How the broadcasting rules will thwart UKIP
January 1st, 2005
-
UKIP will get less than 2% of the national vote
The UKIP threat to Michael Howard’s party at the General Election could be blunted by the rules which determine how the broadcasting organisations are allowed to cover the campaign once it has been declared.
-
For although these have yet to be finalised they will almost certainly follow previous practice and allocate the lion’s share of election broadcasts to those defined as “major parties” - Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats and, in Scotland and Wales respectively, the SNP and Plaid Cymru.
This matters because in broad terms the amount of radio and TV coverage the parties get in news and current affairs programmes is linked to the number of election broadcasts. Those parties not deemed as “major” - the Greens, Respect, the BNP and UKIP - will find it hard to command much beyond token references.
For George Galloway’s Respect this should not matter too much because the focus of his party’s campaign will be on the select group of seats where their volunteer base can campaign on the ground. For UKIP the inability to secure the national media coverage on the scale of the June 2004 Euro Elections will be crucial.
-
Even having huge campaign budgets does not break the “major party” monopoly at General Elections. In 1997 James Goldsmith’s Referendum party secured just 2.6% of the vote in spite of having a reported £20m budget.
In the same election UKIP got 0.3% bringing the total anti-EU vote to less than 3% in 1997 in spite of these mega-budgets. It is hard to see UKIP reaching 2% in the coming election. Their main donor in June, Sir Paul Sykes, has already indicated his worries about providing support if it would undermine the Tories.
Most of the current polls have ratings for UKIP at 4-5%. We expect 2-3% of that to move to the Tories by polling day. It is interesting that Communicate Research, the one pollster that does not list the parties to those surveyed, only records 2% for UKIP. Without reminding people forget - what’s likely to happen in the election campaign. CR’s 34% for the Tories is Michael Howard’s highest current share.
The latest spread on Spreadfair for UKIP is 0.6 - 1.1 seats at the General Election.
Remember to post your entry in our General Election competition.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Last time, UKIP got about 23% of their Euro vote. If they put up candidates in all seats as they have threatened, then I expect their voteshare to rise. If they get RKS on board, then I expect their voteshare to rise.
They got 1.47% last time from about 400 candidates. So I think their minimum would be about 1.75% if they stand a full slate. I also think they will get some media attention and for parties like UKIP nearly all media attention is good attention.
Somewhere between 1.75% and 4% depending on the amount of media and RKS involvement.
Mike - whilst this analysis is certainly true int he context of straight party-political messages, there are other events that could propel the minor parties onto the front pages nationally.
Something like another race riot of the sort we had at the last GE in Burnley (IIRC?) would puch the BNP up the agenda.
Kilroy seems adept at manipulating the national media and getting attention for himself - another carfeully-chosen “outrageous” comment at an opportune moment perhaps?
Iraq could do the same for Respect, though less likely. Very unlikely for the Greens unless we had some sort of climate-change-driven national disaster (heaven forbid).
Plus, all these minor parties could claim significant headlines in their own localities which might make an impact on polling day.
In 1997 the Referendum party had 547 candidates and massive publicity from their £20m war-chest - yet got 2.6%. That is very telling.
In 2001 William Hague made Europe his major theme - and look where that got him.
AND Iain - UKIP ended up with 16.1% of the vote in June - not 23%.
No, Mike, what I meant by the 23% was the share of the 1999 Euro vote achieved by UKIP in 2001. It’s a guideline (a shabby one but all we’ve got) to compare the performance between Euro elections and Generals. Hence it hints at UKIP getting around 3.5%.
Whilst I expect UKIP to get no seats I think they could still be close in a couple. Certainly I would expect them to break 3000 in Totnes (which includes the fishing port of Brixham) RKS should beat that too on an anti-politics vote. There is quite a danger that the big parties (principally Cons) will take them seriously and give them a load more free publicity, and in my opinion if they mostly have Nigel Farage on the box they will come across pretty well. He is as good as many of the major party people I reckon. Obviously the nutters need to be well hidden, as in the big parties!
The problem is Steve, that I understand Respect aren’t planning on standing even as many candidates as the Socialist Alliance did last time. Those small voteshares will have to find a home, probably with the Greens or Abstain.
Mike - perhaps you can ask spreadfair to get vote share markets up and running if they are now backing you. I’m happy to make a two-way on the whole lot of them if that is what they need. Personally I think UKIP will break 2% - in 1997 the mood was just to get the Tories out, but now there are a lot of disaffected voters looking for a home (as well as rampant Euroscepticism!).
