The impact of having a large clutch of utterly incompetent people in the house (many UKIP PPCs, particularly during a last-ditch rush to meet the BBC's requirement to fight every seat, would be grossly ill-suited to become MPs for all sorts of reasons, not least basic intelligence in some cases) will be very very interesting - how will Congdon keep them all in line? Will we see MPs resigning a la the BNP's councillors who simply 'couldn't keep up with what was going on'? I know the intellectual elite of UKIP are economists and diplomats who are as intelligent as the top end of all the other parties, but the party's size and the need to recruit its low-end members quickly into some seats will mean there'll doubtless be some pretty thick flag, Empire and tea types who might sneak into the Commons on the back of Congdon's support.
The Fourth Lectern - A 2010 Election TL
- Thread starter AndyC
- Start date
Conversely, if enough intelligent UKIP MPs are elected, will there be Tory MPs who defect to UKIP after the new parliament is elected?
To be fair, the uKippers had over 500 PPCs in place by March in OTL and ended up somewhere close to 600.
However, if their MEP's are anything to go by, their selection criteria are probably somewhat more flexible that the Big Three (although I'm sure we all know people who we think "how did they get through").
However, going by the performance of their MEP's they'll be straight in the trough and never resign until convicted.
I'm sure they will add to the gaiety of the nation.
It would be an interesting situation - almost every party with more than a couple of MPs will tend to have one or more possessing some degree of oddness, but the nature of the party machines tends to keep them to a minimum.
In TTL though, UKIP are going to be in a position where a pretty much random selection of their PPCs are going to get elected - and this is a party that's managed to have a pretty high percentage of 'colourful' candidates and MEPs when they've had some control over who gets elected.
While this is true, I suspect that some of their more "colorful" candidates will have more difficulty getting elected.
AndyC
Donor
Just a quick point - the BBC formulation didn't require standing in every seat, just enough that the party could gain a majority (ie 326 seats). Which is what lead to the problem that they feared BNP representation, and would open the door to UKIP and the Greens: in OTL, the BNP ended up with 338 candidates and the Greens with 335. Plus, UKIP were well past the line.
So the requirement for the party to have existing HoC representation was put in. Cleverly, as they thought: the SNP and Plaid Cymru weren't going to stand candidates in 326 constituencies; BNP, UKIP and the Greens had no MPs. Oops.
In TTL, UKIP do have more candidates, but haven't covered all mainland constituencies (I've just checked the spreadsheet - they've got 42 more candidates than in OTL. There are 32 Scottish constituencies they didn't stand in (least fertile area), but managed a clean sweep of all English and Welsh constituencies and nearly half of Scotland).
However, you're all absolutely right that many UKIP candidates are ... shall we say "eccentric".
I'm wondering if I should come up with a "Tories for AV" campaign at some point
So the requirement for the party to have existing HoC representation was put in. Cleverly, as they thought: the SNP and Plaid Cymru weren't going to stand candidates in 326 constituencies; BNP, UKIP and the Greens had no MPs. Oops.
In TTL, UKIP do have more candidates, but haven't covered all mainland constituencies (I've just checked the spreadsheet - they've got 42 more candidates than in OTL. There are 32 Scottish constituencies they didn't stand in (least fertile area), but managed a clean sweep of all English and Welsh constituencies and nearly half of Scotland).
However, you're all absolutely right that many UKIP candidates are ... shall we say "eccentric".
I'm wondering if I should come up with a "Tories for AV" campaign at some point
I'm wondering if I should come up with a "Tories for AV" campaign at some point
Well, FPTP already works against the Tories, although the rise of UKIP would probably be so traumatic that they might consider it.
Of course it would probably be led by Douglas Carswell, who's one of the most libertarian members of the Conservative party...
http://www.conservativeyes.org.uk/I'm wondering if I should come up with a "Tories for AV" campaign at some point
Another thought about a UKIP surge is how they'd go about identifying where to target their resources during the campaign. I'd assume they probably haven't got much canvass data to be able to see where the vote is picking up the most, and where that puts them into contention, so there'd likely be a very scattergun approach.
