Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The big question is what exactly does UKIP want?

SystemSystem Posts: 12,214
edited December 2013 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The big question is what exactly does UKIP want?

This parliament has been about as kind as possible to UKIP.  The Conservatives and Lib Dems are both having to make unpopular decisions in government (and opting to make other unpopular ones to boot), while coalition pulls each party from its core vote.  Labour has not fully recovered from its own time in office.  None of the three leaders is well regarded.  That provides a massive opportunity for…

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    First?
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Apart from anything else, they "want" a new leader...

    Farage is well past his sell-by date.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited December 2013
    Oddly Cameron seems to have come up with a way to win a referendum but avoid closing down the issue. What he's done is to rule out having a regular "in" option and only have his "in with renegotiation" option. The problem is that he's doing this on a timetable where all he could get would be an agreement to some changes in the next treaty. There's no way the treaty can actually have been passed by then, and it's vanishingly unlikely that it'll even have been decided.

    So he wins his referendum on the vague promise of a treaty, and the treaty then gets stopped by one of the hundred-plus veto points involved, quite possibly vetoed by Britain itself in their referendum on the treaty (as opposed to the one on the EU). Eurosceptics will justifiably say they've been robbed, and we're right back where we started.
  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 672
    RodCrosby said:

    Apart from anything else, they "want" a new leader...

    Au contraire, Farage is the very best available leader for UKIP in its current stage of development. He's growing the party better than any plausible alternative.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited December 2013

    Oddly Cameron seems to have come up with a way to win a referendum but avoid closing down the issue. What he's done is to rule out having a regular "in" option and only have his "in with renegotiation" option. The problem is that he's doing this on a timetable where all he could get would be an agreement to some changes in the next treaty. There's no way the treaty can actually have been passed by then, and it's vanishingly unlikely that it'll even have been decided.

    So he wins his referendum on the vague promise of a treaty, and the treaty then gets stopped by one of the hundred-plus veto points involved, quite possibly vetoed by Britain itself in their referendum on the treaty (as opposed to the one on the EU). Eurosceptics will justifiably say they've been robbed, and we're right back where we started.

    A two stage referendum was always going to be the best option and, if Cameron remains PM in 2015, it may well be implemented.

    Referendum 1. In, Out, Shake it all about
    Referendum 2. Acceptance of negotiation outcomes

    Cameron has been prevented from offering a two step referendum by his tactical position in the run-up to 2015 (only realistic option to get any referendum is to vote Tory) and by the Scottish Independence referendum where he had to avoid a 'devomax' middle option.

    If returned in 2015, he will have the freedom to change policy, either in response to a realistic EU timetable or, if in Coalition, by agreement with his partners.

    The key will be to get Referendum 1 done as soon as possible with Referendum 2 on an elastic timescale.

  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    "Banging on about Europe will enthuse the core (and activists) but may lose votes. "

    During the Eastleigh campaign, I was quite impressed that Diane James managed to make the EU relevant to almost anything she was asked. Didn't seem to lose her any votes.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited December 2013
    AveryLP said:

    Oddly Cameron seems to have come up with a way to win a referendum but avoid closing down the issue. What he's done is to rule out having a regular "in" option and only have his "in with renegotiation" option. The problem is that he's doing this on a timetable where all he could get would be an agreement to some changes in the next treaty. There's no way the treaty can actually have been passed by then, and it's vanishingly unlikely that it'll even have been decided.

    So he wins his referendum on the vague promise of a treaty, and the treaty then gets stopped by one of the hundred-plus veto points involved, quite possibly vetoed by Britain itself in their referendum on the treaty (as opposed to the one on the EU). Eurosceptics will justifiably say they've been robbed, and we're right back where we started.

    A two stage referendum was always going to be the best option and, if Cameron remains PM in 2015, it may well be implemented.

    Referendum 1. In, Out, Shake it all about
    Referendum 2. Acceptance of negotiation outcomes

    Cameron has been prevented from offering a two step referendum by his tactical position in the run-up to 2015 (only realistic option to get any referendum is to vote Tory) and by the Scottish Independence referendum where he had to avoid a 'devomax' middle option.

    If returned in 2015, he will have the freedom to change policy, either in response to a realistic EU timetable or, if in Coalition, by agreement with his partners.

    The key will be to get Referendum 1 done as soon as possible with Referendum 2 on an elastic timescale.

    That sounds quite plausible both politically and procedurally. But you can see why serious BOOers aren't on board with the whole "A Tory vote gets you an in-out referendum" line, can't you?

    Basically what you've described is "out" getting defeated by a promise of euro-sceptical reforms that, for hard-to-understand reasons involving domestic politics in foreign countries, proceed to crash and burn, leaving them with nothing repatriated, an adverse referendum result hanging over them, and 15 years wasted.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    Agreed, he doesn't hit a wide enough demographic of voters.
    RodCrosby said:

    Apart from anything else, they "want" a new leader...

    Farage is well past his sell-by date.

  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815

    AveryLP said:

    Oddly Cameron seems to have come up with a way to win a referendum but avoid closing down the issue. What he's done is to rule out having a regular "in" option and only have his "in with renegotiation" option. The problem is that he's doing this on a timetable where all he could get would be an agreement to some changes in the next treaty. There's no way the treaty can actually have been passed by then, and it's vanishingly unlikely that it'll even have been decided.

    So he wins his referendum on the vague promise of a treaty, and the treaty then gets stopped by one of the hundred-plus veto points involved, quite possibly vetoed by Britain itself in their referendum on the treaty (as opposed to the one on the EU). Eurosceptics will justifiably say they've been robbed, and we're right back where we started.

    ...

    That sounds quite plausible both politically and procedurally. But you can see why serious BOOers aren't on board with the whole "A Tory vote gets you an in-out referendum" line, can't you?

    Basically what you've described is "out" getting defeated by a promise of euro-sceptical reforms that, for hard-to-understand reasons involving domestic politics in foreign countries, proceed to crash and burn over, leaving them with nothing repatriated, an adverse referendum result hanging over them, and 15 years wasted.
    I agree on the point of trust, but the best the BOOers can realistically hope for is a referendum where they get the opportunity to argue for OUT. Cameron can deliver that but there is no point him pretending that he is a BOOer himself nor that immediate Brexit would be best position for the Conservative Party to take.

    I believe Cameron, or more particularly Hague, is genuinely committed to EU reform and that they consider defined and realistic negotiation goals to be achievable. Already they have succeeded, at least to a certain extent, in getting their position supported and discussed by key EU Members.

    This term has seen the FCO deployed on a thorough and systematic review of EU competencies which should form the basis for next term's negotiations. I am convinced a clear and transparent agenda, carefully worked for feasibility and balance of interests, would be welcomed and trusted by the majority of the UK electorate.

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    RodCrosby said:

    Apart from anything else, they "want" a new leader...

    Farage is well past his sell-by date.

    Bootle might actually be interesting in 2015 if Paul Nuttall becomes UKIP leader and stands in his home constituency.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    "Banging on about Europe will enthuse the core (and activists) but may lose votes."

    Can't control the borders without coming out of the EU - very simple, very effective.
  • ooop north UKIP are becoming the alternative to voting Labour. the Thatcher era did for the tories and the coalition has done it for the lib dems. Mr Nutall might be a better bet to be their first MP rather than Farage
  • AveryLP said:


    I agree on the point of trust, but the best the BOOers can realistically hope for is a referendum where they get the opportunity to argue for OUT. Cameron can deliver that but there is no point him pretending that he is a BOOer himself nor that immediate Brexit would be best position for the Conservative Party to take.

    Well, UKIP's EU strategy would be that if they can put enough pressure on the Tories they can actually move the next leader to BOO, or at least to a position that gives a referendum a fair shake - for example, that doesn't have a middle option that will then (as they and I see it, I know you don't) turn out to be bogus. That doesn't seem impossible - they've already got the Tories talking like they want to abandon really core, basic elements of the EU like free movement of people, which I don't think we'd have expected a few year ago, even when they were talking about repatriation.

