Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2014 22:04:33 GMT
Its just the truth. We will lose. Its not surprising. This is despite what Reckless said, a very strong seat for ukip demographically and obviously having a sitting mp move over in a by-election while we are in government and the opposition are so hapless and out of touch with provincial small town england is a perfect storm. Don't forget this seat isn't exactly tory heartland - its very deprived and grim.
Ukip would be winning by 20ish if Reckless wasn't so unlikeable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2014 22:44:42 GMT
Its just the truth. We will lose. Its not surprising. This is despite what Reckless said, a very strong seat for ukip demographically and obviously having a sitting mp move over in a by-election while we are in government and the opposition are so hapless and out of touch with provincial small town england is a perfect storm. Don't forget this seat isn't exactly tory heartland - its very deprived and grim. Ukip would be winning by 20ish if Reckless wasn't so unlikeable. This is what you said in September: I think UKIP should win the by-election. The GE may well be very tricky for Reckless. Not really the ideal kent seat for ukip. Emphasis in both cases mine, obviously. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2014 23:37:58 GMT
Its just the truth. We will lose. Its not surprising. This is despite what Reckless said, a very strong seat for ukip demographically and obviously having a sitting mp move over in a by-election while we are in government and the opposition are so hapless and out of touch with provincial small town england is a perfect storm. Don't forget this seat isn't exactly tory heartland - its very deprived and grim. Ukip would be winning by 20ish if Reckless wasn't so unlikeable. This is what you said in September: I think UKIP should win the by-election. The GE may well be very tricky for Reckless. Not really the ideal kent seat for ukip. Emphasis in both cases mine, obviously. It's not the ideal seat in Kent. Sittingbourne, both thanets and Chatham are better for that party. Folkestone is also up there. The use of the word Kent was key. By national standards it is very strong for ukip, would guesstimate about 20th ish in their target list pre Reckless, as Kent is an exceptionally strong county for ukip. I continue to think the ge will be tricky for Reckless. |
|
|
|
Post by independentukip on Nov 15, 2014 23:53:20 GMT
Its just the truth. We will lose. Its not surprising. This is despite what Reckless said, a very strong seat for ukip demographically and obviously having a sitting mp move over in a by-election while we are in government and the opposition are so hapless and out of touch with provincial small town england is a perfect storm. Don't forget this seat isn't exactly tory heartland - its very deprived and grim. Ukip would be winning by 20ish if Reckless wasn't so unlikeable. I think on quick reflection I will withdraw my comments on your post. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Nov 16, 2014 1:36:56 GMT
I thought the Tories would lose from the moment a by-election was going to happen, as the first page of this thread will confirm. What I can't understand is how the Tories convinced themselves they could win. Maybe it was too many drinks in Birmingham bars.
|
|
Pimpernal
Forum Regular
A left-wing agenda within a right-wing framework...
Posts: 2,873 
|
Post by Pimpernal on Nov 16, 2014 9:04:29 GMT
By election hustings debate on BBC Radio Kent right now Listening to the debate I have to say I'm not impressed by Kelly Tolhurst. Not many are... I have had a couple of local Tories mention that they are backing Reckless in this election to avoid being lumped with Tolhurst for the next 5 years! |
|
Pimpernal
Forum Regular
A left-wing agenda within a right-wing framework...
Posts: 2,873
|
Post by Pimpernal on Nov 16, 2014 9:12:25 GMT
These used to say "born and educated" not "went to school". That would have used up 2 of their 5 desperate "good things" about Tolhurst in one line though... they don't seem to have had a substitute "good thing" available... |
|
Pimpernal
Forum Regular
A left-wing agenda within a right-wing framework...
