politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ukip sees 4 point drop in its projected national vote share
BBC announces that Provisional National Vote share in yesterday's locals was
Con 29
Lab 31
LD 13
UKIP 17
Comments
-
Why is the Beeb authoritative on this point?0
-
It's hard to assess how good/bad this is for UKIP, given the metropolitan bias of these seats. It certainly doesn't look like an unstoppable purple tide. On the face of it, these figures look pretty respectable for the Conservatives and the Lib Dems, all things considered.0
-
Yebbut this year there were loads of London and other urban council areas! That may have reduced the UKIP %?
Sunday's Euro figures are what we should be looking forward to!-1 -
The proper comparison should surely be with the 2010 PNS, yes?0
-
I think the projected national vote share forecast takes the demographic differentials into account.Sunil_Prasannan said:Yebbut this year there were loads of London and other urban council areas! That may have reduced the UKIP %?
Sunday's Euro figures are what we should be looking forward to!
0 -
I can't see how it's respectable for the Lib Dems. They always ALWAYS do better in local elections because people distinguish between hyper-active local LD councillors who "understand the community" and the national leadership (which has probably become even moreso in the coalition years). So that suggests that 10-11% is their ceiling in next year's general election, which would not exactly be a very good result.antifrank said:It's hard to assess how good/bad this is for UKIP, given the metropolitan bias of these seats. It certainly doesn't look like an unstoppable purple tide. On the face of it, these figures look pretty respectable for the Conservatives and the Lib Dems, all things considered.
0 -
Fair enough. Just looked up a Zone 1-3 travel card, which were the sort of properties I'm looking at. That's £140. Four bedroom house would have bills or maybe £100 a month, and council tax the same, divided by the four residents. So let's say it's £400 saving a month.OblitusSumMe said:
I think travel cards are generally a bit more than £100 per month. Zone 1-5 on the tube is more than £200, and I don't think that even includes use of the bus.Socrates said:
What do they do? If they're single on £25,000 a year, then that's £1662 a month. If you rent with three mates, you could get somewhere at £2500 pcm, or £625 each. £50 on groceries a week. £100 a month on a travel card. You've got £700 left. Knock off £200 for socialising and other things that come up, and you've got £500 to save each month. £6k a year.taffys said:They already do it with help to buy, now they need help to build.
My daughter has just started work in London after uni. We live in surrey and don;t charge any rent so she gets to save what she earns.
Its much worse for every one of her friends. After rent, tax, travel and food they have nothing. Zip. Nada. Nix. They can't dream of a deposit, never mind a home of their own. When I started working in London thirty years ago central properties were expensive, but what were then the grottier boroughs were within some sort of compass. Now nothing is. Nothing at all.
We have some young people at the office I work who are the same. They have nothing, bless em and no prospect whatsoever of owning.
Plus your putative renter hasn't paid for any electricity, water, council tax, etc, assuming that's not included in their rent.0 -
Last years local were in different areas that were more UKIP friendly... this isnt a surprise
UKIP didnt even stand a full slate in most of London
Mike has managed to write two thread headers in the last 12 hours that make it seem like UKIP haven't done all that well... maybe he should turn his hand to fiction!
0 -
Anyone know the 2010 PNS figures?0
-
That is irrelevant if we believe that the methodology behind the calculation of the Projected National Shares is any good.antifrank said:It's hard to assess how good/bad this is for UKIP, given the metropolitan bias of these seats....
I don't know how good the methodology is, and even if it's brilliant it might struggle if the change in UKIPs vote has been uneven demographically - which appears to be the case.Stephen Fisher said:the PNS is an attempt to estimate what the share of the vote would be if the whole of GB had local elections and if the three main Westminster parties had fielded candidates in all wards, as they do in general elections.
0 -
1. UKIPs 2014 PNS has increased 7/10ths since their 2009 vote syched with the last Euro vote, when they were 2nd ahead of Lab! Bodes well for EP2014 OGH.
2. LDs PNS is continuing to fall year on year. Have they hit bottom yet, 11 months from the GE?
PS Malckie Bruce nailed by BBC Norman over the house line of "LDs still holding on in their target seats" - just look at London.0 -
Best to wait till R & T deliver their verdict, IMHO. They use data from many more wards than the BBC do.0
-
0
-
ALWAYS is a dangerous word. It's always when the Lib Dems are fluffily popular. I'm not convinced the same will be true when they're lazily unpopular.Danny565 said:
I can't see how it's respectable for the Lib Dems. They always ALWAYS do better in local elections because people distinguish between hyper-active local LD councillors who "understand the community" and the national leadership (which has probably become even moreso in the coalition years). So that suggests that 10-11% is their ceiling in next year's general election, which would not exactly be a very good result.antifrank said:It's hard to assess how good/bad this is for UKIP, given the metropolitan bias of these seats. It certainly doesn't look like an unstoppable purple tide. On the face of it, these figures look pretty respectable for the Conservatives and the Lib Dems, all things considered.
