Will Stoke Central be UKIP's Waterloo?

[Deleted]

I hope people don't mind my creating a new thread on this.

There has long been talk of UKIP displacing Labour in its Northern heartlands (OK, Stoke is actually in the Midlands).

With the Labour party in apparent disarray, and Stoke being a 70% Brexit city, this byelection would appear to be UKIP's best opportunity to make their real or imagined 'breakthrough'.

The same was said in Oldham, but there was little chance of UKIP winning a 25% Muslim constituency.

Coming a good second would be of little use. We actually have to win this. If not Stoke, then where exactly?

Two possibilities. Either this is the first domino to fall, and UKIP go on to challenge in all the white Working Class constituencies in the north, in a Scotland type scenario, or else UKIP turn out to be a busted flush.

The stakes could not possibly be higher.

So, are UKIP on the cusp of a realignment in British politics, or a descent into irrelevance?

I don't know myself, but would be interested to hear what others think.

[Deleted]

Feb 4, 2017 12:41:45 GMT @szczecinianin said:

I hope people don't mind my creating a new thread on this.

There has long been talk of UKIP displacing Labour in its Northern heartlands (OK, Stoke is actually in the Midlands).

With the Labour party in apparent disarray, and Stoke being a 70% Brexit city, this byelection would appear to be UKIP's best opportunity to make their real or imagined 'breakthrough'.

The same was said in Oldham, but there was little chance of UKIP winning a 25% Muslim constituency.

Coming a good second would be of little use. We actually have to win this. If not Stoke, then where exactly?

Two possibilities. Either this is the first domino to fall, and UKIP go on to challenge in all the white Working Class constituencies in the north, in a Scotland type scenario, or else UKIP turn out to be a busted flush.

The stakes could not possibly be higher.

So, are UKIP on the cusp of a reallignment in British politics, or a descent into irrelevance?

I don't know myself, but would be interested to hear what others think.

Agree, its do or die time. Even a Heywood and Middleton would be a failure.

[A Brown]

I can't call Stoke. Maybe they can get a third of the vote over a fractured opposition.

Don't necessarily see UKIP winning more than 1-3 MPs in 2020 even if they win the by election.

[carlton43]

It is important but a win will be far more important than a good second would be a detriment. I don't think a failure to win will be anything close to fatal for UKIP any more than them winning will be fatal to Labour.

This is the sort of seat that UKIP has to win if it has an immediate future as a conventional party with representation in the HOC. That in itself raises the question of whether UKIP is or ever was a conventional party at all?

This is a seat with a good demographic for UKIP. Labour are at about as low an ebb as one could ever hope for. The Conservatives have foolishly not made this a high profile campaign. So if UKIP can't pull this off against a small majority that has been in decline for years, and in a low poll environment......Just where will they win?

But then again, they do not have deep pockets, nor a strong local party, nor a well-oiled machine with endless troops to call upon. In the last year troops have been peeling off in significant numbers. And the killer stat is not already being a clear decisive second!  They are effectively joint second with the Conservatives and that may prove to be the pivotal fact. Unless UKIP can pull off a LD type 'Only UKIP can Win here to beat Labour'..............It won't happen.

My vote changed yesterday from Conservative to UKIP in hope more than real expectation. I fear Labour could just do it unless Conservatives reject the 25-year old paper candidate and lend a vote to UKIP? In the current mood of Conservative Leavers being quite upbeat, I fear not enough will. If there I would.

[Deleted]

Feb 4, 2017 12:41:45 GMT @szczecinianin said:

I hope people don't mind my creating a new thread on this.

There has long been talk of UKIP displacing Labour in its Northern heartlands (OK, Stoke is actually in the Midlands).

With the Labour party in apparent disarray, and Stoke being a 70% Brexit city, this byelection would appear to be UKIP's best opportunity to make their real or imagined 'breakthrough'.

