Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Conrad

Nuttall is a nightmare for Labour, watch as the North and Midlands now go the way of Scotland, Labour is dead.

westernpromise

Conrad wrote: »

Nuttall is a nightmare for Labour, watch as the North and Midlands now go the way of Scotland, Labour is dead.

Which Labour seats will UKIP take?

Thrugelmir

westernpromise wrote: »

Which Labour seats will UKIP take?

Let's watch and see how Brexit goes. Nothing like a single issue to vote on. To throw normal voting patterns out of the window.

Conrad

westernpromise wrote: »

Which Labour seats will UKIP take?

Most of them in the north and midlands for sure.


The UKIP Fox in the labour henhouse.


I've heard Labour MP's saying a while back that Nuttall as UKIP leader would be a nightmare.


The north London drippy class has next to nothing in common with the British working class, you are going to see a revolution

TrickyTree83

Pertinent to the current topic.

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/paul-nuttalls-election-ukip-leader-spell-doom-labour-mps/

mrginge

He's got a lot of work to do to drag UKIP back from the farage sideshow, but he does have a chance of causing serious problems for labour in the north.

hildosaver

Conrad wrote: »

Most of them in the north and midlands for sure.


The UKIP Fox in the labour henhouse.


I've heard Labour MP's saying a while back that Nuttall as UKIP leader would be a nightmare.


The north London drippy class has next to nothing in common with the British working class, you are going to see a revolution

UKIP for all their noise only have 1 MP and I've seen nothing to suggest they would do much better in future elections.

westernpromise

Conrad wrote: »

Most of them in the north and midlands for sure.

Well, that's a pretty bold prediction. In 2015, UKIP was second to Labour in only two Labour seats. In Heywood and Middleton, Labour won with 18,353 votes on a turnout of 60.7% of an electorate of 79,989. So here UKIP with 13,983 votes was 4,370 behind. To take the seat next time they'd need a direct UKIP to Labour swing of 5%.

The other Labour seat in which UKIP came second was Rotherham. Labour's candidate polled 17,783 votes to UKIP's 10,065. Turnout was 59.4% on an electorate of 63,698. So UKIP was 7,719 votes behind. To take the seat next time they'd need a direct UKIP to Labour swing of over 10%.

These are the two seats where they are currently second, remember. If your forecast is accurate that they'll win Labour seats all over the north and the Midlands, then to do so they'll be coming from third place.

UKIP were second in 95 seats in 2015 but only the above two were Labour seats. The other 93 were all Tory or LibDem. Even then, there are only four of those 93 where UKIP is less than 10,000 votes behind the winner, namely

1,193 Clacton
7,038 Thurrock
9,042 Thanet South
9,233 Boston and Skegness

and of those, only one is in the north or the Midlands, and all are Conservative.

So I'm not seeing the UKIP clean sweep that you're seeing.

I spent some amusing hours on the old Telegraph comments playfully twitting UKIP hubris along these lines. Every loony and fruitcake in UKIP would pile on announcing that they were going to win 'undreds of seats at the election; I would invite then to identify which ones these would be.

So I'd think again. My guess is that UKIP will win two to four seats in the north and Midlands, no more.

jamesd

Alan_Brown wrote: »

I don't need to know what you earn. I suspect that if you are on a money saving forum, you're not one of the top 1% of the world's wealthy and therefore would rely on benefits such as the NHS (for example for any high cost health conditions like cancer).

Am I wrong?

Yes, thoroughly wrong. The top 1% of global incomes starts at $32,400 a year and the top 1% of global assets at $770,000. That level is not sufficient to pay for a lot of the treatment of higher cost medical conditions. The median UK household income is about £23,500 a year, close to the individual global top 1% of incomes. Using an exchange rate of $1.25 to the Pound the top 1% is £25,920 and the top 35-40% of UK single people are in the global top 1% of incomes (page 22, seventh decile £24,800, eighth £31,100 in 2014-15).

westernpromise

according to https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/503396/Table_3_1a_14.xlsx, to be in the top 1% of earners in the UK you needed to be on £159,000 a year in 2013-4. That's a lot compared to the UK average, but not impossibly so. It's a common salary in the south-east. It's what pays for the houses after all.