But I now wouldn't be surprised if the Lib Dems were to poll around 13% next year. I don't see where they're going to get a major new stash of votes.0 -
Thanks, but I saw those on Wiki - what I want is the UKIP score that year...dyedwoolie said:0 -
Because this is the number they publish every year as the local elections result. It's similar to NEV.Ishmael_X said:Why is the Beeb authoritative on this point?
0 -
Agree that LDs looking like a 12% to 14% party at the GE.antifrank said:
ALWAYS is a dangerous word. It's always when the Lib Dems are fluffily popular. I'm not convinced the same will be true when they're lazily unpopular.Danny565 said:
I can't see how it's respectable for the Lib Dems. They always ALWAYS do better in local elections because people distinguish between hyper-active local LD councillors who "understand the community" and the national leadership (which has probably become even moreso in the coalition years). So that suggests that 10-11% is their ceiling in next year's general election, which would not exactly be a very good result.antifrank said:It's hard to assess how good/bad this is for UKIP, given the metropolitan bias of these seats. It certainly doesn't look like an unstoppable purple tide. On the face of it, these figures look pretty respectable for the Conservatives and the Lib Dems, all things considered.
But I now wouldn't be surprised if the Lib Dems were to poll around 13% next year. I don't see where they're going to get a major new stash of votes.
0 -
Have their been any records of the absolute national share of the vote each year (as opposed to a 'projection')?0
-
It was about 4%, 9 councillor a, net loss of 4Sunil_Prasannan said:
Thanks, but I saw those on Wiki - what I want is the UKIP score that year...dyedwoolie said:
0 -
Norman Smith - impressive on BBC with his local analysis. Real focus on facts.
Usually not my cup of tea.0 -
Have we heard from RodCrosby yet? Would like to get his take on what this means for 2015.0
-
The local results give us some big clues which MPs are likely to hold on with local support and which look as if they're in serious trouble.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Agree that LDs looking like a 12% to 14% party at the GE.antifrank said:
ALWAYS is a dangerous word. It's always when the Lib Dems are fluffily popular. I'm not convinced the same will be true when they're lazily unpopular.Danny565 said:
I can't see how it's respectable for the Lib Dems. They always ALWAYS do better in local elections because people distinguish between hyper-active local LD councillors who "understand the community" and the national leadership (which has probably become even moreso in the coalition years). So that suggests that 10-11% is their ceiling in next year's general election, which would not exactly be a very good result.antifrank said:It's hard to assess how good/bad this is for UKIP, given the metropolitan bias of these seats. It certainly doesn't look like an unstoppable purple tide. On the face of it, these figures look pretty respectable for the Conservatives and the Lib Dems, all things considered.
But I now wouldn't be surprised if the Lib Dems were to poll around 13% next year. I don't see where they're going to get a major new stash of votes.0 -
Thanks, assuming that's right, it's a 13% rise for UKIP, not a 4% drop.dyedwoolie said:
It was about 4%, 9 councillor a, net loss of 4Sunil_Prasannan said:
Thanks, but I saw those on Wiki - what I want is the UKIP score that year...dyedwoolie said:0 -
2014 vs. 2010 PNS
Tory -6
Lab +4
UKIP +13
LD -130 -
So bye-bye Vince?antifrank said:
The local results give us some big clues which MPs are likely to hold on with local support and which look as if they're in serious trouble.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Agree that LDs looking like a 12% to 14% party at the GE.antifrank said:
ALWAYS is a dangerous word. It's always when the Lib Dems are fluffily popular. I'm not convinced the same will be true when they're lazily unpopular.Danny565 said:
I can't see how it's respectable for the Lib Dems. They always ALWAYS do better in local elections because people distinguish between hyper-active local LD councillors who "understand the community" and the national leadership (which has probably become even moreso in the coalition years). So that suggests that 10-11% is their ceiling in next year's general election, which would not exactly be a very good result.antifrank said:It's hard to assess how good/bad this is for UKIP, given the metropolitan bias of these seats. It certainly doesn't look like an unstoppable purple tide. On the face of it, these figures look pretty respectable for the Conservatives and the Lib Dems, all things considered.
But I now wouldn't be surprised if the Lib Dems were to poll around 13% next year. I don't see where they're going to get a major new stash of votes.0 -
Just checked BBC figs and Cons have lost -178 and LDs -241. The Cons were however defending double the number that the LDs were defending. So far the LD loss rate is 39%.0
-
Completely unverified twitter rumour...
ashok kumar @broseph_stalin 2m
Getting word that Lutfur Rahman is on the road to victory results in at 5
0 -
Is Labour 31% the lowest ever national share of the vote for the main opposition party in a mid-term local election?0
-
Nick Robinson tweets: "UKIP not party of power yet but are party with power to disrupt. BBC National Vote Share - Lab 29%, Con 25%, UKIP 23% & Lib Dems 14%."