The same was said in Oldham, but there was little chance of UKIP winning a 25% Muslim constituency.

Coming a good second would be of little use. We actually have to win this. If not Stoke, then where exactly?

Two possibilities. Either this is the first domino to fall, and UKIP go on to challenge in all the white Working Class constituencies in the north, in a Scotland type scenario, or else UKIP turn out to be a busted flush.

The stakes could not possibly be higher.

So, are UKIP on the cusp of a reallignment in British politics, or a descent into irrelevance?

I don't know myself, but would be interested to hear what others think.

I would be inclined to agree with that tbh.

If UKIP can't break through in Stoke-on-Trent (a city where Labour have been doing abysmally in recent years and one which embraced Brexit with open arms) with their leader standing, then they can't win anything. I do think this is a defining by-election for UKIP. If they win Stoke it suggest they're competitive in WWC Labour-UKIP battlegrounds with high Leave votes, by campaigning as an English nationalist party against an unpatriotic Labour Party.

If UKIP win Stoke Central it would suggest they remain competitive in other WWC seats like Dagenham & Rainham, Hartlepool, Heywood & Middleton, Rotherham, Rother Valley and others. I do think there is a market for them in 'Labour Leave' seats where they are already competitive. 

However, if Nuttall is defeated, then it suggests the party is destined to wither away and die post-Brexit, and cannot reinvent itself. 

This will be the most important by-election of 2017 for Labour and the UKIP.

[Deleted]

Feb 4, 2017 12:59:01 GMT carlton43 said:

It is important but a win will be far more important than a good second would be a detriment. I don't think a failure to win will be anything close to fatal for UKIP any more than them winning will be fatal to Labour.

This is the sort of seat that UKIP has to win if it has an immediate future as a conventional party with representation in the HOC. That in itself raises the question of whether UKIP is or ever was a conventional party at all?

This is a seat with a good demographic for UKIP. Labour are at about as low an ebb as one could ever hope for. The Conservatives have foolishly not made this a high profile campaign. So if UKIP can't pull this off against a small majority that has been in decline for years, and in a low poll environment......Just where will they win?

But then again, they do not have deep pockets, nor a strong local party, nor a well-oiled machine with endless troops to call upon. In the last year troops have been peeling off in significant numbers. And the killer stat is not already being a clear decisive second!  They are effectively joint second with the Conservatives and that may prove to be the pivotal fact. Unless UKIP can pull off a LD type 'Only UKIP can Win here to beat Labour'..............It won't happen.

My vote changed yesterday from Conservative to UKIP in hope more than real expectation. I fear Labour could just do it unless Conservatives reject the 25-year old paper candidate and lend a vote to UKIP? In the current mood of Conservative Leavers being quite upbeat, I fear not enough will. If there I would.

What "polls" there have been in Stoke Central do suggest Leave-voters are coalescing around UKIP in this fight. 

[carlton43]

Let me further refine my position.

Any win by UKIP (say 6-votes) would be excellent news for them and a really big political event.

A strong second place (say less than 1000 behind Labour) would be good enough for them to retain integrity and face.

A weak second (on Heywood and Middleton basis and even a deal better) would be demeaning and disappointing.

Not being second or still neck-and-neck with the Conservatives would be a disaster.

[Deleted]

Feb 4, 2017 13:11:05 GMT carlton43 said:

Let me further refine my position.

Any win by UKIP (say 6-votes) would be excellent news for them and a really big political event.

A strong second place (say less than 1000 behind Labour) would be good enough for them to retain integrity and face.

A weak second (on Heywood and Middleton basis and even a deal better) would be demeaning and disappointing.

Not being second or still neck-and-neck with the Conservatives would be a disaster.

Obviously a Heywood & Middleton-style result would be good considering how safe Stoke Central has historically been for Labour, but it would be akin to Farage failing at Thanet in 2015.

To regain momentum after the referendum, UKIP need to win Stoke. If they don't, it'll be a humiliation for them and their leader.

