politicalbetting.com » Page not found

Neil said:

I dont think UKIP particularly need a 3 or 4 way marginal to win a seat. I think they could win a straight 2-horse-race in a number of seats that are more suited to them than Eastleigh or Newark were.

blackburn63 said:

johnstevens said:

I fear if they focus, Rennard-like on their 10 or so best chance seats, which I suspect they have already identified, it would be surprising if they did not win a few. Perhaps even enough to be a factor in the most likely highly complex post election situation. It would be very rash to imagine they will fade away, because the fundamental causes of their rise are not going to fade away. The establishment parties do not yet have an adequate response to these IMV.

johnstevens said:

I fear if they focus, Rennard-like on their 10 or so best chance seats, which I suspect they have already identified, it would be surprising if they did not win a few. Perhaps even enough to be a factor in the most likely highly complex post election situation. It would be very rash to imagine they will fade away, because the fundamental causes of their rise are not going to fade away. The establishment parties do not yet have an adequate response to these IMV.

Correct. Ukip will target 20/30 seats in clusters and throw all resources at them. I'd confidently predict 12-15 seats in the south east, mainly Kent and Essex.

johnstevens said:

@blackburn63
However the numbers targeted will be reduced by the fact that some Conservative MPs in those two counties particularly will not be run against, because they will pledge to vote to leave the EU regardless of any renegotiation secured by David Cameron, if he is still PM, or to vote for a leader who favours withdrawal from the EU if he is not.

AndyJS said:

I would say UKIP's best chances are as follows:

Thanet S
Thanet N
Folkestone
Boston
Louth
Walsall N
Dudley N
Stoke N
Stoke S
Rotherham
Hartlepool
Great Grimsby
Great Yarmouth
Camborne
Bognor Regis
Worthing E
Castle Point
Harlow
St Ives
Devon N
Forest of Dean

I've excluded Eastleigh because of the LD's excellent performance there in this year's local elections.

FormerToryOrange said:

I've hypothesised about this before, but would be interested in hearing views.

Suppose the vote shares at the GE are something like this (quite plausible):

Cons 37
Lab 31
UKIP 13
Libs 12

And the seat distribution something like this (again, quite plausible):

Cons ~300
Lab ~285
Libs ~35
UKIP ~0

Surely this would re-open the debate on the voting system. I voted to remain with FPTP because the alternative was AV. I would also vote to stay with FPTP if the alternative was STV, but any list based system would get my vote at present. FPTP is the best system about - if you have a 2 party system. It is decidedly dubious when there are 3 major parties, but can still just about work. With 4 parties, it becomes entirely ludicrous.

I wouldn't be altogether against AMS, the system used for the Scottish parliament, being used for Westminster, but my preference would be a regional list system with constituencies electing approximately 8-12 members each. This would be simple to create, just join together 8-12 existing constituencies and use the d'Hondt system.

blackburn63 said:

johnstevens said:

I fear if they focus, Rennard-like on their 10 or so best chance seats, which I suspect they have already identified, it would be surprising if they did not win a few. Perhaps even enough to be a factor in the most likely highly complex post election situation. It would be very rash to imagine they will fade away, because the fundamental causes of their rise are not going to fade away. The establishment parties do not yet have an adequate response to these IMV.

johnstevens said:

I fear if they focus, Rennard-like on their 10 or so best chance seats, which I suspect they have already identified, it would be surprising if they did not win a few. Perhaps even enough to be a factor in the most likely highly complex post election situation. It would be very rash to imagine they will fade away, because the fundamental causes of their rise are not going to fade away. The establishment parties do not yet have an adequate response to these IMV.

Correct. Ukip will target 20/30 seats in clusters and throw all resources at them. I'd confidently predict 12-15 seats in the south east, mainly Kent and Essex.

ToryJim said:

FormerToryOrange said:

I've hypothesised about this before, but would be interested in hearing views.

Suppose the vote shares at the GE are something like this (quite plausible):

Cons 37
Lab 31
UKIP 13
Libs 12

And the seat distribution something like this (again, quite plausible):

Cons ~300
Lab ~285
Libs ~35
UKIP ~0

Surely this would re-open the debate on the voting system. I voted to remain with FPTP because the alternative was AV. I would also vote to stay with FPTP if the alternative was STV, but any list based system would get my vote at present. FPTP is the best system about - if you have a 2 party system. It is decidedly dubious when there are 3 major parties, but can still just about work. With 4 parties, it becomes entirely ludicrous.

