's called "doing a Gordon Brown".
What a shame miliband and labour all over the place on HS2.
Miliband and Labour are also all over the place on Heathrow expansion too.
Miliband and Labour are all over the place.
(I'm a born editor)
They are being very clear on this actually - they are HS2's best friend but also it's ex as well.
James Chapman (Mail)@jameschappers4h Balls again questioning whether HS2 'best way to spend £50bn' at CBI. How long can Lab maintain 2-faced stance before voters see through it?
Much like help to buy..
PoliticsHome@politicshome52m Ed Balls on Help to Buy:"We don’t want to get rid of it but not sensible to boost demand if you don’t act simultaneously on supply" #CBI2013
Is Ed Balls leading a breakaway party from Labour?
Now that a government report has destroyed the capacity argument Cameron is back on the old 'HS2 is needed by the North' rubbish while Boris implies its for the benefit of London.
Could anyone explain why we have no money to build power stations and yet there's unlimited money for Cameron's vanity project ?
@NickPalmer - " my lot does about 30 person-hours a week..."
That's almost a full time occupation or is that the total of everyone's combined effort! What on earth do they actually DO? Ask residents their likely VI or conduct 'surveys' on local/national topics? Is literature also produced? Are your local Labour councillors involved too and with what tangible results?
All of the above. And yes, when council issues are raised they get addressed by councillors - if the right councillors weren't there the issue gets passed on. As usual, sometimes we can solve a problem and sometimes we have to say apologetically that we can't. People are generally forgiving about that if they can see you've had a serious try.
This isn't especially unusual in a marginal seat - I get the impression that yours is not terribly marginal? The Tories used to do it too, and the point is that they've stopped (so far as I can tell), and I gather from friends inside the party (local politics is generally very amiable and chatty) that it's because they don't have the people willing to do it rather than that they don't think it's worth doing. Because it matches Mike's experience in Bedford, I'm guessing it could be a general phenomenon, but I don't know if that's true or not. Have other people in marginals got any particular impression?
Deliberately kicking the can to beyond the next GE because they simply cant deal with it this term is the "right thing"? Clearly they cant do anything wrong in your eyes.
Actually, I criticise the timing as well - it should not take that long (although an initial report is due out this year), and it should, if possible, be brought forward so all parties can react to it in their manifestos.
But the general approach is sound IMHO.
As for 'they cant do anything wrong in your eyes', note the railway capacity issues I detailed below that led to HS2 was discovered under Labour, and I said they did the right thing in approaching it in the manner they did
Or would you rather they spend many billions reacting quickly to the vested interests at Heathrow, without looking at whether it is the right thing to do from a national perspective?
I was amused to see the last election leaflet of the 2010 LibDem candidate in Thanet South (Peter Bucklitsch, whom I knew quite well in his Wealden District Council days):
"With the Conservatives out of the race, the choice is between Peter Bucklitsch and the Labour MP who has let us down."
Nigel Farage should stand in Thurrock - a Conservative seat that's a major Labour target, with a substantial white working class and where UKIP performed well in 2010, saving its deposit (and with substantial BNP vote that is up for grabs too). It allows him to present UKIP as a third force, potentially buggering up both main parties.
My thoughts exactly, and Paddy Power are 16/1
The Gooshays ward that ukip won in the last by election has the same feel to neighbouring Thurrock
You see, we can agree on things sometimes!
Indeedy! I reckon the nature of debate on PB exaggerates the differences between most of us
Do you know if Michael Portillo is def gay? If so he engaged in some outrageous flirting on last nights Great Continental Railway Journeys!
Then why not do it via raising the tax thresholds so all the low paid benefit? I realise with their 10p record Labour are unlikely to want to talk about tax and the poor - but surely not taxing in the first place is more sensible than constructing Byzantine government beurocracies to take money away, then give it back? Tinker! Tinker! Tinker!
In this case the proposal is for a corporate tax break
Well, there's Starbucks employees out of luck!
They will probably pay them a credit on the tax they did not pay
Now that a government report has destroyed the capacity argument Cameron is back on the old 'HS2 is needed by the North' rubbish while Boris implies its for the benefit of London.
