Ukip - why are they gaining support?

[redsquirrel]

It's down on last year. Even excluding London, it's down on last year. Now that could be due mainly to the fact that the cities didn't vote last year, and it is one of the striking features of UKIP's support that it's strongest in areas where there are fewest new immigrants. But nevertheless, it's not a resounding success. It indicates to me that they haven't been wildly successful in drawing votes away from Labour. It also indicates to me that most of the people who actually do have Romanians for neighbours don't agree with Farage.

Getting 30% in Sunderland, taking Thurrock council from Labour to NOC, getting 9 councillors (7 taken from Lab) elected in Rotherham, these don't show that they have been successful in drawing votes away from Labour? I don't know what criteria you need for them to be widely successful but I think by any sensible measure it's clear that they have managed to obtain significant support in Labour heartlands.

Turnout at 36 per cent is lower than expected, I believe.

What was the expected turnout? Last I heard the turnout was slightly up.

EDIT
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ions-and-results.323935/page-11#post-13156094

 

[redsquirrel]

Yes they are. A more relevant stat is one of how many they scored in the seats they stood in - not in what they achieved across all seats.

On that point have you seen a figure for their average vote? I tried searching for it but could only find the PNS.

 

[SpackleFrog]

It is a disgrace, yes. UKIP won't have brought it up for good reason - Farage only wants to allow people with money in. Rich Indians, and rather randomly, it appears, New Zealanders.

Unlike Blair, Brown and Cameron eh?

 

[killer b]

Bad maths and denial. Some high quality analysis there littlebabyjesus

 

[Roadkill]

17 per cent share of the vote for UKIP in the local elections, down from 23 per cent last year, according to the BBC, and just 7 per cent in London. Turnout at 36 per cent.

So, just 6 per cent of the electorate walked into a polling booth and voted UKIP - about one in every 17 registered voters. In London, fewer than 3 per cent did so - about one in every 40 registered voters.

In answer to the OP, asking why they are gaining support, the evidence of Thursday's local elections is that currently they are not.

It's certainly true that 'none of the above' is still the largest party, but it's IMO rather naive to say that UKIP didn't do well. Last week's council elections were mainly not in areas where you'd expect the Kippers to make a good showing, but in traditionally Labour-voting cities - Sunderland, Rotherham, etc. And where they didn't win they often came a worryingly close second. In my neck of the woods in Hull, for instance, they only actually won one ward, but were second in several others.

It probably will get a bit harder for them from here on, though. Firstly, people tend to be freer in voting for minor parties at local elections than general ones, and a proportion of their support will probably switch back to their previous allegiances. Ashcroft's polling reported yesterday suggests as much. Partly that will be because of the 'vote Farage, get Cameron/Millipede' argument. Partly, also, it might be because at a general election UKIP will actually have to produce a manifesto. They played a clever game in ditching the 2010 one and being deliberately vague about everything except their core territory of Europe and immigration, but that won't work for the general election and in their manifesto then they'll have a difficult line to walk. A lot of the very right-wing stuff (flat tax etc) in the 2010 manifesto won't play well with the support they're currently drawing from ex-Labour voters, but it'll be difficult to move away from, partly because the right-wing party establishment won't want to, partly because it would open them up to charges of saying what they want people to hear, and partly because a more left-ish tone might not appeal to rural, Conservative-inclined voters who've previously been their core support. They've done well recently by letting people see in them what they want to see, but I'm not sure that's sustainable for much longer.

Hopefully come the run-up to the general election they'll actually be challenged on policy, and there'll be less of the outrage and screams of 'racist! bigot!' from the liberal establishment, which at best has been ineffective and at worst counter-productive.

 

[killer b]

The reason for the % drop in their overall vote since last year is because there was many more seats up for election, and they weren't contesting as high a proportion of them. So although they did better in the seats they did stand, overall the % looks lower because theres more seats where theres no votes at all (as they weren't there for people to vote for)

No need to make it complicated.

 

[brogdale]

The reason for the % drop in their overall vote since last year is because there was many more seats up for election, and they weren't contesting as high a proportion of them. So although they did better in the seats they did stand, overall the % looks lower because theres more seats where theres no votes at all (as they weren't there for people to vote for)

No need to make it complicated.

But the geography of the authorities up for election was also a significant component.

