UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[don4l]

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.

[FiF]

Latest poll in Observer.
National figures so not as accurate a prediction of seats as discussed earlier. Shift from last time in brackets)
Lab 33 (+1)
Con 30 (+1)
UKIP 19 (-)
LD 7 (-2)
SNP 5 (+1)
Green 4 (-)





http://gu.com/p/43h5e

[FiF]

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.

[don4l]

FiF said:

Latest poll in Observer.
National figures so not as accurate a prediction of seats as discussed earlier. Shift from last time in brackets)
Lab 33 (+1)
Con 30 (+1)
UKIP 19 (-)
LD 7 (-2)
SNP 5 (+1)
Green 4 (-)





http://gu.com/p/43h5e

Guardian said:

The poll – taken between Tuesday and Thursday last week and before the results of the Rochester and Strood byelection and the fall-out from the “white van” tweeting row – puts Labour on 33% (up one point on a fortnight ago), and the Conservatives also up one on 30%.[/b]

I have a strong suspicion that the "Thornberry" incident will cause a lot of Labour supporters to switch to UKIP.

Oh Dear! How sad... Never mind

[FiF]

don4l said:

FiF said:

Latest poll in Observer.
National figures so not as accurate a prediction of seats as discussed earlier. Shift from last time in brackets)
Lab 33 (+1)
Con 30 (+1)
UKIP 19 (-)
LD 7 (-2)
SNP 5 (+1)
Green 4 (-)





http://gu.com/p/43h5e

Guardian said:

The poll – taken between Tuesday and Thursday last week and before the results of the Rochester and Strood byelection and the fall-out from the “white van” tweeting row – puts Labour on 33% (up one point on a fortnight ago), and the Conservatives also up one on 30%.[/b]

I have a strong suspicion that the "Thornberry" incident will cause a lot of Labour supporters to switch to UKIP.

Oh Dear! How sad... Never mind

And if your strong suspicion is correct then that will be reflected in polling which can then be dialled into the constituency level analysis.

A poll and analysis thereof is a snapshot of tjings as they stand at a moment in time, not a prediction. Rolling reminder.

Things change. For example ref my post about Austin Mitchell, that radio interview could push one seat over to UKIP. These days a week is a very long time and we have twenty odd of them to GE2015.

[XJ Flyer]

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.

Logically assuming the Libdem vote is going anywhere it won't be going to UKIP.The Libdem swing vote is most likely to go to Labour.So assuming those figures are too high in the case of the Libdems it would be most likely that Labour would be the beneficiaries not UKIP.The UKIP demographic is mostly a case of taking votes from disillusioned Conservatives on one side and disillusioned Labour voters on the other.

The election will mostly be a case of how many disillusioned Labour voters there are and wether they outweigh the disillusioned Libdem swing vote to Labour.With it probably being more likely that the disillusioned Labour vote will stay at home rather than trust UKIP to do what it says it will do at least in regard to the immigration issue.

Basically the country is caught in the catch 22,of the pro EU pro immigration socialist/cheap labour alliance, together with the immigrant vote,at least probably holding the balance of power regardless of what UKIP does.Especially if the Scottish vote is included.Ironically UKIP having now moved closer to that alliance.

[don4l]

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.

I'm quite happy to accept that you may be correct. You did better than me at predicting the Rochester result.

We will see over the coming months if I am right, or not. I will be disappointed if I am wrong

[don4l]

XJ Flyer said:

Logically assuming the Libdem vote is going anywhere it won't be going to UKIP.The Libdem swing vote is most likely to go to Labour.So assuming those figures are too high in the case of the Libdems it would be most likely that Labour would be the beneficiaries not UKIP.The UKIP demographic is mostly a case of taking votes from disillusioned Conservatives on one side and disillusioned Labour voters on the other.

The LibDem vote consists of two factions.

One group consists of voters who genuinely support their policies. I would suggest that this is probably a very small group.

Can you tell me what LibDem policies are? I bet that you cannot.

The other group consists of voters who want to say "none of the above". These people are going to vote UKIP at the next election.

[Einion Yrth]

don4l said:

Can you tell me what LibDem policies are? I bet that you cannot.

Easy. No tuition fees...

Ah.

don4l said:

The other group consists of voters who want to say "none of the above". These people are going to vote UKIP at the next election.

Depressingly quite a few will, as far as I can tell, be voting Green; the belief in the magic money tree is absolute in some.

[anonymous-user]

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

Hmm. 314 for Lab/SNP. 314 for Con/LD/UKIP. How convenient.