Add to that their somewhat bizarre attitude to campaigning - this is the party that thought the best place for their leading candidate on polling day was in a plane, and I know our local UKIP candidate did most of his campaigning in a car with a loudspeaker on it - and there's the potential for some fun election days in certain constituencies, as well as lots of post-even recriminations about seats narrowly missed out on while majorities were piled up elsewhere.
AndyC
Donor
CCHQ, 2am, 1st May 2010
Coulson, Hilton and two unnamed staffers are brainstorming.
Hilton: "Okay. It’s not a disaster, let’s not panic."
Coulson: "Not a disaster? What’s the weather like on your world, Steve? In the real world, it’s pissing down catastrophe, cockup and cataclysm."
Hilton glares. “Not constructive, Andy!”
One of the staffers speaks up: “Can’t we run some kind of spoiler? Suggest that Maggie’s gone loopy?”
Coulson: “Sure! What a wonderful idea! Let’s bully an old lady who happens to be an idol to a lot of the people we’re chasing! What could possibly go wrong? Tell me, son: have you heard the word 'omnishambles' before? Let's not make this worse, 'kay?”
The staffer subsides, muttering.
Hilton: “Right – what we’ve got to do is separate her statement from an endorsement for UKIP”
Coulson: “Now this I’ve got to hear …”
Hilton: “She didn’t say ‘vote UKIP’. She said ‘Congdon speaks sense’. Very important difference.”
Coulson: “Go on …”
Hilton: “We bring up each and every area where Congdon’s said something that agrees with our manifesto. Or looks like it agrees with it. Or might look like it agrees with it if you look at it right. And each and every place where we can claim that Congdon’s view isn’t reflective of that of UKIP candidates”
Second Staffer: “That could work. With UKIP, splits are easy. Get two UKIPpers in a room and you’ll have three factions by lunchtime. Give me four hours – I’ll get you half a dozen splits stories”
Coulson: “Yes. The media love splits”
Hilton: “Right. Andy – get a different line in to any pet journos we’ve got left every morning between now and election day, about a policy that Dave’s raised that we can argue that Congdon’s agreed with – deficit cutting, elected coppers, something about free schools, that kind of thing – “
Coulson’s smile flashes. He’s just thought of something: “And we target Boulton.”
Second Staffer: “Isn’t that a bit dangerous? You’re thinking of a ‘taking advantage of a senile old lady’ approach, yeah?”
Coulson: “Not exactly. Remember he said something like ‘as we were just talking about’?”
Hilton: “Aaaahh …”
Coulson: “We get a tame columnist to come up with something along the lines that they’ve heard a rumour that Boulton spent ten minutes talking about economic matters with Thatcher and said he’d ask her a question on Congdon’s economic credibility and whether he’s a loony or based in reality. So the line becomes that she just confirmed that he wasn’t a loony, but wasn’t commenting on his wider platform. And Boulton overegged it for a scoop”
Second Staffer: “Can’t we run into legal issues there?”
Coulson waves a hand, airily: “You just start with ‘I heard an unconfirmed runour that’, sprinkle in ‘allegedly’ here and there, and end with the statement that you hope the rumour will be disproved as it’s stinky journalistic ethics. By then it’s in the public mind and only has to stay there until Thursday”
First Staffer: “Could almost be an opportunity, you know …”
Hilton: “How so?”
First Staffer: “There’s a big chunk of almost-swappers in the 30-45 age band who are put off us because of the Thatcher era. If we can find a media platform that primarily talks to them and some kind of commentator who could muse – just thinking out loud – that nothing else could show that Cameron’s Conservatives aren’t like the old Thatcher Tories”
Coulson: “Bloody risky. Might be worth a shot, though. Nothing that wrinklies will see, or Essex voters. Is there some kind of ‘Look North’ programme?”
Hilton: “Put it on daytime telly. The stay-at-home Mums and the unemployed are horrible for us. Not much to lose there”
Second staffer: “Will any of this work? Seems a bit feeble.”
Coulson: “It’s damage limitation, kid."
