UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[hidetheelephants]

Greg66 said:

What is insidious is the possibility of Lab losing the popular vote, and coming second in seats, but leapfrogging into a minority govt with a supply and confidence arrangement. I remain hopeful that over the next six months the prospect of the SNP helping Lab to this will spur English voters to deliver sufficient Con seats for a Con govt, or if not, enough LD seats for coalition 2. Unfortunately for UKIP, I rather think that path will be one to its disadvantage - in short the SNP and Lab's collapse in Scotland may darken UKIP's future quite a lot.

While a possibility given the non-committal noises made by Sturgeon, I can't help thinking a coalition with Labour being;
a)Enormous cant given how much sturm-und-drang the SNP have made about independence and now further devolution, to then 'wag the dog' in Westminster would make them huge hypocrites(I know; they're politicians, therefore they are already) and possibly cause big damage to popularity.
b)A really bad idea as a significant part of their voter appeal has been 'we're not Labour'; a coalition with them is hypocrisy(see point a).

Conversely Sturgeon has said that no coalition with the Conservatives would be contemplated; given how little real difference there is between tory and labour policy this smacks of "Ooh, Thatcher destroyed the mines/shipyards/my granny's cornershop/stole my milk" bks.

On the flip side, having a hand on the levers in Westminster might be irresistibly attractive if they think they can drive the devolution settlement towards more powers for Holyrood, in exchange for whatever nonsense passes for Labour's Manifesto 2016.

[XJ Flyer]

hidetheelephants said:

Greg66 said:

What is insidious is the possibility of Lab losing the popular vote, and coming second in seats, but leapfrogging into a minority govt with a supply and confidence arrangement. I remain hopeful that over the next six months the prospect of the SNP helping Lab to this will spur English voters to deliver sufficient Con seats for a Con govt, or if not, enough LD seats for coalition 2. Unfortunately for UKIP, I rather think that path will be one to its disadvantage - in short the SNP and Lab's collapse in Scotland may darken UKIP's future quite a lot.

While a possibility given the non-committal noises made by Sturgeon, I can't help thinking a coalition with Labour being;
a)Enormous cant given how much sturm-und-drang the SNP have made about independence and now further devolution, to then 'wag the dog' in Westminster would make them huge hypocrites(I know; they're politicians, therefore they are already) and possibly cause big damage to popularity.
b)A really bad idea as a significant part of their voter appeal has been 'we're not Labour'; a coalition with them is hypocrisy(see point a).

Conversely Sturgeon has said that no coalition with the Conservatives would be contemplated; given how little real difference there is between tory and labour policy this smacks of "Ooh, Thatcher destroyed the mines/shipyards/my granny's cornershop/stole my milk" bks.

On the flip side, having a hand on the levers in Westminster might be irresistibly attractive if they think they can drive the devolution settlement towards more powers for Holyrood, in exchange for whatever nonsense passes for Labour's Manifesto 2016.

All of which could be fixed by UKIP holding the balance of power with a Conservative coalition in England then changing policy to one of English independence.As for a so called anti federalist Party wanting to keep the UK federation and as you've admitted the Cons as they stand being as close to Labour as makes no difference,it seems obvious who the real the hypocrites are in that case.In which case who can blame the Scottish Nationalists for using that to their own maximum advantage to make life as uncomfortable as possible for a federal UK government which they'd obviously prefer to have no involvement with.Assuming that is the SNP aren't really just a socialist federalist Party masquerading as nationalists.Their support of the EU suggest that might be the case.

In which case the LabLibdemCon agenda seems to have met its match and got what it deserves.In the form of an effectively ungovernable federation of nation states all in it for themselves at the expense of the English as usual.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 23 November 00:31

[Wombat3]

FiF said:

don4l said:

FiF said:

Latest forecast update: Con 286, Lab 280, LD 24, SNP 34, UKIP 4.

91% probability hung parliament.


More details at
http://electionforecast.co.uk

That is just plain wrong. Unless there is a major disaster, UKIP will have more seats than the LibDems.

In the last two by-elections, the LibDems have polled less than 2%.

The LibDems are dead.

As we approach the GE it will become clear that UKIP are the party of "protest". This will do enormous damage to the LibDems. However, there is a huge difference between the LibDems and UKIP, and that is that UKIP have some core principles.