If they do win it, I think they could drastically cut the Labour majority in Leigh (to c11%) and could hold 2nd in Liverpool, Walton. 

Ideally, UKIP would want to win Stoke Central and then have by-election opportunities in Hartlepool etc. This could make Leigh a very interesting contest, to see how close UKIP can get.

[marksenior]

Feb 4, 2017 13:04:34 GMT @conservativeestimate said:

Feb 4, 2017 12:59:01 GMT carlton43 said:

It is important but a win will be far more important than a good second would be a detriment. I don't think a failure to win will be anything close to fatal for UKIP any more than them winning will be fatal to Labour.

This is the sort of seat that UKIP has to win if it has an immediate future as a conventional party with representation in the HOC. That in itself raises the question of whether UKIP is or ever was a conventional party at all?

This is a seat with a good demographic for UKIP. Labour are at about as low an ebb as one could ever hope for. The Conservatives have foolishly not made this a high profile campaign. So if UKIP can't pull this off against a small majority that has been in decline for years, and in a low poll environment......Just where will they win?

But then again, they do not have deep pockets, nor a strong local party, nor a well-oiled machine with endless troops to call upon. In the last year troops have been peeling off in significant numbers. And the killer stat is not already being a clear decisive second!  They are effectively joint second with the Conservatives and that may prove to be the pivotal fact. Unless UKIP can pull off a LD type 'Only UKIP can Win here to beat Labour'..............It won't happen.

My vote changed yesterday from Conservative to UKIP in hope more than real expectation. I fear Labour could just do it unless Conservatives reject the 25-year old paper candidate and lend a vote to UKIP? In the current mood of Conservative Leavers being quite upbeat, I fear not enough will. If there I would.

What "polls" there have been in Stoke Central do suggest Leave-voters are coalescing around UKIP in this fight. 

There have been no polls in this seat. Has anyone been able to translate the LeaveEU methodology into English ? It appears to say that they analyse the Social Media ( Facebook ? ) profiles of lots of people and deduce how they will vote using sophisticated ( wishful thinking ? ) techniques .

[iain]

Whatever happens I can't see UKIP disappearing from the scene in terms of winning a significant voteshare (~10% or so) but in terms of winning seats, if they can't win here then where can they? The much vaunted 'Labour heartlands' strategy would clearly be doomed to failure.

1. The seat is their 8th target from Labour, and of the 7 ahead, UKIP are behind the Tories in 3, and another is only there due to by-election hangover
2. To descend briefly into cliche, Stoke is the 'Brexit capital of Britain'
3. This is a by-election
4. Labour are at an historically low ebb
5. UKIP's candidate is their leader

If UKIP don't break through here, it's hard to see where they will.

[Deleted]

Feb 4, 2017 13:30:21 GMT iain said:

Whatever happens I can't see UKIP disappearing from the scene in terms of winning a significant voteshare (~10% or so) but in terms of winning seats, if they can't win here then where can they? The much vaunted 'Labour heartlands' strategy would clearly be doomed to failure.

1. The seat is their 8th target from Labour, and of the 7 ahead, UKIP are behind the Tories in 3, and another is only there due to by-election hangover
2. To descend briefly into cliche, Stoke is the 'Brexit capital of Britain'
3. This is a by-election
4. Labour are at an historically low ebb
5. UKIP's candidate is their leader

If UKIP don't break through here, it's hard to see where they will.

I agree, but that happened with the SDP-Liberal Alliance in a lot of seats in 1983 too. They failed to win seats like Chelmsford, Edinburgh West, Erith & Crayford, Richmond & Barnes; City of Durham; Stevenage; Sheffield, Hillsborough and nearly all the seats they won in by-elections during the 1979-83 parliament.

UKIP certainly remain competitive in Hartlepool and Thurrock though, but if they can't win this when their leader is the candidate then they're doomed to fail.