Hilton: “Actually, it could work fairly well. What you’ve got to remember is that Conservative voters are … well … conservative”
First staffer, mutters: “Clue is in the name, there, really …”
Hilton: “What we’re aiming to do is give them an excuse to not vote UKIP”
First staffer: “You mean, ‘not to vote UKIP’”
Hilton: “What?”
First staffer: “Well, it’s a split infinitive, and …”
Hilton: “Thank you, Mr Bernard Woolley. Now if there are any sensible points you’d like to make?”
First staffer: “Sorry, Steve, it’s been a long day”
Hilton: “Anyway – people find it difficult to change their votes at the best of times. If we just put enough doubt in there, when they are face-to-face with the ballot paper, they’ll put the cross where they always have”
Second staffer: “And quite a few of the postal voters have already voted – quite a few of the oldies won’t be able to change their minds now”
Hilton nods. “Good point. Right, we know what to do.”
The staffers file out. Hilton stops Coulson just before he leaves.
In a quiet voice “We’re still screwed, aren’t we?”
Coulson tilts his head: “Moderately so - we’re never going to get back to where we were this morning. With the momentum we were building up, I reckon we were looking at 35% by polling day and a possible majority. That’s gone, but we can aim to keep as close to thirty as we can. You were right – play this right and if we get a bit of luck, we aren’t totally shafted.”
Coulson, Hilton and two unnamed staffers are brainstorming.
Hilton: "Okay. It’s not a disaster, let’s not panic."
Coulson: "Not a disaster? What’s the weather like on your world, Steve? In the real world, it’s pissing down catastrophe, cockup and cataclysm."
Hilton glares. “Not constructive, Andy!”
One of the staffers speaks up: “Can’t we run some kind of spoiler? Suggest that Maggie’s gone loopy?”
Coulson: “Sure! What a wonderful idea! Let’s bully an old lady who happens to be an idol to a lot of the people we’re chasing! What could possibly go wrong? Tell me, son: have you heard the word 'omnishambles' before? Let's not make this worse, 'kay?”
The staffer subsides, muttering.
Hilton: “Right – what we’ve got to do is separate her statement from an endorsement for UKIP”
Coulson: “Now this I’ve got to hear …”
Hilton: “She didn’t say ‘vote UKIP’. She said ‘Congdon speaks sense’. Very important difference.”
Coulson: “Go on …”
Hilton: “We bring up each and every area where Congdon’s said something that agrees with our manifesto. Or looks like it agrees with it. Or might look like it agrees with it if you look at it right. And each and every place where we can claim that Congdon’s view isn’t reflective of that of UKIP candidates”
Second Staffer: “That could work. With UKIP, splits are easy. Get two UKIPpers in a room and you’ll have three factions by lunchtime. Give me four hours – I’ll get you half a dozen splits stories”
Coulson: “Yes. The media love splits”
Hilton: “Right. Andy – get a different line in to any pet journos we’ve got left every morning between now and election day, about a policy that Dave’s raised that we can argue that Congdon’s agreed with – deficit cutting, elected coppers, something about free schools, that kind of thing – “
Coulson’s smile flashes. He’s just thought of something: “And we target Boulton.”
Second Staffer: “Isn’t that a bit dangerous? You’re thinking of a ‘taking advantage of a senile old lady’ approach, yeah?”
Coulson: “Not exactly. Remember he said something like ‘as we were just talking about’?”
Hilton: “Aaaahh …”
Coulson: “We get a tame columnist to come up with something along the lines that they’ve heard a rumour that Boulton spent ten minutes talking about economic matters with Thatcher and said he’d ask her a question on Congdon’s economic credibility and whether he’s a loony or based in reality. So the line becomes that she just confirmed that he wasn’t a loony, but wasn’t commenting on his wider platform. And Boulton overegged it for a scoop”
Second Staffer: “Can’t we run into legal issues there?”
Coulson waves a hand, airily: “You just start with ‘I heard an unconfirmed runour that’, sprinkle in ‘allegedly’ here and there, and end with the statement that you hope the rumour will be disproved as it’s stinky journalistic ethics. By then it’s in the public mind and only has to stay there until Thursday”
First Staffer: “Could almost be an opportunity, you know …”
Hilton: “How so?”