I wouldn't be altogether against AMS, the system used for the Scottish parliament, being used for Westminster, but my preference would be a regional list system with constituencies electing approximately 8-12 members each. This would be simple to create, just join together 8-12 existing constituencies and use the d'Hondt system.

List systems are thoroughly abhorrent, the selection of members should be by the entire electorate not half a dozen unrepresentative party hacks.

FormerToryOrange said:

I've hypothesised about this before, but would be interested in hearing views.

Suppose the vote shares at the GE are something like this (quite plausible):

Cons 37
Lab 31
UKIP 13
Libs 12

And the seat distribution something like this (again, quite plausible):

Cons ~300
Lab ~285
Libs ~35
UKIP ~0

Surely this would re-open the debate on the voting system. I voted to remain with FPTP because the alternative was AV. I would also vote to stay with FPTP if the alternative was STV, but any list based system would get my vote at present. FPTP is the best system about - if you have a 2 party system. It is decidedly dubious when there are 3 major parties, but can still just about work. With 4 parties, it becomes entirely ludicrous.

I wouldn't be altogether against AMS, the system used for the Scottish parliament, being used for Westminster, but my preference would be a regional list system with constituencies electing approximately 8-12 members each. This would be simple to create, just join together 8-12 existing constituencies and use the d'Hondt system.

Morris_Dancer said:

Forgot to put this up (for the final time), before.

Thrilling race in Canada which could prove critical for the title. Read my post-race analysis here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/canada-post-race-analysis.html

As mentioned earlier, I've now backed Hamilton at 1.9 with Ladbrokes for the title. I would not advocate this as a single bet, but if you followed my pre-season tip on Rosberg at 16 (Ladbrokes) you can be green either way (or my tip at 24 for Rosberg with Betfair, Hamilton was just over evens last time I checked).

Charles said:

FormerToryOrange said:

I've hypothesised about this before, but would be interested in hearing views.

Suppose the vote shares at the GE are something like this (quite plausible):

Cons 37
Lab 31
UKIP 13
Libs 12

And the seat distribution something like this (again, quite plausible):

Cons ~300
Lab ~285
Libs ~35
UKIP ~0

Surely this would re-open the debate on the voting system. I voted to remain with FPTP because the alternative was AV. I would also vote to stay with FPTP if the alternative was STV, but any list based system would get my vote at present. FPTP is the best system about - if you have a 2 party system. It is decidedly dubious when there are 3 major parties, but can still just about work. With 4 parties, it becomes entirely ludicrous.

I wouldn't be altogether against AMS, the system used for the Scottish parliament, being used for Westminster, but my preference would be a regional list system with constituencies electing approximately 8-12 members each. This would be simple to create, just join together 8-12 existing constituencies and use the d'Hondt system.

List systems are profoundly undemocratic. They only conceivably work with open primaries and the ability to change the order in the list if you want

Luckyguy1983 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

There's nothing irrational about Religious faith.

How is it rational then?

Rationality is the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational

The idea that there is an intelligent force behind the universe is no less supported by reason than the idea that there isn't. It supplies an answer to what science has yet to (and to all intents and purposes will never) explain -why are we here? So there were four gasses before the big bang -who put them there? Who flicked the switch between existence and non-existence?

The most irrational idea of all is that God doesn't exist because it's not possible to prove or measure his existence -what luddite nonsense is this? We used to believe that the earth was flat, and that illnesses were caused by the four humours. Then we discovered the world of cells and microbes, then atoms etc. The idea that the creator of heaven and earth can't be there because our current scientific tools cannot detect him is totally anti-scientific -in fact it's blind faith.

FormerToryOrange said:

I've hypothesised about this before, but would be interested in hearing views.

Suppose the vote shares at the GE are something like this (quite plausible):

Cons 37
Lab 31
UKIP 13
Libs 12

And the seat distribution something like this (again, quite plausible):

Cons ~300
Lab ~285
Libs ~35
UKIP ~0

Surely this would re-open the debate on the voting system. I voted to remain with FPTP because the alternative was AV. I would also vote to stay with FPTP if the alternative was STV, but any list based system would get my vote at present. FPTP is the best system about - if you have a 2 party system. It is decidedly dubious when there are 3 major parties, but can still just about work. With 4 parties, it becomes entirely ludicrous.