Just saw this on the BEEB thread. It seems to be more up to date, and intuitively feels about right based on the results.
0 -
That's not a bet I shall be rushing to place.Anorak said:
So bye-bye Vince?antifrank said:
The local results give us some big clues which MPs are likely to hold on with local support and which look as if they're in serious trouble.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Agree that LDs looking like a 12% to 14% party at the GE.antifrank said:
ALWAYS is a dangerous word. It's always when the Lib Dems are fluffily popular. I'm not convinced the same will be true when they're lazily unpopular.Danny565 said:
I can't see how it's respectable for the Lib Dems. They always ALWAYS do better in local elections because people distinguish between hyper-active local LD councillors who "understand the community" and the national leadership (which has probably become even moreso in the coalition years). So that suggests that 10-11% is their ceiling in next year's general election, which would not exactly be a very good result.antifrank said:It's hard to assess how good/bad this is for UKIP, given the metropolitan bias of these seats. It certainly doesn't look like an unstoppable purple tide. On the face of it, these figures look pretty respectable for the Conservatives and the Lib Dems, all things considered.
But I now wouldn't be surprised if the Lib Dems were to poll around 13% next year. I don't see where they're going to get a major new stash of votes.0 -
I'd probably vote for Vince. And he's one of the only Lib Dems I'd say that about.Anorak said:
So bye-bye Vince?antifrank said:
The local results give us some big clues which MPs are likely to hold on with local support and which look as if they're in serious trouble.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Agree that LDs looking like a 12% to 14% party at the GE.antifrank said:
ALWAYS is a dangerous word. It's always when the Lib Dems are fluffily popular. I'm not convinced the same will be true when they're lazily unpopular.Danny565 said:
I can't see how it's respectable for the Lib Dems. They always ALWAYS do better in local elections because people distinguish between hyper-active local LD councillors who "understand the community" and the national leadership (which has probably become even moreso in the coalition years). So that suggests that 10-11% is their ceiling in next year's general election, which would not exactly be a very good result.antifrank said:It's hard to assess how good/bad this is for UKIP, given the metropolitan bias of these seats. It certainly doesn't look like an unstoppable purple tide. On the face of it, these figures look pretty respectable for the Conservatives and the Lib Dems, all things considered.
But I now wouldn't be surprised if the Lib Dems were to poll around 13% next year. I don't see where they're going to get a major new stash of votes.0 -
Labour regain Harrow from NOC. Lab 34, Con 26, Ind 2, LD 1, almost identical to 20100
-
Except that's last year's figures.tyson said:Nick Robinson tweets: "UKIP not party of power yet but are party with power to disrupt. BBC National Vote Share - Lab 29%, Con 25%, UKIP 23% & Lib Dems 14%."
Just saw this on the BEEB thread. It seems to be more up to date, and intuitively feels about right based on the results.0 -
Those are 2013s figurestyson said:Nick Robinson tweets: "UKIP not party of power yet but are party with power to disrupt. BBC National Vote Share - Lab 29%, Con 25%, UKIP 23% & Lib Dems 14%."
Just saw this on the BEEB thread. It seems to be more up to date, and intuitively feels about right based on the results.
0 -
They got 29% last year.GIN1138 said:Is Labour 31% the lowest ever national share of the vote for the main opposition party in a mid-term local election?
0 -
No, 29% last year wasGIN1138 said:Is Labour 31% the lowest ever national share of the vote for the main opposition party in a mid-term local election?
0 -
Aren't those last year's numbers?tyson said:Nick Robinson tweets: "UKIP not party of power yet but are party with power to disrupt. BBC National Vote Share - Lab 29%, Con 25%, UKIP 23% & Lib Dems 14%."
Just saw this on the BEEB thread. It seems to be more up to date, and intuitively feels about right based on the results.
0 -
That is not current but 2013 1!tyson said:Nick Robinson tweets: "UKIP not party of power yet but are party with power to disrupt. BBC National Vote Share - Lab 29%, Con 25%, UKIP 23% & Lib Dems 14%."
Just saw this on the BEEB thread. It seems to be more up to date, and intuitively feels about right based on the results.0 -
Looks like BBC will have LAB close to 300 gains. On SKY will be lucky to reach 230 why?0
-
Historical point. Strange death of Sotonian liberalism.
In the early 2000s the LDs were the largest party on Southampton Council.
This year their 3 last remaining cllrs all lost their seats.
Maybe they all moved to Eastleigh?
(actually one moved back).
