There's every likelyhood UKIP will have their first MP by tomorrow

[jimbob5]

In the appeal stakes:

Cameron > Major
Miliband > Kinnock (debatable, I'll concede)
Clegg < Ashdown

1992 was less appealing, I reckon. Mind you I always thought Ashdown was a smug, sanctimonious fraud long before he was outed as an adulterous smug, sanctimonious fraud.



I'm not so sure, it was always going to be 1992 at the very latest. The term of government used to be no longer than 5 years and the previous 1987 election was in June and the 92 election was in April almost at the end of the 5 years anyway.

1992 Major still on the NOT Mrs Thatcher honeymoon. A lot of voters embarrassed to tell the polls they were Tory. Kinnock had been respected despite a bad GE in 1987 but then fell over on the beach and thought he was a rock star at Sheffield while J Smith gave many the impression they'd pay more tax. Ashdown a fairly solid leader but would not have got enough votes to make a hung parliament, pants down or not. In a nut shell?

 

[Buzzer]

1992 Major still on the NOT Mrs Thatcher honeymoon. A lot of voters embarrassed to tell the polls they were Tory. Kinnock had been respected despite a bad GE in 1987 but then fell over on the beach and thought he was a rock star at Sheffield while J Smith gave many the impression they'd pay more tax. Ashdown a fairly solid leader but would not have got enough votes to make a hung parliament, pants down or not. In a nut shell?

The Kinnock falling over was back in '83 though wasn't it? And the rock star moment was just 4 days before the elections although undoubtedly it lost him a fair few votes, the Tories recorded the highest number of votes by a political party.

Although this may be reading far too much into it, the following comparison is interesting, I think and especially in light of your point about people not admitting to voting Tory (just as relevant now as then) I do wonder if history is repeating itself.

1987 - 1992 polls

2010 - 2014 Polls

 

[5mins-from-amex]

Great news, the first of many...

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

As someone on another thread posted, the next election feels like it could be a re-run of the 1992 election. The Tories should lose it, but there's too much apathy generally and a very weak Labour leader who Middle England will reject comprehensively (despite Herr Tubthumper's ever more ludicrous claims to the contrary). I think the Tories will limp over the winning line next year.

On that note, if there's an election on 30 June next year then that is 264 days away. And in 1991 the Tories lost Monmouth in a by-election before regaining it 329 days later and then Kincardine before regaining that 154 days later in the 92 general election.

(Herr Tubthumper scribbles "bounce thread" next to "crack open the champagne and bore everyone to death with smug gloating" in his diary for May 2015)

 

[Paddy B]

As someone on another thread posted, the next election feels like it could be a re-run of the 1992 election. The Tories should lose it, but there's too much apathy generally and a very weak Labour leader who Middle England will reject comprehensively (despite Herr Tubthumper's ever more ludicrous claims to the contrary). I think the Tories will limp over the winning line next year.

On that note, if there's an election on 30 June next year then that is 264 days away. And in 1991 the Tories lost Monmouth in a by-election before regaining it 329 days later and then Kincardine before regaining that 154 days later in the 92 general election.

I suspect you could be right.

UKIP will be a factor at the general election and you would think that would, on the whole, only take Tory votes, however my suspicion is that they will take votes from all parties even Labour, which politically seems odd to say the least.

 

[jimbob5]

The Kinnock falling over was back in '83 though wasn't it? And the rock star moment was just 4 days before the elections although undoubtedly it lost him a fair few votes, the Tories recorded the highest number of votes by a political party.

Although this may be reading far too much into it, the following comparison is interesting, I think and especially in light of your point about people not admitting to voting Tory (just as relevant now as then) I do wonder if history is repeating itself.

1987 - 1992 polls

2010 - 2014 Polls

After 2002 Peeps kept saying Kinnock falling over was a factor so maybe only subliminally. Yes the rock star bit WAS just before the GE that's why I mentioned it. Your chart shows a sharp rise for Tories after Thasser went.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Greens have an MP so what, one MP that is the relevance of this, UKIP will NEVER , ever be a political force in this country and shame on the media and GULLIBLE idiots who think they matter

You call people who think UKIP matter gullible yet fail to recognise that UKIP have forced changes. You think the Tories or even the Greens would be supporting an EU referendum if it weren't for UKIP ? You think that the Lib Dems would be supporting immigration controls and Labour would have admitted their mistakes on immigration if it weren't for UKIP ? Before immigration was forced up the agenda you could guarantee that anyone raising it as a concern would have the racist slur thrown at them. Now discussion of immigration is main stream politics.

Nobody who supports UKIP or even considers voting for them believes they will gain power or even hold the balance of power but only gullible people think UKIP, or even the Greens, are an irrelevance.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

What ? Really ? I'd have thought Major is a giant of a politician in comparison to Cameron. A self-made man, a decent chap (Edna aside), and selected by the Tory queen ?

EDNA !!! I know she would only have been a young impressionable cadet in those days but surely not.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I would say this is close. Perhaps time has been kind to the memory of Kinnock - but apart from being a windbag - he did have a bit of soul and passion. I would still give it to Kinnock.

