Will Stoke Central be UKIP's Waterloo?

[Adam in Stroud]

Feb 7, 2017 8:36:58 GMT @goodoldcause said:

Feb 7, 2017 1:02:00 GMT @szczecinianin said:

Imho, any result other than victory is curtains for UKIP.

'It's now or never' time.

Interesting that so many are saying this.

I stick to my original view that UKIP's opinion poll ratings remain much healthier than might be expected, and any increase in vote share could be spun as a success which keeps them in the game. Is the issue that people, including some erstwhile supporters, are simply getting tired of the UKIP saga, and looking for a reason to draw a line under it?

I agree on your second sentence.  But I also tend to agree it's "now or never".

1. The issue of raison d'etre in a world where the Conservative government is committed to Brexit is a given. Not an insuperable problem, but something that needs to be addressed fairly rapidly.
2. Who do they have who is  a better candidate than Nuttall, and where is there a more winnable seat than Stoke?  Like you, I don't think they need to win here, but I do think they need to look like they could win, otherwise the conclusion for anyone who wants to be a UKIP MP is Give Up Now.
3. May locals will be very bad for them, for reasons pretty much outside their control.  If the party does not play them well, they could be really bad and do for local UKIP candidates what a hammering in Stoke would do for PPCs.
4. Money is a problem, especially with the MEPs going. It was insolvency that finally did for the BNP. (NB no comparison between the politics of the two parties is meant here.)
5. Farage could keep UKIP in the media indefinitely; I don't think Nuttal can.  If they can't win elections then they will find, as the LDs have since 2015, that the media can justify ignoring them.

UKIP's "political space" - the ideological territory not occupied by the Conservatives, and the constituency of voters who they appeal to - is not, I think, going away in a hurry, hence the solid-ish poll ratings.  But the capacity of the party to operate in that space is under threat.  If the party dwindles, then I expect the poll ratings to subside as they cease to be an option for voters.

Certainly not game over for UKIP yet, but they face an existential threat IMO. A good second in Stoke will, I think, avert the threat, at least for a bit; a win would turn things around.

[Deleted]

Feb 7, 2017 10:43:34 GMT Adam in Stroud said:

Feb 7, 2017 8:36:58 GMT @goodoldcause said:

Interesting that so many are saying this.

I stick to my original view that UKIP's opinion poll ratings remain much healthier than might be expected, and any increase in vote share could be spun as a success which keeps them in the game. Is the issue that people, including some erstwhile supporters, are simply getting tired of the UKIP saga, and looking for a reason to draw a line under it?

I agree on your second sentence.  But I also tend to agree it's "now or never".

1. The issue of raison d'etre in a world where the Conservative government is committed to Brexit is a given. Not an insuperable problem, but something that needs to be addressed fairly rapidly.
2. Who do they have who is  a better candidate than Nuttall, and where is there a more winnable seat than Stoke?  Like you, I don't think they need to win here, but I do think they need to look like they could win, otherwise the conclusion for anyone who wants to be a UKIP MP is Give Up Now.
3. May locals will be very bad for them, for reasons pretty much outside their control.  If the party does not play them well, they could be really bad and do for local UKIP candidates what a hammering in Stoke would do for PPCs.
4. Money is a problem, especially with the MEPs going. It was insolvency that finally did for the BNP. (NB no comparison between the politics of the two parties is meant here.)
5. Farage could keep UKIP in the media indefinitely; I don't think Nuttal can.  If they can't win elections then they will find, as the LDs have since 2015, that the media can justify ignoring them.

UKIP's "political space" - the ideological territory not occupied by the Conservatives, and the constituency of voters who they appeal to - is not, I think, going away in a hurry, hence the solid-ish poll ratings.  But the capacity of the party to operate in that space is under threat.  If the party dwindles, then I expect the poll ratings to subside as they cease to be an option for voters.

Certainly not game over for UKIP yet, but they face an existential threat IMO. A good second in Stoke will, I think, avert the threat, at least for a bit; a win would turn things around.

A sensible and fair analysis, with which I broadly agree.

[Adam in Stroud]

Feb 7, 2017 10:35:46 GMT carlton43 said:

Up to a point Lord Copper!

In over 30-years a very modest swing excluding South where there are boundary issues I think.

It would be interesting to attempt a meaningful comparison 1945-1959-1966-1979-1982-1997-2015?

I didn't think about boundary changes, that does make quite a difference, given that they held all three seats even in 1983.

[The Bishop]

Maybe the main interest of the cited article is that Toynbee seems to have replaced Harris as the Graun's bigotry correspondent.

[Deleted]

Swings against Labour in Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme since 1997:

Stoke North: 16.24%
Stoke Central: 16.4%
Stoke South: 16.55%
Newcastle-under-Lyme: 16.75%

[Deleted]

1979-1997 swing from Conservative to Labour:

Stoke North: 8.1%
Stoke Central: 9.4%
Stoke South: 6.5%
Newcastle-under-Lyme: 13.9%

[johnloony]

There was a lot of excitable chatter about UKIP winning in Eastleigh, or coming close in Oldham West & Royton, or possibly winning Newark. It's all rubbish. Betting patterns, and UKIP being odds-on favourite (or whatever) are meaningless, because they meausre what people are betting on and not how people are voting. In all probability Stoke will be a comfortable Labour hold, with UKIP in a distant second place.

[The Bishop]

Tbf there was an actual proper poll that showed UKIP had a real chance in Eastleigh, and IIRC there was also one in Newark that had them doing better than the actual result.

The real point about most political betting markets is that they are low-volume and thus fairly easy to manipulate, if you want to do that sort of thing.

[Deleted]

Feb 7, 2017 11:51:33 GMT johnloony said:

There was a lot of excitable chatter about UKIP winning in Eastleigh, or coming close in Oldham West & Royton, or possibly winning Newark. It's all rubbish. Betting patterns, and UKIP being odds-on favourite (or whatever) are meaningless, because they meausre what people are betting on and not how people are voting. In all probability Stoke will be a comfortable Labour hold, with UKIP in a distant second place.

My points are about Stoke more generally, 

Labour appear considerably weaker in Stoke than Oldham, Sheffield or Wandsworth.

I don't see a Labour hold being "comfortable".

Eastleigh 2014 was a pretty good result for UKIP tbh, if UKIP did that well in Stoke Central it'd be a solid result for them.

[Deleted]

Feb 7, 2017 11:54:48 GMT The Bishop said:

Tbf there was an actual proper poll that showed UKIP had a real chance in Eastleigh, and IIRC there was also one in Newark that had them doing better than the actual result.

The real point about most political betting markets is that they are low-volume and thus fairly easy to manipulate, if you want to do that sort of thing.

Oh I don't trust constituency polls whatsoever after 2015.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

UKIP could have won Eastleigh if only they had been able to persuade Conservative voters to back them (rather than the exceptionally useless Tory candidate) to defeat the Lib Dem. When UKIP couldn't win the seat, UKIP voters returned to the Conservatives and they did. The fact that the Lib Dem vote in Eastleigh was basically unmoved between the 2013 byelection and 2015 general election is telling.

[carlton43]

Feb 7, 2017 11:19:27 GMT @conservativeestimate said:

Swings against Labour in Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme since 1997:

Stoke North: 16.24%
Stoke Central: 16.4%
Stoke South: 16.55%
Newcastle-under-Lyme: 16.75%

Now that is significant! That is so uniform as to be very telling. What a pity Hunt had not been the member for Newcastle. I think there is little doubt that they would have won that.