0 -
I bet that makes the big noises in the Labour Party feel comfortable. "Good news, people! We are up 2% from our lowest ever, in fact the lowest ever, national vote share for the main opposition party in a mid-term local election. Yup! I kid you not, we have now hit 31%! Let us all get off down the pub and celebrate the great leader's genius in leading us to this wonderful place."dyedwoolie said:
No, 29% last year wasGIN1138 said:Is Labour 31% the lowest ever national share of the vote for the main opposition party in a mid-term local election?
0 -
SkyNewsElections @skyelections 53s
Locals - Con hold #Trafford #LE20140 -
If it is indeed true that UKIP's PNS has fallen back by as many as 6 points compared with last year, then we are heading for the curious position of it being a somewhat poor result for everyone.0
-
Great newsdr_spyn said:SkyNewsElections @skyelections 53s
Locals - Con hold #Trafford #LE20140 -
anotherDave said:
They got 29% last year.GIN1138 said:Is Labour 31% the lowest ever national share of the vote for the main opposition party in a mid-term local election?
Thanks.dyedwoolie said:
No, 29% last year wasGIN1138 said:Is Labour 31% the lowest ever national share of the vote for the main opposition party in a mid-term local election?
I sat out last years locals due to having an operation the day before the vote.
0 -
Another tweet.state_go_away said:
Great newsdr_spyn said:SkyNewsElections @skyelections 53s
Locals - Con hold #Trafford #LE2014
Andy Sweeting @andysweeting85 36s
Bollocks #Trafford
0 -
If true, that's a surprise. Compare and contrast with adjacent Manchester, where 95 out of 96 councillors now are Labour.dr_spyn said:SkyNewsElections @skyelections 53s
Locals - Con hold #Trafford #LE2014
0 -
A telling comment on the Guardian's liveblog:
The Tories have helpfully sent me a list of Labour figures criticising the leadership today.
Most of them have featured in the blog already, but here are a few I've missed.
[quotes from Mann/Stringer/Healey]
If Labour want to sent me quotes from Conservative MPs criticising David Cameron, or CCHQ, I would be more than happy to post those too. But they haven't. In fact, I've had one email from them all day. Frankly, their press operation has been rather useless.0 -
Brent is 56 Labour, 6 Con, 1 Lib Dem.0
-
Absolutely awful, Mr. Nabavi, poor for everyone. However, I think one party might be celebrating next Monday. I think UKIP are going to exceed expectations in the Euros.Richard_Nabavi said:If it is indeed true that UKIP's PNS has fallen back by as many as 6 points compared with last year, then we are heading for the curious position of it being a somewhat poor result for everyone.
0 -
Comparing apples and oranges. The last time these seats were contested was 2010. Changes wrt. 2010 are Tories -6, Lab +4, UKIP +13, LD -13.Richard_Nabavi said:If it is indeed true that UKIP's PNS has fallen back by as many as 6 points compared with last year, then we are heading for the curious position of it being a somewhat poor result for everyone.
0 -
Labour have completed the wipeout in Manchester, every single councillor is now red (with one indy red). Paddy Power will still give you 1/8 on Manchester Withington going from Ld to Lab in 2015, despite it being 44.6% vs 40.5%, a majority of less than 2000.
Feel free to fill your boots if you feel, as I do, that it's basically a 12.5% AAA Bond.0 -
What news of AIFE? I assume like UKIP they stood in the locals?0
-
I don't think UKIP contested many of the seats,antifrank said:
If true, that's a surprise. Compare and contrast with adjacent Manchester, where 95 out of 96 councillors now are Labour.dr_spyn said:SkyNewsElections @skyelections 53s
Locals - Con hold #Trafford #LE2014
http://www.trafford.gov.uk/about-your-council/elections/local-election-2014-live-results.aspx
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/live-local-elections-2014-results-71498480 -
A good result for Survation at least? Their local election poll seems to have been very accurate.Richard_Nabavi said:If it is indeed true that UKIP's PNS has fallen back by as many as 6 points compared with last year, then we are heading for the curious position of it being a somewhat poor result for everyone.
0 -
The whole point of the PNS is to create a metric that can be compared year to year.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Comparing apples and oranges. The last time these seats were contested was 2010. Changes wrt. 2010 are Tories -6, Lab +4, UKIP +13, LD -13.Richard_Nabavi said:If it is indeed true that UKIP's PNS has fallen back by as many as 6 points compared with last year, then we are heading for the curious position of it being a somewhat poor result for everyone.
0 -
Yes, I agree with that. In fact I posted a comment late last night speculating that, because of split-ticket votes and higher Euro election enthusiasm helping them in areas where there are not locals, UKIP might do relatively less well in the locals but clean up in the Euros. I wouldn't be surprised if the Greens also do relatively well in the Euros, at the expense of the LibDems and Labour. Overall I'm still predicting UKIP/Lab/Con/Green/LD as the order. We shall see!HurstLlama said:Absolutely awful, Mr. Navabi, poor for everyone. However, I think one party might be celebrating next Monday. I think UKIP are going to exceed expectations in the Euros.
