[Closed] UKIP, the by-elections and Labour

He then claims to have not read it or contributed to it iirc

Yes, from my above link :

[i]"I didn't read it. It was drivel. It was 486 pages of drivel ... It was a nonsense"[/i]

So there you have it, Nigel Farage was able to tell that the UKIP manifesto was drivel without even reading it.

Strangely enough I possess similar powers.

Was it because lib dems and tory voters changed from them and went to UKIP rather than to labour?

Congratulations. So people who would have voted Labour voted UKIP instead.

Which parties tend to get most uptight about immigration Right wing ones or left wing ones? I agree some of it crosses over but only in times of a poor economy when we forget to blame the fat cat bankers and global corporations for the economic situation and low wages and instead blame other piss poor people form somewhere even poorer.

[quote=fr0sty125 said]I know what you mean Junkyard

Just listening to Raido 4 and someone vote UKIP because he is against free trade !!!
You cannot make it up.

I dont doubt what you say Nick [ I did skim read it] but my point stands

Which parties tend to get most uptight about immigration Right wing ones or left wing ones?

Powell was a Tory, UKIP come from Tories - all overtly racist parties in this country have been right wing.

same for the Trade Unions(London dockers 1968) who organised vile marches terrorising immigrants(well dark skinned ones anyway)in support of Enoch Powell.

Are you claiming that "the Trade Unions" organised vile marches terrorising immigrants because of what a handful of London dockers did once in 1968 ? Really ?

And they went on a one day strike because they wanted Ted Heath to give Enoch Powell his job back in the Tory Shadow Cabinet. Do you think a trade union gave official support to industrial action demanding that a Tory politician be given his job back ? Really ?

And I have no idea what you mean by "Labour's record on immigration is piss poor".

Did you give any thought to what you were posting ?

Yes ernie i do.Read the link for a start.
The parents and grandparents of some of my friends will tell you how welcome the Unions in their workplaces made them feel when they came to this country in the 50 and 60s.That's living history.

John Gaunt was just on news night for UKIP, amongst his angry shoutiness he said that UKIP was just like the tea party, like this was a good thing, if this is the future of uk politics we are doooooooomed

I saw Owen Jones and thought the same

One day he'll realise HE is the establishment as much as rest the rest of them

Sorry I missed that as he was shouting over the top of you 😉

She even had to slap his knee atth eend to get him to STFU

You're bang out of order nick. The trade unions more than anyone else have fought racism. Your attempt to discredit them and accuse them of 'organising vile marches terrorising immigrants' because of what a handful of herberts once did unofficially nearly 50 years is really quite pathetic.

You can find racism anywhere. The fact that you have to go back so far to such a small isolated incident to find such an example with any sort of connection with trade unionists really says it all.

The London dockers march in support of Enoch Powell is infamous precisely because such examples are so incredibly rare.

And you still haven't explained your ridiculous comment "Labour's record on immigration is piss poor". Probably best not to, eh.

You would struggle to find a country anywhere in the world with a more tolerant attitude towards immigrants than Britain. That doesn't mean we should be complacent towards racism of course.

UKIP has only needed one policy to get 39% of the vote in Heywood and that is to control immigration. The rest of the stuff about being a party for the people is just noise.

As we've debated here before "The Common Market" is what we joined (and had political support from all sides) and IMO still has broad support in the UK. What the EU has become and the road it's on to a single super state has much less support.

And you still haven't explained your ridiculous comment "Labour's record on immigration is piss poor". Probably best not to, eh.

You also keep deriding the Laboir party for having moved to the right, you cerstinky don't agree with my view that to get elected to Government in the UK in recent times you have to be in the centre. So why not follow the example of UKIP and shake things up with a new party to suit you on the left ? They've proven that with a single policy and a reasonably charismatic leader you can go far.

The unions changed because black and ethnic minority workers got organised,formed black caucus within workplaces and got themselves elected as shop stewards etc .Of course not everyone was hostile to blacks and immigrants but many were. This makes interesting reading and reflects the experience of the people I referred to including examples of other unions(and their members) behaviour.

Labour's record on immigration is piss poor.I was referring to the racist Immigration Acts that they introduced and the Tory ones that they didn't repeal or amend despite Denis Healey saying they would.Labour played the race/immigration card in the 60s to get elected too,not just the Tories

but jamby did they really all vote against the EU or is it just 2 fingers up to the 'westminster eite' ?

and last time round clacton had 5% BNP votes, you betcha they all went to carswell!

