politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Farage says that in many seats at GE2015 only UKIP will be

If the voter has switched their party since 2010 and their preference now is a right-of-centre party, then he or she might not be a Tory on Holiday (and I'd agree with that analysis), but they are a potential Tory on offer.

I still think that UKIP are making a major strategic error if they're aiming to concentrate on a handful of constituencies rather than maximising their vote across the country, but then that depends on what they think their party is for. Has Caroline Lucas winning really made that much difference to the Greens? Probably not, but even if you accept that she has, the Greens are in a wholly different position to UKIP: the eco-communists lose most of their deposits across the country; UKIP have piled up second places in by-elections this parliament. It made sense for the Greens to concentrate on their few possibilities when the mood of the country was so far from being with them; UKIP, on the other hand, could well achieve their principle objective - withdrawal from the EU - without needing any MPs if they can produce enough political pressure on those parties in parliament to grant a referendum. That pressure won't come from an MP or two in Westminster; it comes from affecting hundreds of results all over the country.

Farage's specific point is right: There will be a bunch of seats where Con is hopeless, and UKIP would be marginally less hopeless. The hitch from the united-right point of view is that the voters probably won't be particularly successful in working out which seats those are, and presumably UKIP activists in the seats where voting Con is the best strategic choice won't be working very hard to explain it to them.

One thing I guess voters are pretty good at working out is that where a party has an incumbent MP, that person is probably the best tactical choice. This would explain a decent part of the incumbency benefit that LibDem MPs get. So if UKIP fight all over the country you'd expect Con incumbents to out-perform the national party by more than normal. Meanwhile in Lab-held seats the Tories will be trading mendacious bar-charts with UKIP and splitting the opposition to the incumbent Lab MP.

All this seems to point to a very "sticky" election, where either side will need quite a serious improvement on their 2010 position to effect any change to the status quo.

PS. Having come here from Mike's twitter feed on Android I'd like to register a vote for "this Linkis thing is horrible". It seems to be much more interested in promoting itself than promoting the actual site, and took me straight into a pop-over thing that seemed to be broken on Android so I couldn't dismiss it. Then it takes up a chunk of the screen forever after with an entirely useless frame. I don't know about anyone else but when I run into things like this from Twitter with sites I'm going to for the first time I nearly always close the tab and read something else.

Patrick said:

David I'm not sure maximising their national vote share and targetting a few genuinely winnable seats are two incompatible things. They can and will do both.

Right, and if they want to resist a two-party squeeze they're going to have to convince the voters in every seat that they're a viable choice there. That's what Farage's line is setting them up for; it's not like they're going to be sending out leaflets with barcharts saying, "If you were in Seat X we'd be a good choice but don't bother voting for us here, it's hopeless"...

Easterross said:

Talk about running before he has learned to walk.

There is no "walk" in FPTP. It's either run or fall over. You won't get anywhere sending out leaflets with bar-charts on them saying, "Winning a respectable 4th place here".

Charles said:

It was interesting the comment that isam made a few threads back: that UKIP flooded a constituency with canvassers just before the poll.

It makes me think that these polls are not about political intelligence but are just about marketing. And they are specifically anti-Tory, whereas the polling data suggests that UKIP has potential to be much more than that.

It seems to me that there are 3 options: Farage doesn't care about letting Labour in (in which case he is naive); Farage has a grudge against the Tories (who knows); or that he just likes the publicity and knows that attacking the Tories will get his disproportionate attention from the media.

I suspect a combination of all 3.

But they are not that serious about winning seats.

I'm far from convinced that flooding a constituency ahead of a poll will make that much difference. The fact that Survation, rightly in my view, includes UKIP in its main party prompt is much more important.

My understanding is that Farage is deadly serious about getting Westminster MPs. He can't come out of another general election with a duck.

Excellent article from Chris Huhne in Guardian yesterday.

In Scotland, the unionists need to win hearts, not minds
An economic argument won't decide the independence referendum. What matters is whether Scots feel British

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/08/scotland-unionists-hearts-independence-referendum?commentpage=1

Stuart_Dickson said:

malcolmg said:

Excellent article from Chris Huhne in Guardian yesterday.