Posts: 2,873
|
Post by Pimpernal on Nov 16, 2014 9:16:10 GMT
, both thanets and Chatham are better for that party. Folkestone is also up there. The use of the word Kent was key. By national standards it is very strong for ukip, would guesstimate about 20th ish in their target list pre Reckless, as Kent is an exceptionally strong county for ukip. I continue to think the ge will be tricky for Reckless. I can assure you it was nowhere near the top 20... On the standard demographic rating for UKIP it was no 271 most favourable... It wasn't even our No1 target in Medway ... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2014 9:32:26 GMT
Its just the truth. We will lose. Its not surprising. This is despite what Reckless said, a very strong seat for ukip demographically and obviously having a sitting mp move over in a by-election while we are in government and the opposition are so hapless and out of touch with provincial small town england is a perfect storm. Don't forget this seat isn't exactly tory heartland - its very deprived and grim. Ukip would be winning by 20ish if Reckless wasn't so unlikeable. Had the incumbent died or resigned his seat without defecting and standing again, we would probably have been contemplating a very different result. The same applies to an even greater extent in Clacton. |
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Nov 16, 2014 10:05:19 GMT
Listening to the debate I have to say I'm not impressed by Kelly Tolhurst. Not many are... I have had a couple of local Tories mention that they are backing Reckless in this election to avoid being lumped with Tolhurst for the next 5 years! I can imagine. I have to wonder at the process which led to her being shortlisted. I'm not a fan of primaries but if people are going to do them then they should at least been done properly. Because the Tories simply ran this primary as a gimmick and a 'clever' dodge to get around spending limit laws someone clearly decided that running a proper primary (i.e. one with a genuinely competitive shortlist with more than two names on, one with public hustings etc) would spoil that purpose. As a result they've been lumbered with a terrible candidate and effectively sabotaged their own campaign. For those who haven't seen the BBC debate yet here is a short clip showing the massive contrast between the strongest candidate on the platform, Naushabah Khan, and the weakest, Kelly Tolhurst. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,988
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Nov 16, 2014 10:35:35 GMT
I thought the Tories would lose from the moment a by-election was going to happen, as the first page of this thread will confirm. What I can't understand is how the Tories convinced themselves they could win. Maybe it was too many drinks in Birmingham bars. Newark went to their heads, despite the obvious differences between then and now. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2014 10:49:50 GMT
This is what you said in September: Emphasis in both cases mine, obviously. It's not the ideal seat in Kent. Sittingbourne, both thanets and Chatham are better for that party. Folkestone is also up there. The use of the word Kent was key. By national standards it is very strong for ukip, would guesstimate about 20th ish in their target list pre Reckless, as Kent is an exceptionally strong county for ukip. I continue to think the ge will be tricky for Reckless. R&S was 271st on ukip-friendly list. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2014 10:52:35 GMT
, both thanets and Chatham are better for that party. Folkestone is also up there. The use of the word Kent was key. By national standards it is very strong for ukip, would guesstimate about 20th ish in their target list pre Reckless, as Kent is an exceptionally strong county for ukip. I continue to think the ge will be tricky for Reckless. I can assure you it was nowhere near the top 20... On the standard demographic rating for UKIP it was no 271 most favourable... It wasn't even our No1 target in Medway ... Joe is just doing the usual 'ignore the evidence' and 'rewrite history' expectations management, pimp |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 16, 2014 10:59:28 GMT
Not many are... I have had a couple of local Tories mention that they are backing Reckless in this election to avoid being lumped with Tolhurst for the next 5 years! I can imagine. I have to wonder at the process which led to her being shortlisted. I'm not a fan of primaries but if people are going to do them then they should at least been done properly. Because the Tories simply ran this primary as a gimmick and a 'clever' dodge to get around spending limit laws someone clearly decided that running a proper primary (i.e. one with a genuinely competitive shortlist with more than two names on, one with public hustings etc) would spoil that purpose. As a result they've been lumbered with a terrible candidate and effectively sabotaged their own campaign. For those who haven't seen the BBC debate yet here is a short clip showing the massive contrast between the strongest candidate on the platform, Naushabah Khan, and the weakest, Kelly Tolhurst. Wow! Brash, rough and reasonably thick....but also very unappealing. Compare and contrast the well presented, smooth and much better educated Labour candidate. This is a complete reversal of roles from 40'50-years back when I last worked in Medway politics. How far the the bar has been lowered by the Conservatives in a seat of their own. So that is the best you can find Joe, for perhaps the most high profile by-election of an era? Shame on your party! Win or lose, one should have put up a really sound candidate who could at least win the debate even if circumstances denied him the seat. This is another Helen Grant as at Maidstone. Token women to satisfy a silly principle, resulting in third-raters not only getting into Parliament but also Government. No wonder you are losing......because you really deserve to lose over this. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Nov 16, 2014 11:00:19 GMT
