An "unprecedented and historic result"

PaulF81

StevieJ wrote: »

Yes OK


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/8999847/Blair-Inc-How-Tony-Blair-makes-his-fortune.html

do you mean thatcher's child?

imagine how tory new labour would have been if they had kept control of spending. unfortunately, brown (appointed to a high position together with that slug Prescott to appease the unions) screwed the pooch. if we had a more centre right chancellor than Brown, New Labour would have been unstoppable.

i have not yet met a senior socialist that wasnt in it mainly for themselves. id love to see how much tax Blair has managed to avoid since finishing as the leader of the Labour party.

antrobus

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

That's the trouble though Antrobus. 20% + of "the popular vote" means diddly squat in a first past the post race. 20% is not going to win a single parliamentary constituency seat. 20% (or even just 10% - lets assume that only half of those who voted UKIP in the locals were disgruntled Tories) loss of vote for a Conservative candidate, across the board, would torpedo many, many currently held Tory marginals.

Well it all depends on how the 20% + is distributed. If it's spread all over the place, then UKIP might well end up with same as last time, as in doodly squat. But it's unlikely to be evenly spread across all 600 or so constituencies. A hyothetical 20% + is almost bound to give you something, but I've no idea what that something would be.

For example the LDs had 18% in 1992 and got 20 seats and then got 17% in 97 and won 46 seats, whilst 23% in 2010 meant 57 and 22% in 2005 meant 62.

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

... It really is quite a difficult result to call. It is either a dream scenario for EM (Tories loosing votes all over the shop) or a nightmare one (for example if those 10% came BACK to the Cons in 2015 - which would put many more Labour marginals into play).

Regards

DS

Very difficult to call.

BobQ

antrobus wrote: »

Well it all depends on how the 20% + is distributed. If it's spread all over the place, then UKIP might well end up with same as last time, as in doodly squat. But it's unlikely to be evenly spread across all 600 or so constituencies. A hyothetical 20% + is almost bound to give you something, but I've no idea what that something would be.

For example the LDs had 18% in 1992 and got 20 seats and then got 17% in 97 and won 46 seats, whilst 23% in 2010 meant 57 and 22% in 2005 meant 62.



Very difficult to call.

So where will the UKIP vote be concentrated? The constituencies of pro-EU Tories? Will they compete with the SNP ? Or the pro-EU Lib Dems?

ChiefGrasscutter

pqrdef wrote: »

So did he see that job on a card at the Job Centre? Or does a fast track to the boardroom tell us a lot about the kind of world he lives in, and we don't?

Cameron was always referred to as Michael Green's bag carrier while at Carlton.
He got the job (alledgedly) though his then girlfriend Samatha mother's connection to Mr Green.

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

So where will the UKIP vote be concentrated? The constituencies of pro-EU Tories? Will they compete with the SNP ? Or the pro-EU Lib Dems?

Euro elections next year. So if every there was a time for a protest vote. Then this will be it.

Moby

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

That's the trouble though Antrobus. 20% + of "the popular vote" means diddly squat in a first past the post race. 20% is not going to win a single parliamentary constituency seat. 20% (or even just 10% - lets assume that only half of those who voted UKIP in the locals were disgruntled Tories) loss of vote for a Conservative candidate, across the board, would torpedo many, many currently held Tory marginals.

It really is quite a difficult result to call. It is either a dream scenario for EM (Tories loosing votes all over the shop) or a nightmare one (for example if those 10% came BACK to the Cons in 2015 - which would put many more Labour marginals into play).

Regards

DS

My analysis
In a general 'first past the post' election the UKIP vote will be wide but shallow and they will end up with few or no MP's. They will sap the tory vote though more than the other parties. It looks like the most likely outcome will be a Labour govmt with a pretty low share of the vote because of the way it has been spread around.............. or a coalition between Lab Lib Dem. I think the Lib Dems are holding up pretty well in the south, (where they compete with the tories). They will probably lose seats but not as many as people think....because of the 'cockroach' effect. The euro elections will mean nothing really because they are............ the euro elections!

Generali

Moby wrote: »

My analysis
In a general 'first past the post' election the UKIP vote will be wide but shallow and they will end up with few or no MP's. They will sap the tory vote though more than the other parties. It looks like the most likely outcome will be a Labour govmt with a pretty low share of the vote because of the way it has been spread around.............. or a coalition between Lab Lib Dem. I think the Lib Dems are holding up pretty well in the south, (where they compete with the tories). They will probably lose seats but not as many as people think....because of the 'cockroach' effect. The euro elections will mean nothing really because they are............ the euro elections!

I certainly agree with the first bit: UKIP's vote is almost certainly too far spread for them to win (m)any seats.

However, examine the second part more closely:

They will sap the Tory vote though more than the other parties.

Really? So you're saying that at the end(?) of a pretty brutal economic period, the incumbent main party of the national Government would have romped home with by far the biggest share of the popular vote in the Locals were it not for a lot of people voting for a party with no realistic chance of forming a national Government without electoral reform.

Furthermore, those same voters will knowing elect a Labour Government by supporting a party that has no chance of winning a seat rather than voting for their second favourite party (the Tories) that has at least a chance of keeping out the party that is at best their 3rd most favoured (Labour).

You might want to think that through again.;)

antrobus

BobQ wrote: »

So where will the UKIP vote be concentrated? The constituencies of pro-EU Tories? Will they compete with the SNP ? Or the pro-EU Lib Dems?

If I knew that answer to that question I wouldn't be telling you. I'd be off to Ladbrokes to make my fortune.:)

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

My analysis
In a general 'first past the post' election the UKIP vote will be wide but shallow and they will end up with few or no MP's. ...

There is a Rallings & Thrasher projection based on the council results that predicts they would have got exactly zero seats.

http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/05/05/exactly-two-years-to-the-day-after-the-av-referendum-this-is-how-rallings-and-thrasher-project-ge2015/

michaels

So 3 scenarios:
Labour win it due to their own popularity
Labour win because ukip split the opposition vote
Labour don't win as ukip supporters realise defeat for the Tories equals more immigration and more Europe

I am not convinced that all ukip supporters will 'see sense'

However I am even less convinced a la BBC that we have seen a sea change in the political landscape, we have seen it all before with 'break throughs' for the SDP and the greens.