I wouldn't be altogether against AMS, the system used for the Scottish parliament, being used for Westminster, but my preference would be a regional list system with constituencies electing approximately 8-12 members each. This would be simple to create, just join together 8-12 existing constituencies and use the d'Hondt system.

corporeal said:

Charles said:

FormerToryOrange said:

I've hypothesised about this before, but would be interested in hearing views.

Suppose the vote shares at the GE are something like this (quite plausible):

Cons 37
Lab 31
UKIP 13
Libs 12

And the seat distribution something like this (again, quite plausible):

Cons ~300
Lab ~285
Libs ~35
UKIP ~0

Surely this would re-open the debate on the voting system. I voted to remain with FPTP because the alternative was AV. I would also vote to stay with FPTP if the alternative was STV, but any list based system would get my vote at present. FPTP is the best system about - if you have a 2 party system. It is decidedly dubious when there are 3 major parties, but can still just about work. With 4 parties, it becomes entirely ludicrous.

I wouldn't be altogether against AMS, the system used for the Scottish parliament, being used for Westminster, but my preference would be a regional list system with constituencies electing approximately 8-12 members each. This would be simple to create, just join together 8-12 existing constituencies and use the d'Hondt system.

List systems are profoundly undemocratic. They only conceivably work with open primaries and the ability to change the order in the list if you want

List systems can be both open and closed.

But they're not profoundly undemocratic.

corporeal said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

There's nothing irrational about Religious faith.

How is it rational then?

Rationality is the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational

The idea that there is an intelligent force behind the universe is no less supported by reason than the idea that there isn't. It supplies an answer to what science has yet to (and to all intents and purposes will never) explain -why are we here? So there were four gasses before the big bang -who put them there? Who flicked the switch between existence and non-existence?

The most irrational idea of all is that God doesn't exist because it's not possible to prove or measure his existence -what luddite nonsense is this? We used to believe that the earth was flat, and that illnesses were caused by the four humours. Then we discovered the world of cells and microbes, then atoms etc. The idea that the creator of heaven and earth can't be there because our current scientific tools cannot detect him is totally anti-scientific -in fact it's blind faith.

And their might be a teapot in orbit (or since this is the internet, a flying spaghetti monster).

RodCrosby said:

FormerToryOrange said:

I've hypothesised about this before, but would be interested in hearing views.

Suppose the vote shares at the GE are something like this (quite plausible):

Cons 37
Lab 31
UKIP 13
Libs 12

And the seat distribution something like this (again, quite plausible):

Cons ~300
Lab ~285
Libs ~35
UKIP ~0

Surely this would re-open the debate on the voting system. I voted to remain with FPTP because the alternative was AV. I would also vote to stay with FPTP if the alternative was STV, but any list based system would get my vote at present. FPTP is the best system about - if you have a 2 party system. It is decidedly dubious when there are 3 major parties, but can still just about work. With 4 parties, it becomes entirely ludicrous.

I wouldn't be altogether against AMS, the system used for the Scottish parliament, being used for Westminster, but my preference would be a regional list system with constituencies electing approximately 8-12 members each. This would be simple to create, just join together 8-12 existing constituencies and use the d'Hondt system.

I think you need to do a bit more research on voting systems.
Closed list D'Hondt in 8-12 member seats? So safe seats are even safer than before, and independent-minded MPs are even less likely to emerge than at present...

An STV-like system is the best, even if not pure STV itself. Smallish constituencies, and voter choice between candidates.

PR^2, for example, would retain the exaggerative qualities of FPTP (overall majority possible in a good year), with no bias, while also delivering the above-mentioned benefits.

johnstevens said:

@FormerTory Orange.
I differ from blackburn63 on this. I think UKIP will not run in quite a few seats, perhaps as many as 50, perhaps even more, if the sitting Conservative MPs give pledges that help their overall strategy, and to undermine DC's credibility. They will also not run in a few token Labour seats, such as Kate Hoey's. But they will draw the terms in such a way that they will not generally be prevented from contesting those seats they really think they have a chance of winning. The only other limiting factor on this approach will be their desire to secure a large national vote share, which could undermine the legitimacy of the next GE along the lines suggested by @ToryJIm. A crisis of legitimacy for the current system is, after all, a key anti-establishment goal. But a real grip on the Tory Party, and/or on the EU referendum, is the paramount purpose.

