Ah, now that's an interesting one because it collides with the pretty consistent crossbreak we find in the polls that Ukip's converts are 3:1 Tory:Labour (and were 2:1 even at peak Ukip).

 

But again though, you're basing "converts" solely on "how they voted in 2010". But that's always been a flawed way of measuring it, because that was an election where the Conservatives were at a 20-year high and Labour were at a near all-time low -- therefore, virtually any subgroup that is studied in detail is going to be skewed towards the Conservatives if you base it solely on 2010 results. It never made any sense to think that how a group of people voted in that one, exceptional, election was representative of the normal/natural state of affairs.

 

 

I've long had the theory (backed up quite a bit by some of the masochistic comments online, which isn't especially scientific a method of confirming this theory but at least reassures me that this phenomenon does exist) that actually there are a fair chunk of ex-Tory Ukip supporters who would prefer Ed Miliband to win next year on the basis that it would 'clear the stables' in the Conservative Party, but also be in their minds so utterly disastrous a left-wing government that a proper right-wing government would sweep to victory in 2020.

 

I'm sure that isn't that unfamiliar a thought process to you in any case! :D

 

That probably is a factor for a small number of them and for a lot of UKIP's diehard activists, but most of their voters are not going to be caring about any future political machinations. Specific questions on the issues usually show that UKIP supporters are very close to Labour supporters on most economic issues (though not on immigration/social issues).

I can see the Tories pressing the self-destruct button if they lose next year. Cameron has already left the door open to the batshit fringes and he'd be gone for sure.

 

I actually agree, but Labour if they won would also probably go into total meltdown quickly judging the fate of virtually ANY leftwing party that starts cutting government spending (Spain and France being the most obvious examples). And I also doubt the Lib Dems will recover quickly even if they get a new leader and repent for the last few years.

 

I honestly think, in the event of Labour winning next year, UKIP could be topping the opinion polls within 18 months.

But again though, you're basing "converts" solely on "how they voted in 2010". But that's always been a flawed way of measuring it, because that was an election where the Conservatives were at a 20-year high and Labour were at a near all-time low -- therefore, virtually any subgroup that is studied in detail is going to be skewed towards the Conservatives if you base it solely on 2010 results. It never made any sense to think that how a group of people voted in that one, exceptional, election was representative of the normal/natural state of affairs.

 

The relative lack of transfer from the Conservatives to Labour (and vice versa) since then doesn't persuade me that that is something relevant to this, given I'm talking about behaviour since 2010. In the last two local elections, support for UKIP has gone up, and support for Labour has gone down. When media attention has gone away from Ukip, there's been drift back for both, which leads me to think the Labour to Ukip switchers (who may have already been Labour or who may have switched to Labour already at some point since 2010 - in fact, given we were at 45% in the polls at one point there'll almost certainly be some of the latter who've been on a journey since 2010) are less 'sticky' than the Tory to Ukip switchers.

I honestly think, in the event of Labour winning next year, UKIP could be topping the opinion polls within 18 months.

I don't necessarily think so, unless both Labour and the Tories started sinking to below 25% (which could be possible for an unpopular Labour government, but which didn't even happen to the Tories in opposition from 97-10 - and is barely happening to them now). There's so much outright hostility towards Ukip that I couldn't see them ever clearing 30% in any nationwide election, and I think it's more likely you'd get a solidly left-wing party that tries to reap the rewards of an unpopular Labour government - either the Greens or Left Unity finally managing to do the impossible and not have the most ironic name in British party politics - that scoops up a lot of those votes, rather than most of them going straight to Ukip.

I actually agree, but Labour if they won would also probably go into total meltdown quickly judging the fate of virtually ANY leftwing party that starts cutting government spending (Spain and France being the most obvious examples). And I also doubt the Lib Dems will recover quickly even if they get a new leader and repent for the last few years.

 

I honestly think, in the event of Labour winning next year, UKIP could be topping the opinion polls within 18 months.

I'm not so sure. Certainly, if Labour lose, they could go into meltdown. They have been remarkably disciplined over the last four years but that may well change if they lose again. If they are in government - either alone or in coalition with the Lib Dems - they can get some "quick wins" such as the abolition of the bedroom tax and the introduction of a mansion tax.

Specific questions on the issues usually show that UKIP supporters are very close to Labour supporters on most economic issues (though not on immigration/social issues).

That's a little bit of a cheat, given those specific polls usually tend to show that all voters are very close to Labour supporters on most economic issues, even most of the Tories.

If they are in government - either alone or in coalition with the Lib Dems - they can get some "quick wins" such asthe introduction of a mansion tax.

This is where I worry we might get scenarios where the policy itself polls well, but the overwhelming queue of sweaty chubby white men in ill-fitting suits ranting about how it's 'economic disaster' sets the message on the news that it is and polling numbers incongruously go down anyway. Just look at the 50p policy announcement in January...

