|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 16, 2014 12:19:02 GMT
This seat is 126 on Labour's target list - they need 106 for a working majority if I understand their 106 campaign correctly... Um no. 106 gains takes Labour to 364 seats and an overall majority of 78. So Rochester and Strood would be the equivalent of an overall majority of 118. |
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Nov 16, 2014 12:19:10 GMT
Whilst Kelly Tolhurst was borderline embarrassing for the Tories, did anyone else get the impression that the LD candidate seemed as though, all in all, he'd much rather be in the pub! Why did he even bother turning up?!
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,988
|
Post by The Bishop on Nov 16, 2014 12:37:24 GMT
Might the other candidate in the Tory sham "primary" have actually been a better choice for them?
Even if she wasn't quite as photogenic, of course......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2014 13:27:24 GMT
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? This is an incredibly impressive standard you're achieving, Joe. So far you've said: 1. a very strong seat for ukip demographical 2. Not really the ideal kent seat for ukip. 3. Ukip would be winning by 20ish if Reckless wasn't so unlikeable 4. Ukips performance is likely going to be very impressive Your opinion not only lacks credibility, it lacks consistency - the last two were within 12 hours of each other! Then as regards actual facts: You: would guesstimate about 20th ish in their target list Me: R&S was 271st on ukip-friendly list. You: You mention this like it is a fact Well yes, it is a fact. Someone did some research and analysed the demographics and came up with that list. But you think your guesstimate trumps that somehow? And you say 'Newark is clearly worse for ukip than r&s'. So where is your evidence?. Your opinion, whatever it is at the current instant, is not evidence. Find some that supports your case. Again: You: 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... You know what, I don't know the answer to that. But neither do you. The evidence is out there, dig it out and and demonstrate the case, one way or the other. I suspect Andrew_S or Pete Whitehead might have the figures somewhere already. Joe, you seem to think that if you state an opinion, then you can use that later as a fact. It isn't. Facts are based on evidence. Your posts are, currently, and consistently, evidence-free. I call to your attention Socrates' words, as reported by Plato: |
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Nov 16, 2014 14:42:07 GMT
Naushabah Khan does seem a good candidate for labour, it is a shame for the party that the circumstances mean that their support will get hit, despite this. And although she would be a tough opponent for us, the lib dems or UKIP in a marginal seat, she does deserve a chance of going for a seat that is more likely to swing to labour.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 16, 2014 15:58:20 GMT
Might the other candidate in the Tory sham "primary" have actually been a better choice for them? Even if she wasn't quite as photogenic, of course...... You are right. She was much better and frankly better looking. The broadcast panel had Tolhurst next to two women who were markedly more attractive in appearance, manner and voice. You really can't beat Kent for an ugly accent for a woman. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 16, 2014 21:12:09 GMT
I've done a bit of modelling of UKIP support based on 2011 census figures and without wanting to go into too much detail about it, I can say that Rochester & Strood would be much more favourable than a ranking of 271 would suggest. It may be of course that my model is shit and the Goodwin and Ford one is spot on but as has alrady been pointed out, the European election performance in Medway as compared with Newark would tend to suggest that a model which points to the latter being more 'UKIP-frindly' than the former is flawed in some way
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2014 22:04:35 GMT
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? This is an incredibly impressive standard you're achieving, Joe. So far you've said: 1. a very strong seat for ukip demographical 2. Not really the ideal kent seat for ukip. 3. Ukip would be winning by 20ish if Reckless wasn't so unlikeable 4. Ukips performance is likely going to be very impressive Your opinion not only lacks credibility, it lacks consistency - the last two were within 12 hours of each other! Then as regards actual facts: You: would guesstimate about 20th ish in their target list Me: R&S was 271st on ukip-friendly list. You: You mention this like it is a fact Well yes, it is a fact. Someone did some research and analysed the demographics and came up with that list. But you think your guesstimate trumps that somehow? And you say 'Newark is clearly worse for ukip than r&s'. So where is your evidence?. Your opinion, whatever it is at the current instant, is not evidence. Find some that supports your case. Again: You: 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... You know what, I don't know the answer to that. But neither do you. The evidence is out there, dig it out and and demonstrate the case, one way or the other. I suspect Andrew_S or Pete Whitehead might have the figures somewhere already. Joe, you seem to think that if you state an opinion, then you can use that later as a fact. It isn't. Facts are based on evidence. Your posts are, currently, and consistently, evidence-free. I call to your attention Socrates' words, as reported by Plato: I hold by all 4 statements. It is a very strong seat for ukip, albeit not one of the best in what is probably their strongest county. It is very impressive in a single parliament they have come from nothing to winning a by-election here (assuming they do). However, the ukip candidate is unlikeable (and yes the tory is a lightweight) which is a drag on their vote. I therefore contend that my statements are not inconsistent. Part of examining facts is rejecting poor quality facts. I appreciate that I produced no actual data in my rejection of the ukip data and that this was lazy. It is not that this data does not exist, just that I was too idle to dig it out, although I had previously read it. That makes me lazy, not incorrect and just basing by opinions on whatever I think at the time. Just for you, I have pulled out data from a spreadsheet easily googleable (rp14-32.pdf). Medway: Con 23.1%, Lab 19.1%, LD 3.7%, UKIP 41.9% A ukip lead of 18.8% over the tories This makes the seat unambiguously more ukip friendly than: Canterbury Con 25.7%, Lab 15.4%, LD 7.7%, UKIP 34.4% Maidstone Con 28.8% Lab 10.7% LD 11.2% UKIP 37.0% Ashford Con 30.2% Lab 12.4% LD 5.6% UKIP 38.9% Dover Con 24.5% Lab 20.1% LD 4.6% UKIP 39.2% Gravesham (just about) Con 23.4% Lab 22.4% LD 2.6% UKIP 41.5% Sevenoaks Con 34.8% Lab 10.4% LD 6.2% UKIP 36.9% Tonbridge Con 34.6% Lab 11.6% LD 6.3% UKIP 35.9% Tunbridge Wells Con 36.9% Lab 10.8% LD 8.7% UKIP 30.1% Dartford Con 24.1% Lab 20.2% LD 2.9% UKIP 40.8% Shepway has a slightly higher ukip vote, but the lead over the tories is lower (16.5%). The same is true of Swale (ukip lead of 18%) Shepway Con 26.8% Lab 10.1% LD 5.0% UKIP 43.3% Swale Con 25.3% Lab 15.8% LD 4.0% UKIP 43.3% Thanet is a stronger ukip area than Rochester and Strood, with the tories weaker. Thanet Con 22.4% Lab 16.8% LD 3.3% UKIP 46.0% The fact that Rochester and Strood is one of the stronger ukip (although not as stronger as the Thanets and arguably one or two others, incidentally the ones I had previously mentioned) areas in kent, itself a strong ukip area is sufficient data to reject the ridiculous placement of R+S in the list of demographically favourable seats in ukip seats. Going down the list of highest ukip shares nationally: Boston 51.6% South Holland 48.5% Tendring 48.4% Castle Point 47.8% Fenland 47.3% Thanet 46.0% Thurrock 45.9% Forest Heath 45.8% Great Yarmouth 45.2% Basildon 44.8% East Lindsey 44.2% UKIP lead over Con (15.9%) lower than Medway Havering 43.6% Rochford 43.4% UKIP lead over Con (13.9%) lower than Medway Shepway 43.3% UKIP lead over Con lower (16.5%) than Medway Swale 43.3% UKIP lead over Con lower (18%) than Medway Torbay 43.2% UKIP lead over Con lower (17.3%) than Medway Arun 42.6% UKIP lead over Con (12.1%) lower than Medway Breckland 42.2% UKIP lead over Con (13.3%) lower than Medway MEDWAY 41.9% Kings Lynn 41.6% Gravesham 41.5% Broxbourne 41.4% NE Lincs 41.2% Rotherham 41.0% Maldon 40.9% Isle of Wight 40.9% Dartford 40.8% Christchurch 40.7% South Staffs 40.7% Epping Forest 40.3% Torridge 40.3% Spelthorne 40.1% Mansfield 40.1% So... the following constituencies are probably stronger for ukip than R+S Boston and Skegness South Holland and the Deepings Clacton Harwich and North Essex Castle Point S Thanet N Thanet Thurrock South Thurrock and East Basildon West Suffolk Great Yarmouth Basildon Romford Hornchurch and Upminster Probably Chatham and Aylesford A bit back of the envelope as on occasion obviously we are presuming that seats in the same councils vote the same way, but that gives 15. Which would put R+S at 16th. Which is hardly miles away from the 20th I suggested. Its coarse quality data, but more than sufficient to reject the hypothesis that this list is remotely sensible. Whoever came up with that list shouldn't be doing academic research - its a load of twaddle. Just because it has been published does not mean that one should slavishly take it as gospel or even give it the time of day. I don't know much mind - far far less than people like Robert Waller, Pete Whitehead, Andrew_S, Davıd Boothroyd East Anglian Lefty etc. I am well aware of this fact and my own limitations - but rejecting this study as flawed and highly inaccurate does not take a psephological genius. This seat is very strong for ukip. This is clearly demographical as in may this seat had no ukip cllrs, no by-election and therefore no personal vote. As the election was by PR in a big region tactical voting is not an issue. If anything, the hard euroskeptic tory mp could have been a dampener on the ukip vote. |