    Where I'd depart from the conventional strategy is that I don't think UKIP should be aiming for a referendum any more. Referendums are a strategy for people with a marginal case to move the ball up the pitch, and their case is no longer marginal. They should return to traditional British constitutional values (parliament decides) then try to get a majority between themselves and Con to leave the EU.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    Farage is fine imo.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    edited December 2013
    David Herdson: yet another great header. Perhaps the question has a false premise. Is a political party ever really "for" anything? As a Conservative au fait with the grand history of your own party, I'm sure you could pick out some over-arching themes, but you must be well aware that any party is simply a convenient coalition for its adherents to achieve their diverse aims.

    UKIP's coalition is broad and heterogeneous just as other parties are - the arch-conservative and libertarian wings don't seem to get on. They do have a clear target to work on, and perhaps a single clearer metric of success and failure than is available to other parties. But they lack a common vision of what a "free" UK and British society is meant to look and feel like, and strategically on how to replace the EU - a sort of EFTA, or a retreat into NAFTA, or a mid-sized free-trading fish in the global pond, or an economically incongruous Commonwealth Bloc, or what? (The existence of an official policy on an issue doesn't mean the rank-and-file homogeneously support it.)

    It's also asking a lot for the UKIP leadership to develop a clear and coherent strategy. For one thing they need to be able to respond flexibly to events which it's difficult to plan for and timetable (particularly compared to more powerful parties who actually have some influence over the news schedules). For another, any such plan has to rely on fewer resources in terms of cash, brains, airwave power and feet on ground. Finally there is the structural issue of what the organisation can deliver. If running the Lib Dems is like herding cats, what on earth is running UKIP like?

    In a choice between a couple of seats or a bigger slice of the vote, I'm sure they'd take whatever they can get, but I'm not convinced they actually have much organisational or situational capacity to choose between priorities. That might sound strange, but given the way they have had to "buy in" policy in the past, they may not even have the wonkpower to carefully tailor policies to strategic goals. In campaigning, they are better at air war than ground war, which is harder to focus geographically, and compared to other parties their ability to bus campaigners into marginals or target key voters by database is limited.
  • In campaigning, they are better at air war than ground war, which is harder to focus geographically, and compared to other parties their ability to bus campaigners into marginals or target key voters by database is limited.

    That used to be true, but will it still be true in 2015/2020? They seem to have snaffled quite a few Tory activists like our own Sean Fear who must be bringing them a lot of expertise, and they now have enough councillors that they'll be able to experiment with different tactics and let the best people rise to the top.

    FPTP is still going to clobber them, but if they can get up to a solid 15%, and the LibDems end up out of government and recover to maybe 20%, maybe sooner or later the voting system gets changed. (RodCrosby's posted some stuff before about how when the effective number of parties in a system gets big enough, they tend to reform their voting systems one way or another.)

    PS Agree with the rest, especially the first paragraph.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    MrJones said:

    Farage is fine imo.

    To expand a bit

    Farage is very English so that will be a handicap in some places e.g. Scotland, Wales, Liverpool but won't hurt everywhere else. Eventually if there are local sub-leaders for those places then that will sort itself.

    Also people with one regional accent don't necessarily see someone with a different regional accent as "one of us" so having a posh accent isn't the problem it's supposed to be - the problem with it is it usually goes with not having a clue what's going on in the less leafy areas not the accent itself. On balance the BBC accent is prob best imo as it's the most neutral but in this country no accent will suit everywhere.
  • @fitalass - there are plenty of comments and commentators on PB that I find unappealing and just skip over. But there is also plenty of insight from some well-informed people of all hues and that will keep bringing me back. Everyone says PB is getting worse, but everyone has always been saying that! The political balance might be a bit leftier than it was two years ago, but perhaps not as much as it was in the mid 2000s? The gender balance is a problem - that is something where representativeness matters - but the issue isn't unique to PB.

    There have always been and always will be trolls at all ends of the spectrum, and pointless unpleasant arguments. I think it's a function of the medium - I was reading through some ancient USENET threads today in which several esteemed professors of statistics got very heated with each other over an obscure technical topic. Politics is something that gets people's blood pressure up rather more than that, though it's true there are some calmer places online for UK politics and polling discussion. For me PB is superior because it has excellent quality of analysis (particularly from OGH but also his impressive guest writers) and some very heavy-hitting, well-informed people in the comments.

    Of left-wing trolls past, I miss Ash actually. Perhaps he wasn't a deliberate troll at all, though it wouldn't surprise me if he was really a conservative pretending to be a particularly irritating leftie just to wind people up. Haven't seen him for a couple of years, but he was the reason I delurked - something he wrote wound me up so much that I had to write a riposte, as nobody else had bothered! I have later come to realise that the reason they hadn't bothered was because everyone else had learned the art of skipping over such stuff. Which is an internet survival skill I fear.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    Fitalass-

    I echo your sentiments on the way this site has developed.

    Things seemed to change after the 2010 election. Today it seems joyless.

    I remember writing long posts on how my German Shepherd Heidi would take part in some allegedly scientifically valid rigmarole to decide who would win whatever it was, and people would enter into the tongue in cheek aspects, realizing it was not entirely serious, and it would be fun.

    That bonhommie and good fellowship seems to have largely disappeared, replaced by a much more partisan and humorless, smaller group of posters. Where art thou Martin Day?

    I visit this site much less than I used to do, and post less too. There seem to be more personal atacks than previously.

    Having said that, I would like to place on record my support for the site and wish it every success.
  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 672
    Mr J, He's got a lot of strengths and they dovetail with UKIP's needs.

    I wonder if Lynton Crosby ever thinks he's been hired by the wrong team!
  • shiney2 said:

    I wonder if Lynton Crosby ever thinks he's been hired by the wrong team!

    The way his tactics play into UKIP's hands you'd think he'd been hired by both teams...
  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 672

    shiney2 said:

    tactics play into UKIP's hands you'd think he'd been hired by both teams...

    Overlapping target customers. Would be even more similarity of message if Cam was capable of assembling the 80's centre right voter coalition. But he's not - and that's his fundamental failure.

    Interestingly Farage probably could, he just needs to disassociate the con party into its component bits first
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    shiney2 said:

    Mr J, He's got a lot of strengths and they dovetail with UKIP's needs.

    I wonder if Lynton Crosby ever thinks he's been hired by the wrong team!

    agree
  • ZenPaganZenPagan Posts: 689
    I am not a UKIP member and the chances are I won't vote for them in 2015 (nor have I ever voted for them). Declaration of interest out of the way

    I am curious as to why you think that UKIP need to answer big questions about their identity. Lets face it the Lib Dems have managed on a strategy of being all things to all men on a per constituency level for decades and they are now in power.

    On the topic of what UKIP should do referendum wise, and here I share an interest with UKIP though I am a booer for very different reasons to most of the UKIP voters, I believe a referendum with Cameron in charge and both labour, and the lib dems on side with keeping us in would be an absolute disaster for the BOO side. Frankly the BOO case would be horrendously outgunned in the propaganda stakes when against three main parties, the bbc, the EU funding that would be forth coming etc.

    The only conclusion therefore is you believe we are better off out is to hope the conservatives do not get in again. While the lymp poles and Nabavi's will tell us this is a disaster for britain frankly for both myself and I suspect for many UKIP voters I see labour and conservatives as very much two cheeks of the same arse.

    Both are europhilic centrist social democrats at heart and the only difference between many of their policies is the name they use as a heading

  • That used to be true, but will it still be true in 2015/2020? They seem to have snaffled quite a few Tory activists like our own Sean Fear who must be bringing them a lot of expertise, and they now have enough councillors that they'll be able to experiment with different tactics and let the best people rise to the top.
    ...
    PS Agree with the rest, especially the first paragraph.

