|
|
Post by andrew111 on Feb 24, 2017 18:03:58 GMT
My impression is that UKIP have a lot of trouble getting beyond the mid twenties anywhere because most voters don't like them. Hence the Tories can squeeze UKIP, but not vice versa. So with a better candidate they might have got up to 30%, but not at the expense of Labour because I think the Labour vote here was more an anti-Ukip vote than a pro-labour one.
I think if either the Tories or the Lib Dems had started in second place, they could have beaten Labour in Stoke yesterday
|
|
|
|
Post by Strontium Dog on Feb 24, 2017 18:52:15 GMT
My impression is that UKIP have a lot of trouble getting beyond the mid twenties anywhere because most voters don't like them That's the conclusion I have come to, but intuitively it seems ridiculous in light of 52% voting for Brexit. What cigarette paper are people putting between disliking UKIP and enthusiastically supporting their single policy?! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 19:23:04 GMT
My impression is that UKIP have a lot of trouble getting beyond the mid twenties anywhere because most voters don't like them That's the conclusion I have come to, but intuitively it seems ridiculous in light of 52% voting for Brexit. What cigarette paper are people putting between disliking UKIP and enthusiastically supporting their single policy?! Do I seem like a Ukipper to you? The Lib Dems basically only have 2 policies, PR and overturning the democratic brexit mandate. Merseymike agrees with both - is he a Lib Dem? In other words, being pro brexit is a necessary but not sufficient reason to vote UKIP. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,025
Member is Online
|
Post by Sibboleth on Feb 24, 2017 19:32:17 GMT
because I think the Labour vote here was more an anti-Ukip vote than a pro-labour one. I think if either the Tories or the Lib Dems had started in second place, they could have beaten Labour in Stoke yesterday People really are falling over themselves to prop up #thenarrative even as it becomes clear that it's nonsense. And even though the reality is pretty damning of the present Labour Party Leadership. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 24, 2017 19:48:59 GMT
That's the conclusion I have come to, but intuitively it seems ridiculous in light of 52% voting for Brexit. What cigarette paper are people putting between disliking UKIP and enthusiastically supporting their single policy?! Do I seem like a Ukipper to you? The Lib Dems basically only have 2 policies, PR and overturning the democratic brexit mandate. Merseymike agrees with both - is he a Lib Dem? In other words, being pro brexit is a necessary but not sufficient reason to vote UKIP. Where did you get the idea I agree with overturning the referendum when I have quite explicitly said on a number of occasions that I take the opposite view? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 20:09:01 GMT
Do I seem like a Ukipper to you? The Lib Dems basically only have 2 policies, PR and overturning the democratic brexit mandate. Merseymike agrees with both - is he a Lib Dem? In other words, being pro brexit is a necessary but not sufficient reason to vote UKIP. Where did you get the idea I agree with overturning the referendum when I have quite explicitly said on a number of occasions that I take the opposite view? OK apologies, but there must be many Corbynites who would fitcin that box. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 24, 2017 20:12:35 GMT
Where did you get the idea I agree with overturning the referendum when I have quite explicitly said on a number of occasions that I take the opposite view? OK apologies, but there must be many Corbynites who would fitcin that box. Mixed views - most I know are pretty much the same as Jeremy and were critical remainers to start with |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 20:32:36 GMT
OK apologies, but there must be many Corbynites who would fitcin that box. Mixed views - most I know are pretty much the same as Jeremy and were critical remainers to start with In London I doubt thats the case |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 24, 2017 20:34:54 GMT
Mixed views - most I know are pretty much the same as Jeremy and were critical remainers to start with In London I doubt thats the case Though London is actually not one of the stronger areas for JC despite the stereotypes. I have very little contact with anyone there to be honest. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 20:44:05 GMT
That's the conclusion I have come to, but intuitively it seems ridiculous in light of 52% voting for Brexit. What cigarette paper are people putting between disliking UKIP and enthusiastically supporting their single policy?! Do I seem like a Ukipper to you? The Lib Dems basically only have 2 policies, PR and overturning the democratic brexit mandate. Merseymike agrees with both - is he a Lib Dem? In other words, being pro brexit is a necessary but not sufficient reason to vote UKIP. I'm not a LibDem officially but even I know your post is bollocks |
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Feb 24, 2017 21:28:58 GMT
That's the conclusion I have come to, but intuitively it seems ridiculous in light of 52% voting for Brexit. What cigarette paper are people putting between disliking UKIP and enthusiastically supporting their single policy?! Do I seem like a Ukipper to you? The Lib Dems basically only have 2 policies, PR and overturning the democratic brexit mandate. Merseymike agrees with both - is he a Lib Dem? In other words, being pro brexit is a necessary but not sufficient reason to vote UKIP. You'd think a libertarian Gary Johnson supporter like you would know about the LDs' opposition to the snoopers' charter and their stance on civil liberties. |
|
|
|
Post by Strontium Dog on Feb 25, 2017 2:15:44 GMT
That's the conclusion I have come to, but intuitively it seems ridiculous in light of 52% voting for Brexit. What cigarette paper are people putting between disliking UKIP and enthusiastically supporting their single policy?! Do I seem like a Ukipper to you? The Lib Dems basically only have 2 policies, PR and overturning the democratic brexit mandate. Merseymike agrees with both - is he a Lib Dem? In other words, being pro brexit is a necessary but not sufficient reason to vote UKIP. You're clearly not a Ukipper, but neither would I say you disliked them. And I was talking about people who support Brexit, but really don't like UKIP. On the second part, I won't insult your intelligence by giving you a history lesson, but liberalism comprises a little more than electoral reform and support for free trade. |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,428 
|
Post by iain on Feb 25, 2017 9:31:34 GMT
Do I seem like a Ukipper to you? The Lib Dems basically only have 2 policies, PR and overturning the democratic brexit mandate. Merseymike agrees with both - is he a Lib Dem? In other words, being pro brexit is a necessary but not sufficient reason to vote UKIP. You're clearly not a Ukipper, but neither would I say you disliked them. And I was talking about people who support Brexit, but really don't like UKIP. On the second part, I won't insult your intelligence by giving you a history lesson, but liberalism comprises a little more than electoral reform and support for free trade. I voted for Brexit, but I'd imagine for very different reasons than most Kippers, and disagree with them on most things. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 25, 2017 11:19:14 GMT
UKIP 79 votes ahead of the Tories compared to 33 ahead in 2015, and on a lower turnout this time. Loonies ahead of the BNP and Christian People's Alliance but behind Fielding! I think Fielding split the lunatic vote. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 25, 2017 11:22:57 GMT
I think this results suggests that with a good candidate UKIP could have won this. If they had it would have changed the course of British politics, as Corbyn would be on his way out right now. I think with the benefit of hindsight this is correct - either the 2015 candidate Mick Harold or one of the local MEPs like Bill Etheridge would have done better. Given what a fiasco of a campaign it was, keeping second place and increasing vote share was actually better than I expected by the end but of course far worse than seemed possible when the seat became available. The ineptitude of the campaign team would still have been a factor of course whoever the candidate was, but at least if it had been Mick Harold then they wouldn't have felt the need to engage in pathetic stunts over the address on the nomination paper which dominated the narrative for much of the campaign (and of course we wouldn't have had all the Hillsborough nonsense and the 'fake news'* about the resignation of a couple of branch officials in Merseyside) * fake in the sense not that it didn't happen, but that it was especially newsworthy to the extent that it constituted one of the lead stories on several TV news bulletins The fact that UKIP keeps recycling its MEPs for most (every?) parliamentary byelection points to its small pool of talent. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 25, 2017 11:23:39 GMT
My impression is that UKIP have a lot of trouble getting beyond the mid twenties anywhere because most voters don't like them. Hence the Tories can squeeze UKIP, but not vice versa. So with a better candidate they might have got up to 30%, but not at the expense of Labour because I think the Labour vote here was more an anti-Ukip vote than a pro-labour one. I think if either the Tories or the Lib Dems had started in second place, they could have beaten Labour in Stoke yesterday Indeed. UKIP = high floor, low ceiling. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 11:25:01 GMT
UKIP 79 votes ahead of the Tories compared to 33 ahead in 2015, and on a lower turnout this time. Loonies ahead of the BNP and Christian People's Alliance but behind Fielding! I think Fielding split the lunatic vote. Thats' lible sonney. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Feb 25, 2017 11:34:29 GMT
I think Fielding split the lunatic vote. Thats' lible sonney. Yore not the reel babarabara feel ding either. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 25, 2017 12:25:03 GMT
I think with the benefit of hindsight this is correct - either the 2015 candidate Mick Harold or one of the local MEPs like Bill Etheridge would have done better. Given what a fiasco of a campaign it was, keeping second place and increasing vote share was actually better than I expected by the end but of course far worse than seemed possible when the seat became available. The ineptitude of the campaign team would still have been a factor of course whoever the candidate was, but at least if it had been Mick Harold then they wouldn't have felt the need to engage in pathetic stunts over the address on the nomination paper which dominated the narrative for much of the campaign (and of course we wouldn't have had all the Hillsborough nonsense and the 'fake news'* about the resignation of a couple of branch officials in Merseyside) * fake in the sense not that it didn't happen, but that it was especially newsworthy to the extent that it constituted one of the lead stories on several TV news bulletins The fact that UKIP keeps recycling its MEPs for most (every?) parliamentary byelection points to its small pool of talent. The fact that Paul Nuttall is the only MEP out of the 8 different candidates to have stood in byelections since the last general election points to you being a purveyor of fake news (aka bullshit) |
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Feb 25, 2017 13:04:34 GMT
I think Fielding split the lunatic vote. Thats' lible sonney. So sue him.  |
|