|
|
|
Post by psephos on Nov 16, 2014 22:06:23 GMT
General Boles's version:  I endorse this message. |
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Nov 16, 2014 22:15:57 GMT
I've done a bit of modelling of UKIP support based on 2011 census figures and without wanting to go into too much detail about it, I can say that Rochester & Strood would be much more favourable than a ranking of 271 would suggest. It may be of course that my model is shit and the Goodwin and Ford one is spot on but as has alrady been pointed out, the European election performance in Medway as compared with Newark would tend to suggest that a model which points to the latter being more 'UKIP-frindly' than the former is flawed in some way I have to wonder about that. What does benefit UKIP however is the way that that statistic is reported fairly unquestioningly in the media. I think Goodwin and Ford's defence would be that demographics are not destiny and that it is only 271st most friendly from a demographic point of view not taking into account other factors. Happily for UKIP our lazy media don't pick up on that or question the model more generally. Its noticable the impact that G&F's research and book has had on UKIP. Clacton of course was number one on the list. Douglass Carswell knew this because he had read the book and had then spoken directly with Goodwin to ask him where Clacton was on the list. Carswell later cited the book in his defection speech (as I believe did Reckless). Ford and Goodwin are of course still embedded with UKIP as they are researching a sequel which will cover UKIP's progress from the start of this year until the general election. I notice in articles written by Goodwin in particular that although he will maintain the line that he is simply a neutral academic observer the tone of what he writes is noticably sympathetic to the UKIP point of view without directly supporting UKIP and I wonder how far he has gone over from being an academic observer to being part of the 'UKIP team'? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2014 22:22:25 GMT
I've done a bit of modelling of UKIP support based on 2011 census figures and without wanting to go into too much detail about it, I can say that Rochester & Strood would be much more favourable than a ranking of 271 would suggest. It may be of course that my model is shit and the Goodwin and Ford one is spot on but as has alrady been pointed out, the European election performance in Medway as compared with Newark would tend to suggest that a model which points to the latter being more 'UKIP-frindly' than the former is flawed in some way I have to wonder about that. What does benefit UKIP however is the way that that statistic is reported fairly unquestioningly in the media. I think Goodwin and Ford's defence would be that demographics are not destiny and that it is only 271st most friendly from a demographic point of view not taking into account other factors. Happily for UKIP our lazy media don't pick up on that or question the model more generally. Its noticable the impact that G&F's research and book has had on UKIP. Clacton of course was number one on the list. Douglass Carswell knew this because he had read the book and had then spoken directly with Goodwin to ask him where Clacton was on the list. Carswell later cited the book in his defection speech (as I believe did Reckless). Ford and Goodwin are of course still embedded with UKIP as they are researching a sequel which will cover UKIP's progress from the start of this year until the general election. I notice in articles written by Goodwin in particular that although he will maintain the line that he is simply a neutral academic observer the tone of what he writes is noticably sympathetic to the UKIP point of view without directly supporting UKIP and I wonder how far he has gone over from being an academic observer to being part of the 'UKIP team'? But thats the thing. As I have pointed out above, there were no ukip cllrs in the seat, no by-election and no need for tatical voting in the Europeans given the large number of meps in the region. Ergo no reason for a high ukip vote other than demographics. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2014 22:32:17 GMT