    Cheers Edmund. Yes, I think it'll be true in 2015 at least. David H compares UKIP to the low-ebb Liberals, but even then they were mighty effective campaigners. For now, UKIP don't have that edge and can it be gained in the short run?

    The likes of Sean Fear are a good catch indeed! But however formidable the organisational skills of such a corps of recruits, they'll face severe challenges. Less resources to call upon from higher up the chain, less footsoldiers to deploy lower down the chain (membership doesn't mean activism), and the troops are rabblier and less experienced. To be frank: there are really sound guys in UKIP (I'd happily vote for Sean) but also a high nutter coefficient. Bad enough that before sending someone canvassing, I'd want to vet them. Yet they don't even seem able to comprehensively vet their own candidates.

    I've wondered if UKIP has an organisational pyramid bulging in the wrong place. Cut out the uninvolved members who are nothing more than a vote-bank and cash-cow, so we only look at "activists", the "middle ranks", and the "big fish". I suspect UKIP bulges in the middle (disproportionately compared to other parties, not necessarily in absolute numbers), with relatively few top people. Other parties have layers of wonks, back-benchers and serious regional politicians (assembly members, mayors etc) before the inner sanctum of leadership.

    A long-standing Lib Dem councillor with executive experience in local government, is in no place to consider replacing Nick Clegg. While UKIP has come a long way from the Kilroy debacle, its leadership level is not that far removed from a large pool of strongly-opinionated people who must occasionally think "I could run this show better myself". Not a great recipe for stability at the top, nor for leadership to have a strong hand to push the party in whatever direction it finds strategically desirable. In fact, with a relative deficit of brains at the very top (not perjoratively, I mean the lack of think-tankers, advisers, strategists, pollsters, the fabled writers of algorithms) their ability to craft a strategy at all is limited. Internet forums pay testament to a glut of armchair strategists in the mid-ranks, however. Meanwhile, the activist-pawns, that any grand strategy would rely on pushing around the board to achieve their greatest impact, are currently conspicuous by their absence. Since the activist class of all parties is dying out, maybe this disadvantage will be less serious in years to come, but for now ground war beats air war.
  • Thinking about the need to weed out the nutters ... other parties can be pretty crap at this vetting business too. In my last council election, the (no-hope) Labour candidate was out canvassing and it didn't take long to establish he was barely out of his teens, a conspiracy-theorist nutter who rightfully belonged in the SWP. The next time Labour get into power, he'll either have grown up a bit and refined his views, or is going to be hilariously disappointed to discover his party isn't actually run by crypto-communists who ban private profit and nationalise everything in a Soviet-style industrial revival. But I think nutters damage UKIP more seriously because of their existing reputation and urgent need to establish credibility as a serious party. In contrast even the flagging Liberals had a long history and successful policy credentials to point to.
  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 672
    @Zen

    "I am curious as to why you think that UKIP need to answer big questions about their identity."

    Quite - that particular faux pas did for Cam&Os in January2010. They rolled out detail policy statements, took loads of flak and entered GE campaign with a collection of hostages to fortune. Far better to adopt Blair's 97 minimalist "pledge card" approach.
  • ZenPagan said:


    I am curious as to why you think that UKIP need to answer big questions about their identity. Lets face it the Lib Dems have managed on a strategy of being all things to all men on a per constituency level for decades and they are now in power.

    I wouldn't want to put words in David H's mouth, but this is how I read it. The basic idea is that UKIP need to do some soul-searching in order to figure out what they really want, because until they do they (quite logically) can't figure out a strategy to achieve it. Do they want to be "just another bunch of serious politicians", getting Farage or his successor into cabinet? Are they happy to be an eternal protest vote? Can they find some other way to leverage their strengths in the polls, to attain whatever objectives they wish to set? While Brexit is priority #1, what about the rest of their political agenda (currently a mixture of libertarian opposition to the nanny state with some conservative, even poujadist tendencies)? If they want to be a parliamentary or even governing force, they need to be more than a single issue party. But if their priority is voteshare and raising the BOO profile, are they better to shed policies that are toxic to left-wingers?

    My feeling is that the party is likely to muddle along, and that even if the leadership develops a highly-planned strategic vision on these issues, they may struggle to push it through their party and its success is at the mercy of events beyond their control anyway.

    The Lib Dems have long sorted those issues out. Although a diverse party, they do have some core common ground and a very strong sense of self-identity. At heart they know that they want to play the "just another set of politicians" game, and are fiercely opposed to being labelled a protest vote. They want to see policies put into action on a whole spectrum of issues. To do this they seek representation at local, regional and national level (with strategic considerations forcing them to carefully prioritise their targets). They would rather accept a coalition deal as the price of going into cabinet, than hold out for a majority themselves, or be a "testimonial party" that never seeks power but simply ensures that its beliefs are represented in parliament. (Contrast e.g. the Party for Animals and Reformed [Calvinist] Party in the Netherlands.)
  • ZenPaganZenPagan Posts: 689
    @MyBurningEars

    Ah I was reading it more as explain to the electorate rather than internal soul searching.

    However even then I am unconvinced as it became pretty apparent that the lib dems seemed to be two parties under one roof when they hit power and there were significant fractures between the labour lite and orange book side of the party.

    Watching how UKIP progress is going to be interesting certainly and I am sure there will be inflection points along the way which will significantly change the narrative
  • It's not just about getting a few grievances addressed anymore. That thinking was okay in 2010, possibly even as late as early 2012, but in the last 18 months things have moved too far too fast to turn back. UKIP is gunning to become a proper, established and evolving party just like the other major ones, it isn't just a protest movement anymore and frankly won't ever be again, it's simply gone to far to go back to that now.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,150
    edited December 2013
    @MBE good analysis - another more pragmatic factor is the willingness and ability of the average UKIP member to throw themselves into the extended local grunt work (years of leaflet delivery followed by years of sub-committee meetings if you are lucky) that slowly saved LibDems (Liberals) from extinction? That shared experience (or history for younger LibDems) is where their strong self-identity comes from. The average UKIPper doesn't have that long.

    @ZenP spot on about Europe. I believe that all the vitriol we see on ConHome between Cameroons and Kippers about all sorts of peripheral issues all stems from the simple fact that the Tory leadership is working towards killing off the EU issue, and hence the whole sceptic movement, with an in-vote at some opportunistically timed and presented referendum. Tory success therefore presents an existential threat both to UKIP and to BOO inside the Conservative Party.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,150
    edited December 2013
    p.s the issue for the Tories is whether their leadership can succeed without splitting the party, triggering a realignment of the right. An interesting scenario with possibilities for both the LibDems and UKIP, and all those who long for a fairer less capricious and stultifying voting system.

    At the beginning of the coalition, many Tories I know were convinced it would lead inexorably toward a permanent split within the LibDems between left and right. Inside the party there is almost no sign of that happening, although a painful 2015 result would raise the question of how much of the long march was in vain, or can quickly be recovered.

    But the irony of that initial Tory self-confidence is that theirs is now the party where some sort of long-term realignment may be very difficult to avoid? Not least because they also face growing demographic and geographical challenges, and defeat in 2015 (which many of them see as anything other than a majority win) would raise the Q of whether the Tories will ever form majority government (without exiting the scots!) again; a question they will find very painful even to face.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited December 2013
    One of Herdsons best thought out articles asks many questions.

    The only answer I can give, and this from a personal viewpoint, is that the majority of UKIP members and supporters, are interested in a lot more than withdrawal from the EU. Power to affect the daily lives of Britons is what we really want, and need. How we get there is indeed the only question worth considering.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    Minority partisans - be they green, UKIP or whatever simply fail to recognize that political power requires acceptance of the need to compromise - pre-election in fptp or post-election in proportional systems. Whatever UKIP diehards may think there is no majority in the UK for their views anymore than for extreme socialists. There is a great deal of angst and discontent in Britain today and many people feel frustrated over the changes of the past 20 years or so. Hence the strength of the protest vote and the minority parties. The fact remains that a vote for UKIP means a Labour govt in 2015 - end of.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    On Nigella and her angst - big yawn.
  • felix said:

    Whatever UKIP diehards may think there is no majority in the UK for their views anymore than for extreme socialists.