[Deleted]

Feb 7, 2017 12:20:22 GMT carlton43 said:

Feb 7, 2017 11:19:27 GMT @conservativeestimate said:

Swings against Labour in Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme since 1997:

Stoke North: 16.24%
Stoke Central: 16.4%
Stoke South: 16.55%
Newcastle-under-Lyme: 16.75%

Now that is significant! That is so uniform as to be very telling. What a pity Hunt had not been the member for Newcastle. I think there is little doubt that they would have won that.

They?

[carlton43]

Feb 7, 2017 11:51:33 GMT johnloony said:

There was a lot of excitable chatter about UKIP winning in Eastleigh, or coming close in Oldham West & Royton, or possibly winning Newark. It's all rubbish. Betting patterns, and UKIP being odds-on favourite (or whatever) are meaningless, because they meausre what people are betting on and not how people are voting. In all probability Stoke will be a comfortable Labour hold, with UKIP in a distant second place.

Not so. Newark was out of the question under any circumstances. Oldham West was an outside possibility with an excellent candidate and a superb campaign. Eastleigh was definitely on and a more targeted campaign with a Farage candidate would have done it without doubt.

[carlton43]

Feb 7, 2017 12:23:46 GMT joe said:

Feb 7, 2017 12:20:22 GMT carlton43 said:

Now that is significant! That is so uniform as to be very telling. What a pity Hunt had not been the member for Newcastle. I think there is little doubt that they would have won that.

They?

In the context of all the posts above 'They' obviously refers to UKIP...............doesn't it Joe?  But I suppose you would contend that whilst Newcastle has a smaller majority UKIP were not as well placed as in Stoke!  You may have a point? 

[gwynthegriff]

Feb 7, 2017 12:27:50 GMT carlton43 said:

Feb 7, 2017 12:23:46 GMT joe said:

They?

In the context of all the posts above 'They' obviously refers to UKIP...............doesn't it Joe?  But I suppose you would contend that whilst Newcastle has a smaller majority UKIP were not as well placed as in Stoke!  You may have a point? 

UKIP wouldn't win a N-U-L byelection.

The Conservatives would.



imho

[carlton43]

Feb 7, 2017 12:38:32 GMT gwynthegriff said:

Feb 7, 2017 12:27:50 GMT carlton43 said:

In the context of all the posts above 'They' obviously refers to UKIP...............doesn't it Joe?  But I suppose you would contend that whilst Newcastle has a smaller majority UKIP were not as well placed as in Stoke!  You may have a point? 

UKIP wouldn't win a N-U-L byelection.

The Conservatives would.



imho

Quite so gwyn. I posted in too much of a hurry. I think you are correct and that Joe implied that with his question. Sorry Joe.

[Deleted]

Notionally 1979 result on 1983 boundaries:

Stoke-on-Trent Central
LAB: 28,138
CON: 13,591
LIB: 4,734

[Deleted]

Feb 7, 2017 11:51:33 GMT johnloony said:

There was a lot of excitable chatter about UKIP winning in Eastleigh, or coming close in Oldham West & Royton, or possibly winning Newark. It's all rubbish. Betting patterns, and UKIP being odds-on favourite (or whatever) are meaningless, because they meausre what people are betting on and not how people are voting. In all probability Stoke will be a comfortable Labour hold, with UKIP in a distant second place.

Indeed, there was, but that was all it was, 'chatter'. UKIP were never odds-on to win any of those byelections. You could have got 14/1 on UKIP on polling day in Newark.

The betting markets reflect reality. Of course, if you know better, and Labour are a 'dead-cert', then toddle off down to Ladbroke's with a thousand quid while you can still get 'Evens', and you'll be a thousand quid better off on February 24th.

Labour (according to the markets) have a marginally better than 50% chance of victory. We'll have a clearer picture come polling day itself. Unless the odds for UKIP drift to over (let's say) 2/1 we're in for a close contest.

[justin124]

But UKIP certainly did give the impression of running Labour close at Oldham . Farage was talking of the majority being within 1000 votes.

I imagine too that there were many seats at the last election where the Bookies had Labour as clear favourites which the Tories went on to win.