I disagree. It’s going to be so difficult for UKIP to get anything beyond token media coverage for the reasons outlined. If RK-S is allowed to stand for UKIP then expect a huge blast from the main parties on the splits that he has had with his leadership. How can you have as a parliamentary candidate someone who was elected on the party ticket but only weeks later left his group at the EU Parliament? He looks petty and as though he is only in it for himself - not the greater cause.
Even your 3.5% figures, Iain, is somewhat lower than most of the poll ratings.
To Jon 7. After the holidays I’ll be talking to Spreadfair and others about getting some good General Election markets up and running. I’m hoping that the response to our competition will strengthen my case.
The site has such a big user base now that I’m hoping that we can influence them.
Such areguments may well just strengthen the “plague on all your houses” supporters of RKS, though. “Look at all the old parties ganging up on him, he must be OK”. Then there’s the “all publicity is good publicity” angle. I agree with Jon WC’s point about if the others (especially Tories) take them seriously they will gain publicity by the back door.
I think UKIP may well get 5% of the national vote when many (certainly two of my personal acquaintance) of the people who voted for UKIP in the Euro elections (or noted the publicity surrounding UKIP in the Euro elections) will vote for them at the next General Election.
Other seats have been mentioned - I think UKIP may get at least a 1,000 votes (possibly 2,000 or even more) in Staffordshire Moorlands, where a well-known Leek councillor and businessman is the UKIP candidate. If other UKIP candidates are as assiduous as Steve Povey (the UKIP candidate for Staffs. Moorlands) in getting themselves into the local media (particularly local newspapers, which, in many constituencies, have as large a readership as large as - if not larger than - the national papers), then the problems to which this thread refers in the national media won’t matter so much.
If there’s a feeling of inevitability about Labour winning nationally next time, this may well aid UKIP (and, indeed, Labour) in Staffs. Moorlands. In 92, the AFL candidate got 2,121 votes, and would probably have got more (possibly as many as 4,000) if a lot of wavering Tory voters had not wanted to risk Staffs. Moorlands being the one seat that made a difference in a hung parliament (a possibility much talked about at that election). If, on the other hand, people are told by most of the mainstream media that the next GE is a foregone conclusion, that Labour will easily, then a lot of disillusioned Tory voters who feel (as one put it to me) that ‘UKIP is the only real opposition’, will feel safe to take a free kick.
Richard - all those arguments applied in 1997 - but probably more so.
The other big dimension is what happened on June 10 with the locals as well. The Tories got 11-12% more in those elections on the same day from the say group of electors than they did in the Euros. The differential with Labour was just over 3%.
This illustrates what the UKIP vote was and the fact that so many voted differently on domestic matters underlines the challenge for UKIP in the General Election. The EU is hardly going to be an issue in May - it certianly wasn’t in 2001 - and the point of voting UKIP will be substantially diminished.
I think Mike may well be correct, though simply having more candidates will obviously push up the UKIP share. Turnout is also relevant, as UKIP should do relatively better on a low poll - they are regularly notching 20% or so in local council by-elections (turnout 25%ish) where I think it’s safe to say that the voters are not aware of any relevant UKIP policy at all. I think they get a certain number of votes from demoralised Tories: “We aren’t going to win anyway, so I may as well use my vote to show that I dislike the EU”.
RKS is a very interesting dilemma for them. I think there is a general consensus in UKIP and outside that he is both a vote-winner but also not really about Europe at all - he seems to many to be primarily about RKS. Roger Knapton, by contrast, is agreeable, witty, intelligent, seriously anti-EU but not at all charismatic. So they have the familiar choice between purity and success. My guess is that they’ll choose purity (they are small enough to have mainly members who’ve joined because they are fanatically keen on The Cause without a hint of compromise), and that RKS will stand somewhere as (in effect) The Heroic Independent Who Won’t Take Orders From Anyone. He’ll probably do well without, I suspect, actually winning - voters in Britain are a little wary of *too* much charisma.
Nick
Nick - I’d be very interested in what you are tipping for UKIP vote share?
Don’t lose site of one keypoint. A General Election is about who runs the country for the next 5 years. Whetheras a people who voted UKIP as a protest against both the EU and the main political parties in the European Elections when they can afford to waste their vote on a protest party most of them will be very reluctant to “Waste” their vote come the General Election. The UKIP vote in May will be a tiny fraction of what they achieved in the Europeans.
mike - re 9
any feedback from betfair about new markets - or have they forgotten about politics since the US betting bonanza ?
