|
|
Post by Devonian on May 15, 2013 6:53:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on May 15, 2013 7:20:59 GMT
I doubt that it will have a great influence on the end polling numbers . Yougov still suffers from the sampling error that in every poll around 3/4 times as many respondents say they were UKIP supporters in 2010 than there were and their weightings only eliminates around half this bias .
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 15, 2013 11:22:58 GMT
For those not clicking through to the link, Smithson has updated to say that there's been no change and that the screenshot was from a test.
If UKIP are still polling at this level in the run-up to the general election, there's no reason not to prompt for them (though perhaps some reason to believe they might underperform their polling). I suspect I'd want to hold off for a few more months before making a decision however, just to see whether or not they hold their current level of support.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2013 14:52:00 GMT
Is UKIP planning to stand in all seats in 2015?
|
|
|
|
Post by russthomas on Jun 27, 2013 8:06:52 GMT
Is UKIP planning to stand in all seats in 2015?
Some of their "leaders" sometimes say that they are - but the thinking strategists know that this is not going to happen. Firstly, they simply cannot afford it., or resource it. Secondly, despite all rumours to the contrary, UKIP support is highly concentrated in East and South coast and West Country areas with HIGH new EU population, not yet registered to vote, plus LOW Old EU and Non EU population, who are registered to vote, plus lots of retired activists. In big cities like London, Manchester, Birmingham, Bradford, Leicester, Luton, Reading, Slough and Nottingham the demographics are dominantly Anti-UKIP. In Scotland and Northern Ireland they are seen as the enemy - The English Nationalist Party in all but name, so in only a few seats normally held by LIB will they even field a candidate. Third, this will pay off strategically, the message can go out that if there is a UKIP candidate on the ballot paper, they are in with a chance of winning, and YOUR vote WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE, don't vote for MRLP when you can vote for a real protest party.
|
|
|
|
Post by erlend on Jun 27, 2013 8:14:07 GMT
UKIP fielded 572 candidates in 2010 ( source wiki). A jump to 632 in GB hardly seems difficult on cost grounds (I am slightly sceptical they will do all of Northern Ireland, particularly West Belfast:-) ). I suppose they might not manage all the shitty end of Clydeside but my gut feeling is that they will be damned close to the 632.
|
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Jun 27, 2013 9:54:37 GMT
UKIP fielded 572 candidates in 2010 ( source wiki). A jump to 632 in GB hardly seems difficult on cost grounds Indeed. They saved 99 deposits in 2010. If they field 632 in GB in 2015 and keep more than 160 deposits they will actually end up with fewer lost deposits. Putting up a full slate also has a good psychological impact as its what 'serious' parties are expected to do. You can see how UKIP is making this transition in people's minds from 'minor' to 'serious' party from the way people commented on their lost deposit in the Donside by election. North East Scotland is one of UKIP's weakest areas but people still found the lost deposit noteworthy because 'serious' parties are expected to be able to keep their deposits anywhere. That's the reason why people will always comment on the fact when Lib Dem, Conservative or Labour lose a deposit in a by election but never comment if the Green Party, English Democrats or Respect Party lose their's. The former group are expected to keep deposits, the latter are not. UKIP may be part way there but they haven't completed the transition from 'minor' to 'serious' party. If they are to complete it they have to things like putting up full slates in general elections. |
|
|
|
Post by erlend on Jun 27, 2013 10:26:49 GMT
Time has moved on. In 74 the Liberals were treated as serious without I think a full slate.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,468
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 27, 2013 10:41:25 GMT
In the first 74 election you were much closer to it than ever before - come the autumn just a handful of Scottish seats were left uncontested, so close enough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 10:49:25 GMT
prompting may matter for UKIP because their coverage has noticeably lessened now.