Could anyone explain why we have no money to build power stations and yet there's unlimited money for Cameron's vanity project ?
What a shame miliband and labour all over the place on HS2.
Miliband and Labour are also all over the place on Heathrow expansion too.
Miliband and Labour are all over the place.
(I'm a born editor)
They are being very clear on this actually - they are HS2's best friend but also it's ex as well.
James Chapman (Mail)@jameschappers4h Balls again questioning whether HS2 'best way to spend £50bn' at CBI. How long can Lab maintain 2-faced stance before voters see through it?
Much like help to buy..
PoliticsHome@politicshome52m Ed Balls on Help to Buy:"We don’t want to get rid of it but not sensible to boost demand if you don’t act simultaneously on supply" #CBI2013
Is Ed Balls leading a breakaway party from Labour?
Behaving like that roman god that looks both ways. With a silent J.
"UK Labour Party official Eric Wilson turned up early and met Stephen Dean’s executive, which still runs Falkirk West constituency, in secret. He refused to address the assembled members and left by a side-door so they wouldn’t actually see him. The loyal members had turned up having been invited explicitly to discuss recent ‘events’. The letter sent out by the Labour Party explained; “General Secretary Ian McNicol has confirmed that a party delegate, most likely Eric Wilson, will be in attendance to answer any questions you may have with (sic) what has been going on over the past few months”.
At the members meeting, Gray Allan, Stephen Deans’ supporter, who chaired the meeting, explained that Eric Wilson had said (at the secret pre-meeting) that; “it would be wrong for him to have to field questions about what has been going on over the last few months”. No kidding. Moral Cowardice wrapped in Franz Kafka’s toilet tissue.
Labour also put out a statement, published in the Sunday Herald: “The complaints about the Falkirk selection have been fully investigated and acted upon”.
One wonders how high the line goes regarding Falkirk as cover up is the default position even now. Ineos may have the info too of course and are sitting on it...
Now its left to Anne Begg on the BBC Daily Politics to try and defend the fact that Ed Miliband hasn't published the party's internal report on the Falkirk scandal. Isn't it about time that Ed Miliband showed a bit of leadership here and finally put himself up for some questioning on the issue?
Expect lots of posts from tim about how Ed put a woman in a wheelchair up to defend an indefensible position....or not....
More to the point, the Daily Politics panel today covered: 1) Falkirk 2) The Living Wage 3) Select Committees
Farage seems to be largely driven by hate of the Cameroon Tories. That rather than logic may dictate his choice of seat to contest in 2015. However, it may also be that he rather likes the relatively easy life of the professional maverick that being a UKIP MEP allows. I would not be surprised if he left potentially winnable seats to others in 2015, while he goes for something high-profile but futile.
Supposing Farage was frozen out of the PM debates, I could see the appeal in him standing for election in the constituencies of the other party leaders as a publicity stunt, and to challenge them to debate in their constituency [can you stand for election in more than one seat?]
UKIP target seats might be better off with candidates who aren't Farage.
I would totally agree with that view. If Farage was really serious about entering Westminster as an MP, he would have been cultivating a suitable seat where he could establish himself as a 'local' candidate for a while now. When Alex Salmond decided to enter Holyrood, he stood in the area where he had built up a solid local incumbency over the years as a Westminster MP. IIRC, despite some concerns from some posters here that it was a risk if he failed to win that Holyrood seat via FPTP and had to rely on the List, not one Scots posters had any doubts that he would win the seat comfortable. Just look at the seat Farage chose to fight last time, even by his standards of lazy opportunism, that was a disastrous decision that reflected very badly on him which is why he never came near to causing an upset.
Farage seems to be largely driven by hate of the Cameroon Tories. That rather than logic may dictate his choice of seat to contest in 2015. However, it may also be that he rather likes the relatively easy life of the professional maverick that being a UKIP MEP allows. I would not be surprised if he left potentially winnable seats to others in 2015, while he goes for something high-profile but futile.
Re Farage's choice of seat. There has been talk it will be Thanet South
Why?
