Biggest Swing In Modern Political History.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2738787/Cameron-faces-Ukip-election-bloodbath-Party-set-win-Commons-seat-shock-poll-reveals-Farages-staggering-44-point-lead-Tories.html

UKIP 44 points lead over Tories and 51 points over Labour

Could it be a landslide win for UKIP in the Clacton by-election?

[ChillDoubt]

But UKIP did not stand in 2010. So if UKIP are so sure of winning the forthcoming by-election, why did they not field a candidate in 2010 ?
--------------
Strategy mikey. Maybe UKIP looked at the Tories who had large majorities but were sympathetic to UKIP and left them for nurturing at a later date, hoping they'd jump ship, as has happened.


It seems obvious that if Carswell does win, its his own popularity that will tip the balance, not the popularity of UKIP in the constituency.
-------------
In that case we may as well become apolitical and vote for the person who has done the most for their constituency and discard manifesto's etc.

[ChillDoubt]

Zacs,
Despite what the bogey men may say IMHO it's hardly going to be off the scale and will no doubt broadly reflect the other parties, give or take the odd tweak(40% for top earners etc)

[mikey4444]

Chili...I think a lot of people already vote for popular MPs anyway, and good luck to them !

In 2010 UKIP fielded 572 candidates, out of a possible 650. Judging by all the reports, Clacton would seem ideal UKIP territory...lots of immigrants and lots of older, retired white residents. So, I still don't understand why they didn't try in 2010. By all accounts, they could have had an elected UKIP MP in place for over 4 years now. They seem to have missed a trick !

[Zacs-Master]

Chill, it's not so long ago they were talking about 31% across the board. It is immaterial what the rate is I agree, but I find it staggering that they consider themselves a threat when they can't even determine basic policy such as the rate if income tax.

[jourdain2]

"A week is a long time in politics." It is possible, however, on those figures - depends what happens re: Europe in-between.

[mikey4444]

Zacs...they are not a threat !

[anotheoldgit]

mikey4444

/// Zacs...they are not a threat ! ///

Then why are you so jittery regarding them?

I can understand the Tories showing concern, because they could split their voter, but why Labour?

They should be congratulating them, for making it more possible for a return to Labour, perish the thought.

[Zacs-Master]

Mikes, I know very well they're not a threat. I'm playing the long game here and would have liked some UKIP supporters to have joined in the debate and I could have engaged them in a debate about wasted votes.

[mikey4444]

Oh but I do AOG ! UKIP is the best thing around when it comes to getting Ed elected... "enenies inimicus meus est amicus meus" and all that !

If UKIP do win Clacton, then that is one more nail in daves coffin.

[mikey4444]

Zacs...you and I have had that debate about wasting votes on UKIP many times before, and while it is undeniably fun, it is ultimately a wasted effort.

So many people seems to view voting for UKIP as a bit like peeing yourself while wearing dark pants.........you get a warm feeling but nobody else notices !

[Zacs-Master]

I watched the BBC interviewing the clacton populace who, virtually to a man (or woman) said that they would continue voting for the former Con MP because he was a nice bloke and good for the community regardless of his politics. Frightening.

[mikey4444]

Not really frightening surely Zacs ? Lots of MP's have a loyalty following amongst their constituents, and its this that is the biggest factor that might win the day for UKIP.

I still find it odd that they didn't field a candidate in 2010 though, especially as they have 2 Councilors at least on the Tendring Council. Again, it would appear to be ideal UKIP recruiting ground, largely Tory, retired and white !

[New Judge]

"I just can't get my head around people voting for a party who can't even say what the income tax rate is. "

If we continue our membership of the EU, Zacs, whatever rate of income tax any party proposes will be of little consequence. If some of the more Federal loving Euro maniacs have their way their proposals for the "harmonisation" of tax regimes will see rates set in Brussels (or Strasbourg, depending where they happen to be ensconced at the time).

"In that case we may as well become apolitical and vote for the person who has done the most for their constituency and discard manifesto's etc."

An excellent proposition, Chilli, and one which I have been encouraging for some time. Voters have (with the considerable connivance of the political parties) lost sight of the fact that they elect an MP, not a government. They should send to Westminster the person whom they believe will represent their interests the best.

[sp1814]

New Judge

But would that not be irrelevant when considering the whip system?

[New Judge]

My idea, sp, is that the whip system is abolished and MPs vote on individual issues in the best interests of their constituents. This would effectively end party politics and return the House of Commons to its original function - MPs debating individual issues and voting according to their constituents' wishes, not those of their party.

At present voters are offered a package of measures which, in total, suit very few people entirely. This leads to them voting for a package (i.e. a party) usually on the basis of the one they dislike the least. Hardly a ringing endorsement for democracy and a system which leads effectively to an elected dictatorship of five years duration.

Abolition of party politics would create some problems but none which could not be overcome.

[THECORBYLOON]

If there were no parties, how would you decide who would make up the Government?

[sp1814]

That's an interesting proposition (and I don't mean 'interesting' in the way that I usually mean - when I think the proposal is cobblers).

It would certainly shake up the electoral system, but I fear it would rely on the personal integrity of MPs.

...and that's where I believe it would all fall apart.

[THECORBYLOON]

What you mean of course is there would be parties still but MPs would be free to pick and choose which policies to support. If that were the case, would it not be similar to a coalition in all but name with the possibility of the Government of the day relying on secret deals with their own members?

[New Judge]

No there would not be parties, Corby. MPs would be free to vote whichever way they wish on all issues (rather like the occasional "free votes" we see now and then). MPs would have to elect a Prime minister who would be the person most able to form a government.

It would take a bit of "Blue Sky" thinking on behalf of politicians and, as sp suggests, would require integrity from them as they would have to be trusted to act in the best interests of their electorate rather than themselves.

So probably a non-starter for that reason alone but I'd like to think there is something better than the ridiculous childish nonsense we wee at present with each side blaming the other, constant bickering, ridiculous "debates" in the H of C with all that is missing is chucking bread rolls at each other. The electorate deserves better but probably won't get it.

[Zacs-Master]

NJ....are you on drugs?