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

[spring hall convert]

Does it really matter though?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...s-this-the-day-politics-changes-for-ever.html

They'll be a predictable amount of guff from the mainstream media about the face of politics changing. However, Essex and Kent (to some extent understandably) have always had form for electing something in the right of the Conservative Party. Does the colour of the person's rosette really make any major difference?

Is that press shot of Farage on a tank one of the funniest things you'll see today?

 

[Ernest]

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

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I think it will matter to those contemplating the safety of their seats in the general election.

 

[halbpro]

I think it will matter to those contemplating the safety of their seats in the general election.

I doubt it, you can't use by elections as a barometer for generals with any real accuracy.

 

[Machiavelli]

It's highly likely that UKIP will gain Clacton, but they're more likely to struggle to return Reckless. And that might mean that having gained momentum with Carswell, they swiftly lose it. They might have been better off had Reckless not lived up to his name, expectations, etc.

We shall see.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I doubt it, you can't use by elections as a barometer for generals with any real accuracy.

This close ? That is the traditional view and of course it is easier to make a protest vote at a by-election - but we have not had that many this close to a fixed term election.

Tory MPs who maybe feels closer to UKIP than Cameron may feel it is their interests to go now. Rochester will be more of an indicator. Of course this could be wishful thinking on my part!

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

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

Yes this.

 

[Buzzer]

This close ? That is the traditional view and of course it is easier to make a protest vote at a by-election - but we have not had that many this close to a fixed term election.

Tory MPs who maybe feels closer to UKIP than Cameron may feel it is their interests to go now. Rochester will be more of an indicator. Of course this could be wishful thinking on my part!

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.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

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

Very true.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

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.

Possibly. It is amazing that Labour have got themselves into this mess. If am not sure I have ever seen a less appealing set of party leaders than these. Even in 1992. If people are going to vote based on the leaders a lot of people may stay at home.

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.

But in 1991 they did not know the actual election was going to be. I wonder if that makes a difference to the traditional analysis. I do agree with Machievelli about the importance of Rochester. Mind you - with the look of Carswell and Reckless - you do wonder what sort of system allows them to get nominated in the first place.

 

[halbpro]

This close ? That is the traditional view and of course it is easier to make a protest vote at a by-election - but we have not had that many this close to a fixed term election.

Tory MPs who maybe feels closer to UKIP than Cameron may feel it is their interests to go now. Rochester will be more of an indicator. Of course this could be wishful thinking on my part!

We haven't had many fixed term elections though (plenty have been pretty close though).

There are, of course, a wide variety of things to consider this time around, most notably the fact that we haven't had a party outside of the main three with this kind of buzz surrounding it before. It's much harder to call, and hard to tell just how local/European election results will carry over to Westminster politics. My gut feeling is they'll have a bit of an effect here, as will the fact that these are popular MPs jumping ship. It'll probably be a really significant test of candidate vs party.

I think the main thing to note, however, will
be the turnout in the by elections. If UKIP get a significant vote (even without a win) on high turnout then it'll be of interest, but I suspect we'll see a turnout much below General election level. Of course that's probably a pretty safe prediction.

 

[Buzzer]

Possibly. It is amazing that Labour have got themselves into this mess. If am not sure I have ever seen a less appealing set of party leaders than these. Even in 1992.

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.

But in 1991 they did not know the actual election was going to be.

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.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Cameron > Major

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 ?

Miliband > Kinnock

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.

Clegg < Ashdown

Has Pantsdown happened by 1992. If it was later I agree. If before Pantsdown was already a comedy character.

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 think I would take 1992 as more appealing. At least Major was someone you could respect.

 

[Cian]

Did they not have one in the last term, who failed to get re-elected?

 

[jimbob5]

I'm not convinced by them but they have spiced up the race. Do you think Brussels Bureaucrats deserve their whacking salaries and expenses? Do you agree there should be no limit as to how many EU citizens want to live in the Uk? Do you think most of out industries and transport institutions should be foreign owned? Do you think the EU can make laws preventing us deporting certain people and allowing prisoners to vote? Just asking I'm not expressing a view either way, for example maybe certain prisoners who committed minor offences should be able to vote, maybe not.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

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.

Fair play for checking the dates. You know your politics.

 

[Buzzer]

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 ?
..... At least Major was someone you could respect.

I think Cameron has more appeal than Major did in 1992 if only on his ability to be everyman because he's a nothing-man, no real ideology, no fire in his belly to divide opinion and impossible to pin anything on him except that he's a toff and I don't think that most people care about that anyway. Major's opponents were merciless in their ridiculing him (Spitting Image "I like peas", that smelly Guardian cartoonist Bell drawing him with his shirt tucked into his underpants..). I may be imagining it but I think Major was lampooned far more than Cameron.

Decent man? Yes, I used to think that but remember all that 'back to basics' guff? Old ladies cycling round cricket greens and a return to old-fashioned values, no attempt to repeal the vicious and medieval Clause 28...and all the while he was having it away with at least one other woman. He built his entire tenure around the pretence of being this good, simple man led by family values. Utter hypocrite.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I think Cameron has more appeal than Major did in 1992 if only on his ability to be everyman because he's a nothing-man, no real ideology, no fire in his belly to divide opinion and impossible to pin anything on him except that he's a toff and I don't think that most people care about that anyway. Major's opponents were merciless in their ridiculing him (Spitting Image "I like peas", that smelly Guardian cartoonist Bell drawing him with his shirt tucked into his underpants..)

Decent man? Yes, I used to think that but remember all that 'back to basics' guff? Old ladies cycling round cricket greens and a return to old-fashioned values, no attempt to repeal the vicious and medieval Clause 28...and all the while he was having it away with at least one other woman. He built his entire tenure around the pretence of being this good, simple man led by family values. Utter hypocrite.

Can't disagree with any of that. I still think he is head and shoulders above Cameron though.

Back to Basics became Back To My Place. Now that was a funny line.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

In Eastleigh today I saw a UKIP open-top bus. I first wondered whether it had got lost on its way to Clacton, and then thought "an open-top bus? in this weather?"

It had the slogan on the side "UKIP - The common-sense party", which struck me as an oxymoron. Just shows that common-sense is different things to different people.

 

[Buzzer]

Fair play for checking the dates. You know your politics.

Cheers. I'd agree that Kinnock v Miliband is very debatable, Pantsdown had happened before the 92 election but I think even then he had more gravitas than Clegg. Clegg's just embarrassing - a Tesco's own brand David Cameron.