    They seem to have a majority in agreement with them on the EU:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_withdrawal_from_the_European_Union#2013

    I haven't gone through it all but I reckon a lot of their other stances would have majority support compared to the mainstream, three-party-consensus alternatives.
  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 672
    @Felix

    "The fact remains that a vote for UKIP means a Labour govt in 2015 - end of."

    Even if Labour are on <35% ?


    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/449811/FARAGE-ON-FRIDAY-Working-classes-are-the-bedrock-of-Ukip-vote-not-disaffected-Tories
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,469
    MikeK said:

    One of Herdsons best thought out articles asks many questions.

    The only answer I can give, and this from a personal viewpoint, is that the majority of UKIP members and supporters, are interested in a lot more than withdrawal from the EU. Power to affect the daily lives of Britons is what we really want, and need. How we get there is indeed the only question worth considering.

    "Power to affect the daily lives of Britons"

    That sounds truly chilling. Not to improve the lives of all citizens, but 'affect' a small subset.

    How do you class 'Britons' ?
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    shiney2 said:

    @Felix

    "The fact remains that a vote for UKIP means a Labour govt in 2015 - end of."

    Even if Labour are on <35% ?


    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/449811/FARAGE-ON-FRIDAY-Working-classes-are-the-bedrock-of-Ukip-vote-not-disaffected-Tories</p&gt;

    I think so - in actual votes so far they're damaging the Tories most. Similarly their views resonate with many but essentially they look back to golden ages which never were. The hand- loom was cute but not a long-term vote- winner.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited December 2013
    shiney2 said:

    @Felix

    "The fact remains that a vote for UKIP means a Labour govt in 2015 - end of."

    Even if Labour are on <35% ?


    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/449811/FARAGE-ON-FRIDAY-Working-classes-are-the-bedrock-of-Ukip-vote-not-disaffected-Tories</p&gt;

    "A vote for UKIP means..." is a slogan not analysis - obviously it depends who you were going to vote for otherwise, what seat you're in, and what other people in that seat do. But Lab Maj on under 35% is quite plausible. For example:
    CON 26.00% 211
    LAB 34.00% 365
    LIB 14.00% 46
    UKIP 15.00% 0

    http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.pl?CON=26&TVCON=&LAB=34&TVLAB=&LIB=14&TVLIB=&UKIP=15&region=All+GB+changed+seats&boundary=2010&seat=--Show+all--&minorparties=Y

    Lab majority 80
    Farage's point that not _all_ UKIP support comes from Con is of course correct, but what's also true is that they're very likely to take more off Con than off Lab.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    shiney2 said:

    @Felix

    "The fact remains that a vote for UKIP means a Labour govt in 2015 - end of."

    Even if Labour are on <35% ?


    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/449811/FARAGE-ON-FRIDAY-Working-classes-are-the-bedrock-of-Ukip-vote-not-disaffected-Tories</p&gt;

    "A vote for UKIP means..." is a slogan not analysis - obviously it depends who you were going to vote for otherwise, what seat you're in, and what other people in that seat do. But Lab Maj on under 35% is quite plausible. For example:
    CON 26.00% 211
    LAB 34.00% 365
    LIB 14.00% 46
    UKIP 15.00% 0

    http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.pl?CON=26&TVCON=&LAB=34&TVLAB=&LIB=14&TVLIB=&UKIP=15&region=All+GB+changed+seats&boundary=2010&seat=--Show+all--&minorparties=Y

    Lab majority 80
    Farage's point that not _all_ UKIP support comes from Con is of course correct, but what's also true is that they're very likely to take more off Con than off Lab.

    But does that still hold true ? In its early days UKIP just took votes off the conservatives, increasingly it's starting to balance out meaning the momentum is more with left wing switchers rather than right wing. As the protest party it will pick up votes and Labour is vulnerable on the "taking people for granted" axis. I can see Labour holding its 2010 LDs but that it will lose a slice of traditional voters. Primarily that makes me think Labour will drop below 35% in the next year or so.
  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 672
    @eit

    "what's also true is that they're very likely to take more off Con than off Lab."

    The Bown constituency surveys are the first hard evidence that UKIP support is lumpy, like the other 3 parties. Assumptions of 0MPs on 15% and "very likely to take more off X" are lookling more difficult to justify.
  • shiney2 said:

    @The Bown constituency surveys are the first hard evidence that UKIP support is lumpy, like the other 3 parties.

    I'm not saying you're wrong, but what is it in the Bown surveys that leads to that conclusion?

    FWIW I agree that their support would be a bit more concentrated than the Baxter numbers are assuming and they may well win seats on 15%, but from the point of view of who gets a majority the number of seats they'd end up with still doesn't really figure. For example, 15% and 10 seats would be a great achievement, but probably wouldn't affect who became PM.
  • In its early days UKIP just took votes off the conservatives, increasingly it's starting to balance out meaning the momentum is more with left wing switchers rather than right wing.

    Is there some polling evidence for that?

    What I would say is that if Labour form a government the proportion UKIP take off them will grow, and the proportion they take off Con will shrink. It may not quite balance out, but it'll certainly be less lop-sided.
  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 672
    @eit

    "what is it in the Bown surveys that leads to that conclusion?"

    The differences between the estimated national UKIP support level and the bown'ed constituencies.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Yes, I'd say the polling evidence was there at the last Euros, where large numbers of disaffected labour peeled off and voted for people like the BNP in protest. BNP gaining 17% in Barnsley was a bit of a WTF moment. And while that was then and this is now the protests are still to be seen in the locals where UKIP is performing well in traditional constituences and UKIP has the advantage of being seen as a legitimate party unlike some of the more colourful alternatives.

    On your projection below, Id say it's more likely Con 30 Lab 30, as a lot of the Tory defectors have already switched and the Labour ones are only now thinking about it.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,711
    edited December 2013
    Three points.
    Surely the basic weakness of the UKIP position is the Amazon factor. Companies of their size, and there will soon be more of them, will increasingly be able to thumb their noses at "conventional" nation states tax regimes with a consequent effect on those nation states tax revenues.

    Secondly it is being assumed that conventional political action is essential for a party's growth; canvassing, leafleting etc. I've done my share, and I wonder. Look at organisations such as 38 Degrees and Avaaz.. They can muster considerable support for political positions and will, I suggest become increasingly important in years to come.

    Third. In the last couple of elections there have been internet campaigns for vote-swapping .... you vote Labour in X and I'll vote LibDem in Y. Did they have any effect, and are they likely to be seen again?
  • shiney2 said:

    @eit

    "what is it in the Bown surveys that leads to that conclusion?"

    The differences between the estimated national UKIP support level and the bown'ed constituencies.

    I'm not sure you can compare directly - didn't the Bown surveys have their own methodology? In any case, even if you can, I'm not sure it's right. Bown had UKIP on 30% in a hot-spot like South Thanet, while the same pollster gets high teens (eg 18%) for UKIP nationally. That doesn't seem like a massively strong level of concentration.
  • Off-topic:

    Journalists: Feckin' useless! Case-in-point:
    However, this was met only with a blank stair from the Queen.
    [Src.: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10532252/Del-Boy-to-return-to-British-TV-screens.html ]

    Would not trust them to run a bath....
  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 672
    @eit

    Named all 4 parties equally and diff sample size, I believe.

    12% of electorate, or 66% majority increase, is hardly a marginal seat criterion.!
  • MrJones said:
    You can't compare a national election result to a local election result then assume the difference is down to UKIP. The obvious way to do this is just to poll, since you can ask people how they voted last time. There's been a fair bit of polling like that, and it's very clear that UKIP are getting substantially more ex-Cons than ex-Labs. If this changes we'll see it in the polls, but there's very little sign that it is.
  • shiney2 said:

    @eit

    Named all 4 parties equally and diff sample size, I believe.