In Scotland, the unionists need to win hearts, not minds
An economic argument won't decide the independence referendum. What matters is whether Scots feel British

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/08/scotland-unionists-hearts-independence-referendum?commentpage=1

I was quite stunned by that article. Fascinating that Huhne has such a good grasp of the topic, because it is fairly obvious that Clegg hasn't got the faintest clue. This passage in particular was thought-provoking:

... Linda Colley's book Britons persuasively argues that the forging of Britishness during the 18th and 19th centuries was based on three elements. The first was a common Protestantism, whether in the established or dissenting churches. The second was the continued threat of a Catholic power, France, which had demonstrated its own intolerance for Protestantism in the flood of Huguenot refugees who enriched this country. Between the glorious revolution in 1688 and the battle of Waterloo in 1815 – the founding period of the British state – we were at war with France for 57 years. Look at Hogarth or Gillray to see what the 18th-century Briton thought of the French. France had doubled our population and was a fearsome threat to our trade, freedom and worship. There is nothing like war to unite a country.

The third factor in Britishness was empire. For the younger sons of impoverished Scottish gentry, the empire was booty. The conquest of Bengal alone funded countless country estates back in Britain. Imperialism meant jobs for the boys – particularly poorer Scottish boys.

All these sources of British identity are now extinct.

I look forward to the first Charlie Kennedy analysis of the IndyRef campaign.

And conversely, the SNP need to win the minds, not the hearts.

And they're not doing too good a job of it. There are too many unanswered questions, although I expect howls of anguish and complaint from you and others.

(BTW, I wish we could just remove Huhne out of politics. Why doesn't he just go back to one of his many houses and relax a little instead of pretending he is anything other than an odious little man?)

MikeSmithson said:

@JosiasJessop

. I wish we could just remove Huhne out of politics. Why doesn't he just go back to one of his many houses and relax a little instead of pretending he is anything other than an odious little man?)

What an nasty and ungenerous comment which says a lot more about you than Huhne who is a great loss to politics. His weekly Guardian columns have become a must read.


Has Huhne been lost to politics. His self rehabilitation has been a remarkable triumph of will over reality. He probably has more influence today than when he was in govt, or opposition.

MikeSmithson said:

JosiasJessop

. I wish we could just remove Huhne out of politics. Why doesn't he just go back to one of his many houses and relax a little instead of pretending he is anything other than an odious little man?)

What an nasty and ungenerous comment. Huhne is a great loss to politics and his weekly Guardian columns have become a must read.


Generous?

The likes of Huhne is exactly the reason that so many politicians are wrongly held in contempt, tarred with the same brush.

He's had his chance. He blew it, big time.

I'm sorry if you think it is nasty, but just look at the way he has led his personal and political life to see that 'nasty' best befits him. Remember 'Calamity Clegg'? Remember the brave way he told his wife he was leaving her?

I stick by my words: he is an odious little man.

The more he is in the public eye, the more he damages the Lib Dems. He knows it (it will be a form of revenge), and so does the Guardian.

Stuart_Dickson said:

Those betting on Ladbrokes' seat markets might be interested in this:

"LABOUR has selected former MSP Karen Whitefield as the party’s Falkirk candidate to replace the disgraced MP Eric Joyce at the next general election in 2015. Ms Whitefield, 43, who lost her Airdrie and Shotts seat in the 2011 Holyrood election, was previously chairwoman of the education committee in the Scottish Parliament."

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/falkirk-labour-choose-karen-whitefield-as-candidate-1-3225127

Falkirk is one of the very few Labour Westminster seats which has been mentioned as a possible SNP gain.

Ladbrokes - next UK GE

Over 6.5 SNP seats? 4/5
Under 6.5 seats? 11/10

Given her predilection for telling porkies and connections with Unite she seems a perfect choice by Len.

Stuart_Dickson said:

Jonathan said:

Huhne misses the fact that the economic argument is emotional. And so far it is really not going Salmonds way.

Wishful thinking there Jonathan. But, by all means, carry on.

Wishful in what way? I have no skin in this game. But when Scots tell me they are voting no, because they worry about their (or their kids') job I feel the economic argument is not entirely won.

