Rochester By-Election. Consequences of UKIP Win on Tory/Lab
Discussion
Yazar said:
UKIP - 42.0% (+42.0)
CON - 34.8% (-14.4)
LAB - 16.7% (-11.7)
GRN - 4.2% (+2.7)
Comfortable enough given the resources thrown at it.CON - 34.8% (-14.4)
LAB - 16.7% (-11.7)
GRN - 4.2% (+2.7)
Assuming at least a small part of the green vote came from LD, that's quite a considerable number of votes gone from labour to ukip. Down 40% or so. This the main opposition party, only a few months from a general election!
It is about what I expected; I would have been surprised if the Conservatives had won.
The result is far from overwhelming and not a disaster for the Tories. This does not surprise me either, since I don't think UKIP has quite the support in the country that it enjoys on Piston Heads. Of course it could be that PH is representative of the South of England, where UKIP draws its support - and I am not.
The Liberal Democrats will retreat to their constituency heartlands. The pattern of Lib Dem support makes them far less vulnerable at the General election than they look. I believe they will keep a lot more seats at the General election than many seem to think.
The result is far from overwhelming and not a disaster for the Tories. This does not surprise me either, since I don't think UKIP has quite the support in the country that it enjoys on Piston Heads. Of course it could be that PH is representative of the South of England, where UKIP draws its support - and I am not.
The Liberal Democrats will retreat to their constituency heartlands. The pattern of Lib Dem support makes them far less vulnerable at the General election than they look. I believe they will keep a lot more seats at the General election than many seem to think.
Yazar said:
Suspect that last minute Reckless hustings 'deportGate' affair will have affected his votes/opposition turnout.
In terms of those hoping for a Powell type policy from UKIP that would explain a lot both in that regard and the turnout figure which was just as significant a point as the Libdem wipe out..dbdb said:
It is about what I expected; I would have been surprised if the Conservatives had won.
The result is far from overwhelming and not a disaster for the Tories. This does not surprise me either, since I don't think UKIP has quite the support in the country that it enjoys on Piston Heads. Of course it could be that PH is representative of the South of England, where UKIP draws its support - and I am not.
The Liberal Democrats will retreat to their constituency heartlands. The pattern of Lib Dem support makes them far less vulnerable at the General election than they look. I believe they will keep a lot more seats at the General election than many seem to think.
I'd suggest an even more pessimistic outlook for UKIP being that the party seems to have watered down its immigration stance to the point of trying to appeal to the immigrant vote just like all the rest.The result is far from overwhelming and not a disaster for the Tories. This does not surprise me either, since I don't think UKIP has quite the support in the country that it enjoys on Piston Heads. Of course it could be that PH is representative of the South of England, where UKIP draws its support - and I am not.
The Liberal Democrats will retreat to their constituency heartlands. The pattern of Lib Dem support makes them far less vulnerable at the General election than they look. I believe they will keep a lot more seats at the General election than many seem to think.
dbdb said:
The result is far from overwhelming and not a disaster for the Tories.
What planet are you on? It is a complete disaster for the conservatives, they resorted to every trick in the book including Cameron begging Labour/Lib/Greens to tactical vote. This was their best effort and it was poor.This showed that their latest argument of only 'left behind' plebs voting UKIP is fake, Cameron is now under immense pressure.
If his promised pre-xmas Immigration speech fails to deliver, more Tory MPs may break rank.
dbdb said:
AJS- said:
Interesting that the Labour vote has been hammered here, I believe even more than in Heywood & Middleton.
I wonder if some Labour and Liberal Democrat voters have voted Conservative in order to keep UKIP out?That said, Milliband is a deeply unimpressive leader.
XJ Flyer said:
I'd suggest an even more pessimistic outlook for UKIP being that the party seems to have watered down its immigration stance to the point of trying to appeal to the immigrant vote just like all the rest.
The thing is, UKIP does not need to mass deport as Reckless, recklessly stated. Remove the con that is 'in-work' benefits from migrants who do not meet the points criteria and without housing benefit/tax credits and so on it will no longer be economical for any min-wage/'self-employed' Big Issue Type to stay and they will leave themselves.