Not many are... I have had a couple of local Tories mention that they are backing Reckless in this election to avoid being lumped with Tolhurst for the next 5 years! I can imagine. I have to wonder at the process which led to her being shortlisted. I'm not a fan of primaries but if people are going to do them then they should at least been done properly. Because the Tories simply ran this primary as a gimmick and a 'clever' dodge to get around spending limit laws someone clearly decided that running a proper primary (i.e. one with a genuinely competitive shortlist with more than two names on, one with public hustings etc) would spoil that purpose. As a result they've been lumbered with a terrible candidate and effectively sabotaged their own campaign. For those who haven't seen the BBC debate yet here is a short clip showing the massive contrast between the strongest candidate on the platform, Naushabah Khan, and the weakest, Kelly Tolhurst. much rolling of eyes and karate chop hand gestures.... |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 16, 2014 11:05:03 GMT
Its just the truth. We will lose. Its not surprising. This is despite what Reckless said, a very strong seat for ukip demographically and obviously having a sitting mp move over in a by-election while we are in government and the opposition are so hapless and out of touch with provincial small town england is a perfect storm. Don't forget this seat isn't exactly tory heartland - its very deprived and grim. Ukip would be winning by 20ish if Reckless wasn't so unlikeable. Come off it Joe. That constituency is very far from being "...very deprived and grim...". You obviously don't know it. If if was as you say it would be held firmly by Labour and you know that. Much o it is very nice even elegant with many leafy estates and commuter areas. There are sub areas of deprivation but only sub areas. You have no excuse at all to lose this. It is heartland Tory and it was not high on the UKIP demographic. You are trying to massage expectation.................LOSER!!!!!!!!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2014 11:20:37 GMT
, both thanets and Chatham are better for that party. Folkestone is also up there. The use of the word Kent was key. By national standards it is very strong for ukip, would guesstimate about 20th ish in their target list pre Reckless, as Kent is an exceptionally strong county for ukip. I continue to think the ge will be tricky for Reckless. I can assure you it was nowhere near the top 20... On the standard demographic rating for UKIP it was no 271 most favourable... It wasn't even our No1 target in Medway ... That is demonstrably nonsense. Examine European elections. What position did it come in with regards ukip share. Very high but still beaten by several others in Kent I would think... As for the allegation that a constituency we didn't win in 2005 is a heartland area, I would argue clearly not true. It has pre ukip always been a marginal. What does everyone want me to say. That the Tories will win? I am merely giving my opinion. I am not a Cchq clone. I have been to both Rochester (which is mostly quite deprived) Strood, which seems highly deprived as well as the Hoo area, which to be fair, seemed quite pleasant. I am not fighting the by election, thus cannot be a loser. Ukips performance is likely going to be very impressive. What else would you like me to say? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2014 11:34:34 GMT
It's not the ideal seat in Kent. Sittingbourne, both thanets and Chatham are better for that party. Folkestone is also up there. The use of the word Kent was key. By national standards it is very strong for ukip, would guesstimate about 20th ish in their target list pre Reckless, as Kent is an exceptionally strong county for ukip. I continue to think the ge will be tricky for Reckless. R&S was 271st on ukip-friendly list. You mention this like it is a fact. With all due respect all it shows is that the list is not very well drawn up as it fails to account for real results. Where was newark on this list? 248th.... Newark is clearly far worse for ukip than r&s. |
|
Pimpernal
Forum Regular
A left-wing agenda within a right-wing framework...
Posts: 2,873
|
Post by Pimpernal on Nov 16, 2014 12:01:38 GMT
Ahh dear statistics we like vs statistics we don't like - an old, old, conundrum...
But talking of which...
This seat is 126 on Labour's target list - they need 106 for a working majority if I understand their 106 campaign correctly...
If they fall away as drastically as this in other similar seats, then their strategy for power is doomed.
In any normal cycle, after 4 years of a rubbish government, Labour should have won a byelection in Rochester & Strood. The fact they may still hold onto about 20% of the vote is more down to their rather good candidate rather than any integral Labour support, but remains a damning indictment of how little popular progress Labour have managed to make in the years since their 2010 trouncing. They have only remained relevant in this parliament because the Tories have also failed to make any progress over the same period, whilst the Lib Dems have virtually crucified themselves as the party of easy opposition and have collapsed.
Can ANY party take much comfort from the state of modern British politics today?
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,496
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 16, 2014 12:15:57 GMT
By elections often turn up odd results and this is another odd by election.
I don't think Labour are doing particularly well in the south - the swing against us here last time was huge and it turned what had appeared to be a marginal into a seat which in terms of the raw figures was pretty safe Tory. Hence it's not even in the target list. I would agreen that we would have done better were Ukip not there but then the entire reason the by election is happening is Ukip! I am not in favour of adjusting our policies to suit a few voters in a handful of outside chance seats in the south. Ultimately Labour should be Labour and if voters in this seat don't agree with our policies then so be it. But I think it's much more about the particular dynamics of this by election in any case.
It will make very little difference to the outcome at the general election in itself but short term it may cause problems for the Tories because they will have lost a seat where they had a majority of over 9000. We are something of a sideshow even though we have the best candidate by miles. I hope she is rewarded with a better seat though this may not be out of bounds forever.
|
|