0 -
No, they didn't.Bond_James_Bond said:What news of AIFE? I assume like UKIP they stood in the locals?
0 -
I've seen a lot of frothers here at PB, but I think that you have just broken the record with that post.Bond_James_Bond said:
No, UKIP are everybody's enemy. They are not some cheery little insurgency - they are vicious, intolerant, minority-hating loonies. The "independence" tag is just a lie. They are a sboʍ-out party who given the opportunity would start repatriating and expropriating. They are just the BNP in blazers.Stuart_Dickson said:@Bond_James_Bond - "To the benefit of Farage's fascist party, unfortunately."
A disgraceful remark. You and your type are a liability to the Conservative Party.
UKIP are your opponents, not your enemy.
No. I voted for them to enrage kippers; seems to be working. Nobody can explain to me what MEPs do, or what difference having MEPs of this rather than that party actually makes. So it is an opportunity for frivolity. AIFE appears to be the frivolous work a fairly typically frivolous kipper who is enraged at losing his place at the trough, so he starts a spoiler party. I'm helping him to spoil things, particularly for kippers.Richard_Tyndall said:Can we assume that since you voted for AIFE you are also a closet racist?
0 -
Surely though Stephen Fisher's modelling fails on the basis of the comment OGH has quoted above:Grandiose said:
The whole point of the PNS is to create a metric that can be compared year to year.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Comparing apples and oranges. The last time these seats were contested was 2010. Changes wrt. 2010 are Tories -6, Lab +4, UKIP +13, LD -13.Richard_Nabavi said:If it is indeed true that UKIP's PNS has fallen back by as many as 6 points compared with last year, then we are heading for the curious position of it being a somewhat poor result for everyone.
“the PNS is an attempt to estimate what the share of the vote would be if the whole of GB had local elections and if the three main Westminster parties had fielded candidates in all wards, as they do in general elections.”
We are no longer dealing with 3 parties but 4. How does the model work for that?0 -
Are there no actual records of absolute % of votes cast for each set of Locals? Genuine question.Grandiose said:
The whole point of the PNS is to create a metric that can be compared year to year.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Comparing apples and oranges. The last time these seats were contested was 2010. Changes wrt. 2010 are Tories -6, Lab +4, UKIP +13, LD -13.Richard_Nabavi said:If it is indeed true that UKIP's PNS has fallen back by as many as 6 points compared with last year, then we are heading for the curious position of it being a somewhat poor result for everyone.
0 -
The Greens have apparently tallied 10% of the vote in the local seats where they stood. I still think they may surprise significantly on the upside in the European elections.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, I agree with that. In fact I posted a comment late last night speculating that, because of split-ticket votes and higher Euro election enthusiasm helping them in areas where there are not locals, UKIP might do relatively less well in the locals but clean up in the Euros. I wouldn't be surprised if the Greens also do relatively well in the Euros, at the expense of the LibDems and Labour. So I'm still predicting UKIP/Lab/Con/Green/LD as the order. We shall see!HurstLlama said:Absolutely awful, Mr. Navabi, poor for everyone. However, I think one party might be celebrating next Monday. I think UKIP are going to exceed expectations in the Euros.
0 -
Yes but its tricky for a surging party off a tiny base like UKIP has to do it I'd imagine as they might have polled the same numbers in Tooting and Boston, but because Tooting has come up this time and Boston hasn't the swing doesn't look so great.Grandiose said:
The whole point of the PNS is to create a metric that can be compared year to year.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Comparing apples and oranges. The last time these seats were contested was 2010. Changes wrt. 2010 are Tories -6, Lab +4, UKIP +13, LD -13.Richard_Nabavi said:If it is indeed true that UKIP's PNS has fallen back by as many as 6 points compared with last year, then we are heading for the curious position of it being a somewhat poor result for everyone.
0 -
Trafford is, to simplify, the 'posh part' of Manchester and has an impressively strong Tory ground-force. If Labour had taken Trafford it would be a big win, I agree it's slightly surprising they haven't even won the two seats needed to make it NOC.antifrank said:
If true, that's a surprise. Compare and contrast with adjacent Manchester, where 95 out of 96 councillors now are Labour.dr_spyn said:SkyNewsElections @skyelections 53s
Locals - Con hold #Trafford #LE20140 -
The pesky Residents Association doing for UKIP in Havering
http://democracy.havering.gov.uk/mgElectionResults.aspx?ID=3&RPID=10012559490 -
He is just upset because he voted for BNP-lite.Stuart_Dickson said:
I've seen a lot of frothers here at PB, but I think that you have just broken the record with that post.Bond_James_Bond said:
No, UKIP are everybody's enemy. They are not some cheery little insurgency - they are vicious, intolerant, minority-hating loonies. The "independence" tag is just a lie. They are a sboʍ-out party who given the opportunity would start repatriating and expropriating. They are just the BNP in blazers.Stuart_Dickson said:@Bond_James_Bond - "To the benefit of Farage's fascist party, unfortunately."