1) Farage was born in a neighbouring constituency 2) He has fought it before 3) The incumbent Tory MP is the daughter of the UK's first EEC Commissioner under Heath. She is dripping in Europhilia 4) It was a Labour seat between 1997 & 2005 and should be Labour again if Miliband is to claim he is the one nation leader he claims. 5) It is predominantly C2/DE demographic with plenty of retirees. Perfect UKIP territory 6) UKIP swept the board in Thanet at the County Council elections winning 7 of the 8 seats for the whole of Thanet and has begun picking up local (Labour led) council seats as it goes along.
This may well be asking for the impossible. But then, I don't think UKIP will win any seats, so I'm at least consistent!
Did you think UKIP would "win" any GE seats in the locals in May?
Sure, mid-term free-of-cost protest votes at the height of the gay marriage furore (the latter was a big factor, much bigger than I expected).
Tbh I dont think they'll win any seats in 2015 either. Simply because they are not well enough placed anywhere to give them that springboard. But it is absolutely clear that a seat like South Thanet is obviously their best chance. Maybe not this time but certainly winnable in 2 GEs.
1 or 2 seats has to be the very best that UKIP can hope for in 2015 IMHO. The important thing is to build up our base in local government, and then win at Parliamentary level.
I agree. If UKIP "won" 10 seats (I know there is some argument about the precise number) in 2013 on a voteshare that they just wont get in 2015 then clearly the number of potential wins in 2015 is fewer than 10. Targeting more than that would simply reduce the chances of winning in the seats they could have a chance in. UKIP seem to be getting a lot more organised more recently and with activists like you will have people who know what it takes to win under FPTP. But the fact Farage hasnt gone out and picked a seat yet would concern me if I was a UKIPer.
We've got a by-election coming up in Caddington & Slip End, Central Bedfordshire. These are two villages on the edge of Luton, that come into Luton South for Parliamentary purposes, but Central Bedfordshire for local government purposes. They provide a huge Conservative vote ordinarily, although they are not at all prosperous places. I'll be able to find out how good - or bad - our local organisation is.
"Toby Young argues that, rather than risk unseating a Tory only to let a Labour candidate in, Farage should actually run in a Labour seat. He suggests Rotherham as a target."
What an idiot.
I do love how metropolitan bloggers show their ignorance publicly.
While old industrial labour areas are prime potential for UKIP Rotherham is too urban, too non-white and too public sector dominated for them.
UKIP's best strategy would be to target the industrial areas around such places, take second place from the Conservatives in 2015 and then be the beneficiary of the unpopularity of the EdM government (plus demographic change) in 2018-2020.
What should worry the Conservatives is that these are also the constituencies they need to win in 2018-2020 to get an overall majority.
I can't be bothered to do all the stats but my sense is that Labour has indeed notched up by about 1% since the Conference season. Yeah, it's all MoE, a little bit up here, a little bit down there, but even so I now doubt we'll see any polls showing a Tory lead this year.
I think UKIP should go for maximising their national share in 2010 rather than targetting a few seats.
That's because I think that national share is more important in the long-term. Winning a few seats would have more of a short-term impact but they could be wiped out at the following election very easily.
I think UKIP should go for maximising their national share in 2010 rather than targetting a few seats.
That's because I think that national share is more important in the long-term. Winning a few seats would have more of a short-term impact but they could be wiped out at the following election very easily.
"Toby Young argues that, rather than risk unseating a Tory only to let a Labour candidate in, Farage should actually run in a Labour seat. He suggests Rotherham as a target."
What an idiot.
I do love how metropolitan bloggers show their ignorance publicly.
While old industrial labour areas are prime potential for UKIP Rotherham is too urban, too non-white and too public sector dominated for them.
UKIP's best strategy would be to target the industrial areas around such places, take second place from the Conservatives in 2015 and then be the beneficiary of the unpopularity of the EdM government (plus demographic change) in 2018-2020.
What should worry the Conservatives is that these are also the constituencies they need to win in 2018-2020 to get an overall majority.
I noticed in last night's thread you cited Grimsby, Cleethorpes and Walsall as the kind of places the Tories need to attract.
It must appal you to realize that in these seats, those Nottinghill Hill, out-of-touch, elitist metropolitan PPE-tainted fops achieved amongst the Conservatives' most spectacular results in 2010:
GREAT GRIMSBY - 10.5% swing Lab-Con CLEETHORPES - 7.8% swing WALSALL N - 9.0% swing WALSALL S - 8.2% swing
I appreciate you like your paper round but how about more comment and analysis and shorter links? Got any international comparisons for immigrant employment rates in those sectors?
I can only report on how we as a global-leading high-tech company find it. over 75% of graduate applicants come from outside western Europe and are usually better qualified than those from the EU.
Also we find that most UK science graduates have too narrow a scientific and engineering base and only know about their narrow specialism.
And those hi tech British workers employed all over the globe got their jobs under false pretences, quick, better write and tell their employers. Start with California, immigrants are killing it with their movey aroundy tendencies.
There are very few native Californians - they regard even people from other states as immigrants (my wife's grandmother moved there in the 40s - as a 3rd generation family they are very well established)
I appreciate you like your paper round but how about more comment and analysis and shorter links? Got any international comparisons for immigrant employment rates in those sectors?
I can only report on how we as a global-leading high-tech company find it. over 75% of graduate applicants come from outside western Europe and are usually better qualified than those from the EU.
Also we find that most UK science graduates have too narrow a scientific and engineering base and only know about their narrow specialism.
And those hi tech British workers employed all over the globe got their jobs under false pretences, quick, better write and tell their employers. Start with California, immigrants are killing it with their movey aroundy tendencies.
There are very few native Californians - they regard even people from other states as immigrants (my wife's grandmother moved there in the 40s - as a 3rd generation family they are very well established)
Not actually that many true native Americans are there, Charles?
And whilst we're on the subject, just exactly who were the original inhabitants of these Isles? Does anybody really know?
I appreciate you like your paper round but how about more comment and analysis and shorter links? Got any international comparisons for immigrant employment rates in those sectors?
I can only report on how we as a global-leading high-tech company find it. over 75% of graduate applicants come from outside western Europe and are usually better qualified than those from the EU.
Also we find that most UK science graduates have too narrow a scientific and engineering base and only know about their narrow specialism.
And those hi tech British workers employed all over the globe got their jobs under false pretences, quick, better write and tell their employers. Start with California, immigrants are killing it with their movey aroundy tendencies.
There are very few native Californians - they regard even people from other states as immigrants (my wife's grandmother moved there in the 40s - as a 3rd generation family they are very well established)
Not actually that many true native Americans are there, Charles?
And whilst we're on the subject, just exactly who were the original inhabitants of these Isles? Does anybody really know?
The dna evidence says that the descendants of a 9000 year old corpse are still living in the same area:
I think similar data from other countries has established fairly conclusively that invaders tend to interbreed with rather than geographically displace the invaded.
I think UKIP should go for maximising their national share in 2010 rather than targetting a few seats.
That's because I think that national share is more important in the long-term. Winning a few seats would have more of a short-term impact but they could be wiped out at the following election very easily.
Votes without seats mean nothing. They need to specifically target and cultivate 5-7 seats around the country and get a few MPs into Parliament and build from there. As long as their MPs do a decent job and raise local issues while also sticking to the central UKIP theme of leaving the EU I don't see why they wouldn't benefit from the same incumbency bonus that other parties get. The reason Caroline Lucas is going to lose her seat in 2015 is because she is a crap local MP (Neil will disagree, I'm sure!) who is more interested in national issues that are remote to the people who live in her constituency.
I would totally agree with that view. If Farage was really serious about entering Westminster as an MP, he would have been cultivating a suitable seat where he could establish himself as a 'local' candidate for a while now. When Alex Salmond decided to enter Holyrood, he stood in the area where he had built up a solid local incumbency over the years as a Westminster MP. IIRC, despite some concerns from some posters here that it was a risk if he failed to win that Holyrood seat via FPTP and had to rely on the List, not one Scots posters had any doubts that he would win the seat comfortable. Just look at the seat Farage chose to fight last time, even by his standards of lazy opportunism, that was a disastrous decision that reflected very badly on him which is why he never came near to causing an upset.
That's assuming that Farage and UKIP are bothered about winning Westminster seats. It's not the only game they're playing.