For example is there a UKIP treasury spokesman and have they spoken on the spending limits ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Jun 27, 2013 10:50:42 GMT
Time has moved on. In 74 the Liberals were treated as serious without I think a full slate. Indeed. There were unopposed Westminster seats as late as 1951. Of course once the full slate convention has been established for a party it becomes impossible to retreat from without major loss of face. |
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Jun 27, 2013 10:57:03 GMT
prompting may matter for UKIP because their coverage has noticeably lessened now. Indeed. that's why the next Survation poll (whenever that is) will be interesting as they prompt for UKIP. When they had their last poll they gave UKIP 20 whilst YouGov were giving UKIP 14-15. Comparing the change in YouGov and other UKIP scores with the change of Survation UKIP scores will indicate if prompting if having a measurable effect. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 11:04:49 GMT
the thing is with UKIP it is all well and good being a protest party but that takes you only so far. At some point they have to decide do they want to break from that and that means being a serious interview on the budget etc
I would like to hear what UKIP think about the spending review and where they agree/disagree but do they have a unified position that does not mention the EU ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Jun 27, 2013 11:11:48 GMT
the thing is with UKIP it is all well and good being a protest party but that takes you only so far. At some point they have to decide do they want to break from that and that means being a serious interview on the budget etc I would like to hear what UKIP think about the spending review and where they agree/disagree but do they have a unified position that does not mention the EU ? Apparently this is their response to the spending review ukip.org/newsroom/news/692-the-spending-review-osborne-show-us-the-cuts-but-not-the-growthwell they did avoid mentioning the EU until the 7th paragraph, which I presume is deliberate. |
|
|
|
Post by russthomas on Jun 27, 2013 12:03:28 GMT
the thing is with UKIP it is all well and good being a protest party but that takes you only so far.
UKIP are to say the least, unconventional. What if they do not want to form a government, EVER. They may say that what they choose to do, is be a thorn in the side of whoever gets a majority. In return for action on their single issue they will behave nicely, but if not, then look out for hell in Westminster.
As for Scotland and Northern Ireland seats, they could well make agreements with SNP and Sinn Fein not to stand in seats that they would normally contend ... this could then fairly easily lead to an election outcome whereby a UKIP/SNP/Sinn Fein coalition are a major opposition force to Labour, and Tories and LibDems are out of it for a generation.
In the new FOUR PARTY politics, not putting up candidates in seats that you know very well you are going to lose your deposit, is what 'serious' parties are expected to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by erlend on Jun 27, 2013 12:10:45 GMT
I don't think an extra seat for SF would make much difference for Tories or Lib Dems. The Tories are also not much affected by extra seats for the SNP and their one seat in Scotland is not high on the SNP hit list. In theory that is more of a problem for the Lib Dems but that logic is probably only sustainable if the Lib Dem vote is at current levels which would leave us unlikely to be in government anyway.
And doing a deal with SF would probably damage them in their southern heartlands. Colonel Blimp does not like deals with terrorists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Jun 27, 2013 12:13:51 GMT
they could well make agreements with SNP and Sinn Fein not to stand in seats that they would normally contend Not likely. Ukip is staunchly Unionist in both places. They're not known for getting on well with either of those parties. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 12:17:36 GMT
the thing is with UKIP it is all well and good being a protest party but that takes you only so far. At some point they have to decide do they want to break from that and that means being a serious interview on the budget etc I would like to hear what UKIP think about the spending review and where they agree/disagree but do they have a unified position that does not mention the EU ? Apparently this is their response to the spending review ukip.org/newsroom/news/692-the-spending-review-osborne-show-us-the-cuts-but-not-the-growthwell they did avoid mentioning the EU until the 7th paragraph, which I presume is deliberate. cheers I wonder when they say holding fake charities to account What do they mean, I would include any 'charity' that runs a school for example or funds a think tank. When they say show us the growth, any example of a country making more severe cuts and growing of similar nature to ourselves ? |
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Jun 27, 2013 12:19:02 GMT
And doing a deal with SF would probably damage them in their southern heartlands. Colonel Blimp does not like deals with terrorists. Not only that it would severely damage then in Northern Ireland as well. They're strongly unionist. For example they've recently joined the UUP and TUV protesting about plans for the former Maze prison in Northern Ireland www.newsletter.co.uk/news/regional/maze-protest-rally-arranged-1-5203783They were also one on the parties who supported the unionist unity candidate in the Mid Ulster by election. A deal with SF is simply not going to happen. I would think they're much more likely to do a deal with the TUV or UUP. |
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Jun 27, 2013 13:43:56 GMT
|
|
