Rochester By-Election. Consequences of UKIP Win on Tory/Lab

[Yazar]

Cameron had boasted of throwing the kitchen sink to stop the Conservative defector Mark Reckless getting (direct quote) "his fat arse back onto the green benches" of the Commons." He has been true to his word and himself visited Rochester 5 times, ordered all Tory Ministers and MPs to campaign, sent teams of well paid and respected strategy people and used his deep pockets of Tory cash.

This is their very best effort and still looking a loss. Despite Rochester being only the 271st winnable seat for UKIP (academic analysis on factors such as having low unemployment).

Bookies have started to pay out for a UKIP win ( link), Senior Ministers are briefing the press to admit this too ( link).

Tories are getting desperate and have stooped lower and lower to now minimise the loss, the attack videos and leaflets didn't work, today reveals their latest tactic: Vote UKIP and your house will lose value

So what now?

- More MP's to jump ship? As we are getting close to an election, traditional agreement means that unlikely to be more by-elections i.e. any MP who leaves for UKIP would have several months of campaigning .
- Will Cameron go? Cameron is not trusted for his previously broken 'weasel worded' promises and has failed to meet his 'tens of thousands' pledge. He has a big speech on immigration in a few weeks, what will he be planning?
- Labour to put out a manifesto heavy on Immigration?

[Yazar]

yup- Lab/Lib didn't bother putting much effort in. Miliband for example just failed to support the candidate at all so he didn't look weak.

Tory MP's from Media accounts did the minimum they were forced to - William Hague according to one paper turned up and knocked on exactly 10 doors (of which not all were in) and then caught the train back to London!

[Yazar]

Axionknight said:

UKIP candidate for the Peninsula Ward by election, Chris Irvine, has won that election:

UKIP: 2850
Conservative: 1965
Labour: 716
Greens: 314
Lib Dems: 60

Poor turnout, not sure on the percentage. Still awaiting the main by election results.

UKIP - 48.3% (+48.3)
CON - 33.3% (-20.9)
LAB - 12.1% (-8.5)
GRN - 5.3% (-2.1)
LDEM - 1.0% (-5.3)

[Yazar]

'Britain Elects' saying their source at count suggests UKIP will take 42% and the Conservatives 34%

source

[Yazar]

Not bad for the 271st most winnable UKIP seat.

UKIP - 42.0% (+42.0)
CON - 34.8% (-14.4)
LAB - 16.7% (-11.7)
GRN - 4.2% (+2.7)



source

Edited by Yazar on Friday 21st November 04:26

[Yazar]

Suspect that last minute Reckless hustings 'deportGate' affair will have affected his votes/opposition turnout.

[Yazar]

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]

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]

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.

[Yazar]

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.

[Yazar]

Your arguments are crap, saying "these are my couple of good personal experiences amongst the millions of bad ones across the UK" doesn't mean anything.

oyster said:

The eastern European guys who worked from 7am to 8pm last year to re-paint the outside of my house, and offered to do the work for much less than a 'British' person?

Yup the ongoing UK pyramid scheme. Bring in cheap labour to a country with the worst social mobility in Europe, work them to the bone and take as much of their earnings in rent as possible to prop up the layer above. Repeat.

When your kids and grand kids either fail to buy, or pay 100k or more for house then needed to, due to the ridiculous demand for housing as population increases then have fun reducing the amount by the £200 you saved on your paint job!

oyster said:

The team of IT consultants working for me from India?

The amount of crap IT people from India I have met is astonishing, ratio must be at least 1:50. This doesn't help:http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29950843

oyster said:

The doctor who came here from Nigeria 3 years ago, and helped treat my 10 month old for dehydration?

True story- wife and I went to get innoculated at a Harley street 'travel clinic' run by a Nigerian. Off the record he mentioned that the yellow fever was out of date but it didn't matter and he would do a discount on it

Worked with lots of Africans in London, most great but the general corruption is ridiculous. And it is a fact that 50% of foreign doctors are below the UK minimum standard http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/nhs/10773857/Hal...

And quite frankly it is morally disgusting to steal nurses and doctors from 3rd world countries where they are needed the most just so the UK rich can stay rich.