First Staffer: “There’s a big chunk of almost-swappers in the 30-45 age band who are put off us because of the Thatcher era. If we can find a media platform that primarily talks to them and some kind of commentator who could muse – just thinking out loud – that nothing else could show that Cameron’s Conservatives aren’t like the old Thatcher Tories”
Coulson: “Bloody risky. Might be worth a shot, though. Nothing that wrinklies will see, or Essex voters. Is there some kind of ‘Look North’ programme?”
Hilton: “Put it on daytime telly. The stay-at-home Mums and the unemployed are horrible for us. Not much to lose there”
Second staffer: “Will any of this work? Seems a bit feeble.”
Coulson: “It’s damage limitation, kid."
Hilton: “Actually, it could work fairly well. What you’ve got to remember is that Conservative voters are … well … conservative”
First staffer, mutters: “Clue is in the name, there, really …”
Hilton: “What we’re aiming to do is give them an excuse to not vote UKIP”
First staffer: “You mean, ‘not to vote UKIP’”
Hilton: “What?”
First staffer: “Well, it’s a split infinitive, and …”
Hilton: “Thank you, Mr Bernard Woolley. Now if there are any sensible points you’d like to make?”
First staffer: “Sorry, Steve, it’s been a long day”
Hilton: “Anyway – people find it difficult to change their votes at the best of times. If we just put enough doubt in there, when they are face-to-face with the ballot paper, they’ll put the cross where they always have”
Second staffer: “And quite a few of the postal voters have already voted – quite a few of the oldies won’t be able to change their minds now”
Hilton nods. “Good point. Right, we know what to do.”
The staffers file out. Hilton stops Coulson just before he leaves.
In a quiet voice “We’re still screwed, aren’t we?”
Coulson tilts his head: “Moderately so - we’re never going to get back to where we were this morning. With the momentum we were building up, I reckon we were looking at 35% by polling day and a possible majority. That’s gone, but we can aim to keep as close to thirty as we can. You were right – play this right and if we get a bit of luck, we aren’t totally shafted.”
Magnificent, especially "Thank you, Mr Bernard Woolley".
I spent sometime this afternoon in one of those meetings, where we had to decide where to concentrate resources in the local elections - which involved throwing a couple of people to the wolves. They are tense, people say the wrong things, ideas come from everywhere. That was a good rendition of such.
I spent sometime this afternoon in one of those meetings, where we had to decide where to concentrate resources in the local elections - which involved throwing a couple of people to the wolves. They are tense, people say the wrong things, ideas come from everywhere. That was a good rendition of such.
AndyC
Donor
Thanks, guys. That's exactly what I was aiming at, but I was really concerned I'd louse it up. I've never been involved in active politics like this, so it's a combination of my imagination, tense work meetings I've been in, and the kind of things I've seen reported by people who have been there.
Wendell - It'll probably be of limited value, but some value. Hilton's point on Voters being reticent to change and needing just a bit of encouragement to stay put echoes ICMs findings after the 1992 election and is the heart of their "spiral of silence" adjustment. So it should have some utility, but they're knowingly engaged in simply minimising the depth of the screwing at this point.
Wendell - It'll probably be of limited value, but some value. Hilton's point on Voters being reticent to change and needing just a bit of encouragement to stay put echoes ICMs findings after the 1992 election and is the heart of their "spiral of silence" adjustment. So it should have some utility, but they're knowingly engaged in simply minimising the depth of the screwing at this point.
I wonder though if their efforts to win back small c conservatives will only result in making sure that the losing UKIP candidates don't get their deposits back.