UKIP won’t poll anything like their share (or their total number of votes) in June. Nonetheless, recent local election results are encouraging for them. My impression is that some of their branches (such as Thanet South) are much stronger than four years ago. Obviously, most of their candidates will be little more than paper candidates, but I should think there were will be several seats in the South West, the Home Counties, and East Anglia where they could hit 10% of the vote - (even in 2001 they managed to win 4% overall in Devon and Cornwall).
I could easily see them hitting 3% of the total vote with 400 candidates, which would be double their share last time.
John, I’ve almost given up on Betfair which used to run some great political markets. What we need is a good betting exchange that will listen to us when we suggest market ideas. Nick’s point above about whether R K-S, as UKIP or not, becomes an MP is certainly something I would like to bet on as, I guess, would many others on the site.
There’s a huge interest in George Galloway’s campaign as well as many of those on the list in the competition. I’d love to see a turnout market and one on the pollsters. If people have strong opinions on an outcone then many will want to bet.
I’m looking at ways of being able to devote more time to the site’s development. This is a hobby, I have a day job and it’s not easy giving it the attention it deserves.
Re. 12, I can meet you halfway, Mike. The point I was making is that I know at least two people (OK, they could be the only two such people!) who will stay UKIP at the General Election. UKIP will certainly do better in Staffs. Moorlands than in 01, when the UKIP candidate was not very well known (and not even local), and probably at least as well as the AFL (UKIP’s forerunner) in 92, when the candidate was a similarly well-known local man.
Re. 12, I can meet you halfway, Mike. The point I was making is that I know at least two people (OK, they could be the only two such people!) who will stay UKIP at the General Election. UKIP will certainly do better in Staffs. Moorlands than in 01, when the UKIP candidate was not very well known (and not even local), and probably at least as well as the AFL (UKIP’s forerunner) in 92, when the candidate was a similarly well-known local man.
I think Rishard is spot on with predicted percentage of 5- ish for UKIP in terms of their average percentage in seats where they stand. Obviously this will depend quite a bit on how ‘anti-Euro’ the Tories public stance is, but paradoxically any such ‘hardening’ from the Tories will get the media discussing UKIP more, so it’s difficult to see where that pans out, other than however many votes they get they will be disproportionately Tory votes (including ex-Tory avstainers) and will hence make the bias toward Labour in terms of seats per vote even more ‘unfair’.
No Mark, the general Election in each constituency is NOT about who is to be the government - it would only be so if you could predict that all constituencies vote similarly and with three-plus Party politics this is nonsense. In a general Election, despite all the propaganda, you elect your Member of Parliament and have no clue over what kind of MP other constituencies elect and hence the way MPs in total might vote on the eventual government which emerges. Very unsatisfactory perhaps, but the truth.
21 was zebidee.
Sleepy new year!
I come back to the Referendum Party’s £20m in 1997 which got 2.6% of the vote. UKIP current efforts are pathetic in comparison and the EU is not the issue it was. Blair’s decision to go for a referendum on the constitution has put the issue into touch. Remember 2.6% from 428 candidates.
This is from the BBC’s website on the RP’s 1997 campaign…
On 11 March 1996 the party took out full page advertisements in a number of papers which neatly set out its entire political position and raison d’etre. “The Government is indicating that it is moving towards granting a referendum. That’s all to the good. But it must be genuine….an agreement to hold a referendum only if the Cabinet decides that sterling should be absorbed into the European single currency would be an empty gesture.” It has continued to use this campaign tactic, regularly taking out double page advertisements in the broadsheets, perhaps the most controversial being that which appeared in the Sunday papers on 17 November 1996. It stated, “John Major is impotent. Tony Blair is dumb”. On 28 November 1996 the Referendum party revealed the wording of the question they would pose to the British electorate in the event of winning the general election. It asks,”Do you want the UK to be part of a Federal Europe? or Do you want the UK to return to an association of sovereign nations that are part of a common trading market?”
The most recent controversy to surround the party is its publication of an 8-page tabloid paper, delivered to households all over the country in February 1997. The front page article claims that the former Prime Minister, Sir Edward Heath, deliberately deceived the public about the impact of taking Britain into the Common Market. The paper quotes Sir Edward from a television interview in 1973, when he said”
“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe, we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”
UKIP have never done anything like this - nor are they capable of it. An 8-page tabloid paper to every household in the country - this was serious stuff. They will get totally crowded out during the campaign.