Yazar said:
dbdb said:
The result is far from overwhelming and not a disaster for the Tories.
What planet are you on? It is a complete disaster for the conservatives, they resorted to every trick in the book including Cameron begging Labour/Lib/Greens to tactical vote. This was their best effort and it was poor.This showed that their latest argument of only 'left behind' plebs voting UKIP is fake, Cameron is now under immense pressure.
If his promised pre-xmas Immigration speech fails to deliver, more Tory MPs may break rank.
Yazar said:
XJ Flyer said:
I'd suggest an even more pessimistic outlook for UKIP being that the party seems to have watered down its immigration stance to the point of trying to appeal to the immigrant vote just like all the rest.
The thing is, UKIP does not need to mass deport as Reckless, recklessly stated. Remove the con that is 'in-work' benefits from migrants who do not meet the points criteria and without housing benefit/tax credits and so on it will no longer be economical for any min-wage/'self-employed' Big Issue Type to stay and they will leave themselves.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 21st November 04:55
XJ Flyer said:
Doubtful.It is the turnout figure where the big question is and there's no way that the message given in the speech fits even a supposedly moderate anti immigration agenda.Being a previously guaranteed UKIP voter in a south east marginal that speech just confirms my worst fears regarding the sincerity of UKIP's immigration message.In which case my vote will probably be added to the that of the non turnout figure at the election.IE why bother the country is no longer worth the effort.
Leave, then.XJ Flyer said:
I saw no difference in that UKIP 'immigration speech' than that which the Cons are offering.IE both pandering to the immigrant vote probably for the same reasons in not wanting to alienate the Conservative cheap labour swing vote.
They wern't pandering to the immigrant vote I reckon- 86% of the electorate in the Rochester and Strood constituency are White.People want less immigration but only done sensibly. A sound-bite from the candidate on the day before the vote saying 'deport them all' rather than a considered speech in full was a disaster and Farage had to nip in bud.
Axionknight said:
XJ Flyer said:
Doubtful.It is the turnout figure where the big question is and there's no way that the message given in the speech fits even a supposedly moderate anti immigration agenda.Being a previously guaranteed UKIP voter in a south east marginal that speech just confirms my worst fears regarding the sincerity of UKIP's immigration message.In which case my vote will probably be added to the that of the non turnout figure at the election.IE why bother the country is no longer worth the effort.
Leave, then.Yazar said:
XJ Flyer said:
I saw no difference in that UKIP 'immigration speech' than that which the Cons are offering.IE both pandering to the immigrant vote probably for the same reasons in not wanting to alienate the Conservative cheap labour swing vote.
They wern't pandering to the immigrant vote I reckon- 86% of the electorate in the Rochester and Strood constituency are White.People want less immigration but only done sensibly. A sound-bite from the candidate on the day before the vote saying 'deport them all' rather than a considered speech in full was a disaster and Farage had to nip in bud.
I'd suggest an obvious watering down in immigration policy to pander to the immigrant vote rather than dilute/remove that immigrant vote is a bit more than 'nipping' Reckless' comments 'in the bud'.As I said we need a Powell when what we've got is just Cameron with attitude.
XJ Flyer said:
The fact is we need another Powell when all we've got in the form of UKIP is Cameron with more attitude at least in regard to the immigration question.Which leaves the question if UKIP has gone soft on immigration then what is to say it won't do the same in terms of a Brexit.
Do you mean the Farage reply? The reason for UKIP being the size it now is due to Farage having a intuitive grasp of the workings of the media. What reckless said on the video i.e. deport after a period new migrants of little benefit but look sympathetically at a working migrant who has been here a while', mass media twisted into a 'deport them all' attack.
In the 10 seconds Farage had to reply, all he has is a soundbite that would then be repeated every half hour on the news on the day before the elections.
So there was no room of explanation in detail, the message had to be simple and ensure this was not the time that the 'racist' tag that the lefties have been trying so hard in vain for the last few years to pin to UKIP, would have any chance of sticking.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff