Ogmore

[East Anglian Lefty]

Apr 19, 2016 1:12:55 GMT @szczecinianin said:

Apr 19, 2016 1:00:44 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Yes, it is. It's a very safe seat, of the sort that can only be lost when Labour is doing extremely badly and there is a challenging party with a broad coalition of support. The necessary conditions don't appear to apply, so it's unlikely to be lost. That doesn't make it undemocratic.

Safe seats are by nature 'undemocratic' and rapidly turn into 'rotten boroughs'. UKIP are extremely unlikely to win, but the demographics are near perfect for them. One to watch for the future. Labour has lost its connection with the white Working Class. I can only see it being successful in metropolitan areas in future. Hopefully, a tipping point will be reached as happened in Scotland. Plaid will never be successful outside the Welsh speaking areas. Like Labour, it's a Middle-Class party, with little grasp of bread-and-butter issues.

I don't accept that safe seats rapidly become rotten boroughs, largely because the latter term doesn't have any non-pejorative meaning - it's just complaining, not a substantive criticism.

I also don't accept that the demographics are perfect for UKIP, given that UKIP's electoral performance has generally been notably uniform (poor with ethnic minorities and in university towns, better with the retired but getting 10-20% with just about every other group). Anyway, UKIP's big problem under FPTP isn't with their supporters, it's with their unpopularity amongst non-supporters, making it harder for them to monopolise all opposition votes in the manner normally required to win a by-election.

And being lectured on 'bread and butter' issues by a kipper never ceases to be amusing.

[Deleted]

Apr 19, 2016 8:15:14 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Apr 19, 2016 1:12:55 GMT @szczecinianin said:

Safe seats are by nature 'undemocratic' and rapidly turn into 'rotten boroughs'. UKIP are extremely unlikely to win, but the demographics are near perfect for them. One to watch for the future. Labour has lost its connection with the white Working Class. I can only see it being successful in metropolitan areas in future. Hopefully, a tipping point will be reached as happened in Scotland. Plaid will never be successful outside the Welsh speaking areas. Like Labour, it's a Middle-Class party, with little grasp of bread-and-butter issues.

I don't accept that safe seats rapidly become rotten boroughs, largely because the latter term doesn't have any non-pejorative meaning - it's just complaining, not a substantive criticism.

I also don't accept that the demographics are perfect for UKIP, given that UKIP's electoral performance has generally been notably uniform (poor with ethnic minorities and in university towns, better with the retired but getting 10-20% with just about every other group). Anyway, UKIP's big problem under FPTP isn't with their supporters, it's with their unpopularity amongst non-supporters, making it harder for them to monopolise all opposition votes in the manner normally required to win a by-election.

And being lectured on 'bread and butter' issues by a kipper never ceases to be amusing.

I happen to think any election where the winner is already known is pointless and meaningless. It's like elections in North Korea or the former Warsaw Pact.

The demographics are 'perfect' for UKIP in that they tend to score higher with older, whiter poorer, socially conservative and less well-educated voters. The 'left behinds'. The kind of people who formerly formed the backbone of the Labour Party. Of course, that does not mean they are likely to win this time round. But one for the future, perhaps.

Conservative voters are reasonably happy to turn to UKIP where they believe there is a realistic chance of their unseating Labour. This happened in the Heywood & Middleton by-election, for example. And, of course, ex-BNP and fringe right groups.

UKIP growth in future will be primarily in non-metropolitan Labour seats. This is excellent for democracy.

[Deleted]

Ogmore is UKIP's 17th most friendly Labour seat (according to Ford and Goodwin):

labourlist.org/2014/09/the-top-100-ukip-leaning-labour-seats/

[maxque]

Apr 19, 2016 11:18:29 GMT @szczecinianin said:

Apr 19, 2016 8:15:14 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

I don't accept that safe seats rapidly become rotten boroughs, largely because the latter term doesn't have any non-pejorative meaning - it's just complaining, not a substantive criticism.

I also don't accept that the demographics are perfect for UKIP, given that UKIP's electoral performance has generally been notably uniform (poor with ethnic minorities and in university towns, better with the retired but getting 10-20% with just about every other group). Anyway, UKIP's big problem under FPTP isn't with their supporters, it's with their unpopularity amongst non-supporters, making it harder for them to monopolise all opposition votes in the manner normally required to win a by-election.

And being lectured on 'bread and butter' issues by a kipper never ceases to be amusing.

I happen to think any election where the winner is already known is pointless and meaningless. It's like elections in North Korea or the former Warsaw Pact.

The demographics are 'perfect' for UKIP in that they tend to score higher with older, whiter poorer, socially conservative and less well-educated voters. The 'left behinds'. The kind of people who formerly formed the backbone of the Labour Party. Of course, that does not mean they are likely to win this time round. But one for the future, perhaps.

Conservative voters are reasonably happy to turn to UKIP where they believe there is a realistic chance of their unseating Labour. This happened in the Heywood & Middleton by-election, for example. And, of course, ex-BNP and fringe right groups.

UKIP growth in future will be primarily in non-metropolitan Labour seats. This is excellent for democracy.

It won't happen as working class know better than voting for a Thatcherite former trader.

[Pete Whitehead]

Apr 19, 2016 11:33:23 GMT maxque said:

Apr 19, 2016 11:18:29 GMT @szczecinianin said:

I happen to think any election where the winner is already known is pointless and meaningless. It's like elections in North Korea or the former Warsaw Pact.

The demographics are 'perfect' for UKIP in that they tend to score higher with older, whiter poorer, socially conservative and less well-educated voters. The 'left behinds'. The kind of people who formerly formed the backbone of the Labour Party. Of course, that does not mean they are likely to win this time round. But one for the future, perhaps.

Conservative voters are reasonably happy to turn to UKIP where they believe there is a realistic chance of their unseating Labour. This happened in the Heywood & Middleton by-election, for example. And, of course, ex-BNP and fringe right groups.

UKIP growth in future will be primarily in non-metropolitan Labour seats. This is excellent for democracy.

It won't happen as working class know better than voting for a Thatcherite former trader.

Yes that must explain our complete failure to win council seats in places like Thurrock, Ramsgate, Plymouth, Rotherham, Harold Hill, Great Yarmouth etc. Perhaps you can give us some expert advice Maxque from your vantage point in Quebec as to how we break out of the Surrey stockbroker belt which has been our sole source of electoral support hitherto?

[maxque]

Apr 19, 2016 11:46:17 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Apr 19, 2016 11:33:23 GMT maxque said:

It won't happen as working class know better than voting for a Thatcherite former trader.

Yes that must explain our complete failure to win council seats in places like Thurrock, Ramsgate, Plymouth, Rotherham, Harold Hill, Great Yarmouth etc. Perhaps you can give us some expert advice Maxque from your vantage point in Quebec as to how we break out of the Surrey stockbroker belt which has been our sole source of electoral support hitherto?

I agree there was a push and progress for UKIP in 2013 and 2014, but 2015 wasn't so good (very good in some places, much less in others) and the results since then are quite grim for UKIP.

From a purely neutral point of view, UKIP seems to have reached a plateau and and that plateau too low to allow UKIP to win a Westminster seat in a working class area (came very close in Thurrock too). Clearly, there is a celling to break for UKIP to be able to win Westminster seats in working class areas (council seats are good, but I doubt they are the final goal).

In Europe, some parties quite more to the right of UKIP have better results in working class areas, so I'm assessing the UKIP potential as quite high. I'm just saying UKIP ought to get better results and the leader seems to be the obvious point to start with if we are to search the reasons of that underperformance.

[Pete Whitehead]

Apr 19, 2016 12:12:59 GMT maxque said:

Apr 19, 2016 11:46:17 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Yes that must explain our complete failure to win council seats in places like Thurrock, Ramsgate, Plymouth, Rotherham, Harold Hill, Great Yarmouth etc. Perhaps you can give us some expert advice Maxque from your vantage point in Quebec as to how we break out of the Surrey stockbroker belt which has been our sole source of electoral support hitherto?

I agree there was a push and progress for UKIP in 2013 and 2014, but 2015 wasn't so good (very good in some places, much less in others) and the results since then are quite grim for UKIP.

From a purely neutral point of view, UKIP seems to have reached a plateau and and that plateau too low to allow UKIP to win a Westminster seat in a working class area (came very close in Thurrock too). Clearly, there is a celling to break for UKIP to be able to win Westminster seats in working class areas (council seats are good, but I doubt they are the final goal).

In Europe, some parties quite more to the right of UKIP have better results in working class areas, so I'm assessing the UKIP potential as quite high. I'm just saying UKIP ought to get better results and the leader seems to be the obvious point to start with if we are to search the reasons of that underperformance.

Firstly you are not neutral and I don't know why you seek to insult anyone's intelligence here by pretending that you are. You are obviously hostile to UKIP and to the Conservative party and your sweeping initial statement used both the terms 'Thatcerite' and 'trader' as pejoratives.
Most of our losses in support between 2013 and 2015 occurred amongst Tory/UKIP swing voters whereas we held up much better in terms of working class support and Labour/UKIP swing voters (often the same people)
Your 'impartial analysis' is based on a purely Marxist notion of how 'the working class' should behave and have nothing to do with the reality. I campaigned at the last election in Tilbury - there are few more purely working class areas and there is nowhere that I have campaigned where I have encountered so much support for UKIP. Not a single person mentioned Nigel Farage's background (educational, political or professional) and anyone who did specifically mention Nigel Farage did so in a positive way

[The Bishop]

Apr 19, 2016 11:22:34 GMT @szczecinianin said:

Ogmore is UKIP's 17th most friendly Labour seat (according to Ford and Goodwin):

labourlist.org/2014/09/the-top-100-ukip-leaning-labour-seats/

Well, their analysis on this is - to put it mildly - not exactly unchallengeable holy writ. Indeed some would be rather less polite about it

[Deleted]

Apr 19, 2016 12:27:05 GMT The Bishop said:

Apr 19, 2016 11:22:34 GMT @szczecinianin said:

Ogmore is UKIP's 17th most friendly Labour seat (according to Ford and Goodwin):

labourlist.org/2014/09/the-top-100-ukip-leaning-labour-seats/

Well, their analysis on this is - to put it mildly - not exactly unchallengeable holy writ. Indeed some would be rather less polite about it

It's not 'unchallengable holy writ', but it's the best we have to go on, unless you know any different.

[The Bishop]

Not even sure about that, tbh - faulty analysis can be worse than no analysis at all.

[greenchristian]

Apr 19, 2016 0:58:25 GMT @szczecinianin said:

It's hardly 'democracy' when even the most likely runner up sees no real prospect of actually winning.

Welcome to First Past The Post. And what passes for democracy in the UK.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Apr 19, 2016 14:09:19 GMT @szczecinianin said:

Apr 19, 2016 12:27:05 GMT The Bishop said:

Well, their analysis on this is - to put it mildly - not exactly unchallengeable holy writ. Indeed some would be rather less polite about it

It's not 'unchallengable holy writ', but it's the best we have to go on, unless you know any different.

They published their analysis in September 2014. If you still think it is the best evidence we have to go on, you may have missed something important.

[Sibboleth]

Is this the point where I direct posters to e.g. Pete's history of 'interesting' remarks about many, many working class districts?

[Pete Whitehead]

Apr 19, 2016 19:59:16 GMT Sibboleth said:

Is this the point where I direct posters to e.g. Pete's history of 'interesting' remarks about many, many working class districts?

Yes please do. There's one I made only this morning on the Sandwell thread. When you've done that you can explain to posters how any of them either contradict what I have said here or support maxque's ludicrous generalisations about working class voters.

[Deleted]

Apr 19, 2016 20:46:29 GMT @pjones said:

Apr 19, 2016 11:33:23 GMT maxque said:

It won't happen as working class know better than voting for a Thatcherite former trader.

What do you even mean by 'working class'? Do you mean 'lower class' i.e. people below the middle class in socio-economic status? Because lower class people have a whole range of political attitudes and voting habits.

'Lower Class' is just a less polite way of talking about 'Working Class'.

[maxque]

Apr 19, 2016 12:25:54 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Apr 19, 2016 12:12:59 GMT maxque said:

I agree there was a push and progress for UKIP in 2013 and 2014, but 2015 wasn't so good (very good in some places, much less in others) and the results since then are quite grim for UKIP.

From a purely neutral point of view, UKIP seems to have reached a plateau and and that plateau too low to allow UKIP to win a Westminster seat in a working class area (came very close in Thurrock too). Clearly, there is a celling to break for UKIP to be able to win Westminster seats in working class areas (council seats are good, but I doubt they are the final goal).

In Europe, some parties quite more to the right of UKIP have better results in working class areas, so I'm assessing the UKIP potential as quite high. I'm just saying UKIP ought to get better results and the leader seems to be the obvious point to start with if we are to search the reasons of that underperformance.

Firstly you are not neutral and I don't know why you seek to insult anyone's intelligence here by pretending that you are. You are obviously hostile to UKIP and to the Conservative party and your sweeping initial statement used both the terms 'Thatcerite' and 'trader' as pejoratives.
Most of our losses in support between 2013 and 2015 occurred amongst Tory/UKIP swing voters whereas we held up much better in terms of working class support and Labour/UKIP swing voters (often the same people)
Your 'impartial analysis' is based on a purely Marxist notion of how 'the working class' should behave and have nothing to do with the reality. I campaigned at the last election in Tilbury - there are few more purely working class areas and there is nowhere that I have campaigned where I have encountered so much support for UKIP. Not a single person mentioned Nigel Farage's background (educational, political or professional) and anyone who did specifically mention Nigel Farage did so in a positive way

I'm pretty sure traders and Thatcher are very unpopular in the Labour areas we are talking about. They preferred Michael Foot (!) to Thatcher herself.
I'm also not actually hostile to UKIP. I'm thorn. I think nationalism is one of the most pernitious forces of the world (how many wars were caused by it?), but my working classes roots find interesting things in what they say. I have respect for the most pro-"average people" wing of the party and for the party to not fall in the racism/anti-semitism of the FN/FPO.