    12% of electorate, or 66% majority increase, is hardly a marginal seat criterion.!

    I'm not sure if I've understood that, are you saying Thanet South is a bad example of a hot-spot? I mention it because Farage stood there before, and it's favourite for him to stand there again. If not there, where are the hot-spots?
  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 672
    @MrJ

    Yes I think I saw this before. My conclusion was that as the seats up in may13 were mainly Con, the gross results masked the greater % lab-->UKIP change.

    I reckon Farage, and who ever he listens to, spotted it some time ago, hence the emphasis in

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/449811/FARAGE-ON-FRIDAY-Working-classes-are-the-bedrock-of-Ukip-vote-not-disaffected-Tories
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    @MyBurningEars wrote :

    "To be frank: there are really sound guys in UKIP (I'd happily vote for Sean) but also a high nutter coefficient. Bad enough that before sending someone canvassing, I'd want to vet them. Yet they don't even seem able to comprehensively vet their own candidates."

    MyBurningEars Vetting Form :

    Allocate points if found on unannounced 3am visit :

    1. Brocoli and tufu quiche in fridge - 10 points
    2. Any vegetarian quiche in fridge - 5 points
    3. Pastel colour painted kitchen table and chairs - table 2 points, chair 1 point each
    4. IKEA rugs in orange/gold colours - 4 points
    5. Signed LibDem leader photos - Clegg 10 points ..Ashdown 7 .. Kennedy 5 .. Ming 3
    6. Back issues of "Focus" literature - 2 points each
    7. Historic "Winning Here" leaflets - 1 point each
    8. Sandals - 5 points per man made pair .. 2 points for leather
    9. Beard trimmer - Male 10 points .. Female 25 points
    10. Gay householder - 10 points
    11. Black householder - Hit jackpot 100 points
    12. Druid tendencies - 10 points.
    13. Nigel Farage dart board - 8 points
    14. Copy of Mike Smithson's autobiography - "The Bald Truth" - 50 points
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    edited December 2013

    MrJones said:
    You can't compare a national election result to a local election result then assume the difference is down to UKIP. The obvious way to do this is just to poll, since you can ask people how they voted last time. There's been a fair bit of polling like that, and it's very clear that UKIP are getting substantially more ex-Cons than ex-Labs. If this changes we'll see it in the polls, but there's very little sign that it is.
    But isn't that the current conundrum ? While you make a valid point on comparing locals and nationals, there's also a valid point on comparing 2 party politics with 4 party politics. Currently nobody's quite sure if the past is still a guide to the future.

    But looking at the fundamentals if you're a bloke in a northern or urban constituency, who's seen the manufacturing companies around him being closed from outsourcing, had to take a pay freeze to survive, you kids are struggling to get a job, your town is changing because of immigration, you can't protest about it or you'll be called a racist, you pension was wiped out by Brown, you think the EU is a con, your MP is an Oxbridge posho from London and all of this happened under 13 years of Labour. Why would you keep voting for them ?


  • But looking at the fundamentals if you're a bloke in a northern or urban constituency, who's seen the manufacturing companies around him being closed from outsourcing, had to take a pay freeze to survive, you kids are struggling to get a job, your town is changing because of immigration, you can't protest about it or you'll be called a racist, you pension was wiped out by Brown, you think the EU is a con, your MP is an Oxbridge posho from London and all of this happened under 13 years of Labour. Why would you keep voting for them ?

    Sure it could happen, but if you think that's happening on a large scale, why isn't it showing up in the polls? I'm not talking about guesswork from one set of polling numbers to another, I'm talking about, "How did you vote last time? How will you vote this time?". It's not infallible, but it's pretty reliable.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "NHS on brink of crisis because it became 'too powerful' to criticise

    Head of health and social care regulator David Prior says NHS has been damaged because criticism was not tolerated":

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/nhs/10531183/NHS-on-brink-of-crisis-because-it-became-too-powerful-to-criticise.html
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523

    MrJones said:
    You can't compare a national election result to a local election result then assume the difference is down to UKIP. The obvious way to do this is just to poll, since you can ask people how they voted last time. There's been a fair bit of polling like that, and it's very clear that UKIP are getting substantially more ex-Cons than ex-Labs. If this changes we'll see it in the polls, but there's very little sign that it is.
    "using the BBC’s national equivalent vote share projections, i.e. this is comparing like with like as it adjusts for the different range of seats up for election"
  • MrJones said:

    MrJones said:
    You can't compare a national election result to a local election result then assume the difference is down to UKIP. The obvious way to do this is just to poll, since you can ask people how they voted last time. There's been a fair bit of polling like that, and it's very clear that UKIP are getting substantially more ex-Cons than ex-Labs. If this changes we'll see it in the polls, but there's very little sign that it is.
    "using the BBC’s national equivalent vote share projections, i.e. this is comparing like with like as it adjusts for the different range of seats up for election"
    No, that solves one problem, which is that there were only local elections in part of the country, but it doesn't solve the other, which is that people behave differently in national and local elections.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited December 2013

    Three points.
    Surely the basic weakness of the UKIP position is the Amazon factor. Companies of their size, and there will soon be more of them, will increasingly be able to thumb their noses at "conventional" nation states tax regimes with a consequent effect on those nation states tax revenues.

    Secondly it is being assumed that conventional political action is essential for a party's growth; canvassing, leafleting etc. I've done my share, and I wonder. Look at organisations such as 38 Degrees and Avaaz.. They can muster considerable support for political positions and will, I suggest become increasingly important in years to come.

    Third. In the last couple of elections there have been internet campaigns for vote-swapping .... you vote Labour in X and I'll vote LibDem in Y. Did they have any effect, and are they likely to be seen again?

    1. I'm not aware that UKIP is selling a higher spending government message than the other parties.

    And VAT is a bigger source of revenue than corporation tax. You could make an argument that lower corporation tax rates would lead to higher wages > increased income tax revenue.

    2. How effective is spam? A piece on Labour list suggested that one predictor of UKIP success was a popular local pub!

    http://labourlist.org/2013/05/how-should-labour-tackle-ukip/

    3. Electoral Calculus' 2006 analysis of the Con/Lab gap suggested that tactical voting gave Labour a +16 seat advantage over the Conservatives.

    http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/conlabgap.html#tactical

    I don't see that tactical voting is especially likely to have a negative effect on UKIP. They might be beneficiaries.


  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    But looking at the fundamentals if you're a bloke in a northern or urban constituency, who's seen the manufacturing companies around him being closed from outsourcing, had to take a pay freeze to survive, you kids are struggling to get a job, your town is changing because of immigration, you can't protest about it or you'll be called a racist, you pension was wiped out by Brown, you think the EU is a con, your MP is an Oxbridge posho from London and all of this happened under 13 years of Labour. Why would you keep voting for them ?

    Sure it could happen, but if you think that's happening on a large scale, why isn't it showing up in the polls? I'm not talking about guesswork from one set of polling numbers to another, I'm talking about, "How did you vote last time? How will you vote this time?". It's not infallible, but it's pretty reliable.
    But that's the polls and the polls change. The current labour mantra is that they have a solid block of 38% ish. I don't think that holds up they have a soft block in their traditional areas which my guess is will start to peel away.

    I can see 2015 being a "bedrock" election where the big 2 are cut right back to their core support as protest parties UKIP\LD\SNP suck up a lot of the floating voters\NOTA vote. On balance that should be to labour's advantage but it still means an HP.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:
    You can't compare a national election result to a local election result then assume the difference is down to UKIP. The obvious way to do this is just to poll, since you can ask people how they voted last time. There's been a fair bit of polling like that, and it's very clear that UKIP are getting substantially more ex-Cons than ex-Labs. If this changes we'll see it in the polls, but there's very little sign that it is.
    "using the BBC’s national equivalent vote share projections, i.e. this is comparing like with like as it adjusts for the different range of seats up for election"
    No, that solves one problem, which is that there were only local elections in part of the country, but it doesn't solve the other, which is that people behave differently in national and local elections.
    Not that differently.