The big question is what is the first choice game UKIP want to play? Is it about EU withdrawal, is is about becoming an established Westminster party? Do they seek to replace the Tories on the right, or Labour on the populist left, or the Lib Dems as the none-of-the-above alternative? That grand strategy decision, which remains unresolved, will then determine their campaigning priorities.
For example, winning MPs is all very well but the UK/EU opinion is quite different from what the Scotland?UK one was in the 1960s, when the SNP were seeking to establish themselves. It's taken fifty years and the SNP becoming the dominant party at Holyrood to get to a referendum on secession; by contrast, we might well have a referendum on EU membership within four years, with no UKIP Westminster MPs at all.
If withdrawal from the EU really is their first priority, then UKIP need to keep concentrating on making life painful for the other parties if they oppose that policy or at least, if they won't provide the opportunity to withdraw. That would imply campaigning strongly in 100-150 seats, not concentrating on a dozen where they might have a chance of winning, if the cards fall right. After all, does having one or two (or even a dozen) MPs matter if they can't achieve much, when public opinion is close to supporting the UKIP position anyway.
In other news, if it's not already been reported, Seant was not quite eaten by a lion yesterday.
To jouralism and photography you can add the Bar, I think. It's getting more and more difficult to earn a decent living there, with legal aid cuts and new competitors.
There is a wonderful, and I mean wonderful list that used to be wheeled out on CiF by one of the (btl) commentators there which lists all the guardian journalists and where they were at school/university.
Polly? Seumas? Alan? You are just scratching the surface of the surface. They were just about without exception all (and I mean dozens of them) privately educated followed by Oxbridge.
I appreciate you like your paper round but how about more comment and analysis and shorter links? Got any international comparisons for immigrant employment rates in those sectors?
I can only report on how we as a global-leading high-tech company find it. over 75% of graduate applicants come from outside western Europe and are usually better qualified than those from the EU.
Also we find that most UK science graduates have too narrow a scientific and engineering base and only know about their narrow specialism.
And those hi tech British workers employed all over the globe got their jobs under false pretences, quick, better write and tell their employers. Start with California, immigrants are killing it with their movey aroundy tendencies.
There are very few native Californians - they regard even people from other states as immigrants (my wife's grandmother moved there in the 40s - as a 3rd generation family they are very well established)
Not actually that many true native Americans are there, Charles?
And whilst we're on the subject, just exactly who were the original inhabitants of these Isles? Does anybody really know?
The Neanderthals were here first of course. Look what happened when they let those Homo Sapiens immigrants into the country?
I appreciate you like your paper round but how about more comment and analysis and shorter links? Got any international comparisons for immigrant employment rates in those sectors?
I can only report on how we as a global-leading high-tech company find it. over 75% of graduate applicants come from outside western Europe and are usually better qualified than those from the EU.
Also we find that most UK science graduates have too narrow a scientific and engineering base and only know about their narrow specialism.
And those hi tech British workers employed all over the globe got their jobs under false pretences, quick, better write and tell their employers. Start with California, immigrants are killing it with their movey aroundy tendencies.
There are very few native Californians - they regard even people from other states as immigrants (my wife's grandmother moved there in the 40s - as a 3rd generation family they are very well established)
Not actually that many true native Americans are there, Charles?
And whilst we're on the subject, just exactly who were the original inhabitants of these Isles? Does anybody really know?
The Neanderthals were here first of course. Look what happened when they let those Homo Sapiens immigrants into the country?
Hmmmm...Neanderthals staging a bit of a comeback on the evidence of some threads.
I do love how metropolitan bloggers show their ignorance publicly.
While old industrial labour areas are prime potential for UKIP Rotherham is too urban, too non-white and too public sector dominated for them.
UKIP's best strategy would be to target the industrial areas around such places, take second place from the Conservatives in 2015 and then be the beneficiary of the unpopularity of the EdM government (plus demographic change) in 2018-2020.
What should worry the Conservatives is that these are also the constituencies they need to win in 2018-2020 to get an overall majority.
I noticed in last night's thread you cited Grimsby, Cleethorpes and Walsall as the kind of places the Tories need to attract.