FormerToryOrange said:

I've hypothesised about this before, but would be interested in hearing views.

Suppose the vote shares at the GE are something like this (quite plausible):

Cons 37
Lab 31
UKIP 13
Libs 12

And the seat distribution something like this (again, quite plausible):

Cons ~300
Lab ~285
Libs ~35
UKIP ~0

Surely this would re-open the debate on the voting system. I voted to remain with FPTP because the alternative was AV. I would also vote to stay with FPTP if the alternative was STV, but any list based system would get my vote at present. FPTP is the best system about - if you have a 2 party system. It is decidedly dubious when there are 3 major parties, but can still just about work. With 4 parties, it becomes entirely ludicrous.

I wouldn't be altogether against AMS, the system used for the Scottish parliament, being used for Westminster, but my preference would be a regional list system with constituencies electing approximately 8-12 members each. This would be simple to create, just join together 8-12 existing constituencies and use the d'Hondt system.

corporeal said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

There's nothing irrational about Religious faith.

How is it rational then?

Rationality is the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational

The idea that there is an intelligent force behind the universe is no less supported by reason than the idea that there isn't. It supplies an answer to what science has yet to (and to all intents and purposes will never) explain -why are we here? So there were four gasses before the big bang -who put them there? Who flicked the switch between existence and non-existence?

The most irrational idea of all is that God doesn't exist because it's not possible to prove or measure his existence -what luddite nonsense is this? We used to believe that the earth was flat, and that illnesses were caused by the four humours. Then we discovered the world of cells and microbes, then atoms etc. The idea that the creator of heaven and earth can't be there because our current scientific tools cannot detect him is totally anti-scientific -in fact it's blind faith.

And their might be a teapot in orbit (or since this is the internet, a flying spaghetti monster).

anotherDave said:

FormerToryOrange said:

I've hypothesised about this before, but would be interested in hearing views.

Suppose the vote shares at the GE are something like this (quite plausible):

Cons 37
Lab 31
UKIP 13
Libs 12

And the seat distribution something like this (again, quite plausible):

Cons ~300
Lab ~285
Libs ~35
UKIP ~0

Surely this would re-open the debate on the voting system. I voted to remain with FPTP because the alternative was AV. I would also vote to stay with FPTP if the alternative was STV, but any list based system would get my vote at present. FPTP is the best system about - if you have a 2 party system. It is decidedly dubious when there are 3 major parties, but can still just about work. With 4 parties, it becomes entirely ludicrous.

I wouldn't be altogether against AMS, the system used for the Scottish parliament, being used for Westminster, but my preference would be a regional list system with constituencies electing approximately 8-12 members each. This would be simple to create, just join together 8-12 existing constituencies and use the d'Hondt system.

Labour and the Conservatives won't want to change from FPTP, and given we had a referendum in this parliament I don't think there'll be any public pressure for it.

If the LDs are necessary for a coalition, then they might well demand it as a condition, but then, if they have a very bad result in 2015, perhaps they'll learn to love FPTP too.

FormerToryOrange said:

corporeal said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

There's nothing irrational about Religious faith.

How is it rational then?

Rationality is the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational

The idea that there is an intelligent force behind the universe is no less supported by reason than the idea that there isn't. It supplies an answer to what science has yet to (and to all intents and purposes will never) explain -why are we here? So there were four gasses before the big bang -who put them there? Who flicked the switch between existence and non-existence?

The most irrational idea of all is that God doesn't exist because it's not possible to prove or measure his existence -what luddite nonsense is this? We used to believe that the earth was flat, and that illnesses were caused by the four humours. Then we discovered the world of cells and microbes, then atoms etc. The idea that the creator of heaven and earth can't be there because our current scientific tools cannot detect him is totally anti-scientific -in fact it's blind faith.

And their might be a teapot in orbit (or since this is the internet, a flying spaghetti monster).

Straw Man Alert. Indeed there might be, but nobody cares whether there is or not, and it makes no difference to anyone.

anotherDave said:

FormerToryOrange said:

I've hypothesised about this before, but would be interested in hearing views.