Jonathan said:

Huhne misses the fact that the economic argument is emotional. And so far it is really not going Salmonds way.

Lot of economic fear out there.

Jonathan, There is but people are starting to realise it is either YES for a chance or NO for poverty. The tide has turned

JosiasJessop said:

MikeSmithson said:

JosiasJessop

. I wish we could just remove Huhne out of politics. Why doesn't he just go back to one of his many houses and relax a little instead of pretending he is anything other than an odious little man?)

What an nasty and ungenerous comment. Huhne is a great loss to politics and his weekly Guardian columns have become a must read.

Generous?

The likes of Huhne is exactly the reason that so many politicians are wrongly held in contempt, tarred with the same brush.

He's had his chance. He blew it, big time.

I'm sorry if you think it is nasty, but just look at the way he has led his personal and political life to see that 'nasty' best befits him. Remember 'Calamity Clegg'? Remember the brave way he told his wife he was leaving her?

I stick by my words: he is an odious little man.

The more he is in the public eye, the more he damages the Lib Dems. He knows it (it will be a form of revenge), and so does the Guardian.

Huhne obviously regards himself as to important to choose this method of atonement:

" After his resignation, Profumo began to work as a volunteer cleaning toilets at Toynbee Hall, a charity based in the East End of London, and continued to work there for the rest of his life.[1] Eventually, he volunteered as the charity's chief fundraiser. These charitable activities helped to restore the fallen politician's reputation; he was appointed a Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in 1975 "

JosiasJessop said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

john_zims said:

Someone who thinks they are above the law and drags their entire family down with their lies

You've probably just described half the members of the House of Commons.

Or MSPs, if you play that game.

Bill Walker, for instance?

Hardly 50% , and so far we have not seen anything like the levels of corruption in Holyrood as we see in Westminster. Telling that you choose the one bad SNP egg and do not mention the much more well known Tory and labour leaders who were ousted for fiddling money

edmundintokyo said:

Patrick said:

David I'm not sure maximising their national vote share and targetting a few genuinely winnable seats are two incompatible things. They can and will do both.

Right, and if they want to resist a two-party squeeze they're going to have to convince the voters in every seat that they're a viable choice there. That's what Farage's line is setting them up for; it's not like they're going to be sending out leaflets with barcharts saying, "If you were in Seat X we'd be a good choice but don't bother voting for us here, it's hopeless"...

We're in danger of viewing all breakthrough parties as having to operate through what we might call the Lib Dem prism: establish a local base, work the wards and constituency very hard, put out hundreds of thousands of newsletters and incrementally increase a presence over years.

That is undoubtedly one route to power but it's one that's taken the Lib Dems sixty years to take them from a taxicab-full of MPs to government, wheras UKIP have the potential to overtake the Lib Dems in votes come 2015 (I don't think they will, for what it's worth, but it certainly might happen).

We're also assuming that all voters care about affecting who is returned, which is patently untrue. There is bags of evidence that while some voters clearly care supporting a party that might be elected, or stopping one that might be, it's very far from all of them. For one thing, if that motivation were true, the same logic would apply at a national level and only Conservatives or Labour would ever be elected. UKIP can fish happily in this pool of voters without having to resort to barcharts: they simply need to campaign on rejecting the other three parties. Given that around 40% of the electorate didn't support any of them last time - either because they didn't vote at all or because they supported a minor party - and given that the Lib Dem option of 'not the others' is far less in play, I'd have thought that across most of the country 'Protest Now' or 'Vote Against the Lot of Them' would be more effective.

Mr. G, and other Scots, an odd question: ages ago (perhaps Picts rather than Scots) the Caledonians had an instrument used in war. Whether in battles themselves or as a ceremonial device I can't recall. It more or less resembled a large pole, atop which was a dragon's head (perhaps with a fluttering pennant/air sock type tail behind it). A sound was made by air passing through the dragon's mouth. I think it may also have been quite easy to tell what direction the sound/music was coming from.