I don't necessarily think so, unless both Labour and the Tories started sinking to below 25% (which could be possible for an unpopular Labour government, but which didn't even happen to the Tories in opposition from 97-10 - and is barely happening to them now). There's so much outright hostility towards Ukip that I couldn't see them ever clearing 30% in any nationwide election, and I think it's more likely you'd get a solidly left-wing party that tries to reap the rewards of an unpopular Labour government - either the Greens or Left Unity finally managing to do the impossible and not have the most ironic name in British party politics - that scoops up a lot of those votes, rather than most of them going straight to Ukip.

That'll be the Greens then.

 

I said this after 2010 as well...

That's a little bit of a cheat, given those specific polls usually tend to show that all voters are very close to Labour supporters on most economic issues, even most of the Tories.

 

Oh? I thought according to you the majority of people agreed with "centrist" (i.e. Tory with a few cosmetic meaningless tweaks) economics? :kink:

 

No, but my point is the numbers for UKIP supporters on economic questions (spending/cuts, taxes, businesses, public services, welfare, etc.) are much closer to Labour supporters than they are to Tory supporters. In fact, Kippers are usually more to the left even than current Lib Dem supporters on those issues (though obviously that's after loads of lefties have fled the Lib Dems).

Edited July 30, 201410 yr by Danny

Oh? I thought according to you the majority of people agreed with "centrist" (i.e. Tory with a few cosmetic meaningless tweaks) economics? :kink:

The majority of millennials. In any case, I took out the snark - that when asked in a poll, people will happily admit they like ponies, would love the idea of being given a pony, would be delighted if somebody else paid for that pony, and may even on rare occasion say they would buy that pony themselves. In practice, the second they're asked to think about how much they couldn't really afford that pony, they tend to shrink away, hence pony policies only tend to work once already in government so people can get used to the difference rather than taking fright at the hypothetical of losing out on however much the extra tax is.

You're sounding like a Tory. It's all me, me, me.

 

great one-liner, even funnier without the commas and an extra "me" :lol:

The relative lack of transfer from the Conservatives to Labour (and vice versa) since then doesn't persuade me that that is something relevant to this, given I'm talking about behaviour since 2010. In the last two local elections, support for UKIP has gone up, and support for Labour has gone down. When media attention has gone away from Ukip, there's been drift back for both, which leads me to think the Labour to Ukip switchers (who may have already been Labour or who may have switched to Labour already at some point since 2010 - in fact, given we were at 45% in the polls at one point there'll almost certainly be some of the latter who've been on a journey since 2010) are less 'sticky' than the Tory to Ukip switchers.

 

I've read this post a couple of times, and I still don't understand the argument you're making here? I actually agree with the bit in bold, but that backs up what I was saying -- converts based on how people voted in 2010 only tells a skewed version of the story. As you say, comparing UKIP supporters now to 2012 tells a different story -- the Conservatives' poll ratings now are virtually identical to how they were in 2012 when they were miles behind, the big difference since then has been a massive shift from Labour to UKIP, with many people who were planning to vote Labour a couple of years ago (irrespective of how they voted in 2010) getting pissed off with them and going to UKIP.

 

So do you agree that UKIP harms Labour almost as much as the Tories, because many "Kippers" are people who could and should be won over by Labour? They're the only party Labour have a chance of winning any votes from to try and top up their current ratings (and they're the people who put Labour in such a healthy position in 2012), since the Tories are close to core-vote levels and most of the remaining Lib Dems seem pretty right-wing economically (they're probably the only people who'd vote for any "Progress Party" :P ).

Edited July 31, 201410 yr by Danny

The original conversation was on how many Ukippers are Labour or Tory. My point was that they tend to be more Tory in the electoral 'off-season' and in the last couple of years' elections have still been predominantly Tory but balanced out by Labour.

 

I'm more convinced by the idea that that poll result comes more from Ukip supporters who utterly loathe the Cameron government on things like gay marriage so much that they would rather have a Miliband win to clear out the stables. I'm more convinced by that than I am by the idea that Ukip is currently buoyed by natural Labour supporters who all voted Conservative in 2010 (and frankly there can't have been many of them given how little the Tories went up between 2005 and 2010, and how much of that support is already accounted for by Labour's poll rise from 29%). It's the off-season, the Ukip tide is out, there are

 

I don't agree that Ukip 'harms Labour as much as the Tories' just because there are Kippers out there that could and should be won over by Labour, because that's an odd rationale for saying that a party harms us as much as they harm another. Ukip splinter the Tory voting coalition to a degree that makes a majority government for them frankly impossible. They don't notionally do the same for us. Just because we're both impacted by Ukip doesn't mean we're harmed just as much by them, and I don't think that can be argued from one poll on which government would be preferred given how consistently a huge gap is shown between Ukip support taken from the Tories and Ukip support taken from Labour, regardless of the fact most of the latter has come since 2012 (which is an odd point - the Tories have only collapsed in their vote since 2012 and the budget!).