    2010 local elections: Con 35%, Lab 27%, LD 26%

    2010 general election: Con 36%, Lab 29%, LD 23%

  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 672
    @eit

    "How did you vote last time? How will you vote this time?". It's not infallible, but it's pretty reliable."

    Frankly that has to be seriously questioned in a 4party system, with one collapsed party and another insurgent since the last election. eg Populus' adjustment is out by over a 100% for current (consistent) UKIP results.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523

    But looking at the fundamentals if you're a bloke in a northern or urban constituency, who's seen the manufacturing companies around him being closed from outsourcing, had to take a pay freeze to survive, you kids are struggling to get a job, your town is changing because of immigration, you can't protest about it or you'll be called a racist, you pension was wiped out by Brown, you think the EU is a con, your MP is an Oxbridge posho from London and all of this happened under 13 years of Labour. Why would you keep voting for them ?

    Sure it could happen, but if you think that's happening on a large scale, why isn't it showing up in the polls? I'm not talking about guesswork from one set of polling numbers to another, I'm talking about, "How did you vote last time? How will you vote this time?". It's not infallible, but it's pretty reliable.
    1. It is showing up in the polls.
    2. Labour spinners want the baseline to be 2010 voters for a reason - it leaves out the bloc who stopped voting between 1998 and 2010.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited December 2013

    But looking at the fundamentals if you're a bloke in a northern or urban constituency, who's seen the manufacturing companies around him being closed from outsourcing, had to take a pay freeze to survive, you kids are struggling to get a job, your town is changing because of immigration, you can't protest about it or you'll be called a racist, you pension was wiped out by Brown, you think the EU is a con, your MP is an Oxbridge posho from London and all of this happened under 13 years of Labour. Why would you keep voting for them ?

    Sure it could happen, but if you think that's happening on a large scale, why isn't it showing up in the polls? I'm not talking about guesswork from one set of polling numbers to another, I'm talking about, "How did you vote last time? How will you vote this time?". It's not infallible, but it's pretty reliable.
    But that's the polls and the polls change. The current labour mantra is that they have a solid block of 38% ish. I don't think that holds up they have a soft block in their traditional areas which my guess is will start to peel away.

    I can see 2015 being a "bedrock" election where the big 2 are cut right back to their core support as protest parties UKIP\LD\SNP suck up a lot of the floating voters\NOTA vote. On balance that should be to labour's advantage but it still means an HP.
    OK, up-thread I read you as saying that UKIP stopping pulling disproportionately from Con is something that was actually happening. But you're actually saying that they're pulling disproportionately from Con _now_, but you think this will change? Because Ed Is Crap or something? I guess what I'm not seeing is, why on earth is the bloke you've described whose pension was wiped out by Brown etc etc, who you think will end up voting UKIP, still telling the pollsters he's going to vote Labour?
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523

    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:
    You can't compare a national election result to a local election result then assume the difference is down to UKIP. The obvious way to do this is just to poll, since you can ask people how they voted last time. There's been a fair bit of polling like that, and it's very clear that UKIP are getting substantially more ex-Cons than ex-Labs. If this changes we'll see it in the polls, but there's very little sign that it is.
    "using the BBC’s national equivalent vote share projections, i.e. this is comparing like with like as it adjusts for the different range of seats up for election"
    No, that solves one problem, which is that there were only local elections in part of the country, but it doesn't solve the other, which is that people behave differently in national and local elections.
    But you accept that it's polling evidence of Labour losing more than Tory at least in that context.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Labour getting less than 35% might be a good bet, although I don't know what the odds are.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    edited December 2013

    But looking at the fundamentals if you're a bloke in a northern or urban constituency, who's seen the manufacturing companies around him being closed from outsourcing, had to take a pay freeze to survive, you kids are struggling to get a job, your town is changing because of immigration, you can't protest about it or you'll be called a racist, you pension was wiped out by Brown, you think the EU is a con, your MP is an Oxbridge posho from London and all of this happened under 13 years of Labour. Why would you keep voting for them ?

    Sure it could happen, but if you think that's happening on a large scale, why isn't it showing up in the polls? I'm not talking about guesswork from one set of polling numbers to another, I'm talking about, "How did you vote last time? How will you vote this time?". It's not infallible, but it's pretty reliable.
    But that's the polls and the polls change. The current labour mantra is that they have a solid block of 38% ish. I don't think that holds up they have a soft block in their traditional areas which my guess is will start to peel away.

    I can see 2015 being a "bedrock" election where the big 2 are cut right back to their core support as protest parties UKIP\LD\SNP suck up a lot of the floating voters\NOTA vote. On balance that should be to labour's advantage but it still means an HP.
    OK, up-thread I read you as saying that UKIP stopping pulling disproportionately from Con is something that was actually happening. But you're actually saying that they're pulling disproportionately from Con _now_, but you think this will change? Because Ed Is Crap or something? I guess what I'm not seeing is, why on earth is the bloke you've described whose pension was wiped out by Brown etc etc, who you think will end up voting UKIP, still telling the pollsters he's going to vote Labour?
    because the polls generally don't start to mean anything until we get to 6 months to the GE, that's when the bulk of people start to think seriously about elections. Add in that we have a fixed parliament and there's not even the edge of a snap election to concentrate minds. If we're going to take the polls as the truth why bother to have elections ?
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Bit sleepy, but the central premise of the article hits the nail on the head. It'll determine how UKIP go: for tactical voting to bolster sceptical candidates' chances, or with the purple fever approach of voting UKIP even if the likely result (in a constituency) is to let a very pro-EU candidate win in a tight contest.

    I still plan on voting UKIP at the euros, but (to try and rid the nation of the scourge of Balls) am nailed on for the blues come the General Election.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,711
    edited December 2013

    Three points.
    Surely the basic weakness of the UKIP position is the Amazon factor. Companies of their size, and there will soon be more of them, will increasingly be able to thumb their noses at "conventional" nation states tax regimes with a consequent effect on those nation states tax revenues.

    Secondly it is being assumed that conventional political action is essential for a party's growth; canvassing, leafleting etc. I've done my share, and I wonder. Look at organisations such as 38 Degrees and Avaaz.. They can muster considerable support for political positions and will, I suggest become increasingly important in years to come.

    Third. In the last couple of elections there have been internet campaigns for vote-swapping .... you vote Labour in X and I'll vote LibDem in Y. Did they have any effect, and are they likely to be seen again?

    1. I'm not aware that UKIP is selling a higher spending government message than the other parties.

    And VAT is a bigger source of revenue than corporation tax. You could make an argument that lower corporation tax rates would lead to higher wages > increased income tax revenue.

    2. How effective is spam? A piece on Labour list suggested that one predictor of UKIP success was a popular local pub!

    http://labourlist.org/2013/05/how-should-labour-tackle-ukip/

    3. Electoral Calculus' 2006 analysis of the Con/Lab gap suggested that tactical voting gave Labour a +16 seat advantage over the Conservatives.

    http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/conlabgap.html#tactical

    I don't see that tactical voting is especially likely to have a negative effect on UKIP. They might be beneficiaries.


    1. Agree about UKIP's tax position.Or lack of it. Take the point as well about the comparative revenues from VAT and CT, but tax isn't the only issue. Companies like Boots, now owned outside the EU, appear to be consistently placing more demands upon staff for the same, or even lower, wages.