Any idea what it was called? [I appreciate this is an obscure question. Something like the 2nd century AD is the timezone I think it was used].

john_zims said:

@malcolmg

'Jonathan, There is but people are starting to realise it is either YES for a chance or NO for poverty. The tide has turned'

So if the tide has turned & after Salmond's white paper a couple of weeks ago,what changes are you expecting in the next batch of polls?

The polls are mince, the weighting they use is useless. I expect nothing from them, unionists will keep kidding themselves they are doing well till the spring when the panic will set in as they see the light.

Incidentally, there's going to be an election in Thailand in response to the protests:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25252795

Apparently the protestors want an unelected People's Council.

malcolmg said:

Bobajob said:

@JJ

The guy has done his time. Let him get on with his life.

Bob, you have to be joking , Tories like Josias would have had him in public stocks for 10 years, they are such sticklers for the law.

1) I am not a Tory. But thanks for the compliment. ;-)

2) I would not have him in the stocks. But Huhne has lost all credibility. There are better - and wiser - people to whom we should listen, on all sides of politics. Give them their chance.

3) He has served his time. But that does not mean he is rehabilitated.

I wonder if we will see another Survation poll tonight then.

Both the Tories and Ukip are right - voting for the latter will let Labour in to many seats, but most Ukip supporters aren't natural Tory voters anyway. It will be a shame to see Ukip poll second to Labour in many urban, particularly northern seats, as it will just emphasise where the Conservatives have gone wrong.

The best thing Cameron and Co could do would be to give these disaffected voters something to vote for in the first place. A lot more to do there, but I hope we will get something closer to the election.

Millsy said:

I wonder if we will see another Survation poll tonight then.

Both the Tories and Ukip are right - voting for the latter will let Labour in to many seats, but most Ukip supporters aren't natural Tory voters anyway. It will be a shame to see Ukip poll second to Labour in many urban, particularly northern seats, as it will just emphasise where the Conservatives have gone wrong.

The best thing Cameron and Co could do would be to give these disaffected voters something to vote for in the first place. A lot more to do there, but I hope we will get something closer to the election.

Yes it's a tough one.

Should Cameron follow the Heineken strategy and give UKIP a run at some labour seats ?

The problem would of course be it would be seen as giving up on the North and cities, and he and Farage have just let it get too personal.

AveryLP said:

Yet more good news delivered on the ninth day of Advent

A very solid set of consumer expenditure figures for November reported in the "Visa Europe: UK Expenditure Index". Few will now be doubting that the economic recovery has solid foundations but it is always comforting to see this assumption confirmed by the latest metrics.

As Huhne attracts attention by opining on Scotland and Farage continues his search for a winnable constituency, George Osborne continues to deliver his good cheer through our shops.

Headline figures from Visa Report:

• Month-on-month consumer spending increased by +1.0% in November, following a modest decline in October (-1.4%).

• Year-on-year spending rose at the second-strongest rate for over three years (+1.5%), following a slight increase in October (+0.5%).

• Quarterly spending figures signalled that underlying expenditure improved at the strongest rate for seven months (+1.1%), following an increase in October (+0.8%).

• Non-seasonally adjusted year-on-year expenditure increased across all three monitored spending channels in November: Face-to-Face (+1.3%), Online (+1.0%) and Mail/Telephone Order (+2.6%).

Seasonal tinsel was added to the good cheer when Paul Smith, Senior Economist at Markit, commented:

“November’s UK Expenditure Index turned in a notable performance, with growth recorded on the high street and online. An overall annual rate of expansion of 1.5% is the best since June, and the data are consistent with the economy heading in Q4 for another quarter of least 0.8% q-o-q growth.

I can't see how borrowing and spending is that much good news. Isn't that what got us into the mess in the first place ?

MikeSmithson said:

@AveryLP You always look as though you are posting from CCHQ

You mean he isn't ? :-)

MikeK said:

david_herdson said:

If the voter has switched their party since 2010 and their preference now is a right-of-centre party, then he or she might not be a Tory on Holiday (and I'd agree with that analysis), but they are a potential Tory on offer.