He had a soul which he sold to the EU devil despite being against Britian's membership of the EU while he was Labour leader.

 

[The Spanish]

(Herr Tubthumper scribbles "bounce thread" next to "crack open the champagne and bore everyone to death with smug gloating" in his diary for May 2015)

champagne and the modern labour party being the most natural of combinations.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

He had a soul which he sold to the EU devil despite being against Britian's membership of the EU while he was Labour leader.

Depends on your perspective. I have no problem with euro-sceptics getting jobs in Europe. I know he campaigned against Europe in the referendum in 1970 - how long he maintained that stance, or still holds it I don't know - but to be honest I prefer politicians that are prepared to change their minds/be persuaded. Of course it opens up the hypocrisy charge - but what happens if you do change your mind ?

 

[GT49er]

UKIP will be a factor at the general election and you would think that would, on the whole, only take Tory votes, however my suspicion is that they will take votes from all parties even Labour, which politically seems odd to say the least.

Not odd at all. The issue of Europe affects and engages people right across the political spectrum. It isn't a right wing thing to dislike the Brussels bureaucracy - neither is it left wing; no reason for Labour voters to be automatically in the pro-European camp.

Similarly with immigration - it is out of control, and that too is a concern for people of all political persuasions. The pro-Eurocrats will no doubt denounce all attempts to curb immigration as ultra right wing (or worse) but they're not fooling anyone. So, no surprise that UKIP may well affect the Labour vote too.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Depends on your perspective. I have no problem with euro-sceptics getting jobs in Europe. I know he campaigned against Europe in the referendum in 1970 - how long he maintained that stance, or still holds it I don't know - but to be honest I prefer politicians that are prepared to change their minds/be persuaded. Of course it opens up the hypocrisy charge - but what happens if you do change your mind ?

I'd agree with you but ...... was it co-incidence that he and his wife managed to get very lucrative jobs with the EU both being paid way more than if he's managed to become PM ?

 

[Eeyore]

1992 Major still on the NOT Mrs Thatcher honeymoon. A lot of voters embarrassed to tell the polls they were Tory. Kinnock had been respected despite a bad GE in 1987 but then fell over on the beach and thought he was a rock star at Sheffield while J Smith gave many the impression they'd pay more tax. Ashdown a fairly solid leader but would not have got enough votes to make a hung parliament, pants down or not. In a nut shell?

Kinnock fell over on Brighton beach in 1983 after winning the leadership. Although the Sheffield gathering in 1992, and the subsequent reporting of it, did damage his party, Kinnock is not given enough credit for making Labour almost electable.

 

[Paddy B]

Not odd at all. The issue of Europe affects and engages people right across the political spectrum. It isn't a right wing thing to dislike the Brussels bureaucracy - neither is it left wing; no reason for Labour voters to be automatically in the pro-European camp.

Similarly with immigration - it is out of control, and that too is a concern for people of all political persuasions. The pro-Eurocrats will no doubt denounce all attempts to curb immigration as ultra right wing (or worse) but they're not fooling anyone. So, no surprise that UKIP may well affect the Labour vote too.

Assuming every single one of those left wing UKIP voters is ONLY interested in immigration and the EU.

 

[GreersElbow]

We were told to expect a Green revolution when Caroline Lucas was elected. There hasn't been and there's a good chance she'll lose her seat because of the Green Council. Aside from the council, she has been ineffective. UKIP may gain a seat, they'll have this seat for what? 6 months, then there's a good chance he could lose it. In the 6 months, what could he potentially achieve that UKIP could use as an election time USP? Probably nought.

 

[GT49er]

Assuming every single one of those left wing UKIP voters is ONLY interested in immigration and the EU.

That's assuming all Labour voters agree with everything in the Labour Party manifesto. It is more reasonable to assume that many Labour voters vote Labour because they hate the Tories - and vice versa with people voting Tory because they hate Labour.
So, if for some voters (left or right) the issues of the EU and immigration are top of their worry list, then yes, they might well switch.

 

[Pavilionaire]

It will be interesting to see how UKIP handles Carswell winning Clacton, as I expect him to do. Some restraint is needed because he was, after all, the sitting MP and not some 'unknown quantity'.

Perversely, them winning that seat at this juncture could be counter-productive to their overall aspirations to make inroads at the May 2015 General Election. Voters may see them gloating over getting their first MP as a sign that a simple protest vote might indeed usher in Labour, so could galvanise the casual Tory vote into action.

 

[5mins-from-amex]

It will be interesting to see how UKIP handles Carswell winning Clacton, as I expect him to do. Some restraint is needed because he was, after all, the sitting MP and not some 'unknown quantity'.

Perversely, them winning that seat at this juncture could be counter-productive to their overall aspirations to make inroads at the May 2015 General Election. Voters may see them gloating over getting their first MP as a sign that a simple protest vote might indeed usher in Labour, so could galvanise the casual Tory vote into action.

When will people realise that voting UKIP is not a protest vote. wake up.

 

[jimbob5]

When will people realise that voting UKIP is not a protest vote. wake up.

When they have circa 25 MPs?