    2. Not surprised.

    3. Thanks for that. Unde
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited December 2013
    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:
    You can't compare a national election result to a local election result then assume the difference is down to UKIP. The obvious way to do this is just to poll, since you can ask people how they voted last time. There's been a fair bit of polling like that, and it's very clear that UKIP are getting substantially more ex-Cons than ex-Labs. If this changes we'll see it in the polls, but there's very little sign that it is.
    "using the BBC’s national equivalent vote share projections, i.e. this is comparing like with like as it adjusts for the different range of seats up for election"
    No, that solves one problem, which is that there were only local elections in part of the country, but it doesn't solve the other, which is that people behave differently in national and local elections.
    But you accept that it's polling evidence of Labour losing more than Tory at least in that context.
    To UKIP? No, absolutely not. Assuming the national projections are right it's evidence that they're losing vote share to something from national to local election, but apathy is a better candidate than UKIP, as the left isn't exactly buzzing with Ed-Miliband-mania, and it tends to be harder to turn out younger, left-leaning demographics outside high-profile elections.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,711
    Something went wrong with my reply to AnotherDave;
    Should read.
    1. Agree about UKIP's tax position.Or lack of it. Take the point as well about the comparative revenues from VAT and CT, but tax isn't the only issue. Companies like Boots, now owned outside the EU, appear to be consistently placing more demands upon staff for the same, or even lower, wages.

    2. Not surprised.

    3. Thanks for that. Underlines my view that many Tories would prefer a Labour win to a Lib Dem one, if their own candidate is a no-hoper. Wonder if that will be the same in 2015.
    And yes, we have yet to see what effect tactical voting will have in somewhere like, say, Eastleigh. Collapse in Tory vote perhaps?
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523

    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:
    You can't compare a national election result to a local election result then assume the difference is down to UKIP. The obvious way to do this is just to poll, since you can ask people how they voted last time. There's been a fair bit of polling like that, and it's very clear that UKIP are getting substantially more ex-Cons than ex-Labs. If this changes we'll see it in the polls, but there's very little sign that it is.
    "using the BBC’s national equivalent vote share projections, i.e. this is comparing like with like as it adjusts for the different range of seats up for election"
    No, that solves one problem, which is that there were only local elections in part of the country, but it doesn't solve the other, which is that people behave differently in national and local elections.
    But you accept that it's polling evidence of Labour losing more than Tory at least in that context.
    To UKIP? No, absolutely not. Assuming the national projections are right it's evidence that they're losing vote share to something from national to local election, but apathy is a better candidate than UKIP, as the left isn't exactly buzzing with Ed-Miliband-mania, and it tends to be harder to turn out younger, left-leaning demographics outside high-profile elections.
    Well it should be pretty obvious by now that pro Labour people are desperate to push the Tories away from a strategy that they know will hurt Tories first but Labour worst and from my point of view that's better so i don't care. The important thing is Ukip get it and they seem to have.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:
    You can't compare a national election result to a local election result then assume the difference is down to UKIP. The obvious way to do this is just to poll, since you can ask people how they voted last time. There's been a fair bit of polling like that, and it's very clear that UKIP are getting substantially more ex-Cons than ex-Labs. If this changes we'll see it in the polls, but there's very little sign that it is.
    "using the BBC’s national equivalent vote share projections, i.e. this is comparing like with like as it adjusts for the different range of seats up for election"
    No, that solves one problem, which is that there were only local elections in part of the country, but it doesn't solve the other, which is that people behave differently in national and local elections.
    But you accept that it's polling evidence of Labour losing more than Tory at least in that context.
    To UKIP? No, absolutely not. Assuming the national projections are right it's evidence that they're losing vote share to something from national to local election, but apathy is a better candidate than UKIP, as the left isn't exactly buzzing with Ed-Miliband-mania, and it tends to be harder to turn out younger, left-leaning demographics outside high-profile elections.
    Well it should be pretty obvious by now that pro Labour people are desperate to push the Tories away from a strategy that they know will hurt Tories first but Labour worst and from my point of view that's better so i don't care. The important thing is Ukip get it and they seem to have.
    The Left doesn't like the idea that they could lose traditional votes, since these have always been the bedrock of their support. Maybe it's the recession but atm with WWC comminuities taking much of the grief anyone who's not a Tory has got a pile of disaffected votes potentially available in traditional Labour heartlands.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523

    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:
    You can't compare a national election result to a local election result then assume the difference is down to UKIP. The obvious way to do this is just to poll, since you can ask people how they voted last time. There's been a fair bit of polling like that, and it's very clear that UKIP are getting substantially more ex-Cons than ex-Labs. If this changes we'll see it in the polls, but there's very little sign that it is.
    "using the BBC’s national equivalent vote share projections, i.e. this is comparing like with like as it adjusts for the different range of seats up for election"
    No, that solves one problem, which is that there were only local elections in part of the country, but it doesn't solve the other, which is that people behave differently in national and local elections.
    But you accept that it's polling evidence of Labour losing more than Tory at least in that context.
    To UKIP? No, absolutely not. Assuming the national projections are right it's evidence that they're losing vote share to something from national to local election, but apathy is a better candidate than UKIP, as the left isn't exactly buzzing with Ed-Miliband-mania, and it tends to be harder to turn out younger, left-leaning demographics outside high-profile elections.
    Well it should be pretty obvious by now that pro Labour people are desperate to push the Tories away from a strategy that they know will hurt Tories first but Labour worst and from my point of view that's better so i don't care. The important thing is Ukip get it and they seem to have.
    The Left doesn't like the idea that they could lose traditional votes, since these have always been the bedrock of their support. Maybe it's the recession but atm with WWC comminuities taking much of the grief anyone who's not a Tory has got a pile of disaffected votes potentially available in traditional Labour heartlands.
    Yup, slower to switch but potentially loads (although i'd say the Cameroons could have got half of them a few years ago but they decided to poke them in the eye instead).
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:
    You can't compare a national election result to a local election result then assume the difference is down to UKIP. The obvious way to do this is just to poll, since you can ask people how they voted last time. There's been a fair bit of polling like that, and it's very clear that UKIP are getting substantially more ex-Cons than ex-Labs. If this changes we'll see it in the polls, but there's very little sign that it is.
    "using the BBC’s national equivalent vote share projections, i.e. this is comparing like with like as it adjusts for the different range of seats up for election"
    No, that solves one problem, which is that there were only local elections in part of the country, but it doesn't solve the other, which is that people behave differently in national and local elections.
    But you accept that it's polling evidence of Labour losing more than Tory at least in that context.
    To UKIP? No, absolutely not. Assuming the national projections are right it's evidence that they're losing vote share to something from national to local election, but apathy is a better candidate than UKIP, as the left isn't exactly buzzing with Ed-Miliband-mania, and it tends to be harder to turn out younger, left-leaning demographics outside high-profile elections.
    Well it should be pretty obvious by now that pro Labour people are desperate to push the Tories away from a strategy that they know will hurt Tories first but Labour worst and from my point of view that's better so i don't care. The important thing is Ukip get it and they seem to have.
    The Left doesn't like the idea that they could lose traditional votes, since these have always been the bedrock of their support. Maybe it's the recession but atm with WWC comminuities taking much of the grief anyone who's not a Tory has got a pile of disaffected votes potentially available in traditional Labour heartlands.
    Yup, slower to switch but potentially loads (although i'd say the Cameroons could have got half of them a few years ago but they decided to poke them in the eye instead).
    Yes I think Cameron will regret not pursuing white van man for years to come, it's cost him 2 elections.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    "Is UKIP a pressure group that would be ultimately content to see its key demands implemented, irrespective of how they come about, or does it seek to ultimately govern one day?"

    I think UKIP have given up on the Conservatives as an anti-EU vehicle, and they're seeking to replace them.
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    Entertaining interview with Godrey Bloom that highlights many of Ukip's problems.

    Any fanatic want to bet that they will win a Westminster seat in 2015? Bookies odds are poor.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/20/ukip-godfrey-bloom-interview-punch?CMP=twt_gu
  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 672
    @millsy

    I see Godfrey is contemplating westminister in 2015. Doncaster North would be fun.

    Lab struggled to get the Doncaster mayoralty in 2013.. from UKIP.