Suppose the vote shares at the GE are something like this (quite plausible):

Cons 37
Lab 31
UKIP 13
Libs 12

And the seat distribution something like this (again, quite plausible):

Cons ~300
Lab ~285
Libs ~35
UKIP ~0

Surely this would re-open the debate on the voting system. I voted to remain with FPTP because the alternative was AV. I would also vote to stay with FPTP if the alternative was STV, but any list based system would get my vote at present. FPTP is the best system about - if you have a 2 party system. It is decidedly dubious when there are 3 major parties, but can still just about work. With 4 parties, it becomes entirely ludicrous.

I wouldn't be altogether against AMS, the system used for the Scottish parliament, being used for Westminster, but my preference would be a regional list system with constituencies electing approximately 8-12 members each. This would be simple to create, just join together 8-12 existing constituencies and use the d'Hondt system.

Labour and the Conservatives won't want to change from FPTP, and given we had a referendum in this parliament I don't think there'll be any public pressure for it.

If the LDs are necessary for a coalition, then they might well demand it as a condition, but then, if they have a very bad result in 2015, perhaps they'll learn to love FPTP too.

FormerToryOrange said:

Charles said:

corporeal said:

Charles said:

FormerToryOrange said:

I've hypothesised about this before, but would be interested in hearing views.

Suppose the vote shares at the GE are something like this (quite plausible):

Cons 37
Lab 31
UKIP 13
Libs 12

And the seat distribution something like this (again, quite plausible):

Cons ~300
Lab ~285
Libs ~35
UKIP ~0

Surely this would re-open the debate on the voting system. I voted to remain with FPTP because the alternative was AV. I would also vote to stay with FPTP if the alternative was STV, but any list based system would get my vote at present. FPTP is the best system about - if you have a 2 party system. It is decidedly dubious when there are 3 major parties, but can still just about work. With 4 parties, it becomes entirely ludicrous.

I wouldn't be altogether against AMS, the system used for the Scottish parliament, being used for Westminster, but my preference would be a regional list system with constituencies electing approximately 8-12 members each. This would be simple to create, just join together 8-12 existing constituencies and use the d'Hondt system.

List systems are profoundly undemocratic. They only conceivably work with open primaries and the ability to change the order in the list if you want

List systems can be both open and closed.

But they're not profoundly undemocratic.

Open lists and primaries counteract some of the worst aspects of lists.

But a system like the Euro elections is not democratic. It's an oligarchy with a fig leaf of a popular vote. For instance, had Helmer won and stepped down as MEP he would gave been automatically replaced by UKIPs first reserve. That's just wrong.

Why is that wrong, the people voted for UKIP, not Helmer.

isam said:

blackburn63 said:

I think too many on here are underestimating the support of ukip in its target areas, the libs have ruthlessly targeted seats in the same way for ages. Too much obsession with national opinion polls not enough feel for regional discrepancies. In Dover and deal at the euros ukip polled almost as many as Tory and labour combined.

Most people on here want UKIP to go away, the top boys on the site in particular

Its the only place in the world where UKIP havent been seen to be doing very well recently, despite never having done better

UKIP are also a party that once were nice and cuddly, but have now turned mean and nasty

Theyre basically all agreeing w Dan Hodges

Charles said:

FormerToryOrange said:

Charles said:

corporeal said:

Charles said:

FormerToryOrange said:

I've hypothesised about this before, but would be interested in hearing views.

Suppose the vote shares at the GE are something like this (quite plausible):

Cons 37
Lab 31
UKIP 13
Libs 12

And the seat distribution something like this (again, quite plausible):

Cons ~300
Lab ~285
Libs ~35
UKIP ~0

Surely this would re-open the debate on the voting system. I voted to remain with FPTP because the alternative was AV. I would also vote to stay with FPTP if the alternative was STV, but any list based system would get my vote at present. FPTP is the best system about - if you have a 2 party system. It is decidedly dubious when there are 3 major parties, but can still just about work. With 4 parties, it becomes entirely ludicrous.

I wouldn't be altogether against AMS, the system used for the Scottish parliament, being used for Westminster, but my preference would be a regional list system with constituencies electing approximately 8-12 members each. This would be simple to create, just join together 8-12 existing constituencies and use the d'Hondt system.

List systems are profoundly undemocratic. They only conceivably work with open primaries and the ability to change the order in the list if you want

List systems can be both open and closed.

But they're not profoundly undemocratic.