Not to say it's wrong based on the underlying data, but it does seem a result that will conveniently grab headlines. We saw this a lot with the Scottish independence poll predictions; basically, polling companies competing for column inches in the press. Colour me ever so slightly sceptical.


ETA: on coalition partnerships more generally, ISTR that UKIP and the SNP have spoken against formal coalitions in favour of supply and confidence arrangements. IMO if the LDs have enough seats to hold the balance, and the Tories win the popular vote, we will have coalition mark 2, as we have already had.

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.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 22 November 20:50

[XJ Flyer]

don4l said:

XJ Flyer said:

Logically assuming the Libdem vote is going anywhere it won't be going to UKIP.The Libdem swing vote is most likely to go to Labour.So assuming those figures are too high in the case of the Libdems it would be most likely that Labour would be the beneficiaries not UKIP.The UKIP demographic is mostly a case of taking votes from disillusioned Conservatives on one side and disillusioned Labour voters on the other.

The LibDem vote consists of two factions.

One group consists of voters who genuinely support their policies. I would suggest that this is probably a very small group.

Can you tell me what LibDem policies are? I bet that you cannot.

The other group consists of voters who want to say "none of the above". These people are going to vote UKIP at the next election.

It is a fair bet that there aren't many anti EU global warming sceptic Libdem voters for two examples let alone the immigration issue.But what would I know having lived in Ed Davey's constituency before the Libdems existed and a Con/Libdem marginal bordering that since 1996.

[johnxjsc1985]

[/quote]


Can you tell me what LibDem policies are? I bet that you cannot.



[/quote]
I know this one ...hair shirts for everyone.
They are finished even if they ditch Clegg .

[mrpurple]

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...

[XJ Flyer]

Einion Yrth said:

Depressingly quite a few will, as far as I can tell, be voting Green; the belief in the magic money tree is absolute in some.

The Libdem to Green swing vote is probably more a case of fanatical Taliban type belief in the Global Warmist cause.

[XJ Flyer]

Greg66 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

Hmm. 314 for Lab/SNP. 314 for Con/LD/UKIP. How convenient.

Not to say it's wrong based on the underlying data, but it does seem a result that will conveniently grab headlines. We saw this a lot with the Scottish independence poll predictions; basically, polling companies competing for column inches in the press. Colour me ever so slightly sceptical.


ETA: on coalition partnerships more generally, ISTR that UKIP and the SNP have spoken against formal coalitions in favour of supply and confidence arrangements. IMO if the LDs have enough seats to hold the balance, and the Tories win the popular vote, we will have coalition mark 2, as we have already had.

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.

Edited by Greg66 on Saturday 22 November 20:50

In general the idea of tying us to Scotland could only hinder UKIP's chances either in government or an EU referendum wether Scotland stayed Labour or went SNP.So we've got a supposedly anti federalist Party that supported the UK federation thereby lumbering itself with an inbuilt hostile Scottish vote against itself.Great move by Farage at least as bad as going from anti to effectively pro on the immigration issue.As for ConLibdem coalition 2 where's the difference between that and Lab/Scottish alliance.IE effectively the same policy of pro EU,global warmist,pro immigration,pro global free market economy.

[BlackLabel]

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.

[XJ Flyer]

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.

[mrpurple]

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'd guess that you got the UKIP & Cons the wrong way round

[JustAnotherLogin]

Greg66 said:

Hmm. 314 for Lab/SNP. 314 for Con/LD/UKIP. How convenient.

Not to say it's wrong based on the underlying data, but it does seem a result that will conveniently grab headlines. We saw this a lot with the Scottish independence poll predictions; basically, polling companies competing for column inches in the press. Colour me ever so slightly sceptical.


ETA: on coalition partnerships more generally, ISTR that UKIP and the SNP have spoken against formal coalitions in favour of supply and confidence arrangements. IMO if the LDs have enough seats to hold the balance, and the Tories win the popular vote, we will have coalition mark 2, as we have already had.

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.

Edited by Greg66 on Saturday 22 November 20:50

If that outcome came true I think it would make for no govt at all.

SNP are essentially a single issue party, so would only support any other party and only Labour) if they got their way on independence. Miliband can't give that or he immediately loses his RUK majority.

I can't see LibDems going into coalition with Tories again.

So no-one can form a govt. So we would get a minority govt who would have to bargain on every bill, and probably would not survive (even with the new rules)

Edited by JustAnotherLogin on Saturday 22 November 23:40

[FiF]

Yep, on face value we could be heading for more frequent general elections until something changes.