    (edem have all gone UKIP up there)
  • @Millsy If I were a UKIP supporter I'd be more worried about Godfrey Bloom's comments about Nigel Farage's poor head in a crisis than about Godfrey Bloom's "eccentricities". Given that he knows the man very well, I'd be inclined to believe him on that.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,469
    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:
    You can't compare a national election result to a local election result then assume the difference is down to UKIP. The obvious way to do this is just to poll, since you can ask people how they voted last time. There's been a fair bit of polling like that, and it's very clear that UKIP are getting substantially more ex-Cons than ex-Labs. If this changes we'll see it in the polls, but there's very little sign that it is.
    "using the BBC’s national equivalent vote share projections, i.e. this is comparing like with like as it adjusts for the different range of seats up for election"
    No, that solves one problem, which is that there were only local elections in part of the country, but it doesn't solve the other, which is that people behave differently in national and local elections.
    But you accept that it's polling evidence of Labour losing more than Tory at least in that context.
    To UKIP? No, absolutely not. Assuming the national projections are right it's evidence that they're losing vote share to something from national to local election, but apathy is a better candidate than UKIP, as the left isn't exactly buzzing with Ed-Miliband-mania, and it tends to be harder to turn out younger, left-leaning demographics outside high-profile elections.
    Well it should be pretty obvious by now that pro Labour people are desperate to push the Tories away from a strategy that they know will hurt Tories first but Labour worst and from my point of view that's better so i don't care. The important thing is Ukip get it and they seem to have.
    The Left doesn't like the idea that they could lose traditional votes, since these have always been the bedrock of their support. Maybe it's the recession but atm with WWC comminuities taking much of the grief anyone who's not a Tory has got a pile of disaffected votes potentially available in traditional Labour heartlands.
    Yup, slower to switch but potentially loads (although i'd say the Cameroons could have got half of them a few years ago but they decided to poke them in the eye instead).
    Below, you said: "Power to affect the daily lives of Britons"

    How do you define 'Britons' ?
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    antifrank said:

    @Millsy If I were a UKIP supporter I'd be more worried about Godfrey Bloom's comments about Nigel Farage's poor head in a crisis than about Godfrey Bloom's "eccentricities". Given that he knows the man very well, I'd be inclined to believe him on that.

    I don't know how much to believe, he obviously doesn't like the way he's been treated. Is it possible there is some sort of agreement between Ukip and the Tories?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    "Is UKIP a pressure group that would be ultimately content to see its key demands implemented, irrespective of how they come about, or does it seek to ultimately govern one day?"

    I think UKIP have given up on the Conservatives as an anti-EU vehicle, and they're seeking to replace them.

    So how are they going to get a referendum any time within the next 10 years ?
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    "Is UKIP a pressure group that would be ultimately content to see its key demands implemented, irrespective of how they come about, or does it seek to ultimately govern one day?"

    I think UKIP have given up on the Conservatives as an anti-EU vehicle, and they're seeking to replace them.

    So how are they going to get a referendum any time within the next 10 years ?
    They'll just have to convince the voters.

    The main parties often put EU referendum offers in their election manifestos, none of them deliver.
  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 672
    @Alanbrooke

    "So how are they going to get a referendum any time within the next 10 years ?"

    If lab lose 4-5% pre May14 then your 30/30 seems quite possible. Farage has said several times Lab will likely go into the GE with a Referendum manifesto offer. Ed might actually do it if he thought he'd edge out of HP into lab majority.
  • Mr. Dave, Labour and the Lib Dems voted against a referendum, the Conservatives voted for one.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    It is useful to compare the UKIP performance this year with that of the SDP and Liberals at the same stage in the 1983-1987 Parliament . This year UKIP gained 140 odd seats in the CC elections in May , in 1985 the SDP and Liberals gained over 300 . In local by elections since May UKIP have gained net 3 seats ( 6 gains 3 losses ) , in 1985 the SDP and Liberals gained over 90 seats in council by elections June onwards with 11 gains in December 1985 alone .
    Despite this far superior performance the 1987 GE showed the Alliance slipping back slightly .and it is easy to conclude that the much weaker UKIP performance this year will lead to zero seats in 2015 .
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    Mr. Dave, Labour and the Lib Dems voted against a referendum, the Conservatives voted for one.

    In 2011 the Conservatives voted against.

    Their current "2017" offer is, I think, just a repackaged manifesto offering, that they have no intention of following thru on.

  • Mr. Dave, there was no 2010 manifesto promise by the Conservatives for a referendum. There was a 2005 promise for a referendum from all parties. One voted for it, two voted against it.

    The 2017 referendum is currently going through Parliament. If it gets through then not having a referendum would require, I think, a vote in the Commons at least.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited December 2013
    UKIP share of vote in each individual council division in this year's local elections, ranked from highest to lowest:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dFZZaXFjaVVfd1k1Sl8wa2ZMMXYydmc&type=view&gid=0&f=true&sortcolid=-1&sortasc=true&rowsperpage=2210
  • F1: not certain, but looks like Gutierrez will remain at Sauber. Time to amend the mega-article...
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    Mr. Dave, there was no 2010 manifesto promise by the Conservatives for a referendum. There was a 2005 promise for a referendum from all parties. One voted for it, two voted against it.

    The 2017 referendum is currently going through Parliament. If it gets through then not having a referendum would require, I think, a vote in the Commons at least.

    The point is, that when the Conservatives are actually in government, their support for a referendum disappears.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8847123/EU-referendum-how-the-MPs-voted.html

    It's just a box ticking exercise on a manifesto offer for them.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited December 2013
    shiney2 said:

    Farage has said several times Lab will likely go into the GE with a Referendum manifesto offer. Ed might actually do it if he thought he'd edge out of HP into lab majority.

    It's not that simple. If Miliband agrees to a referendum, the next question is whether he agrees to renegotiation. If he says no he's in a worse electoral position than if he'd just held the line and said "Jobs". If he says yes, he ends up getting into a unicorn-promising competition with Cameron, which will end badly for whichever of the two is unlucky enough to end up getting elected and being expected to deliver the unicorns.

    But the latter is worse for Lab than Con, because when the winning side comes back from the negotiations proudly clutching a small horse with a toilet paper tube taped to the top of its head, a Labour opposition would probably feel obliged go go along with it to avoid derailing the referendum campaign, whereas a Tory opposition would immediately denounce the sell-out.
  • Now some want to tax meat to reduce methane emissions to try and curb apparent global warming:
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/20/tax-meat-cut-methane-emissions-scientists

    How many years has temperature plateaued for? 10? 15? 20?
  • Mr. Dave, if it's a manifesto box-ticking exercise why didn't they have such a promise in the 2010 manifesto?

    Mr. Tokyo, I concur. I would be surprised if Labour back a referendum.
  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 672
    @eit

    PM is the prize for Ed or Dave.

    this is the last chance for both of them.

    All the rest is of lesser importance.
  • shiney2 said:

    @The Bown constituency surveys are the first hard evidence that UKIP support is lumpy, like the other 3 parties.

    I'm not saying you're wrong, but what is it in the Bown surveys that leads to that conclusion?

    FWIW I agree that their support would be a bit more concentrated than the Baxter numbers are assuming and they may well win seats on 15%, but from the point of view of who gets a majority the number of seats they'd end up with still doesn't really figure. For example, 15% and 10 seats would be a great achievement, but probably wouldn't affect who became PM.
    (My italics)

    10 MPs voting in parliament probably won't affect who becomes PM but the effect of 15% of those voting casting their ballots for UKIP might well do.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited December 2013

    Mr. Dave, if it's a manifesto box-ticking exercise why didn't they have such a promise in the 2010 manifesto?

    Their offer was "repatriation of powers", I'd suggest that's a variation on a referendum offer.

    "The steady and unaccountable intrusion of the European Union into almost every aspect of our lives has gone too far. A Conservative government will negotiate for three specific guarantees – on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, on criminal justice, and on social and employment legislation – with our European partners to return powers that we believe seek a mandate to negotiate the return of these "
This discussion has been closed.