I still think that UKIP are making a major strategic error if they're aiming to concentrate on a handful of constituencies rather than maximising their vote across the country, but then that depends on what they think their party is for. Has Caroline Lucas winning really made that much difference to the Greens? Probably not, but even if you accept that she has, the Greens are in a wholly different position to UKIP: the eco-communists lose most of their deposits across the country; UKIP have piled up second places in by-elections this parliament. It made sense for the Greens to concentrate on their few possibilities when the mood of the country was so far from being with them; UKIP, on the other hand, could well achieve their principle objective - withdrawal from the EU - without needing any MPs if they can produce enough political pressure on those parties in parliament to grant a referendum. That pressure won't come from an MP or two in Westminster; it comes from affecting hundreds of results all over the country.

From what I understand of UKIP plans for GE2015, the party intends to stand candidates in most if not all constituencies in the England, Scotland and Wales.

There will be targeted districts of course, but don't make the mistake of thinking that UKIP will not stand everywhere they can.

Why not Northern Ireland? They're UKIP, not GBIP.

david_herdson said:

We're in danger of viewing all breakthrough parties as having to operate through what we might call the Lib Dem prism: establish a local base, work the wards and constituency very hard, put out hundreds of thousands of newsletters and incrementally increase a presence over years.

That is undoubtedly one route to power but it's one that's taken the Lib Dems sixty years to take them from a taxicab-full of MPs to government, wheras UKIP have the potential to overtake the Lib Dems in votes come 2015 (I don't think they will, for what it's worth, but it certainly might happen).

We're also assuming that all voters care about affecting who is returned, which is patently untrue. There is bags of evidence that while some voters clearly care supporting a party that might be elected, or stopping one that might be, it's very far from all of them. For one thing, if that motivation were true, the same logic would apply at a national level and only Conservatives or Labour would ever be elected. UKIP can fish happily in this pool of voters without having to resort to barcharts: they simply need to campaign on rejecting the other three parties. Given that around 40% of the electorate didn't support any of them last time - either because they didn't vote at all or because they supported a minor party - and given that the Lib Dem option of 'not the others' is far less in play, I'd have thought that across most of the country 'Protest Now' or 'Vote Against the Lot of Them' would be more effective.

In defence of the LibDem prism, what you're advocating sounds a lot like what the Alliance did in 1983, except probably with a smaller vote share. The problem for Farage afterwards is that nobody takes much notice of vote share, especially when we're talking about 3rd vs 4th rather than 1st vs 2nd. Say UKIP fight a good national campaign, take 14% of the vote, beat the LibDems into 4th place, but get zero seats. What good thing happens next for them?

Probably posted before but well worth another link:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/12/by-george-britains-austerity-experiment-didnt-work.html

But from an economic perspective, Osborne’s argument is hogwash. His effort to cure the patient by subjecting it to the equivalent of leeching—big cuts in government spending and higher taxes—a return to pre-Keynesian policies watched closely the world over, failed abysmally.

Imposed at a time when the U.K.’s economy was recovering from the financial crisis of 2008-09, it subjected his countrymen and countrywomen to three more years of slump-like conditions, and it produced a dearth of public-sector and private-sector investment that will hobble Britain for years to come. It even failed to meet its own targets of drastically reducing the budget deficit and bringing down Britain’s over-all debt burden.

With the strong growth in engineering sector recruitment, it will be interesting to see whether the ONS manufacturing figures this week finally start to reflect the strong survey data of the last few months.

Also interesting to see the strongest growth in the Midlands.


"The latest Report on Jobs from the Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC) and KPMG has identified an easing in staff placements while salaries have risen at their sharpest rate in six years. Permanent and temporary appointments having continued to rise at strong, albeit slower rates with overall vacancies increasing at the fastest pace since July 1998. Permanent salary growth is now at a six-year high reflecting the decline in candidate availability.

Regionally speaking the increase in permanent placements was experienced in all four monitored English regions with the Midlands continuing to register the fastest growth. The Midlands also led a broad-based expansion of temporary/contract staff billings during November.