[froome]

UKIP suffer too much from opportunism, and need to stick to a longer term strategy instead if they want to survive the long term (and I'm not convinced that many of their members do, I suspect winning the referendum and achieving a hard Brexit is sufficient and they can then go back to wherever they came from, viz Carlton).

About five years ago their heartlands were in the south-west, but they then flipped over to the east coast and performed poorly in their previous heartlands. Now they are opportunistically looking at the northern towns as their potential heartland, attempting to use opportunities as they arise but without the necessary targeting infrastructure that a party like the Lib Dems have. They will spread themselves too thinly and will achieve nothing from it apart from dissatisfaction.

[Adam in Stroud]

Feb 4, 2017 12:47:03 GMT A Brown said:

I can't call Stoke. Maybe they can get a third of the vote over a fractured opposition.

Don't necessarily see UKIP winning more than 1-3 MPs in 2020 even if they win the by election.

No-one can call Stoke.

Pretty much ever, as far as I can see.

[gwynthegriff]

Feb 4, 2017 14:19:31 GMT Adam in Stroud said:

Feb 4, 2017 12:47:03 GMT A Brown said:

I can't call Stoke. Maybe they can get a third of the vote over a fractured opposition.

Don't necessarily see UKIP winning more than 1-3 MPs in 2020 even if they win the by election.

No-one can call Stoke.

Pretty much ever, as far as I can see.

Indeed. I like to think I've got a decent feel for how an election is going, but this one? Not a clue!

[Deleted]

Feb 4, 2017 14:14:47 GMT froome said:

UKIP suffer too much from opportunism, and need to stick to a longer term strategy instead if they want to survive the long term (and I'm not convinced that many of their members do, I suspect winning the referendum and achieving a hard Brexit is sufficient and they can then go back to wherever they came from, viz Carlton).

About five years ago their heartlands were in the south-west, but they then flipped over to the east coast and performed poorly in their previous heartlands. Now they are opportunistically looking at the northern towns as their potential heartland, attempting to use opportunities as they arise but without the necessary targeting infrastructure that a party like the Lib Dems have. They will spread themselves too thinly and will achieve nothing from it apart from dissatisfaction.

I disagree. I think 2015 enabled them to work out which seats to seriously target in 2020, i.e. not seats like Castle Point or Great Grimsby which eluded them hugely.

If the UKIP narrow their focus to seats where they came 2nd in 2015 then they'll have a clear target list:

South Thanet
Thurrock
Hartlepool
Heywood & Middleton
Dagenham & Rainham
Rother Valley
Stoke-on-Trent Central 

[john07]

More like their Stalingrad!

[Deleted]

Let me be clear.

There are still seats where Labour are vulnerable to UKIP imho.

[Deleted]

Feb 4, 2017 15:59:20 GMT john07 said:

More like their Stalingrad!

As yuppy Brighton & Hove get better for Labour, WWC Stoke gets worse.

Interesting isn't it? The Tories are now stronger in Stoke-on-Trent North and South than in Brighton, Pavilion, that would've been impossible to fathom before the 21st century. 

At the next election, your party has a better chance of holding Hove than Stoke South imho. 

[Deleted]

Comparing Brighton & Hove to Stoke-on-Trent is quite interesting.

In 2015 Labour gained control of the former but lost control of the latter and suffered swings against them in the latter's parliamentary seats while coming close to wiping out the Tories in Brighton & Hove's Westminster seats.

I don't think it's that hard to envisage a scenario where Labour are wiped out in Stoke and the Tories wiped out in Brighton & Hove.

UKIP holding Stoke C, the Tories holding North and South.

The Greens holding Pavilion and Labour holding Hove and Kemptown.

Certainly that is the way the demographic trends are going imo.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Of course it could be that you've picked Brighton and Hove as an arbitrary place so that you can come to a fairly banal conclusion about socioeconomic trends which everyone else has been well aware of for many years.