So, UKIP will attract votes from people who believe in UKIP principles as well as people who want to protest against the current "PPE" elite.

That single post encapsulates everything have been saying about wishful thinking vs proven methodology.

As things stand at the moment we will have to disagree.

You are completely correct IMO - its nothing like as binary as some hereabouts would have us believe. The electoral system is such that seats won is highly unlikely to closely reflect absolute/total vote shares.

[Mojocvh]

So has it been determined that there will be no UKIP candidates north of the border?

[hidetheelephants]

Mojocvh said:

So has it been determined that there will be no UKIP candidates north of the border?

I suspect all of Scotland's constituencies are at the bottom of the 'potential for a UKIP win' chart, so given their limited resources I suspect the targeted seats will all be in Englandshire.

[DJRC]

The one thing you can pretty much guarantee is that there won't be a Labour/SNP coalition to form any govt next year. That is instant death for the Labour party to win any future general elections.

What many people are also forgetting is the Lib Dem stronghold in areas like the South West. I don't see that collapsing because...well...why would it? There is no reason or motivation for it to randomly disappear. I can see the Lib Dems returning 20ish seats at the GE. My gut tells me UKIP are looking at 10 or so seats. The Cons around 300, the Lab around 270.

The critical fight for me is Lab v UKIP in the northern working class seats. If UKIP are serious they will divert resources away from the south east of England where they have some self sufficient traction now and go hell for leather after Labour in their Northern heartlands. That would be my gamble and I suspect Farage has already reached the same conclusion. There are 40 - 50 seats up for grabs there.

[steveT350C]

@Tom_Fowdy: UKIP have come in the top two parties in 9 out of the 10 last by-elections this parliament

[FiF]

I wouldn't necessarily agree on moving resources from the South East to Labourh heartlands in the North.

For example Rochester will need a very hard fight to retain it and whilst I don't buy into the Tory rhetoric of it will be an easy regain at the GE it will be close. Therefore I would argue considering the socio-economic profile of the seat is so close to the national profile to be worth the battle for UKIP.

There are other seats in the South East that need to be fought hard for, even the seat where Farage is standing will not be a shoe in.

For the North and UKIP vs Labour there are a few seats which are worthy of a full on assault. But they have to pick their fights carefully to husband resources.

However I do agree in Midlands and North, away from the South and the East coast, there are some 40-50 seats, give or take not going to fall out over the mumbers, where UKIP can give the previously secure incumbents a hell of a scare, a few are within reach of a sneaky gain the rest will probably be a very good second place and leave them in good position for further elections.

The above is a personal view based on my own analysis. Like all the other pundits could be wildly wrong. This is, as mentioned before, based on a snapshot, and any prediction assumes nothing major changes. We know that last assumption will prove to be wildly wrong.h

[jogon]

DJRC said:

The one thing you can pretty much guarantee is that there won't be a Labour/SNP coalition to form any govt next year. That is instant death for the Labour party to win any future general elections.

What many people are also forgetting is the Lib Dem stronghold in areas like the South West. I don't see that collapsing because...well...why would it? There is no reason or motivation for it to randomly disappear. I can see the Lib Dems returning 20ish seats at the GE. My gut tells me UKIP are looking at 10 or so seats. The Cons around 300, the Lab around 270.

The critical fight for me is Lab v UKIP in the northern working class seats. If UKIP are serious they will divert resources away from the south east of England where they have some self sufficient traction now and go hell for leather after Labour in their Northern heartlands. That would be my gamble and I suspect Farage has already reached the same conclusion. There are 40 - 50 seats up for grabs there.

I've got more connections on LinkedIn than Lib Dems have voters in Rochester and Strood. They have lost their deposit for the 8th time since 2010. Cleggy has not been seen publicly since the result. They are finished, I predict maybe 5 seats at most next May.

[NicD]

This may help (though any comparison to RB is toxic):

Ukip plans Russell Brand style 'purple revolution' to attract younger voters

UKIP LEADERS are planning to unleash a “purple revolution” with the launch of a new youth movement in a bold bid to broaden its appeal to voters.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/538909/Ukip...