That first link is great (and depressing) reading Nick. A reminder that we make the same mistakes again and again: Economic downturns result in misplaced resentment towards immigrants, which politicians seek to turn into votes.

@kimber I suppose we'll not know for sure but I do believe immigration is the driver here. Farage when all is said and done is a career politician just like Salmond, Cameron, Clegg and Miliband.

Economic downturns result in misplaced resentment towards immigrants, which politicians seek to turn into votes.

[img] [/img]

without doubt

im pretty confident that ina general ukip wouldnt have had the same level of support and a higher turnout would also diminsih their lead

but with an MP they are undoubtedly legitimised to a degree,on the other face of that no longer outsiders,
so I think that the next GE theyll do well enough, but after a term of achieving nothing theyll become as unelectable as the limp dems are now

Labour played the race/immigration card in the 60s to get elected too,not just the Tories

For **** sake. Labour made racism illegal in the 60s, up until then racism was perfectly legal in Britain.

I really can't be bothered with this ridiculous SWP type ultra-leftist trot bollocks.

From twitter:

"Yes I voted UKIP, the Tory MP has done nothing for years"-Clacton Resident

This is one of the labour parties core problems. Even mentioning the 'I' word has their Islington Guardianista sensibilities recoiling in horror, wetting themselves. Gordon Browns attitude typifies their approach to it. But in its core constituencies (not Islington) immigration is a major issue to a lot of people. In areas of the country with mass youth unemployment, that hasn't seen a sniff of the supposed 'economic recovery', large scale immigration is genuinely driving down wages...This is the reality on the ground...It buries its head in the sand and repeats the mantra that 'immigration is always a benefit'. Well it might be if you're middle class, and your Polish cleaner and Latvian nanny come at very reasonable rates. Not so great if you're an unskilled school leaver in Rochdale and just can't get a job, because some firms, by default, just get immigrants in, without even advertising positions locally

First of all, you're ignoring the fact that Islington's two constituencies ARE core Labour constituencies. Islington North has been Labour since 1937, apart from a two year SDP blip in the early 1980s when the sitting Labour MP defected (and was then dumped in favour of a Labour candidate). The Labour share of the vote has only dipped below 40% once in that time, and it's usually been in the 50-60% range.

Islington South has been Labour since its creation in 1974 (apart from another 2 year SDP blip caused by defection of a sitting Labour MP who was then dumped), and the Labour share has been typically in the 50s and up. The Lib Dem near upset in 2005 was reversed in the last election and I don't see the Lib Dems improving on that next time.

So basically you don't get more "core" than constituencies that have been solid Labour for 40 or 80 years.

Secondly, I have no idea how anyone with the slightest clue could suggest that mass immigration is something alien to Islington, when 30% of the population of the council areas are immigrants and white British people are in the minority (far lower than the English average). There's loads of Turks, Albanians, Eritreans, Ethiopians and Poles all over the joint. The non-EU population grew 25% in 2001-2010 and that was from a high base. Hackney council (which has a big chunk of Islington North) also has tons of immigrants.

Thirdly, your suggestion that Islington is just full of highly educated middle class Guardianistas hiring nannies is just rubbish. 17% of Islington households have no educational qualifications whatsoever (lower than the English average). Equally...

Islington is borough of stark contrasts, alongside its great wealth and important people, there are also high levels of deprivation – it is in fact the 5th most deprived London borough and the 14th most deprived local authority in England.

As the Cripplegate Foundations records in its annual report, 43% of children in Islington live in poverty (the second highest rate in England). 44% of the borough’s residents live in social housing (compared to 26% in London). Islington also has the highest level of suicide in London.

...and all of that is worse than the English average. A third of school kids have SENs. Half of all school kids qualify for free meals. The proportion of JSA claimants is higher than the London average. And so on.

If anything, Islington is like the UK in microcosm: it has extremes of unbelievable wealth and poverty. They are sometimes literally across the street from each other: million pound plus terrace houses directly opposite really troubled housing estates. Tony Blair's old house was one block away from one of the most deprived and excluded wards in the whole of England.

Fourthly, your assertion that there is a mantra that says "immigration is always a benefit" is just a straw man. No one says it.

