Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2015 21:22:12 GMT
I invite the forum to discuss whether we think the UKIP will be able to claim they were more electorally successful than the SDP ever was, and indeed if they could already make such a claim.
The SDP case:
- the party was formed by former government ministers and were able to attract 29 defecting MPs from the two main parties, as well being able to form an alliance with the Liberal Party which notched up over a quarter of the vote in 1983, coming close to overtaking the Labour Party in terms of popular vote. They were able to return six MPs in 1983 under FPTP, and retain most of their support in the 1987 general election.
The UKIP case:
- UKIP polled 12.6% of the vote in the 2015 general election, more than the SDP ever managed on their own (they got 11.5% in 1983). UKIP has managed to last for 22 years without being disestablished, and has continued to build up its support gradually, rather than slowly disappear after an initial burst of support. It has also been able to attract support from very different points on the political spectrum. The party's best days could well be ahead of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Oct 8, 2015 22:48:54 GMT
I do not believe UKIP will be able to claim greater electoral success than the SDP for three reasons:
1. The SDP/Liberal alliance was moderate and trying to find a middle ground, which is why its support was more evenly spread. UKIP is generally perceived as extreme, racist, and outdated, even though unlike the SDP it arose from activists rather than as a splinter group. UKIP groups on councils are also rather unstable and prone to splintering over even minor disputes, especially when they are large.
2. UKIP is pretty poorly organised outside a few select areas (from my experience UKIP's organisation in Hertfordshire is particularly poor and lopsided except in the Broxbourne area, where the demographics are rather friendly to them), whereas the SDP/Liberal Alliance could reach people in most places.
3. UKIP's performance in elections during the last few years was mainly boosted by biased media attention, even when that media attention came because of UKIP candidates getting into trouble a lot. The SDP/Liberal Alliance at least had some base to start with (not just because of the Liberals but also because of a few moderate/centre-right activists; two SDP parliamentary candidates in 1983, Cyril Nottingham and Frederick Stockdale, stood for 'Democratic Labour' in their areas in 1979).
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Oct 8, 2015 22:58:15 GMT
I do not believe UKIP will be able to claim greater electoral success than the SDP for three reasons: 1. The SDP/Liberal alliance was moderate and trying to find a middle ground, which is why its support was more evenly spread. UKIP is generally perceived as extreme, racist, and outdated, even though unlike the SDP it arose from activists rather than as a splinter group. UKIP groups on councils are also rather unstable and prone to splintering over even minor disputes, especially when they are large. 2. UKIP is pretty poorly organised outside a few select areas (from my experience UKIP's organisation in Hertfordshire is particularly poor and lopsided except in the Broxbourne area, where the demographics are rather friendly to them), whereas the SDP/Liberal Alliance could reach people in most places. 3. UKIP's performance in elections during the last few years was mainly boosted by biased media attention, even when that media attention came because of UKIP candidates getting into trouble a lot. The SDP/Liberal Alliance at least had some base to start with (not just because of the Liberals but also because of a few moderate/centre-right activists; two SDP parliamentary candidates in 1983, Cyril Nottingham and Frederick Stockdale, stood for 'Democratic Labour' in their areas in 1979). I don't see that point 1 has anything to do with electoral success really and although UKIP have had quite a few defections many/most (?) of the SDP councillors would have been defectors too. Which of the two has had more elected in open competition would be a nice task for someone. My money would be on UKIP. 2. I suspect the same could have been said about the SDP tbh, especially after the initial surge had died down. 3. Again, the SDP got a huge amount of coverage in the media back in those pre-interwangle days. And I voted "Possibly" btw. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Oct 8, 2015 23:06:58 GMT
I'm going to have a look over the Tawney Society archive next week (it seems I spend more time in the archives of my university now than I did when I was there). I wonder if setting up a similar body may benefit UKIP.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 9, 2015 0:43:40 GMT
I am the only probable so far.
I voted probable because we have already won on number of years and number of votes and possibly on number of seats....so it looks to be a firm bet.
I think it was probably the wrong question?
EDIT
I have changed my vote to 'Already Have'.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 9, 2015 13:09:32 GMT
The success the SDP got was almost entirely from hitching a ride on the Liberal Party's back. Without that, it would have been squeezed out and completely flopped at the 1983 general election. The UKIP has succeeded in becoming a substantial 4th party with its own space.
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Oct 9, 2015 16:57:02 GMT
The success the SDP got was almost entirely from hitching a ride on the Liberal Party's back. Without that, it would have been squeezed out and completely flopped at the 1983 general election. The UKIP has succeeded in becoming a substantial 4th party with its own space. And from no base compared to the SDP, no major public figures...the SDP also didn't have people calling them lunatics and cranks. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,786 
|
Post by john07 on Oct 10, 2015 13:45:58 GMT
The success the SDP got was almost entirely from hitching a ride on the Liberal Party's back. Without that, it would have been squeezed out and completely flopped at the 1983 general election. The UKIP has succeeded in becoming a substantial 4th party with its own space. And from no base compared to the SDP, no major public figures...the SDP also didn't have people calling them lunatics and cranks. Apart from me! |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 10, 2015 14:17:24 GMT
And from no base compared to the SDP, no major public figures...the SDP also didn't have people calling them lunatics and cranks. Apart from me! You are a reasonable and measured man john, so I'm sure you were not alone. |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Jun 8, 2020 19:06:47 GMT
I think they can now claim they were.
And just as relevant to the future as each other.
|
|