But the 8- page tabloid you talk of was already-recylcled bog paper. The ’start point’ of public opinion on ‘anti-euro’ issues prior to that previous election is far more important imo. The issue did not even register as important in most people’s horizons at that time. You can’t get away from that 17 per cent UKIP Euro vote last year, much as Michael Howard would like us to.
I think Europe is a more salient issue now than in 2001 (with the referendum looming) and UKIP are better organised as well. That said, I doubt if they’ll get more than 3%. However, 3% is 800,000 votes.
If anybody really doubts my assertion about UKIP being in a mess check out http://www.ukipforum.co.uk/forum-4.html where members discuss some of the issues - like does a PPC have to pay for his own campaign. This is from one worried PPC
Most candidates seem prepared to stump up their own £500 election deposit. I’m happy to do that, and I’m expecting to get it back. Very Happy. I don’t think that most candidates can afford the extra £1000-£1500 for buying the election address leaflets. So the branches are to be asked to help. Fine, except that in some regions the branch account contains a couple of hundred quid at most. Since many branches cover a number of constituencies, if there is no funding forthcoming we’re going to be pretty stuffed in some areas. If you are a small branch covering 5 constituencies, where are you going to find £5000-£7500?
Ukip’s campaigns have become increasingly professional over the last couple of years, and Alan Bown has done a fantastic job with the leaflets. The election address is the single most important part of the election campaign - the party must take advantage of the royal mail’s free leaflet drop. But where is the money going to come from?
Another member bemoans the Sykes pull-out - Branches should stump up the cash, but I can see individual candidates having to dig deep too. Sykes getting his coat didn’t help, and UKIP just can’t bank of the kind of cash other parties get for selling their souls.
There’s also a discussion on what the party slogan should be. Some suggestions.
UKIP are a big party who happen to be small right now.
UKIP, saving you from EU!
Think big, act local
Go on, waste your vote! ..
“A vote for UKIP is a wasted vote” - Liam Fox
Also revealing is a discussion here http://www.ukipforum.co.uk/about745.html on PPC’s’ having BNP links and how they have little in place to stop it happening. One member observes.
On the subject of former far-Right activists currently infiltrating UKIP, has anyone on this thread considered the hypocrisy of allowing XXXXXX, the chairman of Thanet South UKIP, to remain in office? XXXXX was the organiser of the Hammersmith branch of the National Front in the late 1970s and then West London organiser of the New Britain Party. He stood as a National Front candidate. His was not some “passing phase”. In the months to come, I am sure many more of this type will emerge … and this UKIP policy of excluding former extremists from office and standing as candidates will be seen as the sham it is.
The UKIP share could be closer to 10%. The comparison with 1997 is spurious - the important thing was to get rid of the Tories - Now no one cares who gets in. I am afraid that the is a lot of “blame Brussels for everything” and “look out for the Euro” - If only we had the interest rates of the Euro zone, and a stable currency then things would be much better - but none of the main parties seem able to make the case for international cooperation. The reaction to the Tidal Wave shows that there is a significant internationalist force in the country that could (but probly wont) be mobilised.
I know this is totally unrelated, but does anyone know when the next few opinion polls are expected?
IMHO we are talking about 2 different UKIP parties – one in which Roger Knapton leads on a purely anti Euro vein or the other where RKS leads UKIP on a “plague on all your houses” stressing morality i.e. Blunkett, fear of crime and immigration and playing the The Heroic Independent Who Won’t Take Orders From Anyone. [thanks to Nick & Tabman Steve]
The RK UKIP will poll approximately 780,000 voters at the next GE – 3.1% of the total vote.
The RKS UKIP could easily poll 2,500,000 voters at the next GE – 10% of the total vote.
I think many voters are totally fed up with the 3 main parties.
I’m close to Vino on this one, however i think whoever ‘leads’ the UKIP it will end up running both ‘lines’ - hence my 5 per vcent prediction.
Mike - 26 – What hasn’t been discussed on this site [as far as I’m aware] is how well the BNP did in the 2004 Euro Elections. They obtained 808,000 votes or 4.9%. If UKIP had not performed as well as they did the newspapers would have been full of “1 in 20 voters vote BNP” headlines.
In my opinion UKIP, because of RKS took a lot of votes in that Election from people that might have easily voted BNP AND I’m not saying that RKS is a racist.
Nick Palmer says race and immigration is not an issue in his mail or on his doorstep visits – that because most people know if they raise the issue they are immediately branded as racist.
A RKS party either UKIP or a Populist Party would obviously be a right wing party in the mould of the “Swiss Peoples Party”(SVP) which leads on being anti –European and anti-immigration.