It must appal you to realize that in these seats, those Nottinghill Hill, out-of-touch, elitist metropolitan PPE-tainted fops achieved amongst the Conservatives' most spectacular results in 2010:
GREAT GRIMSBY - 10.5% swing Lab-Con CLEETHORPES - 7.8% swing WALSALL N - 9.0% swing WALSALL S - 8.2% swing
Just saying.
I'm well aware of where the biggest swings were in 2010 and they certainly weren't in the places you expected them to be.
But let me explain that those swings were of the anti-Labour variety rather than the pro-Conservative. Issues such as deindustrialisation and immigration being topical in those places even though Cameron and Osborne showed no interest in them. That you assume that the swings were because of Cameron just reveals your complacent ignorance.
Perhaps you thought that there had been a sudden interest in increasing overseas aid in Walsall or that the electorate of Grimsby wanted to vote blue to go green ?
I dare say you were appalled though that such unfashionable places saw bigger swings than the likes of Tooting, Hammersmith and Westminster North. Constituencies where Cameron's hand picked candidates assumed that they only needed to turn up to win but instead suffered humiliating defeats.
Keep wallowing away in your complacency JohnO if it makes you happy.
Comments
"With the Conservatives out of the race, the choice is between Peter Bucklitsch and the Labour MP who has let us down."
http://www.electionleaflets.org/leaflets/4816/
Final result:
Elected: Laura Sandys (the Conservative who was 'out of the race'): 22,043 votes, 48%
They probably reckon he can brass neck it out.
James Chapman (Mail)@jameschappers4h
Balls again questioning whether HS2 'best way to spend £50bn' at CBI. How long can Lab maintain 2-faced stance before voters see through it?
Much like help to buy..
PoliticsHome@politicshome52m
Ed Balls on Help to Buy:"We don’t want to get rid of it but not sensible to boost demand if you don’t act simultaneously on supply" #CBI2013
Is Ed Balls leading a breakaway party from Labour?
Now that a government report has destroyed the capacity argument Cameron is back on the old 'HS2 is needed by the North' rubbish while Boris implies its for the benefit of London.
Could anyone explain why we have no money to build power stations and yet there's unlimited money for Cameron's vanity project ?
This isn't especially unusual in a marginal seat - I get the impression that yours is not terribly marginal? The Tories used to do it too, and the point is that they've stopped (so far as I can tell), and I gather from friends inside the party (local politics is generally very amiable and chatty) that it's because they don't have the people willing to do it rather than that they don't think it's worth doing. Because it matches Mike's experience in Bedford, I'm guessing it could be a general phenomenon, but I don't know if that's true or not. Have other people in marginals got any particular impression?
But the general approach is sound IMHO.
As for 'they cant do anything wrong in your eyes', note the railway capacity issues I detailed below that led to HS2 was discovered under Labour, and I said they did the right thing in approaching it in the manner they did
Or would you rather they spend many billions reacting quickly to the vested interests at Heathrow, without looking at whether it is the right thing to do from a national perspective?
Twitter.com/petun01a/status/394853385964253184/photo/1
Do you know if Michael Portillo is def gay? If so he engaged in some outrageous flirting on last nights Great Continental Railway Journeys!
More to the point, the Daily Politics panel today covered:
1) Falkirk
2) The Living Wage
3) Select Committees
Bet you that wasn't on the grid.....
UKIP target seats might be better off with candidates who aren't Farage.
Why?
1) Farage was born in a neighbouring constituency
2) He has fought it before
3) The incumbent Tory MP is the daughter of the UK's first EEC Commissioner under Heath. She is dripping in Europhilia
4) It was a Labour seat between 1997 & 2005 and should be Labour again if Miliband is to claim he is the one nation leader he claims.
5) It is predominantly C2/DE demographic with plenty of retirees. Perfect UKIP territory
6) UKIP swept the board in Thanet at the County Council elections winning 7 of the 8 seats for the whole of Thanet and has begun picking up local (Labour led) council seats as it goes along.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2445212/UKIP-leader-Nigel-Farage-tipped-fight-Tory-MP-South-Thanet-seat-election.html
While old industrial labour areas are prime potential for UKIP Rotherham is too urban, too non-white and too public sector dominated for them.