A disgraceful remark. You and your type are a liability to the Conservative Party.
UKIP are your opponents, not your enemy.
No. I voted for them to enrage kippers; seems to be working. Nobody can explain to me what MEPs do, or what difference having MEPs of this rather than that party actually makes. So it is an opportunity for frivolity. AIFE appears to be the frivolous work a fairly typically frivolous kipper who is enraged at losing his place at the trough, so he starts a spoiler party. I'm helping him to spoil things, particularly for kippers.Richard_Tyndall said:Can we assume that since you voted for AIFE you are also a closet racist?
0 -
Betfair - In-Play - European Parliament Election 2014 - Most Votes
UKIP 1.29
Lab 3.65
Con 42
Betfair - In-Play - European Parliament Election 2014 - Most Seats
UKIP 1.43
Lab 2.78
Con 270 -
I wonder why not? I wonder much the same about UKIP in local government. What is the earthly point of having a party, whose main belief is that it hates immigrants, deciding on bin collection days and what roads should have humps on them?Socrates said:
No, they didn't.Bond_James_Bond said:What news of AIFE? I assume like UKIP they stood in the locals?
0 -
Labour hang onto Plymouth, but lose 3 to UKIP.0
-
Neil Hamilton on BBC News 24, Dimbleby cheekily asks him if he'll be the UKIP candidate for Tatton next year.0
-
The BEEB is putting on year old tweets on its news thread. Obviously a long day for some folk.state_go_away said:
That is not current but 2013 1!tyson said:Nick Robinson tweets: "UKIP not party of power yet but are party with power to disrupt. BBC National Vote Share - Lab 29%, Con 25%, UKIP 23% & Lib Dems 14%."
Just saw this on the BEEB thread. It seems to be more up to date, and intuitively feels about right based on the results.0 -
To call UKIP "fascists" but then vote for AIFE, who are generally acknowledged to be the real "BNP in blazers". Simply bonkers.Richard_Tyndall said:
He is just upset because he voted for BNP-lite.Stuart_Dickson said:
I've seen a lot of frothers here at PB, but I think that you have just broken the record with that post.Bond_James_Bond said:
No, UKIP are everybody's enemy. They are not some cheery little insurgency - they are vicious, intolerant, minority-hating loonies. The "independence" tag is just a lie. They are a sboʍ-out party who given the opportunity would start repatriating and expropriating. They are just the BNP in blazers.Stuart_Dickson said:@Bond_James_Bond - "To the benefit of Farage's fascist party, unfortunately."
A disgraceful remark. You and your type are a liability to the Conservative Party.
UKIP are your opponents, not your enemy.
No. I voted for them to enrage kippers; seems to be working. Nobody can explain to me what MEPs do, or what difference having MEPs of this rather than that party actually makes. So it is an opportunity for frivolity. AIFE appears to be the frivolous work a fairly typically frivolous kipper who is enraged at losing his place at the trough, so he starts a spoiler party. I'm helping him to spoil things, particularly for kippers.Richard_Tyndall said:Can we assume that since you voted for AIFE you are also a closet racist?
0 -
If we are to believe @MikeSmithson, this is now the election that everyone lost.
Someone must have won. How did the Anarcho-Socialist Conservative Party go on?0 -
How long does it take to count the votes in Tower Hamlets...
Should have announced a result by now !
It is no Sunderland South.0 -
5pm is here and it's time for rum. Have a good long weekend everyone.0
-
Shadow chancellor Ed Balls says results "not good enough yet for Labour" and party had more to do to show it could deliver change.
ferrets in a sack.0 -
The answer is I don't know, but that would be a potential failing in the model itself rather than its underlying purpose, which is to produce something that doesn't rely on comparing results with four years previously.Richard_Tyndall said:
Surely though Stephen Fisher's modelling fails on the basis of the comment OGH has quoted above:Grandiose said:
The whole point of the PNS is to create a metric that can be compared year to year.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Comparing apples and oranges. The last time these seats were contested was 2010. Changes wrt. 2010 are Tories -6, Lab +4, UKIP +13, LD -13.Richard_Nabavi said:If it is indeed true that UKIP's PNS has fallen back by as many as 6 points compared with last year, then we are heading for the curious position of it being a somewhat poor result for everyone.
“the PNS is an attempt to estimate what the share of the vote would be if the whole of GB had local elections and if the three main Westminster parties had fielded candidates in all wards, as they do in general elections.”
We are no longer dealing with 3 parties but 4. How does the model work for that?0 -
And won't St. Nigel be hopping mad when he sees how many votes the People's Front of Judaea lost to the Judaean People's Front?Richard_Tyndall said:
He is just upset because he voted for BNP-lite.Stuart_Dickson said:
I've seen a lot of frothers here at PB, but I think that you have just broken the record with that post.Bond_James_Bond said:
No, UKIP are everybody's enemy. They are not some cheery little insurgency - they are vicious, intolerant, minority-hating loonies. The "independence" tag is just a lie. They are a sboʍ-out party who given the opportunity would start repatriating and expropriating. They are just the BNP in blazers.Stuart_Dickson said:@Bond_James_Bond - "To the benefit of Farage's fascist party, unfortunately."
A disgraceful remark. You and your type are a liability to the Conservative Party.
UKIP are your opponents, not your enemy.
No. I voted for them to enrage kippers; seems to be working. Nobody can explain to me what MEPs do, or what difference having MEPs of this rather than that party actually makes. So it is an opportunity for frivolity. AIFE appears to be the frivolous work a fairly typically frivolous kipper who is enraged at losing his place at the trough, so he starts a spoiler party. I'm helping him to spoil things, particularly for kippers.Richard_Tyndall said:Can we assume that since you voted for AIFE you are also a closet racist?
Even if it's one he'll still be angry. He's an angry sort of chap.
On what specific issues does UKIP disagree with AIFE Richard? ITYF it's none. They're both identically disgusting.
I voted Labour in Brent East in 2005. I can't stand Labour, but I figured if I could help keep it marginal by doing so, the two leftist envy parties would have fewer resources to contest other marginals where the outcome did matter.0 -
It must be a rather strange hatred for immigrants, considering their leader is married to one. Your hatred for UKIP is completely disconnected from reality.Bond_James_Bond said:
I wonder why not? I wonder much the same about UKIP in local government. What is the earthly point of having a party, whose main belief is that it hates immigrants, deciding on bin collection days and what roads should have humps on them?Socrates said:
No, they didn't.Bond_James_Bond said:What news of AIFE? I assume like UKIP they stood in the locals?
0 -
Plymouth Moor View was one of the tips from the Revolt on the Right book. Looks like they knew their stuff.Sean_F said:Labour hang onto Plymouth, but lose 3 to UKIP.
0 -
That sounds like a measured and accurate comment. With the likes of Ed Balls, Theresa May and Steve Webb, we have some extremely good politicians - it's just the public don't have much interest in noticing them.dr_spyn said:Shadow chancellor Ed Balls says results "not good enough yet for Labour" and party had more to do to show it could deliver change.
ferrets in a sack.0 -
UKIP tightening on the upper % bands over at Shadsy's:
Ladbrokes - 2014 UK Euro Parliamentary Elections - UKIP GB Vote Share
under 15% 100/1
15-20% 33/1
20-25% 4/1
25-30% 13/8
30-35% 15/8
35-40% 5/1
Over 40% 16/10 -
Well UKIP believes that former BNP members should not be allowed to join the party, while AIFE welcomes them with open arms.Bond_James_Bond said:On what specific issues does UKIP disagree with AIFE Richard? ITYF it's none. They're both identically disgusting.
0 -
If the vote share for the locals is as close as it seems does this mean the chance of a Labour second place could be in doubt for the euros?0
-
You don't have to hate all immigrants to hate some or indeed many immigrants. Your party leader knows the difference.Socrates said:
It must be a rather strange hatred for immigrants, considering their leader is married to one. Your hatred for UKIP is completely disconnected from reality.Bond_James_Bond said:
I wonder why not? I wonder much the same about UKIP in local government. What is the earthly point of having a party, whose main belief is that it hates immigrants, deciding on bin collection days and what roads should have humps on them?Socrates said:
No, they didn't.Bond_James_Bond said:What news of AIFE? I assume like UKIP they stood in the locals?
0 -
Still avoiding the point Bond. You voted for the racists who were kicked out of UKIP. The ones who wanted to do the deals with the BNP.Bond_James_Bond said:
And won't St. Nigel be hopping mad when he sees how many votes the People's Front of Judaea lost to the Judaean People's Front?Richard_Tyndall said:
He is just upset because he voted for BNP-lite.Stuart_Dickson said:
I've seen a lot of frothers here at PB, but I think that you have just broken the record with that post.Bond_James_Bond said:
No, UKIP are everybody's enemy. They are not some cheery little insurgency - they are vicious, intolerant, minority-hating loonies. The "independence" tag is just a lie. They are a sboʍ-out party who given the opportunity would start repatriating and expropriating. They are just the BNP in blazers.Stuart_Dickson said:@Bond_James_Bond - "To the benefit of Farage's fascist party, unfortunately."