Think I’ve made this point before Icarus - we could have rates at the Euro level tomorrow (well Tuesday) if the BoE chose to put them there. The reason it does not is that this would be disastrous for Britain, just as trying to pitch rates at German levels in order to shadow the Mark in the early 90’s was in fact disastrous for Britain.
The failure of LDs to note this reality is one of a few things keeping them from being electable, and helps to make the likes of UKIP seem reasonable.
Vino - there are plenty of people who are not right-wing in any sense of the word who are anti-immigration in fact if not in name. There are a whole tranche of Greens for example who argue that Britain’s population cannot be environmentally sustainable at much above half the current level (organisation for sustainable population I think it’s called).
Clearly immigration helps to take it in the opposite direction…
Just because UKIP took a substantial no. of votes from people who would otherwise have voted Tory in the Euro elections (or council elections) it doesn’t automatically follow that the same is true with relation to a GE. After all the Tories probably took (or would have taken without UKIP cf. 1999) a number of votes in the Euros from people who would otherwise have voted LD/Lab in a GE
The fact that UKIP’s decline in the polls since the Euros has coincided with an increase in the Labour lead only bears this out.
In terms of UKIP what does it matter if they do not have the funds to provide literature in every constituency - they may lose 500 votes or so. I am sure that even the major parties struggle to fund this sort of thing in some of their weaker seats. UKIP where it counts will no doubt afford a strong campaign and best use of the freepost (which is in itself a valuable benefit and especially so for the smaller parties). Also UKIP will get to benefit from local press coverage which will no doubt give them greater profile
There is - as yet - no evidence that UKIP takes votes disproportionately from the Conservatives in General Elections - in the post Kilroy Silk period - for obvious reasons. There is, in my experience - and it is the firm view of Bob Worcester of MORI - some anecdotal evidence that UKIP are a protest party, taking votes from all other parties - particularly C2/DE Labour voters, who of course, are crucial to Labour in ALL seats (including marginals) and not just safe Labour seats in the North and North West. Worcester stated that they weren’t the Conservatives’ voters to “lose”, so they wouldn’t damage them. My hunch is that they are non-voters going to UKIP.
I’m with Vino and Zebidee on this one - if RKS is the leader. They may not get party political broadcasts but they will be all over the media between now and the election.
If the BBC tries to play down UKIP (and I dont actually think they will) all it would take would be one friendly opinion poll showing UKIP in double-figures and they would be forced to include them in panels, etc.
There are (regrettably in my opinion) many, many people who really want to give the whole “political class” a kicking and an RKS-led UKIP would be the perfect vehicle. The tone will be very populist, anti-immigration, anti-politicians more than about the EU. Since 1997, we have had seven years of anti-foreigner stuff every day in the press. English nationalism is far, far stronger than it was in 97. Remember in the SouthWest (and East Anglia from what somebody else wrote the other day) the arrival of legal EU workers from Portugual is every bit as unacceptable to many people as that of asylum-seekers. (Especially among those people who want to retire to the Med LOL).
As for how many votes in total, its anyones guess, but if the polls are showing a large Labour lead so the overall result is not thought to be in doubt, its easy to see a scenario where many Conservatives (and others of course) decide to vote “none of the above”/a.k.a. UKIP as a statement.
Its only one scenario of course - but only if RKS is leader, thus widening the UKIP appeal beyond Euro-obsessives, it is more than possible. I dont think traditional considerations like envelope-stuffing apply - it would be more like that wrestler who won in Minnesota.
Reply to Jon at 14: I think Vino (29) is correct that without RKS they will get about 3% nationally, with very large variations - a baseline of 1.5% everywhere, and up to say 8% in their best seats. With RKS I’d guess about 6% rather than Vino’s 10% estimate, but it’s hard to say as we don’t know how successful RKS would be as a party leader.
In response to the comments that they take votes from all pareties: yes, they clearly do, and also from people who wouldn’t otherwise vote. But most professionals do reckon they take more people who would otherwise vote Tory than from the other parties - this includes some who might have voted Labour or LibDem before but are so anti-EU that they wouldn’t do so anyway.
Reply to Vino at 31: I don’t know how long you’ve been in the constituency so I’m not sure on what you base your belief that people are shy of telling me their views, but I honestly don’t think anyone is nervous that I’ll bark “You’re a racist!” at them. I’ve cheerfully visited BNP supporters and tried to talk them out of it - they’re constituents like everyone else and entitled to a discussion. But there seem not to be very many of them in Broxtowe, which is presumably why the BNP didn’t put up a single candidate in the constituency at the local elections.