[Yazar]

5pen said:

The Tories had probably not banked on having to find a candidate to replace a bloke with a 10k majority so soon.

They had a long list of candidates lined up. Unfortunately last minute decison for a local only candidate ruled out all the usual parachuted-in eton chums.

[Yazar]

Hmmmm

FT Columnist said:

The Tories’ folly is not losing MPs such as Mark Reckless, the defector who now represents Rochester for Ukip, but admitting them in the first place. Their benches are peppered with cranks, zealots and the flamboyantly disloyal. A serious party must have a selection process that screens out candidates who are plausible defectors, as Mr Reckless always was. Mr Cameron began his tenure as leader by trying to recruit moderates – it helped if they were women or ethnic minorities – as parliamentary candidates. Traditionalists fought back and, as ever, he relented for the sake of quiet life.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/83aac20a-7149-11e4-b178-00144feabdc0.html

[Yazar]

XJ Flyer said:

Which would explain why UKIP is just another party fighting over the same pro immigration 51% of the total electorate.The immigrant vote now obviously holding the balance of power over the indigenous one.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 21st November 16:52

Apologies if you have stated before.

But in simple terms, what do you want?

Say day after UKIP got in power
- do you want all Eu migrants out?
- just Eu migrants with no jobs?
- eu migrants with a salary lower than x?

What is your position exactly? And what do you class as indigenous?

[Yazar]

XJ Flyer said:

What is the point if that policy 'also' includes the idea of letting them all in and letting them all stay to the point where all those who were coming are already here on the date of withdrawal

Retrospective legislation is unsettling and complicated.

You don't really need to do it either.

State any EU migrant caught homeless in the future will be immediately deported and that solves that.
State any low paid/'self employed' big issue seller EU migrant is not entitled to in-work benefits/housing benefit/free nhs/free schools unless they do a job with a severe shortage/worked for x amount of years and those on low incomes will leave themselves.
State all Eu residents to be checked for Criminal convictions in the past here and abroad and deport.

And so on.

Make a set of sensible rules going forward and the migrant that we don't need will leave themselves. There is no need to say 'deport first then points test on re-entry', makes no sense.

[Yazar]

XJ Flyer said:

In the case of a UKIP vote 'indigenous' obviously means foreign entrants who have been allowed entry and a work permit on the basis of EU membership status who otherwise wouldn't have been.

If in-work benefits/free nhs/free school places are withdrawn from your local Romanian big issue seller family, do you think

A) They will suddenly find the money to pay the bills down the back of the sofa.
B) Go off to another EU country.

Choose an option.

[Yazar]

XJ Flyer said:

Yazar said:

XJ Flyer said:

What is the point if that policy 'also' includes the idea of letting them all in and letting them all stay to the point where all those who were coming are already here on the date of withdrawal

Retrospective legislation is unsettling and complicated.

That isn't how Canada or New Zealand sees it when deporting immigrant labour,including British,for numerous reasons either retrosepctive administrative 'changes' or any number of other arbitrary reasons.

Canada is Canada due to its natural resources.
New Zealand are a little country and not comparable.

One of the UK's biggest assets, and top USP, is its stability in its laws. This is a major reason why the rich flood here and companies invest here.

[Yazar]

XJ Flyer said:

The issue is more a case of will the vacancies and therefore wages for bus drivers or truck drivers and numerous other similar types of jobs for example,increase if the option of importing non indigenous labour is stopped,applying retrospectively,for the employers.

If you take the min wage of £13,124 and then ask a migrant family to pay from this our inflated rent, expensive public transport costs, health insurance and school fees. Do you think he will say 'yes please' or say 'sorry I can't live on that, I need x amount more'?

This 'eu migrants are working hard' con is only working due to the top up benefits, if these are removed than the free market will adjust itself.

[Yazar]

XJ Flyer said:

If the BNP were all about 'the English' then it would obviously be the ENP with a policy of English independence to suit.As I've said the jury is also out as to the question are they just a nationalist/nativist party or a racist one.

I give up.

[Yazar]

johnxjsc1985 said:

I didn't realise being old and white was actually a crime.

Only if British! Any old and white eastern Europeans migrants you may see selling the big issue/begging are good, and will each benefit the economy to a billion quid each - minimum.