Open lists and primaries counteract some of the worst aspects of lists.

But a system like the Euro elections is not democratic. It's an oligarchy with a fig leaf of a popular vote. For instance, had Helmer won and stepped down as MEP he would gave been automatically replaced by UKIPs first reserve. That's just wrong.

Why is that wrong, the people voted for UKIP, not Helmer.

Then the MP/MEP represents his party, not his constituency.

Anything that increases the power of the parties and the whips is a bad thing IMO.

FormerToryOrange said:

johnstevens said:

@FormerTory Orange.
I differ from blackburn63 on this. I think UKIP will not run in quite a few seats, perhaps as many as 50, perhaps even more, if the sitting Conservative MPs give pledges that help their overall strategy, and to undermine DC's credibility. They will also not run in a few token Labour seats, such as Kate Hoey's. But they will draw the terms in such a way that they will not generally be prevented from contesting those seats they really think they have a chance of winning. The only other limiting factor on this approach will be their desire to secure a large national vote share, which could undermine the legitimacy of the next GE along the lines suggested by @ToryJIm. A crisis of legitimacy for the current system is, after all, a key anti-establishment goal. But a real grip on the Tory Party, and/or on the EU referendum, is the paramount purpose.

I think the chances of UKIP not putting up a candidate in any seat in order to not stand against a particular candidate from another party are virtually nil. As blackburn rightly says, there may well be seats where UKIP don't try very hard, but they will still put up candidates, probably in every seat. Any seats where they do not, the reason will most likely be lack of potential candidates, lack of funds, or some such. It is inconceivable that there will be any seat south of the Wash (probably south of the Tyne) with no UKIP candidate, regardless of who the candidates of other parties are.

Charles said:

FormerToryOrange said:

Charles said:

corporeal said:

Charles said:

FormerToryOrange said:

I've hypothesised about this before, but would be interested in hearing views.

Suppose the vote shares at the GE are something like this (quite plausible):

Cons 37
Lab 31
UKIP 13
Libs 12

And the seat distribution something like this (again, quite plausible):

Cons ~300
Lab ~285
Libs ~35
UKIP ~0

Surely this would re-open the debate on the voting system. I voted to remain with FPTP because the alternative was AV. I would also vote to stay with FPTP if the alternative was STV, but any list based system would get my vote at present. FPTP is the best system about - if you have a 2 party system. It is decidedly dubious when there are 3 major parties, but can still just about work. With 4 parties, it becomes entirely ludicrous.

I wouldn't be altogether against AMS, the system used for the Scottish parliament, being used for Westminster, but my preference would be a regional list system with constituencies electing approximately 8-12 members each. This would be simple to create, just join together 8-12 existing constituencies and use the d'Hondt system.

List systems are profoundly undemocratic. They only conceivably work with open primaries and the ability to change the order in the list if you want

List systems can be both open and closed.

But they're not profoundly undemocratic.

Open lists and primaries counteract some of the worst aspects of lists.

But a system like the Euro elections is not democratic. It's an oligarchy with a fig leaf of a popular vote. For instance, had Helmer won and stepped down as MEP he would gave been automatically replaced by UKIPs first reserve. That's just wrong.

Why is that wrong, the people voted for UKIP, not Helmer.

Then the MP/MEP represents his party, not his constituency.

Anything that increases the power of the parties and the whips is a bad thing IMO.

corporeal said:

isam said:

blackburn63 said:

I think too many on here are underestimating the support of ukip in its target areas, the libs have ruthlessly targeted seats in the same way for ages. Too much obsession with national opinion polls not enough feel for regional discrepancies. In Dover and deal at the euros ukip polled almost as many as Tory and labour combined.

Most people on here want UKIP to go away, the top boys on the site in particular

Its the only place in the world where UKIP havent been seen to be doing very well recently, despite never having done better

UKIP are also a party that once were nice and cuddly, but have now turned mean and nasty

Theyre basically all agreeing w Dan Hodges

I guess I'm not one of the top boys then

And we've tipped UKIP a number of times over the last year or so.

Isam, you're consistently ignoring the difference between UKIP not doing well, and UKIP not doing as well as expected. Take Newark, the hyping up of the people's army, possible victory, Farage saying late on he expected to be within what, 2-3 thousand votes. And ending up 7 thousand behind.

You set the bar that high you're going to get a backlash when you fail to meet it.