Private sector demand for staff remained stronger than public sector demand. Growth of demand was broad-based across all nine types of permanent staff monitored by the survey in November. The strongest rate of expansion was signalled for Engineering workers, as was the case in October."

http://www.theglobalrecruiter.com/news/latest-jobs-report-from-rec-shows-result-of-declining-candidate-availability/4755

BenM said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

Uncomfortable poll for Michael Gove. His beloved Swedish education system is in utter turmoil since plunging down the OECD rankings. Education in Sweden is the responsibility of local government (which is 2-tier, with the lowest tier being responsible for education), and now there is strong cross-party support for nationalising the education system. Surely Mr Gove will want to follow suit? After all, Sweden is his model for the English education system.

TNS Sifo/SVT
Re-nationalise schools?

Yes 61%
No 12%

http://www.svt.se/nyheter/sverige/svenskarna-vill-aterforstatliga-skolan

The Education Minister Jan Björklund (from the Peoples' Party, ie. Lib Dem) has gone on national TV to say he supports re-nationalisation.

The supporters of every single parliamentary party (there are 8 of them) back re-nationalisation. Support is weakest among the tiny Christian Democrats, but even among these supporters half of respondents want to re-nationalise.

Nationalisation of education has been talked about in Scotland, but I'm not aware of any support for it in England.

Uncomfortable?

I'd say the whole case for 'Free' Schools - flimsy thought it always was - has been completely demolished.

There is but a smoking ruin of an ideology and policy, which will be swept away by an incoming Labour government.

I doubt it. Free schools are a daft extension of Labour's academies, and most likely they will simply be absorbed into that programme. Proposing abrupt action risks repelling those voters who care -- the ones with children currently at these schools.

The toxic side effect of free schools that Conservative supporters should worry about is they have distracted Michael Gove from the school places shortage that developed while his eye was off the ball.

john_zims said:

@BenM

And Labour's state education legacy......a stunning bottom of the global league.

'Research by the respected Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that 16- to 24-year-olds lag close to the bottom of global league tables in literacy and numeracy.

According to figures, England is ranked 22nd out of 24 western countries in terms of literacy and 21st for numeracy – being outperformed by nations such as Estonia, Poland and Slovakia.'

There is something very noteworthy there -- the PISA figures imply synthetic phonics was not the panacea for illiteracy we hoped for.

edmundintokyo said:

david_herdson said:

We're in danger of viewing all breakthrough parties as having to operate through what we might call the Lib Dem prism: establish a local base, work the wards and constituency very hard, put out hundreds of thousands of newsletters and incrementally increase a presence over years.

That is undoubtedly one route to power but it's one that's taken the Lib Dems sixty years to take them from a taxicab-full of MPs to government, wheras UKIP have the potential to overtake the Lib Dems in votes come 2015 (I don't think they will, for what it's worth, but it certainly might happen).

We're also assuming that all voters care about affecting who is returned, which is patently untrue. There is bags of evidence that while some voters clearly care supporting a party that might be elected, or stopping one that might be, it's very far from all of them. For one thing, if that motivation were true, the same logic would apply at a national level and only Conservatives or Labour would ever be elected. UKIP can fish happily in this pool of voters without having to resort to barcharts: they simply need to campaign on rejecting the other three parties. Given that around 40% of the electorate didn't support any of them last time - either because they didn't vote at all or because they supported a minor party - and given that the Lib Dem option of 'not the others' is far less in play, I'd have thought that across most of the country 'Protest Now' or 'Vote Against the Lot of Them' would be more effective.

In defence of the LibDem prism, what you're advocating sounds a lot like what the Alliance did in 1983, except probably with a smaller vote share. The problem for Farage afterwards is that nobody takes much notice of vote share, especially when we're talking about 3rd vs 4th rather than 1st vs 2nd. Say UKIP fight a good national campaign, take 14% of the vote, beat the LibDems into 4th place, but get zero seats. What good thing happens next for them?

If UKIP get 14% then we will get some form of a Labour Govt (maybe with LDs) and no European referendum. Lib Dems happy, Labour happy and most UKIP MEPs and the Leadership happy as their party can continue "calling for a referendum" and they can continue on nice little earners at tax payers expense. The eurosceptics with principles will feel robbed and wonder why it happened. But that is where we are heading.

BBC "Some patients taken by ambulance to A&E departments are waiting in the vehicle for much longer than the recommended 15 minutes, with one case involving a six-hour delay, figures show. Data for ambulance services in England, Scotland and Wales, obtained by the BBC under the Freedom of Information Act, suggest Wales had the longest waits."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25268451

Will Labour in Wales deprive Ed Milliband of an attack line on the UK Government? Toby suggested that a few days ago in the Telegraph. An issue of "least worst"?

edmundintokyo said:

david_herdson said:

We're in danger of viewing all breakthrough parties as having to operate through what we might call the Lib Dem prism: establish a local base, work the wards and constituency very hard, put out hundreds of thousands of newsletters and incrementally increase a presence over years.

That is undoubtedly one route to power but it's one that's taken the Lib Dems sixty years to take them from a taxicab-full of MPs to government, wheras UKIP have the potential to overtake the Lib Dems in votes come 2015 (I don't think they will, for what it's worth, but it certainly might happen).

We're also assuming that all voters care about affecting who is returned, which is patently untrue. There is bags of evidence that while some voters clearly care supporting a party that might be elected, or stopping one that might be, it's very far from all of them. For one thing, if that motivation were true, the same logic would apply at a national level and only Conservatives or Labour would ever be elected. UKIP can fish happily in this pool of voters without having to resort to barcharts: they simply need to campaign on rejecting the other three parties. Given that around 40% of the electorate didn't support any of them last time - either because they didn't vote at all or because they supported a minor party - and given that the Lib Dem option of 'not the others' is far less in play, I'd have thought that across most of the country 'Protest Now' or 'Vote Against the Lot of Them' would be more effective.

In defence of the LibDem prism, what you're advocating sounds a lot like what the Alliance did in 1983, except probably with a smaller vote share. The problem for Farage afterwards is that nobody takes much notice of vote share, especially when we're talking about 3rd vs 4th rather than 1st vs 2nd. Say UKIP fight a good national campaign, take 14% of the vote, beat the LibDems into 4th place, but get zero seats. What good thing happens next for them?

Unlike the Alliance, UKIP are a pressure-group political party with a clear number one objective. That this objective might not be of overriding importance to many voters is beside the point - it's a key component of their identity. Voters might not much notice whether UKIP finish third or fourth but the other parties will. Voters won't much notice whether UKIP have no MPs or ten of them: it probably wouldn't have that much impact on the overall Westminster picture (as opposed to the national vote share required to give them ten MPs, which would *very much* impact the overall Westminster picture, but then that's the point).

If UKIP secure 14% but win no seats, I'd say it's far more likely that there'll be an In/Out EU referendum than if they win one seat on 5%. That, for them, is a very good thing.

david_herdson said:

edmundintokyo said:

david_herdson said:

We're in danger of viewing all breakthrough parties as having to operate through what we might call the Lib Dem prism: establish a local base, work the wards and constituency very hard, put out hundreds of thousands of newsletters and incrementally increase a presence over years.
That is undoubtedly one route to power but it's one that's taken the Lib Dems sixty years to take them from a taxicab-full of MPs to government, wheras UKIP have the potential to overtake the Lib Dems in votes come 2015 (I don't think they will, for what it's worth, but it certainly might happen).
We're also assuming that all voters care about affecting who is returned, which is patently untrue. There is bags of evidence that while some voters clearly care supporting a party that might be elected, or stopping one that might be, it's very far from all of them. For one thing, if that motivation were true, the same logic would apply at a national level and only Conservatives or Labour would ever be elected. UKIP can fish happily in this pool of voters without having to resort to barcharts: they simply need to campaign on rejecting the other three parties. Given that around 40% of the electorate didn't support any of them last time - either because they didn't vote at all or because they supported a minor party - and given that the Lib Dem option of 'not the others' is far less in play, I'd have thought that across most of the country 'Protest Now' or 'Vote Against the Lot of Them' would be more effective.

In defence of the LibDem prism, what you're advocating sounds a lot like what the Alliance did in 1983, except probably with a smaller vote share. The problem for Farage afterwards is that nobody takes much notice of vote share, especially when we're talking about 3rd vs 4th rather than 1st vs 2nd. Say UKIP fight a good national campaign, take 14% of the vote, beat the LibDems into 4th place, but get zero seats. What good thing happens next for them?

....
If UKIP secure 14% but win no seats, I'd say it's far more likely that there'll be an In/Out EU referendum than if they win one seat on 5%.

Why would a Lab-LD Govt do that?

david_herdson said:

edmundintokyo said:

david_herdson said:

We're in danger of viewing all breakthrough parties as having to operate through what we might call the Lib Dem prism: establish a local base, work the wards and constituency very hard, put out hundreds of thousands of newsletters and incrementally increase a presence over years.

That is undoubtedly one route to power but it's one that's taken the Lib Dems sixty years to take them from a taxicab-full of MPs to government, wheras UKIP have the potential to overtake the Lib Dems in votes come 2015 (I don't think they will, for what it's worth, but it certainly might happen).

We're also assuming that all voters care about affecting who is returned, which is patently untrue. There is bags of evidence that while some voters clearly care supporting a party that might be elected, or stopping one that might be, it's very far from all of them. For one thing, if that motivation were true, the same logic would apply at a national level and only Conservatives or Labour would ever be elected. UKIP can fish happily in this pool of voters without having to resort to barcharts: they simply need to campaign on rejecting the other three parties. Given that around 40% of the electorate didn't support any of them last time - either because they didn't vote at all or because they supported a minor party - and given that the Lib Dem option of 'not the others' is far less in play, I'd have thought that across most of the country 'Protest Now' or 'Vote Against the Lot of Them' would be more effective.

In defence of the LibDem prism, what you're advocating sounds a lot like what the Alliance did in 1983, except probably with a smaller vote share. The problem for Farage afterwards is that nobody takes much notice of vote share, especially when we're talking about 3rd vs 4th rather than 1st vs 2nd. Say UKIP fight a good national campaign, take 14% of the vote, beat the LibDems into 4th place, but get zero seats. What good thing happens next for them?

Unlike the Alliance, UKIP are a pressure-group political party with a clear number one objective. That this objective might not be of overriding importance to many voters is beside the point - it's a key component of their identity. Voters might not much notice whether UKIP finish third or fourth but the other parties will. Voters won't much notice whether UKIP have no MPs or ten of them: it probably wouldn't have that much impact on the overall Westminster picture (as opposed to the national vote share required to give them ten MPs, which would *very much* impact the overall Westminster picture, but then that's the point).

If UKIP secure 14% but win no seats, I'd say it's far more likely that there'll be an In/Out EU referendum than if they win one seat on 5%. That, for them, is a very good thing.

Isn't it the prospect of losing seats that will make the other parties sit up and take notice? Admittedly with just vote share one side or the other will lose seats to the other to the extent that UKIP snaffle their voters disproportionately, but since that party ends up being out of power while the other party ends up being motivated to keep UKIP's USP alive for as long as possible, it's not obvious that they'd be moving the ball forward on their specific objectives.

BenM said:

JosiasJessop said:

BenM said:

john_zims said:

@BenM

And Labour's state education legacy......a stunning bottom of the global league.

'Research by the respected Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that 16- to 24-year-olds lag close to the bottom of global league tables in literacy and numeracy.

According to figures, England is ranked 22nd out of 24 western countries in terms of literacy and 21st for numeracy – being outperformed by nations such as Estonia, Poland and Slovakia.'

Gove and pals were shouting about how they were fixing that.

Looks like we're going tinto reverse in Education under the Tories. Again.

We were already in reverse under Labour - see the results. It is obvious that despite the mantra of 'education, education, education', the schools were getting worse and not equipping our children with the skills they need.

If something is failing to such a degree, it is worth trying a different approach. Just because it fails in one place, does not mean the same concepts applied differently will not work. But it is a worrying indication.

But a return to the 1997-2010 status quo is also not an option.

School standards definitely improved under Labour - you need to understand how disastrous standards were under the last Tory government (and PISA was not around then, conveniently).

And what people outside the Tory bubble fear from Tory meddling in education is that kind of slump again.

History did not start in 1997.

Conservative supporters are prone to forget that most of the education changes for which they blame Labour were in fact made by Conservative governments. Grammar schools, corporal punishment and O-levels all went under the Tories, who introduced GCSEs and the national curriculum when they weren't selling off playing fields.