Frankly, you're coming across like the epitome of the chippy parochial northerner coming out with all sorts of rubbish based on pig ignorance. "Eeh*, it's all right for you soft southerners driving about in your BMWs and walking across pavements made of Brie and drinking from champagne fountains between cashing your million pound pay cheques, but oop here we know real graft and poverty, and true Labour values". It's just not true: Labour's core vote isn't only in the north (let alone Scotland, which was Tory until the 1950s), the south isn't all rich, the north isn't all poor and no-one has the monopoly on hard times or insight.

You should stick to talking about something you know about. Like whippets* or processed meat products or something.

* yes! as a matter of fact that is how I imagine you speak and what you're interested in.

aracer - Member
From twitter:
"Yes I voted UKIP, the Tory MP has done nothing for years"-Clacton Resident

Best post so far and about as much analysis as is required. There is nothing to stop the power of the ill-informed when they are on a roll. They almost pulled it off in Scotland after all.

Ernie, you really need to learn a lot more about the History of the Labour Party… plenty of dog whistle politics happened in Britain over the years that wasn't confined to right wing politics and groups. Immigration controls were tightened by Labour to appease racists and win votes. Sadly, they will probably have to do the same again at some point, even if they don't want to.

Ernie, you really need to learn a lot more about the History of the Labour Party…

I don't need lessons about "the History of the Labour Party" from people who trot out bollocks that the Labour Party played the racist card in the 1960s, and that the trade unions "organised vile marches terrorising immigrants", when the Labour Party and the trade unions were at the forefront in the fight against racism and making it illegal.

You really need to learn a lot more about not spouting bollocks.

I love the irony of Londoners accusing other people (from the provinces) of being parochial 😆

All you've done there is highlight the current labour leaderships attitude. Things would be so much easier if they didn't have to rely on the votes of' chippy northerners' eh?

I love the irony of Londoners accusing other people (from the provinces) of being parochial

All you've done there is highlight the current labour leaderships attitude. Things would be so much easier if they didn't have to rely on the votes of' chippy northerners' eh?

All I've done is show that while you're slagging off London Labour for not knowing anything about the North, you know sod all about London or Labour.

I may well be wrong. I often am. But this is all about perception. And my perception is one widely shared by my fellow ignorant, pasty-chomping, flat cap wearing whippet owners.

All I'm doing is articulating the views that the former labour voters of Middleton expressed far more powerfully than me this week, about a Labour Party that has all but abandoned it's core vote, and simply refuses to even engage with it's legitimate concerns. I feel certain that Ed and his narrow little cabal of advisors will have used the phrase ( in private, obviously) 'chippy northerners' repeatedly in the last 24 hours. And it perfectly illustrates the contempt with which we are held in Westminster generally.

Well, thankfully, I'm not relying on the voters of Islington to keep me in a job. Something Ed and co might do well to remember.

There's a good quote on the front page of today's Guardian (we still read it in the provinces) from one of Blair's advisors (laying on the irony thick here, I know)

"We are in deep, deep trouble. We are lost and our voters want us back. They keep sending us messages. When will we listen?"

Indeed.

konabunny is imo absolutely right to dismantle your northern chip arguments binners, with his usual devastating take no prisoners knockout blows.

You appear to be blissfully unware, or at least choose to completely ignore, the fact that Inner London has the highest levels of poverty and inequality in the whole of the UK.

Which in part explains why Inner London is, and always has been, the largest Labour stronghold in the whole of the UK. And why the Tories had to create the political entity of Greater London to dilute the political influence of the Labour Party over London.

Which is a shame binners because misinterpretation of the political/class character of London/Islington aside the point you are actually making is extremely valid imo ie :

[i]But in its core constituencies (not Islington) immigration is a major issue to a lot of people. In areas of the country with mass youth unemployment, that hasn't seen a sniff of the supposed 'economic recovery', large scale immigration is genuinely driving down wages...This is the reality on the ground...It buries its head in the sand and repeats the mantra that 'immigration is always a benefit'. Well it might be if you're middle class, and your Polish cleaner and Latvian nanny come at very reasonable rates. Not so great if you're an unskilled school leaver in Rochdale and just can't get a job, because some firms, by default, just get immigrants in, without even advertising positions locally[/i]

I agree wholeheartedly.

I say a shame, but I actually enjoy the entertainment value of your completely over the top tub thumping polemics 🙂

Fair enough. I stand corrected 😀

Moving on... surely the natural labour voters of London must be equally as disillusioned with the present direction of the party? especially as it appears (from an outsiders view oop 'ere) that the capital is being socially cleansed by the Tories, and turned into a playground for the rich. All while the Labour Party stands by impotently, sucking it's metaphorical thumb, offering no realistic alternative.

A question for you.... Do you think a vote tomorrow in a by election held in a deprived London borough would deliver a significantly different result for labour than Middleton?

London has always been a curious patchwork place in terms of deprived communities right next door to pockets of considerable affluence. Islington is a prime example of this, and it's arguable that the more wealthy districts and population are to a degree self-insulated from the other extreme just a few streets away, in a similar way that Kensington and Chelsea is a world apart from poorer areas next door, politically and socially.

The idea of an 'Islington elite' may not represent the borough as a whole, just as 'Mondeo Man' sure as hell didn't represent me when I lived in Essex, but as a perception it contains enough truth to be politically powerful.

A question for you.... Do you think a vote tomorrow in a by election held in a deprived London borough would deliver a significantly different result for labour than Middleton?

Well the evidence suggests that UKIP do not do well in London, if that's the point you are trying to make - I'm assuming you don't think that the Tories and the LibDems did well in last Thursday's Middleton by election ?

Less than 6 months ago we had local elections throughout England in which UKIP achieved a substantial breakthrough and did extremely well across the country.

The result in London was however significantly different. UKIP did not achieve a breakthrough in London and did very poorly compared to how they did in the rest of England.

Draw your own conclusion.

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that ernie. Do you have any thoughts on the reason for the difference?

That's interesting Ernie. Maybe people in London generally don't feel as disillusioned with traditional party politics as in the rest of the country? As they're generally better served by Westminster politics? As this disillusionment seems to be what UKIP are benefitting from?

Any thoughts on that?

I think UKIP popularity is inversely proportional to the %of the community who are not white/UK whatever label you like here. You could argue this is because
1. only white folk vote for them
2. Fear only exists where we do not all happily live side by side with non UK folk.

All I'm doing is articulating the views that the former labour voters of Middleton expressed far more powerfully than me this week,

about a Labour Party that has all but abandoned it's core vote, and simply refuses to even engage with it's legitimate concerns.

I feel certain that Ed and his narrow little cabal of advisors will have used the phrase ( in private, obviously) 'chippy northerners' repeatedly in the last 24 hours.

Its still not a westminster v the North issue IMHO do not fall for the divide and conquer ploy

Binners, that or most of the 'natural UKIP voters' had sold their (right to buy) ex-council houses on and moved to Essex 😀

Do you have any thoughts on the reason for the difference?

Well UKIP claimed that it was because London is "educated, cultural and young"

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-blames-london-election-performance-on-difficulty-appealing-to-the-educated-and-cultural-9423200.html ]Ukip blames London election performance on difficulty appealing to the 'well-educated'[/url]

I'm sure there are a multitude of reasons why UKIP did badly in London May this year, compared to the rest of England, including the fact that Inner London has always been a Labour stronghold with Labour Party structures that you would expect in a Labour stronghold, that would weaken UKIP's potential.

There's probably an element of truth that the Tory/LibDem strongholds of Outer London are possibly a little too educated/politically sophisticated to vote for UKIP.

Although I think the fact that more than a third of Londoners were born outside the UK, more than any other area of the UK, is probably more significant.

.

Here you are binners, the results of elections in Isington Council 6 months ago :

Labour - 47 seats, Greens - 1 seat, Tories 0 seat, LibDems - 0 seat, UKIP - 0 seat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islington_Council_election,_2014

Obviously that doesn't give us any certainty concerning how UKIP would do in a by election as you ask but it gives us a pretty good idea.

All I know is their vote increased and the ones who paid the piper were the lib dems, the BNP and the Tories.

...and that people who would have voted Labour voted UKIP. At least you appeared to know that yesterday.

JY - you seem to share the same deluded complacent view as Ed. UKIP polled 39%, the Tories 12% . So whichever way you look at it, the majority of voters opted for right wing parties. And that's going to be replicated in constituencies all over the north with a lot slimmer labour majorities.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of the Labour Party, is it? The tiniest amount of tactical voting and they 're ****ed!

Yes I did notice that now there are 4 parties some of them are choosing the fourth party. I also noted where these voters came from...was it labour or the others?

you seem to share the same deluded complacent view as Ed.

Perhaps it's time for parties to redefine their core vote - or maybe they have done his and it's the commentators who need to adjust. There seems to be this mythical labour core vote (of the downtrodden) that may well have existed in the 60s and 70s along with the Col Blimp characatures of the Toires. But the world has moved on - in most cases? - indeed the success of new labour was to recognise the basic fact that the so-called core voters were not sufficient to deliver power. And politicians need and crave power above anything else. So they re-defined the core vote, satisfied their needs and wond electoral success as a result. The reason why most parties are stuck in the middle ground, is that this is the reality of UK society. Beyond the hyperbole of newspaper headlines, extremism in the UK is thankfully largely noteworthy by its absence. The UK is noteworthy for the moderate nature of much of its society and IMO that is a good things. The fact that UKIP is described as very RW is enough evidence of that - barking very possibly but very RW? Hardly.

Those lamenting the loss of Labour Party of the 60s and 70s should ask a simple question. Why does that not exist any more? If there was the demand for it, the party or a party would grow to fill that demand. So come on, guys, go out and form it and see how many members you can get. It would be interesting to see. There was an element of this visible during the Scottish referendum as illustrated by Jurassic Jim and his comments, but event here he seemed to be very much in the minority.

I've been following this thread with interest, although at times it moves so fast I couldn't get a word in edge ways.

My perspective is that by elections have historically been a protest vote and generally people fall back into line with how they have previously voted come the general election. What worries me with the rise of UKIP is that a lot of the floating voters, who would switch their vote based on what the media told them, will blindly follow the UKIP mantra of "Europe is bad, lets get out of Europe" without digging any further into their non-existent policies.

The twitter comment from a Clacton voter, the commonly held belief that LaFarage is a "man of the people" and that UKIP have made comments about the established parties loyalties to their corporate buddies, rather than the voters, just fills me with dread and fear of the outcome at the GE, if the balance of power is left to those floating voters who will vote based on fear and sound bites.

Maybe it's because I have strong principals and political beliefs, but I really don't understand how voters can swing from one political party to another. Especially when they are what has been called "core labour voters" who switch to UKIP. Tory to UKIP I understand, Labour and Lib-Dems protesting by voting UKIP?

Maybe I naive, but is the general populace that fickle?

binners - Member

JY - you seem to share the same deluded complacent view as Ed. UKIP polled 39%, the Tories 12% . So whichever way you look at it, the majority of voters opted for right wing parties. And that's going to be replicated in constituencies all over the north with a lot slimmer labour majorities.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of the Labour Party, is it? The tiniest amount of tactical voting and they 're ****ed!

🙂 Calm down binners. Read my link, Islington will save you, the core Labour vote is going nowhere apart from maybe to the Greens**, quote :

[i]The final result was 47 seats for the Labour Party and 1 seat for the Green Party. The Labour Party received 56 percent of the vote, its highest total in Islington since 1974. The Liberal Democrat Party lost all its seats despite having controlled the Council 4 years before.[/i]

OK Labour shouldn't be complacent, but the Labour vote in traditional Labour strongholds is remaining solid, it's the Tories and LibDems outside Labour strongholds who are facing the full onslaught of UKIP.

And even the Tories shouldn't exaggerate the threat from UKIP imo. The SDP in its day "broke the mould of British politics" as voters disillusioned with the main parties flocked to it. Like many UKIP voters who allegedly never usually vote the SDP attracted people who had never previously been interested in politics.

It took 2 years for the SDP with all the media driven fanfare they received to get 6 elected MPs. Despite staggering levels of publicity it's taken over 20 years for UKIP to get one single MP. UKIP will be around a while no doubt, providing an unhelpful and useless diversion, but ask yourself where are the SDP today ?

And there's no point the LibDems being worried about anything as they are ****ed anyway.

Labour needs to worry less about UKIP and more about why they don't have policies which serve the interests of ordinary working people, otherwise their luck will eventually run out and their core vote will desert them, as surely it must.

I still can't believe that the Labour vote held up sufficiently in 2010 to deny the Tories a parliamentary majority. What does it take to stop people voting Labour ffs ?

.

**I jest

Tory to UKIP I understand, Labour and Lib-Dems protesting by voting UKIP?

I'm not convinced the working class do vote labour though. They just don't vote. They've got someone to vote for now though which makes it all unpredictable.

YOU need to be insane to think that the party of folk too right wing, free market, anti EU and racist for the Tory party is the party that will rescue the Working class

Its madness to think this.

Re THM's point [ the stereotypes would have been true at some point in the 20 th century if not the end]the argument would be the post war consensus moved from the left to the right- hence Blair did the same to win power*. The argument may well be that people have had enough of serving the interests of business first and it may be swinging back the other way as people see where this has brought us.

mass immigration and monolithic super companies with structures designed entirely to avoid paying tax whilst we try to pick up the scraps

* you could argue the tories have swung to the middle hence its core voters are leaving to vote UKIP?

Ernie, please explain the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968.

If you need some help, please read this: http://www.newstatesman.com/when-labour-played-racist-card

I also suggest that you read the links already provided by others, and take your head out of the sand as regards Labour's record on immigration and race in the 1960s.

right wing, free market, anti EU and racist

Where are the SDP today? The House of Lords mainly

Ernie, please explain the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968.

I really can't be bothered with herberts who equate immigration controls with "racism". Sorry.

This clip in which James O'Brien of LBC proves yet again that he can humiliate and discredit UKIP better than any mainstream politician is well worth watching.

Ernie.

That is brilliant. Thank you.

I also noted where these voters came from...was it labour or the others?

Comparing this by-election with Wythenshawe and Sale East, held just over 6 months ago, about 10 miles away, very similar result in 2010 GE, it appears most of those who have recently switched to UKIP came from people who would have voted Labour. The Lib Dems registered just about the same loss of share, the Torys lost a few % points more; UKIP up 21 % points share, Labour down over 10 % points of share (most of the rest of the difference in UKIP share came from BNP who didn't stand).

You appeared to agree with that suggestion yesterday.

Smart LBC broadcaster plays games with a phone in caller. Quite obnoxious actually. He may have won some airtime points but if anything he will have hardened people's attitudes and he did nothing to address the reasons why so many people are voting UKIP

On the Islington point it's held up as a good example of champagne / new labour not least as it was the Blairs home. Millibands house is worth £2.5m. London has large amounts of social / council housing (plenty in Chelsea, Westminster and even Belgravia ) and a strong Labour vote. Most of those that work in central London can't afford to live there and many of those who do aren't eligible to vote so you have a curious mix politically of voting residents vs workers. There is always going to be massive wealth divide between a council properties residents and their neighbour in a multi-million pound fiat. All those workers in the middle income wise are a train ride away

I really can't be bothered with herberts who equate immigration controls with "racism". Sorry.

DO SOME READING!

The 60s were a fascinating time, and knowing what happened then is essential to avoid repeating mistakes.

Kensington and Chelsea is a world apart from poorer areas next door, politically and socially.

I don't know whether it's harder to be living on benefits on a rich area or a poor area.

it appears most of those who have recently switched to UKIP came from people who[b] would have[/b] voted Labour.

[genuine Q] What are we debating then ? We both agree they were not labour voters.

he Lib Dems registered just about the same loss of share, the Torys lost a few % points more; UKIP up 21 % points share, Labour down over 10 % points of share (most of the rest of the difference in UKIP share came from BNP who didn't stand).

You appeared to agree with that suggestion yesterday.

Smart LBC broadcaster plays games with a phone in caller. Quite obnoxious actually

Smart LBC broadcaster plays games with a phone in caller. Quite obnoxious actually.

Here you are jambalaya, just for you, a smart LBC broadcaster runs rings around the UKIP leader and exposes what an obnoxious organisation UKIP and its leader really is.

Perhaps that's another reason why UKIP does badly London ...... Londoners have a greater awareness of what a nasty homophobic hypocritical and racist organisation UKIP is, thanks to James O'Brien and the London Broadcasting Company ?

Does that make you sad ?

Thanks ernie, that was grand! 🙂

@ernie thanks I'll listen to that later. Sadly the LBC guys not making much differences as the UKIP bandwagon rolls on at an increasing pace.

Milliband is in the Observer today saying Labour need to react to the issue of immigration impacting working people's livelihoods undercutting their wages and working conditions.

Well we can all breathe a sigh of relief now this titan of UK politics has turned his eye to the UKIP agenda

I can imagine he'll do something strong and decisive like appoint Alan Millburn, or someone to chair a policy review, to report back with some proposals by June 2017

ON BBC1 now....

...love the collection of books behind him. So much for a new style or anti-establishment vote. Who's Who, the good news Bible, a dictionary and thesaurus, and Stalingrad and MrsT hidden away over his right shoulder....and some Jo Malone (?) smelly stuff.

How very Westminster elite!!!!

Sadly the LBC guys not making much differences as the UKIP bandwagon rolls on at an increasing pace.