AndyC
Donor
From politicalbetting.com, 2nd May, 2010
Tonight’s YouGov Numbers
UPDATE – ICM
612 comments to "Tonights YouGov Figures"
1. First? Unlike the Tories, if this is right.
gbpaul
2. Cameron’s screwed – and so are we.
The Howling Hawks
3. The Great She Elephant has trampled the young pretender.
JamesW
4. Too late for the Tories? Shame. Labour largest party!
Gibber
5. The UKIP surge is back for good. Congasm explosion. La Thatch has killed the Tory party.
TomK
6. Scuse me, but shouldn’t Dave be doing better? What happened to his debate victory? All going horribly wrong now, isn’t it? How long till the Tories send him on his merry way?
hotstone
7. Even if these polls are “Bank Holiday Iffy” the headlines will still be “Tories sinking – Labour firm – UKIP resurgent”
It’s all good news for Congdon.
TheKrakenSleeps
8. Sodding Adam sodding Boulton. Can someone shoot that slimeball?
The Howling Hawks
9. Has anyone got confirmed figures for the ICM?
Treble Carpet
10. What about the S&P story putting us on downgrade alert? With Moody’s publishing their warning yesterday, we’re looking screwed.
Dyed in some cotton somewhere
….
24. Hotstone – in my opinion, Cameron was always going to be allowed two elections, as long as the first made significant progress. This one is looking bad, but with the UKIP surge being unpredictable, I’d say that somewhere north of 240-250 seats would see him safe, but with grumblings. Under 230 seats and he’s in real danger. Under 210 seats and he’s toast. He’d probably jump before he’s pushed, though. I will admit that it looks bad for him on today’s polls - as it stands, we’d be under 200 seats, I believe.
Sam Far
…
Tonight’s YouGov Numbers
Code:
[FONT=Courier New]
YouGov – The Sun May 2 May 1
[/FONT][FONT=Courier New][COLOR=Red]Labour [/COLOR]25 24
[/FONT][FONT=Courier New][COLOR=Blue]Conservatives [/COLOR]24 26
[/FONT][FONT=Courier New][COLOR=DarkOrchid]UKIP [/COLOR]24 22[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][COLOR=Orange]Lib Dems[/COLOR] 19 20[/FONT]UPDATE – ICM
Code:
[FONT=Courier New]ICM-Guardian May 2 April 30
[COLOR=Blue]Conservatives[/COLOR] 26 29[/FONT] [FONT=Courier New]
[COLOR=Red]Labour [/COLOR]25 25[/FONT] [FONT=Courier New]
[/FONT][FONT=Courier New][COLOR=DarkOrchid]UKIP [/COLOR]22 18
[/FONT][FONT=Courier New][COLOR=Orange]Lib Dems [/COLOR] 20 21[/FONT]612 comments to "Tonights YouGov Figures"
1. First? Unlike the Tories, if this is right.
gbpaul
2. Cameron’s screwed – and so are we.
The Howling Hawks
3. The Great She Elephant has trampled the young pretender.
JamesW
4. Too late for the Tories? Shame. Labour largest party!
Gibber
5. The UKIP surge is back for good. Congasm explosion. La Thatch has killed the Tory party.
TomK
6. Scuse me, but shouldn’t Dave be doing better? What happened to his debate victory? All going horribly wrong now, isn’t it? How long till the Tories send him on his merry way?
hotstone
7. Even if these polls are “Bank Holiday Iffy” the headlines will still be “Tories sinking – Labour firm – UKIP resurgent”
It’s all good news for Congdon.
TheKrakenSleeps
8. Sodding Adam sodding Boulton. Can someone shoot that slimeball?
The Howling Hawks
9. Has anyone got confirmed figures for the ICM?
Treble Carpet
10. What about the S&P story putting us on downgrade alert? With Moody’s publishing their warning yesterday, we’re looking screwed.
Dyed in some cotton somewhere
….
24. Hotstone – in my opinion, Cameron was always going to be allowed two elections, as long as the first made significant progress. This one is looking bad, but with the UKIP surge being unpredictable, I’d say that somewhere north of 240-250 seats would see him safe, but with grumblings. Under 230 seats and he’s in real danger. Under 210 seats and he’s toast. He’d probably jump before he’s pushed, though. I will admit that it looks bad for him on today’s polls - as it stands, we’d be under 200 seats, I believe.
Sam Far
…