A disgraceful remark. You and your type are a liability to the Conservative Party.
UKIP are your opponents, not your enemy.
No. I voted for them to enrage kippers; seems to be working. Nobody can explain to me what MEPs do, or what difference having MEPs of this rather than that party actually makes. So it is an opportunity for frivolity. AIFE appears to be the frivolous work a fairly typically frivolous kipper who is enraged at losing his place at the trough, so he starts a spoiler party. I'm helping him to spoil things, particularly for kippers.Richard_Tyndall said:Can we assume that since you voted for AIFE you are also a closet racist?
Even if it's one he'll still be angry. He's an angry sort of chap.
On what specific issues does UKIP disagree with AIFE Richard? ITYF it's none. They're both identically disgusting.
I voted Labour in Brent East in 2005. I can't stand Labour, but I figured if I could help keep it marginal by doing so, the two leftist envy parties would have fewer resources to contest other marginals where the outcome did matter.
I think I am content with my assertion of what that says about you and your beliefs no matter how much you might squirm about it.
Next time why not just have the courage of your convictions and vote BNP. It would at least be more honest.
0 -
Socrates said:
It must be a rather strange hatred for immigrants, considering their leader is married to one. Your hatred for UKIP is completely disconnected from reality.Bond_James_Bond said:
I wonder why not? I wonder much the same about UKIP in local government. What is the earthly point of having a party, whose main belief is that it hates immigrants, deciding on bin collection days and what roads should have humps on them?Socrates said:
No, they didn't.Bond_James_Bond said:What news of AIFE? I assume like UKIP they stood in the locals?
Not at all. The Campaign for a Free Galilee wants to take half of my staff and send them all back.Socrates said:
It must be a rather strange hatred for immigrants, considering their leader is married to one. Your hatred for UKIP is completely disconnected from reality.Bond_James_Bond said:
I wonder why not? I wonder much the same about UKIP in local government. What is the earthly point of having a party, whose main belief is that it hates immigrants, deciding on bin collection days and what roads should have humps on them?Socrates said:
No, they didn't.Bond_James_Bond said:What news of AIFE? I assume like UKIP they stood in the locals?
Farage's "strange hatred for immigrants" is the same as greens' hatred for cars: it's just common or garden hypocrisy. He hates other people's cars / immigrants, but he has one himself because he unlike them really, you know, needs his. So of course he doesn't see a problem.0 -
I wouldn't expect so, because if (as we all assume) UKIP got a much larger share in the Euros than that implied by the locals, that increase probably came disproportionately from the Tories.felix said:If the vote share for the locals is as close as it seems does this mean the chance of a Labour second place could be in doubt for the euros?
0 -
I agree with you about Balls' comments. I can't see how a senior member of the party admitting they have not yet got it right can be considered 'ferrets in a sack'.antifrank said:
That sounds like a measured and accurate comment. With the likes of Ed Balls, Theresa May and Steve Webb, we have some extremely good politicians - it's just the public don't have much interest in noticing them.dr_spyn said:Shadow chancellor Ed Balls says results "not good enough yet for Labour" and party had more to do to show it could deliver change.
ferrets in a sack.
0 -
25-30% 13/8Stuart_Dickson said:UKIP tightening on the upper % bands over at Shadsy's:
Ladbrokes - 2014 UK Euro Parliamentary Elections - UKIP GB Vote Share
under 15% 100/1
15-20% 33/1
20-25% 4/1
25-30% 13/8
30-35% 15/8
35-40% 5/1
Over 40% 16/1
30-35% 15/8
Weren't those both 7-4 earlier ?0 -
So there is not one single ex-BNP member in UKIP? Yeah, right.Socrates said:
Well UKIP believes that former BNP members should not be allowed to join the party, while AIFE welcomes them with open arms.Bond_James_Bond said:On what specific issues does UKIP disagree with AIFE Richard? ITYF it's none. They're both identically disgusting.
The Popular Front of Judea.
0 -
Matthew Goodwin @GoodwinMJ 3m
In Labour-run Wolverhampton #UKIP retain their seat and finished 2nd in 17 out of 19 other local contests0 -
To finish second in 17 out of 19 seats suggests exceptionally poor targeting.isam said:Matthew Goodwin @GoodwinMJ 3m
In Labour-run Wolverhampton #UKIP retain their seat and finished 2nd in 17 out of 19 other local contests0 -
Either that or there's a difference between opposing mass immigration, and hating individual immigrants. I accept this is a difficult point for some to grasp.Bond_James_Bond said:Farage's "strange hatred for immigrants" is the same as greens' hatred for cars: it's just common or garden hypocrisy. He hates other people's cars / immigrants, but he has one himself because he unlike them really, you know, needs his. So of course he doesn't see a problem.
0