This is an incredibly impressive standard you're achieving, Joe. So far you've said: 1. a very strong seat for ukip demographical 2. Not really the ideal kent seat for ukip. 3. Ukip would be winning by 20ish if Reckless wasn't so unlikeable 4. Ukips performance is likely going to be very impressive Your opinion not only lacks credibility, it lacks consistency - the last two were within 12 hours of each other! Then as regards actual facts: You: would guesstimate about 20th ish in their target list Me: R&S was 271st on ukip-friendly list. You: You mention this like it is a fact Well yes, it is a fact. Someone did some research and analysed the demographics and came up with that list. But you think your guesstimate trumps that somehow? And you say 'Newark is clearly worse for ukip than r&s'. So where is your evidence?. Your opinion, whatever it is at the current instant, is not evidence. Find some that supports your case. Again: You: 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... You know what, I don't know the answer to that. But neither do you. The evidence is out there, dig it out and and demonstrate the case, one way or the other. I suspect Andrew_S or Pete Whitehead might have the figures somewhere already. Joe, you seem to think that if you state an opinion, then you can use that later as a fact. It isn't. Facts are based on evidence. Your posts are, currently, and consistently, evidence-free. I call to your attention Socrates' words, as reported by Plato: I hold by all 4 statements. It is a very strong seat for ukip, albeit not one of the best in what is probably their strongest county. It is very impressive in a single parliament they have come from nothing to winning a by-election here (assuming they do). However, the ukip candidate is unlikeable (and yes the tory is a lightweight) which is a drag on their vote. I therefore contend that my statements are not inconsistent. Part of examining facts is rejecting poor quality facts. I appreciate that I produced no actual data in my rejection of the ukip data and that this was lazy. It is not that this data does not exist, just that I was too idle to dig it out, although I had previously read it. That makes me lazy, not incorrect and just basing by opinions on whatever I think at the time. Just for you, I have pulled out data from a spreadsheet easily googleable (rp14-32.pdf). Medway: Con 23.1%, Lab 19.1%, LD 3.7%, UKIP 41.9% A ukip lead of 18.8% over the tories This makes the seat unambiguously more ukip friendly than: Canterbury Con 25.7%, Lab 15.4%, LD 7.7%, UKIP 34.4% Maidstone Con 28.8% Lab 10.7% LD 11.2% UKIP 37.0% Ashford Con 30.2% Lab 12.4% LD 5.6% UKIP 38.9% Dover Con 24.5% Lab 20.1% LD 4.6% UKIP 39.2% Gravesham (just about) Con 23.4% Lab 22.4% LD 2.6% UKIP 41.5% Sevenoaks Con 34.8% Lab 10.4% LD 6.2% UKIP 36.9% Tonbridge Con 34.6% Lab 11.6% LD 6.3% UKIP 35.9% Tunbridge Wells Con 36.9% Lab 10.8% LD 8.7% UKIP 30.1% Dartford Con 24.1% Lab 20.2% LD 2.9% UKIP 40.8% Shepway has a slightly higher ukip vote, but the lead over the tories is lower (16.5%). The same is true of Swale (ukip lead of 18%) Shepway Con 26.8% Lab 10.1% LD 5.0% UKIP 43.3% Swale Con 25.3% Lab 15.8% LD 4.0% UKIP 43.3% Thanet is a stronger ukip area than Rochester and Strood, with the tories weaker. Thanet Con 22.4% Lab 16.8% LD 3.3% UKIP 46.0% The fact that Rochester and Strood is one of the stronger ukip (although not as stronger as the Thanets and arguably one or two others, incidentally the ones I had previously mentioned) areas in kent, itself a strong ukip area is sufficient data to reject the ridiculous placement of R+S in the list of demographically favourable seats in ukip seats. Going down the list of highest ukip shares nationally: Boston 51.6% South Holland 48.5% Tendring 48.4% Castle Point 47.8% Fenland 47.3% Thanet 46.0% Thurrock 45.9% Forest Heath 45.8% Great Yarmouth 45.2% Basildon 44.8% East Lindsey 44.2% UKIP lead over Con (15.9%) lower than Medway Havering 43.6% Rochford 43.4% UKIP lead over Con (13.9%) lower than Medway Shepway 43.3% UKIP lead over Con lower (16.5%) than Medway Swale 43.3% UKIP lead over Con lower (18%) than Medway Torbay 43.2% UKIP lead over Con lower (17.3%) than Medway Arun 42.6% UKIP lead over Con (12.1%) lower than Medway Breckland 42.2% UKIP lead over Con (13.3%) lower than Medway MEDWAY 41.9% Kings Lynn 41.6% Gravesham 41.5% Broxbourne 41.4% NE Lincs 41.2% Rotherham 41.0% Maldon 40.9% Isle of Wight 40.9% Dartford 40.8% Christchurch 40.7% South Staffs 40.7% Epping Forest 40.3% Torridge 40.3% Spelthorne 40.1% Mansfield 40.1% So... the following constituencies are probably stronger for ukip than R+S Boston and Skegness South Holland and the Deepings Clacton Harwich and North Essex Castle Point S Thanet N Thanet Thurrock South Thurrock and East Basildon West Suffolk Great Yarmouth Basildon Romford Hornchurch and Upminster Probably Chatham and Aylesford A bit back of the envelope as on occasion obviously we are presuming that seats in the same councils vote the same way, but that gives 15. Which would put R+S at 16th. Which is hardly miles away from the 20th I suggested. Its coarse quality data, but more than sufficient to reject the hypothesis that this list is remotely sensible. Whoever came up with that list shouldn't be doing academic research - its a load of twaddle. Just because it has been published does not mean that one should slavishly take it as gospel or even give it the time of day. I don't know much mind - far far less than people like Robert Waller, Pete Whitehead, Andrew_S, Davıd Boothroyd etc. I am well aware of this fact and my own limitations - but rejecting this study as flawed and highly inaccurate does not take a psephological genius. This seat is very strong for ukip. This is clearly demographical as in may this seat had no ukip cllrs, no by-election and therefore no personal vote. As the election was by PR in a big region tactical voting is not an issue. If anything, the hard euroskeptic tory mp could have been a dampener on the ukip vote. Ah, that's better. You are conflating local authorities with constituencies, however, which does muddy the water slightly; having said, that, a quick look at the two and alf constituencies which make up Medway would seem to indicate there is reasonable homogeneity between them. You are still managing to hold several contradictory ideas in your mind at once though. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2014 22:39:02 GMT
A bit back of the envelope as on occasion obviously we are presuming that seats in the same councils vote the same way, but that gives 15. Which would put R+S at 16th. Which is hardly miles away from the 20th I suggested. Its coarse quality data, but more than sufficient to reject the hypothesis that this list is remotely sensible. Whoever came up with that list shouldn't be doing academic research - its a load of twaddle. Just because it has been published does not mean that one should slavishly take it as gospel or even give it the time of day. Ah, that's better. Y ou are conflating local authorities with constituencies, however, which does muddy the water slightly; having said, that, a quick look at the two and alf constituencies which make up Medway would seem to indicate there is reasonable homogeneity between them. You are still managing to hold several contradictory ideas in your mind at once though. TBF I did acknowledge this - I had all this data more or less remembered in my head - so it wasn't like I was totally bullshitting before. |
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Nov 16, 2014 22:44:23 GMT
I have to wonder about that. What does benefit UKIP however is the way that that statistic is reported fairly unquestioningly in the media. I think Goodwin and Ford's defence would be that demographics are not destiny and that it is only 271st most friendly from a demographic point of view not taking into account other factors. Happily for UKIP our lazy media don't pick up on that or question the model more generally. Its noticable the impact that G&F's research and book has had on UKIP. Clacton of course was number one on the list. Douglass Carswell knew this because he had read the book and had then spoken directly with Goodwin to ask him where Clacton was on the list. Carswell later cited the book in his defection speech (as I believe did Reckless). Ford and Goodwin are of course still embedded with UKIP as they are researching a sequel which will cover UKIP's progress from the start of this year until the general election. I notice in articles written by Goodwin in particular that although he will maintain the line that he is simply a neutral academic observer the tone of what he writes is noticably sympathetic to the UKIP point of view without directly supporting UKIP and I wonder how far he has gone over from being an academic observer to being part of the 'UKIP team'? But thats the thing. As I have pointed out above, there were no ukip cllrs in the seat, no by-election and no need for tatical voting in the Europeans given the large number of meps in the region. Ergo no reason for a high ukip vote other than demographics. I'm just saying what their defence to that point is I'm not saying they're right. I'm not arguing with your point, I suspect that you and Pete Whitehead are right to be questioning of their model. However its no good saying that to us here. In the event of the expected UKIP win the media will be full of reports of 'UKIP triumph in 271st most UKIP friendly seat.' Usually the main beneficiary of our media's laziness, lack of intellectual curiosity and tendency to groupthink is David Cameron but this time will be UKIP benefiting. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 17, 2014 2:07:14 GMT