How do you know he's not making much difference ? Why isn't the "UKIP bandwagon" rolling in London ? Why did UKIP get only a third of the vote in London that it got in the rest of England in May's local elections ?

How do you know that Londoners who tuned into LBC weren't so impressed with how James O'Brien demolished Nigel Farage's nonsensical and hypocritical "arguments" that it helped them to decide not to jump on the UKIP bandwagon ?

What's your explanation for UKIP doing badly in London in this year's local elections when it did very well in the rest of England on the same day ?

What's your explanation for UKIP doing badly in London in this year's local elections when it did very well in the rest of England on the same day ?

Huge leap here, but maybe something to do with 1/3 of London population being born abroad?

An interesting comment from Labour List...

http://labourlist.org/2014/10/if-this-doesnt-wake-labour-up-to-our-problems-what-will/

thm - do you think those books were selected and positioned by a spin doctor?

To be fair, the Good News bible is hardly establishment, a King James bible certainly, but not the Good News.

Good spot Mefty.

"The Downing Street Years" in the background was amusing.

Less than 6 months ago we had local elections throughout England in which UKIP achieved a substantial breakthrough and did extremely well across the country.

The result in London was however significantly different. UKIP did not achieve a breakthrough in London and did very poorly compared to how they did in the rest of England.

Your favourite newspaper The Guardian said this at the time, but do you have any evidence for them doing 'extremely well' across the country excluding London?

Another way that we can demonstrate how the Guardian's crude use of statistics is completely counter-factual is through comparison of UKIP support in some specific London boroughs with UKIP support in some of the aforementioned cities.

There were more UKIP councilors elected in each of three single London boroughs than in the combined cities of Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, and Leeds (combined population 2.6 million).*

Despite having a population of just 232,000 the London Borough of Bexley elected three UKIP councilors. Bromley (population 310,00) elected two UKIP councilors and Havering (238,000) returned seven UKIP councilors.

Huge leap here, but maybe something to do with 1/3 of London population being born abroad?

Just one explanation ? Are you sure ?

There was a substantial difference between the UKIP vote in London and the UKIP vote in the rest of England, iirc about 20% in the whole of England and about 7% in London.

Do really think it was down to just one factor ? Or do you think it might have been down to many factors?

BTW why do think that a 1/3 of London population being born abroad would affect the UKIP vote ? Are you suggesting that UKIP is racist and therefore doesn't appeal to foreign born Londoners ?

If so, you might be right, but Nigel Farage would strongly disagree with you.

So who's right - you or Farage ?

Your favourite newspaper The Guardian .....

My favourite newspaper is actually the Morning Star.

Right so we both agree that they were not labour voters and they came from other parties. Your right its a massive Labour party issue that other parties are losing voters and they are not.

Not Labour voters at the last GE maybe, but that was by far the lowest share of the vote for Labour in H&M since the seat was formed in 1983 - far lower than Labour polled in the 1987 Tory landslide. So given Labour took nowhere near that high a share of the vote - let alone the 57.7% share they took in 2001 (when the other parties combined had fewer total votes than they did in this by-election, despite a far higher turnout), I think it's quite clear that a significant number of the UKIP voters have been Labour voters in the past.

Of course if you don't think it's a problem for Labour only increasing their share of the vote by 0.8%, then you should probably check who the current government is, and think about whether it's OK for Labour to just hold their ground. Because of course people don't vote for the same party every election, and it's pretty disingenuous to categorise people who didn't vote Labour last time as non-Labour voters. These are people who would vote Labour. They are people who Labour need voting for them if they want to win the next GE.

EH the Labour vote % increased. Where are these stats from ?

I wrote at the top of that post: "Comparing this by-election with Wythenshawe and Sale East, held just over 6 months ago, about 10 miles away, very similar result in 2010 GE" - compared to that by-election, Labour increased their share of the vote by 10% less. I was surprised to find one which was so directly comparable - maybe you'd like to explain what the findamental difference is between those two constituencies? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wythenshawe_and_Sale_East_by-election,_2014

What I'm doing here is taking Feb 2014 as a benchmark and making the assumption that the result in H&M would have been very similar to the result in W&SE. Had there been a by-election than and now, the people who have switched to UKIP since February would mostly have voted Labour in February.

it's pretty disingenuous to categorise people who didn't vote Labour last time as non-Labour voters.