I totally agree that UKIP did great in Tilbury/Thurrock and Margate. There is Rotherham too, but let's be honest, UKIP success there is mainly due to the dreadful Labour administration there. As an opponent of racism, I'm quite upset at them too (equality means people are equal no matter their race and so should be laws and justice, and if you can't comply to local laws, well, maybe going back from where you came is the proper course to follow). The issue is failure to capitalise in similar areas up North and in Wales. You have issues when it's not a swing area you can come in the middle (Thurrock, Margate) or with specific local issues (Rotherham). That's why I'm annoyed when someone comes saying "we are the White Working Class party" and feel so assured of their progress. Maybe I'm guilty of assumptions about the working class, but so does szczecinianin.

As for working class, yes, it's less useful as before as a designation, as it mixes the few poor factory workers left, the unemployed/underemployed, the unwilling to work, the workers stuck in low-level  jobs for service industries without any perspective of improvement, and the low-wage workers. All of them are quite different politically.

[East Anglian Lefty]

I agree that the different components which make up 'the working class' are quite different socially and economically. That doesn't mean they're necessarily different politically. The difference does tend to exist in areas where Labour are weak (one of the reasons UKIP are often strong in coastal and market towns in the south is that the working class there was never that solidly Labour), but I don't think it does in an area like Ogmore. Economics is trumped by identity.

[Deleted]

Apr 20, 2016 9:41:45 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

I agree that the different components which make up 'the working class' are quite different socially and economically. That doesn't mean they're necessarily different politically. The difference does tend to exist in areas where Labour are weak (one of the reasons UKIP are often strong in coastal and market towns in the south is that the working class there was never that solidly Labour), but I don't think it does in an area like Ogmore. Economics is trumped by identity.

Social identity and patterns of tribal voting change very, very slowly. However, I believe the tectonic plates have been shifting for some time.

I'm old enough to remember when Labour representatives came from genuine Working Class backgrounds (by this I mean miners, railway workers and so on). Now, I believe that only around twenty Labour MPs do.

Many Working Class people still see Labour as representing 'people like them'. However, there is clearly a massive mismatch between 'them' and their elected representatives, in terms of class, attitudes, income, education and so on.

I could never understand how the likes of Mandelson and Blair could get to represent solidly Working Class constituencies. They would have practically nothing in common with those they purported to represent.

Think about Stephen Kinnock. His father was (originally) Eurosceptic, fiercely opposed to the House of Lords and private education. Neil went on to become a Euro Commissioner, a Lord and his grandchildren are expensively privately educated. His son speaks four languages, none of which is Welsh. I'm very much reminded of 'Animal Farm' where the pigs become men.

There is also a great deal of class snobbery from Labour. If you're UKIP, you are classed as being 'thick'. Today, Labour is for the university educated rather than the plebs. And Labour attitudes, for example a quasi-religious belief in man-made global warming, are those of the so-called 'educated', learned at university rather than through real-life experience.

It was interesting listening to Jane Collins UKIP MEP (daughter of a miner) on 'Any Questions'. She was laughted at and ridiculed by the panel and audience. Not only did she not have the 'correct' attitudes, she also didn't speak 'proper'. People such as her should not be allowed access to the mainstream media, was the impression I got.

Of course, thirty or more years ago, Jane would have been speaking for Labour, and her Working Class origins and accent would have been a badge of pride rather than of shame.

Labour, in Scotland, is now regarded as 'the Middle Class party', with all the plebs voting SNP. Don't be too surprised if the same happens in England and Wales, with UKIP speaking for 'the people' against a snobbish and out-of-touch elite.

[iain]

Apr 20, 2016 11:07:49 GMT @szczecinianin said:

Labour, in Scotland, is now regarded as 'the Middle Class party', with all the plebs voting SNP. Don't be too surprised if the same happens in England and Wales, with UKIP speaking for 'the people' against a snobbish and out-of-touch elite.

Don't be too surprised if it doesn't.

[Deleted]

Apr 20, 2016 12:18:07 GMT iain said:

Apr 20, 2016 11:07:49 GMT @szczecinianin said:

Labour, in Scotland, is now regarded as 'the Middle Class party', with all the plebs voting SNP. Don't be too surprised if the same happens in England and Wales, with UKIP speaking for 'the people' against a snobbish and out-of-touch elite.

Don't be too surprised if it doesn't.

We shall see. The LibDems were the main challengers to Labour in their heartland seats until 2010. I can't see any party other than UKIP performing this role for the foreseeable future.

We are in a period of societal and political change. The populist right are on the march, not just in the UK, but also in France, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands and so on. If anything, UKIP are underperforming in comparison with equivalent groups on the continent of Europe.