 

[butchersapron]

And, as I've pointed out numerous times now, when compared to their results last time out in these seats (I.e comparing apples with apples) they are up 14%. How on earth is that not gaining support.

One other thing I missed in my list of indicators of gaining support last night, post membership, now up to 40 000 plus and currently growing at 5000 a month. If all these add up to losing support or standing still, imagine how well they'd be doing if they were growing.

 

[killer b]

But the geography of the authorities up for election was also a significant component.

How?

 

[brogdale]

How?

Parties tend to have geographically defined 'heartlands' and 'peripheries'. The spread of non-metro authorities with 1/3 seats up this time, did not correlate at all well with UKIP's previously established bases of support in areas like Kent, S.Coast. East Anglia, East Mids, Lincolnshire and parts of the SW.

 

[butchersapron]

On that point have you seen a figure for their average vote? I tried searching for it but could only find the PNS.

Will be along shortly i expect.

 

[killer b]

Parties tend to have geographically defined 'heartlands' and 'peripheries'. The spread of non-metro authorities with 1/3 seats up this time, did not correlate at all well with UKIP's previously established bases of support in areas like Kent, S.Coast. East Anglia, East Mids, Lincolnshire and parts of the SW.

yeah of course - so in a lot of these seats, support is going up from zero rather than down from 20-odd percent.

Either way, it's either willful ignorance or extreme naivety to claim that this is some kind of drop in support.

 

[Dogsauce]

I'm reading numerous editorials and comments saying UKIP can 'no longer be ignored'. Is that because there's someone in a cave in Inner Mongolia that hasn't seen Farage on the telly yet?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

yeah of course - so in a lot of these seats, support is going up from zero rather than down from 20-odd percent.

This was also true for last year's election in which UKIP won 22%. I can't find the figure for their share of the vote in the 2009 election, which roughly corresponds to the 2013 one, but in 2009, they won a grand total of 7 seats with a share of the vote certainly below 5%.

 

[butchersapron]

This was also true for last year's election in which UKIP won 22%. I can't find the figure for their share of the vote in the 2009 election, which roughly corresponds to the 2013 one, but in 2009, they won a grand total of 7 seats with a share of the vote certainly below 5%.

Which pretty unambiguously suggests that they have since gained support when you compare like with like.

 

[killer b]

It's been explained repeatedly why your maths is shit. Why are you still in denial? Their support has not gone down.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's been explained repeatedly why your maths is shit. Why are you still in denial? Their support has not gone down.

Um, I was correcting something you said. If you're going to point out that they've gone from virtually zero to 17% this year, it is only fair to also point out that they went from virtually zero to 22% last year, too.

 

[butchersapron]

But definitely not gaining support.

 

[killer b]

Are you still claiming their support has gone down since last year?

 

[butchersapron]

There's even another indicator of their gaining support in that last thing lbj posted - they could only fight 25% of the seats in 2009, in those same seats in 2013 they managed to fight 75% of them. Yet another unambiguous sign of growth in support - including the key one of broadening national support and membership and breaking out of small regional pockets.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Are you still claiming their support has gone down since last year?

Have you even been reading my posts? I myself qualified what I said by pointing out that the cities were not voting last year. I am suggesting that this year's local election result is not strong evidence that their support has grown in the last year, and further that their anti-immigrant message is resonating least well in areas with larger numbers of immigrants. I would like to see a map of England showing number of immigrants per 1000 people compared to % share of UKIP vote - I would expect that there is quite a marked inverse correlation.

Btw, it would be nice if you acknowledged my point above expanding on what you said. Disingenuous not to.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I see, I think. So in these elections voters went for individuals rather than party?

What I'd say is that a majority of people in local elections nowadays vote instrumentally, whereas 30 years ago, they'd have been farmore likely to vote "tribally".

 

[butchersapron]

Have you even been reading my posts? I myself qualified what I said by pointing out that the cities were not voting last year. I am suggesting that this year's local election result is not strong evidence that their support has grown in the last year, and further that their anti-immigrant message is resonating least well in areas with larger numbers of immigrants. I would like to see a map of England showing number of immigrants per 1000 people compared to % share of UKIP vote - I would expect that there is quite a marked inverse correlation.

So they are gaining support? You're certainly not reading mine btw - or probably more accurately, you are, but have no worthwhile response to the points that i've made in reply to your claim that ukip are not gaining support.