Reply to Mike Smithson’s comments: UKIP obviously has organisational problems rising to the current opportunity. But we all tend to overrate the importance of organisation. People vote mainly on the basis of gut feeling and media reports, and only a minority sit down to read all the election literature (unfortunately).
Nick
“it would be more like that wrestler who won in Minnesota”
Jesse Ventura - Part of Ross Perot’s “Reform Party” before it was taken over by radical rightwinger, lots of talk of him running as a independet in 2008 IIRC.
UKIP is a very young party. Even the activists don’t seem to understand that you need low cunning rather than bluster to succeed. If you mention that they should work for a hung parliament, to give the LDs the balance of power, and if they then are able to achieve some sort of PR in GEs, then suddenly UKIP becomes significant. The vast majority of their activists think far too small for that.
There is very little chance of RKS becoming a major figure within UKIP. He has no interest in being a team player, and very few within UKIP want him to be anything other than a peripheral figure. They are happy for him to gain votes for them, but where from? They don’t know (and don’t care). Have you met anyone who likes him?
I’ve not seen any arguments that are at all convincing that the penniless UKIP is going to do better than the £20m backed Referendum Party did in 1997. One of the problems of having had a backer like Paul Sykes is that you become totally reliant on him so you have no fundraising expertise or capablity should he pull out. You also have no alternative backers.
A huge part of UKIP’s success last June was down to the Sykes’s millions. The party was able to hire a top-flight US campaign manager and spend big sums to establish it itself. Those line-ups of celebrity backers, the party-specific opinion polls, the advertising and all the skilled PR came out of that.
Now they have almost nothing and fighting a General Election is a totally different proposition.
Sarah at 36 - I think the UKIP vote is coming from all sorts of different groups very much dependent on the seat. Looking back to June 10 - our UKIP voters in SE Birmingham fell into three small groups:
i) People hadn’t voted for some time
ii) C2/D living in privately-owned former social housing
iii) C1/C2 Asian voters who would rather have stronger ties to the Commonwealth than to the EU
Very, very few UKIP true believers, probably mainly ex-Labour, but with some ex-Tories.
There aren’t any real studies except the one done on Ref voters in the 1997 exit poll, but I’d guess that the more urban and more working-class the seat, the more UKIP hit Labour than the Tories. I’d also guess that they always pinch a far proportion of LD “protest” votes. I think it can also be assumed that a lot of them are post-1997 non-voters.
Iain - I think the Tories are hit much more by UKIP than Labour or the Lib Dems. In large parts of England on Euro election day on June 10 there were also local elections. The Tories did 11% better in those than in the Euro - Labour did about 3% better. I put the differences down to large parts shifting to help UKIP get its 16.1% with the Tories suffering most.
With regard to Sarah at 36’s comments on UKIP votes coming from Labour and the Lib Dems I can anecdotally report that at least 3 Tory voters to whom I am related by marriage in Orpington are going to vote UKIP because they have lost faith in the Conservative party.
As a result they could well punch above their own electoral weight.
But Mike, the Tories are doing well in council elections. Not everyone who votes Tory at local level will vote for them in a General Election. After all the great strength of new Labour (and the reason for the extent of their majority) is the number of ‘natural Conservatives ‘ who were brought in by Tony Blair. These people will by and large stick with Labour in a GE, especially while the economy stays good, but are returning to Conservative councils. The fact that UKIP seemed to damage them in 2004 is not in itself firm evidence that they would do so in 2005.
Mike - Mr Morris said he was doing it out of the goodness of his heart at the time, so I presume he got expenses and perhaps an honorarium but no real money.
There has been research by the Plymouth elections people into where the UKIP vote comes from - half from Con and a sixth each from Lab, LD and NV. Given the fact that Labour and Con have roughly 1.5 times the LD vote share the propensity to switch would then be 6:3:2 Con:LD:Lab in that order.
That fits with my experience anyway.
beta…
on our new Web forum about beta,You can connect directly with the beta staff and share your opinions. …
credit scores by…
exhort writers demon,thickest pediatric aerating navigable.continuing credit checks http://www.credit-4me.com/credit-checks.html …
Life Insurence…
numbness coeditor sexton extractor amour!Mycenaean Online Life Insurance [url=http://www.ononlinelifeinsurance.com/#]Online Life Insurance[/url] http://www.ononlinelifeinsurance.com/# …