[DJRC]

What the my left bk does Rochester have to do with the south west?

[jogon]

DJRC said:

What the my left bk does Rochester have to do with the south west?

How many MEPs did the Lib Dems return in the south west a few months ago? Zero.

Nice little map to make it a little easier for you to understand..



Areas where there are high numbers of Ukip-leaning voters are coloured shades of purple. The marginal seats in which its impact will be crucial are outlined in black

[FiF]

DJRC said:

What the my left bk does Rochester have to do with the south west?

Err you might find a clue as to why Rochester in your earlier post.

DJRC said:

The critical fight for me is Lab v UKIP in the northern working class seats. If UKIP are serious they will divert resources away from the south east of England where they have some self sufficient traction now 

Sort yourself out.

[WinstonWolf]

XJ Flyer said:

BlackLabel said:

mrpurple said:

UKIP’s new parliamentary candidate for Boston and Skegness.........22 yrs old...........but but but he's not a left behind old fogie how can that be?

http://www.bostonstandard.co.uk/news/local/ukip-vo...

A very winnable seat for a ukip.

Last time round it was:

Tories 21k, Labour 9k, LD 6k, UKIP 4k and BNP 2k.

I'd guess that would look more like around 17-18k Cons,12k UKIP,6k-7k Lab,1k Libdems at the next election.

I think UKIP will win it. Boston is the key here, there has been a massive Eastern European influx that the locals aren't happy with.

[ATG]

NicD said:

you are trying to confuse me. The Tories = the Conservatives.

Apparently it doesn't take very much.

To be clear, I was saying that the Tories (the Conservatives!) and UKIP are both authoritarian in some policy areas and libertarian in others.

[NicD]

ATG said:

NicD said:

you are trying to confuse me. The Tories = the Conservatives.

Apparently it doesn't take very much.

To be clear, I was saying that the Tories (the Conservatives!) and UKIP are both authoritarian in some policy areas and libertarian in others.

I try to inject some humour and get abuse
Hilarious.

Btw, why did you bother to 'say' ?
the Tories (the Conservatives!) and UKIP are both authoritarian in some policy areas and libertarian in others.

[ATG]

s2art had said that UKIP's libertarian streak weighed in its favour. I'm saying that that doesn't really distinguish them from the Tories.

[NicD]

I will let s2art answer that but pretty hard to confuse many current Conservatives with UKIP.
which is strange as I should be a natural Conservative voter.

[DJRC]

FiF said:

DJRC said:

What the my left bk does Rochester have to do with the south west?

Err you might find a clue as to why Rochester in your earlier post.

DJRC said:

The critical fight for me is Lab v UKIP in the northern working class seats. If UKIP are serious they will divert resources away from the south east of England where they have some self sufficient traction now 

Sort yourself out.

Have I missed something in English geography that has passed me by for the last 30 odd years?

Rochester...South East.
South West...er...the south west. Where the Lib Dems have a reasonable strong hold. Where what happens in a south east seat of a sitting Tory MP moving parties has bugger all impact. Or relevance.

So, once again with...what the my left bullock does Rochester have to do with the South West?

[FiF]

DJRC said:

FiF said:

DJRC said:

What the my left bk does Rochester have to do with the south west?

Err you might find a clue as to why Rochester in your earlier post.

DJRC said:

The critical fight for me is Lab v UKIP in the northern working class seats. If UKIP are serious they will divert resources away from the south east of England where they have some self sufficient traction now 

Sort yourself out.

Have I missed something in English geography that has passed me by for the last 30 odd years?

Rochester...South East.
South West...er...the south west. Where the Lib Dems have a reasonable strong hold. Where what happens in a south east seat of a sitting Tory MP moving parties has bugger all impact. Or relevance.

So, once again with...what the my left bullock does Rochester have to do with the South West?

Oh dear. Shortish words simply put.

You talked about the South West and the Lib Dems.

THEN

You started a new paragraph which is usual for moving onto a new subject.

Sure enough you then talked about the key fight should be in the North and suggested moving UKIP resources from the South East of England. Rochester is in the South East, the region from where you just suggested moving resources.

Cannot explain it any more simpler than that. If you still don't get it then you are clearly completely beyond help .

As before sort yourself out.