 

[butchersapron]

There is also a lot of confusion (I don't mean by you) between criticising UKIP and criticising UKIP voters. I think the Tories are despicable shits, but I don't think everyone who votes Tory is a despicable shit.

A few times on here recently, people have been pulled up when criticising UKIP as if they were criticising all people who vote UKIP.

Your claim that all ukip voters are racist now that UKIP have been exposed as racist and that each ukip voter represents a direct personal attack on you. Under which banner do they appear? The soberly party-directed one or the wild lashing out at the voters one?

 

[killer b]

I can only repeat what I said above. This year it was places with significant numbers of immigrants that were voting, and UKIP did worse. They are not extending far beyond their base of white over-50s males who have fallen on hard times.

You said here they did worse. That isn't true. Or have I somehow misread your post?

 

[butchersapron]

And here?

In answer to the OP, asking why they are gaining support, the evidence of Thursday's local elections is that currently they are not.

That's a pretty unambiguous claim isn't it?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I might be wrong on some things, but on this I am not:

Lots of people are heartily sick of the same echo chamber shit, day in and week out eminating from the same class and sources that UKIP purport to be against. It's obscured the real politics of things like the NHS privatisation, benefit sanctions and other things that impact what is patronisingly termed "the real world" a lot more than 26 million people who aren't actually after my job, living in sewers or stealing babies.

I can't believe that people get slapped around on forums like this for saying that the bullyscum press has been absolutely hideous and gut-wrenching in recent months. (Well, I can believe it but only from experience)

In your case, it's probably down to the tabloidesque hyperbole you use.
For a start, you claim "lots of people are heartily sick". Is the sickness reflected in sales figures for print media, or viewer/listener figures for TV and radio? No, it isn't. That "echo chamber bullshit" appears to satisfy some people, and of course it's from the same sources as always - the political class aren't exactly partisan, and haven't been for at least 30 years. They'll happily whore themselves under any flag - it couldn't not be.
As for what's obscured, again it's the same old same old.
here's the thing: What's better, to rail against the vehicle, or smash the engine? What you do is rail against the vehicle. All that achieves is that a few people will agree with you.

A balanced assessment of the UKIP local election results is "medium sized party make good gains despite drop in share", but the press have to keep riding the same bandwaggon they've been on for months. They don't know any different, and sections that are often more sensible have gone along for the ride too.

Of course they know different, you knob! Journalism, except for a very few representatives, is not an honourable profession. Journalists write in conformity to their paper's political line, or their owner's political line. What journos almost never do unless they're a Pilger or a Fisk, is write what they actually believe.

I'm no Labourite, but the same press is painting the results as some kind of near disaster for them. Why? It wasn't great by any stretch, but what this is really about is right wing perspectives being applied again and again and again. Labour have made a bit more effort on issues that effect poorer people, like rents, zero hours contracts etc. Not miraculous and maybe no more than just noise, but they are attacked again and again.

You're missing the point of the narrative that you're railing against. This isn't about Labour, the Tories and the Lib-Dems, this is about the media building up a subject (UKIP), because it is in the interests of the media to do so. Those who stand behind the media - those who own it- are (to put it very simply) using the UKIP story as a method of building leverage on the mainstream parties - it's fairly simple power-politics.

With Tory and LD in government it's obvious that a Labour wobbler can be pushed towards UKIP, especially with enough hype. Then it's "LOOK!! Labour are really losing out" - it's a message the reactionaries want to project, and they have helped create it.

They needed to say that UKIP took Labour votes, to try and offset damage to their tory allies, and started doing so simoultaneously a few days after Farage and Co said it was a developing strategy. However, UKIP continue to eat far more into Tory votes, so if anything the game of lies is going to have to be stepped up. Lucky us.

It seems like the endless tide of hatred against migration isn't going to stop any time soon, especially not with Crosby practing his disgusting dark arts. Why should it be a problem to talk about it?

You really do come across as having a great deal of contempt for Joe and Josephine Public's ability to think critically, don't you?

 

[ViolentPanda]

homage to the son of the Thetford corset-maker?

It's kinder on him to say "son of a Thetford corset maker" than "fuckstick revenooer"!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

btw, wrt UKIP's supposed strongholds, Hull *is* one of those. It's where they won their first ever council seat. It's not really true that they started out as a party only of the Tory shires.

 

[killer b]

we know that.