 

In terms of the one area we should be looking at, it isn't any one party, but rather the undecideds - 2010 Lib Dems (about 1 million undecided for 2015) and 2010 Labour (no solid figures but there are a lot, and they're easier to win back than the former). So much of Ukip's rise is cultural that it's a long term project winning those votes back rather than a short-term one. And I'm confident that next year a lot of those votes will come back to Labour.

The original conversation was on how many Ukippers are Labour or Tory. My point was that they tend to be more Tory in the electoral 'off-season' and in the last couple of years' elections have still been predominantly Tory but balanced out by Labour.

 

I'm more convinced by the idea that that poll result comes more from Ukip supporters who utterly loathe the Cameron government on things like gay marriage so much that they would rather have a Miliband win to clear out the stables. I'm more convinced by that than I am by the idea that Ukip is currently buoyed by natural Labour supporters who all voted Conservative in 2010 (and frankly there can't have been many of them given how little the Tories went up between 2005 and 2010, and how much of that support is already accounted for by Labour's poll rise from 29%). It's the off-season, the Ukip tide is out, there are

 

I don't agree that Ukip 'harms Labour as much as the Tories' just because there are Kippers out there that could and should be won over by Labour, because that's an odd rationale for saying that a party harms us as much as they harm another. Ukip splinter the Tory voting coalition to a degree that makes a majority government for them frankly impossible. They don't notionally do the same for us. Just because we're both impacted by Ukip doesn't mean we're harmed just as much by them, and I don't think that can be argued from one poll on which government would be preferred given how consistently a huge gap is shown between Ukip support taken from the Tories and Ukip support taken from Labour, regardless of the fact most of the latter has come since 2012 (which is an odd point - the Tories have only collapsed in their vote since 2012 and the budget!).

 

In terms of the one area we should be looking at, it isn't any one party, but rather the undecideds - 2010 Lib Dems (about 1 million undecided for 2015) and 2010 Labour (no solid figures but there are a lot, and they're easier to win back than the former). So much of Ukip's rise is cultural that it's a long term project winning those votes back rather than a short-term one. And I'm confident that next year a lot of those votes will come back to Labour.

 

What are you defining as "natural Labour supporters"? I agree, very few of UKIP's supporters are people who were ever diehard/lifelong Labour voters. And very few UKIPPers were ever lifelong/diehard Tory voters either. Most of UKIP's voters are volatile swing voters (all those cringeworthy names like "Essex man", "Yorkshire man", "Worcester woman" -- it's no coincidence that these are all the areas where UKIP are thriving most). You're obsessed with the "centre ground", well, UKIP are the closest thing to the "centre ground". Except despite the political groupthink they don't and never have had "centrist" views.

Edited July 31, 201410 yr by Danny

Since when was I obsessed with the centre ground? I basically wrote a THESIS earlier this year saying Ed couldn't win with a centre ground strategy! http://www.moopy.org.uk/forums/images/smilies/grin.gif

I frankly think the debates, assuming they happen, will lose Ed the election. Cameron and Clegg will be far better. If I were his advisors I wouldn't let him do any debates.

Edited August 1, 201410 yr by Common Sense

I actually think it'll be the other way around. Expectations around Ed will be so low (bizarrely, given he performs quite well in a Q&A session and a debate rather than a set speech) that it'll be quite difficult for him to match those expectations and even a half-decent performance will look good - and it's unlikely he'll do as badly as half-decent. Anyway, most focus group work on Ed has found that people respond badly to a short clip of him but after watching him for an extended period actually warm up to him, so he absolutely should be doing debates.

 

Meanwhile Cameron hasn't shown any sign in PMQs of debating against Ed without resorting to namecalling (which always goes down badly in these types of debates), and Clegg...well, he's not exactly going to do as well as last time.

 

The bigger concern'll be the format. If it's the 5-3-2 proposal then all hell will break loose after the first one and I really wouldn't be surprised if we saw the Greens hit 10% and UKIP hit 20%.

The bigger concern'll be the format. If it's the 5-3-2 proposal then all hell will break loose after the first one and I really wouldn't be surprised if we saw the Greens hit 10% and UKIP hit 20%.

5-3-2 is a nightmare. 4-2-3-1 usually works far better unless you're Dutch.

:basil:

I frankly think the debates, assuming they happen, will lose Ed the election. Cameron and Clegg will be far better. If I were his advisors I wouldn't let him do any debates.

 

I used to think they'd help him, but I agree they'd be a disaster for him now they've decided to not have any decent policies. Because he won't have the balls to disagree with the Conservatives on any of the main issues that people care about, he won't be saying anything interesting. What no-one in Labour seems to have realised is that, the fewer the differences there are on policy between them and the other parties, the more important personality becomes, because that's the only noticeable point of difference between them; since Ed won't be saying anything interesting or distinctive on the issues, the only things that will stand out for the viewer will be his funny voice, goofy looks and lack of self-assurance.

Edited August 1, 201410 yr by Danny