When the tories are getting destroyed by UKIP, when the lib dems are in zero figures and Labour are maintaining their vote and winning. I think it is some way from panic stations.

As for the comparison ok i get your point - its reasonable one. Do you think there has been a sea change then? Personally I am not convinced.

Had there been a by-election than and now, the people who have switched to UKIP since February would mostly have voted Labour in February

* i am not sure we have tbh

I think that, love him or hate him, you have to admire the front of Farage. He made a blinding statement in today's Mail on Sunday (surely his spiritual home)

"We'd have won in Middleton if the Tories hadn't split our vote"

I bet Dave nearly choked on his cornflakes reading that 😆

votes have to come from somewhere

There are a hell of a lot of people who haven't voted much before, and now feel moved to vote UKIP.
There also a lot of people who have voted in the past, but now feel that they have no one to vote for.

1/3 of London population being born abroad would affect the UKIP vote ? Are you suggesting that UKIP is racist and therefore doesn't appeal to foreign born Londoners

Eh, whats has country of birth got to do with race?

UKIP want widespread reform of immigration policy, clearly that is of direct interest to the 1/3 of London's population who were born abroad

I can't see how you would conflate that with race? People of all sorts of races are born in different countries. A quarter of the white people in London were born outside the UK, UKIP policies would effect them as much as non white immigrants!

In fact I'd suggest that its that sort of half brained wooly conflation of the two issues by you and your mates on the left that has led to the rise of UKIP in the first place 🙄

So you're suggesting support for UKIP is based on general bigotry/xenophobia rather than just racism? I agree.

There are a hell of a lot of people who haven't voted much before, and now feel moved to vote UKIP.

The Survation poll is also cited by Ukip as evidence that they are attracting large numbers of non-voters. The results suggest that a significant number – 15 per cent – did not vote at all in the last election.

That doesn’t mean those people “had not voted for 20 years”. Survation didn’t go into that amount of detail when they carried out their surveys.

And the other major pollsters we have spoken to can’t prove Mr Farage right or wrong on this either. The polling companies generally ask people who they voted for last time, but don’t go back any further.

Dr Robert Ford, a politics lecturer from Manchester University who has been researching Ukip’s rise in popularity, told us there is evidence in more detailed questionnaires carried out by the British Election Study that Mr Farage may be right about the party attracting long-term non-voters.

Dr Ford said: “Ukip voters consistently come out as more negative about every aspect of the political system, the mainstream parties and the act of voting. People who don’t think they are being given a meaningful choice tend to stay at home more often.

“I think Nigel Farage has a point.

“These voters are not just disgruntled Tories or disgruntled Lib Dem voters. It is much broader than that. There is a broad-based sense of disaffection and it’s right across the political spectrum.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-whos-voting-for-ukip/12934

I think that, love him or hate him, you have to admire the front of Farage. He made a blinding statement in today's Mail on Sunday (surely his spiritual home)

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/ukip-the-by-elections-and-labour/page/4#post-6376245 8)

I think the suggestion about Tory voters tactically voting UKIP has also already been suggested on this thread.

ninfan - Member

1/3 of London population being born abroad would affect the UKIP vote ? Are you suggesting that UKIP is racist and therefore doesn't appeal to foreign born Londoners

Eh, whats has country of birth got to do with race?

UKIP want widespread reform of immigration policy, clearly that is of direct interest to the 1/3 of London's population who were born abroad

I can't see how you would conflate that with race? People of all sorts of races are born in different countries. A quarter of the white people in London were born outside the UK, UKIP policies would effect them as much as non white immigrants!

In fact I'd suggest that its that sort of half brained wooly conflation of the two issues by you and your mates on the left that has led to the rise of UKIP in the first place

Well obviously ninfan you have never heard of the fact that "foreign born Londoners" are often the target of racism !!! 😆

UKIP want widespread reform of immigration policy

Well since foreign born Londoners would be unaffected by that, on account that they are already Londoners, why would they not vote for UKIP ? Tell me.

Maybe, ninfan, just maybe, foreign born Londoners see UKIP as a racist party and as people who have experienced racism want nothing to do with them. Do you think there's a slight possibility that might be the case ? 🙂

I think my point has now been understood, but here are some graphs to help:

Wythenshawe and Sale East:
[IMG] [/IMG]

Heywood and Middleton:
[IMG] [/IMG]

...and in case it isn't obvious, here is the difference between those two charts:
[IMG] [/IMG]

where did the UKIP votes come from?