UKIP's best strategy would be to target the industrial areas around such places, take second place from the Conservatives in 2015 and then be the beneficiary of the unpopularity of the EdM government (plus demographic change) in 2018-2020.
What should worry the Conservatives is that these are also the constituencies they need to win in 2018-2020 to get an overall majority.
I can't be bothered to do all the stats but my sense is that Labour has indeed notched up by about 1% since the Conference season. Yeah, it's all MoE, a little bit up here, a little bit down there, but even so I now doubt we'll see any polls showing a Tory lead this year.
That's because I think that national share is more important in the long-term. Winning a few seats would have more of a short-term impact but they could be wiped out at the following election very easily.
It must appal you to realize that in these seats, those Nottinghill Hill, out-of-touch, elitist metropolitan PPE-tainted fops achieved amongst the Conservatives' most spectacular results in 2010:
GREAT GRIMSBY - 10.5% swing Lab-Con
CLEETHORPES - 7.8% swing
WALSALL N - 9.0% swing
WALSALL S - 8.2% swing
Just saying.
And whilst we're on the subject, just exactly who were the original inhabitants of these Isles? Does anybody really know?
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/11/04/ukip-factor-could-lead-ed-miliband-number-10-and-o/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheddar_Man
I think similar data from other countries has established fairly conclusively that invaders tend to interbreed with rather than geographically displace the invaded.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/lox9cfjwcz/YouGov-Progress-Survey-Results-131011.pdf
The most popular solutions? Lower taxes......
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/11/04/what-squeezed-middle-really-want/
Tory party high command set to meet War Criminals in Sri Lanka:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/03/commonwealth-apathy-sri-lanka-boycott
Shame on you David Cameron, shame on you William Hague.
The big question is what is the first choice game UKIP want to play? Is it about EU withdrawal, is is about becoming an established Westminster party? Do they seek to replace the Tories on the right, or Labour on the populist left, or the Lib Dems as the none-of-the-above alternative? That grand strategy decision, which remains unresolved, will then determine their campaigning priorities.
For example, winning MPs is all very well but the UK/EU opinion is quite different from what the Scotland?UK one was in the 1960s, when the SNP were seeking to establish themselves. It's taken fifty years and the SNP becoming the dominant party at Holyrood to get to a referendum on secession; by contrast, we might well have a referendum on EU membership within four years, with no UKIP Westminster MPs at all.
If withdrawal from the EU really is their first priority, then UKIP need to keep concentrating on making life painful for the other parties if they oppose that policy or at least, if they won't provide the opportunity to withdraw. That would imply campaigning strongly in 100-150 seats, not concentrating on a dozen where they might have a chance of winning, if the cards fall right. After all, does having one or two (or even a dozen) MPs matter if they can't achieve much, when public opinion is close to supporting the UKIP position anyway.
In other news, if it's not already been reported, Seant was not quite eaten by a lion yesterday.
To jouralism and photography you can add the Bar, I think. It's getting more and more difficult to earn a decent living there, with legal aid cuts and new competitors.
Polly? Seumas? Alan? You are just scratching the surface of the surface. They were just about without exception all (and I mean dozens of them) privately educated followed by Oxbridge.
Can't find it on a preliminary google.
Of course, 'not seeing them' puts a lot more pressure on them than talking to them......
Another triumph for Osborne. That said, I am a bit concerned about the productivity of the guy on the roof. He has been there for months.
But let me explain that those swings were of the anti-Labour variety rather than the pro-Conservative. Issues such as deindustrialisation and immigration being topical in those places even though Cameron and Osborne showed no interest in them. That you assume that the swings were because of Cameron just reveals your complacent ignorance.
Perhaps you thought that there had been a sudden interest in increasing overseas aid in Walsall or that the electorate of Grimsby wanted to vote blue to go green ?
I dare say you were appalled though that such unfashionable places saw bigger swings than the likes of Tooting, Hammersmith and Westminster North. Constituencies where Cameron's hand picked candidates assumed that they only needed to turn up to win but instead suffered humiliating defeats.
Keep wallowing away in your complacency JohnO if it makes you happy.
But it wont win the Conservatives a majority.