I've done a bit of modelling of UKIP support based on 2011 census figures and without wanting to go into too much detail about it, I can say that Rochester & Strood would be much more favourable than a ranking of 271 would suggest. It may be of course that my model is shit and the Goodwin and Ford one is spot on but as has alrady been pointed out, the European election performance in Medway as compared with Newark would tend to suggest that a model which points to the latter being more 'UKIP-frindly' than the former is flawed in some way I have to wonder about that. What does benefit UKIP however is the way that that statistic is reported fairly unquestioningly in the media. I think Goodwin and Ford's defence would be that demographics are not destiny and that it is only 271st most friendly from a demographic point of view not taking into account other factors. Happily for UKIP our lazy media don't pick up on that or question the model more generally. Its noticable the impact that G&F's research and book has had on UKIP. Clacton of course was number one on the list. Douglass Carswell knew this because he had read the book and had then spoken directly with Goodwin to ask him where Clacton was on the list. Carswell later cited the book in his defection speech (as I believe did Reckless). Ford and Goodwin are of course still embedded with UKIP as they are researching a sequel which will cover UKIP's progress from the start of this year until the general election. I notice in articles written by Goodwin in particular that although he will maintain the line that he is simply a neutral academic observer the tone of what he writes is noticably sympathetic to the UKIP point of view without directly supporting UKIP and I wonder how far he has gone over from being an academic observer to being part of the 'UKIP team'? Goodwin is undoubtedly UKIP's pet academic. Ford perhaps less so, but I still think the tail is wagging the dog and I would regard their work with some scepticism |
|
Pimpernal
Forum Regular
A left-wing agenda within a right-wing framework...
Posts: 2,873 
|
Post by Pimpernal on Nov 17, 2014 7:26:54 GMT
The problem with extrapolating from 'Medway' as a Unitary is the wide divergence of the areas it covers, and as has sort of eeked out through this thread, we feel the strength of that Medway vote didn't come from the parts that make up R&S but more from other areas. Similarly in 'Swale' we noted that the balance between Sittingbourne and Sheppey boxes was considerably higher than in Faversham boxes. On that basis you could easily find that the vote in R&S was 5 or more % lower than the combined total suggests, and much higher elsewhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2014 8:57:32 GMT
|
|
cefin
Non-Aligned
Posts: 906
|
Post by cefin on Nov 17, 2014 11:21:04 GMT
I've done a bit of modelling of UKIP support based on 2011 census figures and without wanting to go into too much detail about it, I can say that Rochester & Strood would be much more favourable than a ranking of 271 would suggest. It may be of course that my model is shit and the Goodwin and Ford one is spot on but as has alrady been pointed out, the European election performance in Medway as compared with Newark would tend to suggest that a model which points to the latter being more 'UKIP-frindly' than the former is flawed in some way I have to wonder about that. What does benefit UKIP however is the way that that statistic is reported fairly unquestioningly in the media. I think Goodwin and Ford's defence would be that demographics are not destiny and that it is only 271st most friendly from a demographic point of view not taking into account other factors. Happily for UKIP our lazy media don't pick up on that or question the model more generally. Its noticable the impact that G&F's research and book has had on UKIP. Clacton of course was number one on the list. Douglass Carswell knew this because he had read the book and had then spoken directly with Goodwin to ask him where Clacton was on the list. Carswell later cited the book in his defection speech (as I believe did Reckless). Ford and Goodwin are of course still embedded with UKIP as they are researching a sequel which will cover UKIP's progress from the start of this year until the general election . I notice in articles written by Goodwin in particular that although he will maintain the line that he is simply a neutral academic observer the tone of what he writes is noticably sympathetic to the UKIP point of view without directly supporting UKIP and I wonder how far he has gone over from being an academic observer to being part of the 'UKIP team'?
Goodwin's a well known left winger.
Having read his stuff I personally think that he's as clueless as the rest of the hopeless self appointed political analysts in the country.
Reading on a daily basis political expert after political expert's articles, it clear to me that they have no idea on what drives UKIP voting or how anyone can combat UKIP's current rise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2014 14:52:17 GMT
The Conservatives have got 2,876 more votes than UKIP in the by-elections of this parliament (90,592 v 87,716). Rochester/Strood will put UKIP above the Tories, in second place behind Labour tally, currently 211,481. (The LDs are on 49,602).
|
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Nov 17, 2014 17:46:31 GMT
|
|
