Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Ukip - why are they gaining support?

Meanwhile, back on earth...Smithson has graphed Ashcroft's latest (marginals) polling analysis showing where UKIP support is coming from...

f57d2ea1-2348-47b6-8180-fa74defe605f_zps66271981.png

That's from a sample size of 11k.

Looking at that it's not far off what I'd expect, but I am a bit surprised it doesn't show a slightly higher percentage of UKIP support coming from Labour?

I notice it's based on marginal seats, and on a comparison between 2010 (at the end of the Brown govt) and now. Certainly in Sheffield/South Yorkshire it seems to me that the percentage of traditional Labour voters in what has been considered safe Labour areas switching to UKIP is quite a bit higher than 17.3%; am I way off on that and the Tories really are losing twice as many voters to UKIP as Labour are?
 
Looking at that it's not far off what I'd expect, but I am a bit surprised it doesn't show a slightly higher percentage of UKIP support coming from Labour?

I notice it's based on marginal seats, and on a comparison between 2010 (at the end of the Brown govt) and now. Certainly in Sheffield/South Yorkshire it seems to me that the percentage of traditional Labour voters in what has been considered safe Labour areas switching to UKIP is quite a bit higher than 17.3%; am I way off on that and the Tories really are losing twice as many voters to UKIP as Labour are?

Ashcroft's obsession with the marginals is quite understandable; it's in those few tens of seats that the differential leakage to UKIP will undermine any chance of a tory majority. tbh the 'kippers can take a higher % in the safe Lab seats without much effect.
 
Ashcroft's obsession with the marginals is quite understandable; it's in those few tens of seats that the differential leakage to UKIP will undermine any chance of a tory majority. tbh the 'kippers can take a higher % in the safe Lab seats without much effect.

I'm not so sure...I could see some real upsets in safe Labour seats from UKIP. Mind you, since Labour in South Yorkshire have been complicit in covering up child abuse, that may be skewing my view of the national picture.
 
I'm not so sure...I could see some real upsets in safe Labour seats from UKIP. Mind you, since Labour in South Yorkshire have been complicit in covering up child abuse, that may be skewing my view of the national picture.

I think the SNP pose a far greater threat tbh.
 
PFI is a bit of a swindle, a way of keeping debt off the books (at greater cost), so I can see why the plain-speaking 'cuprinol man' would oppose it, just for the cost and nonsense. That sort of thing does wash with me, though I don't know how appealing it is to the wider electorate as most don't have much of an idea about it.

A lot of PFI stuff is owned by the banks, when they were bailed out by the state this stuff should have been taken as collateral.
 
People tend to ignore the negative effects of change which favours their interests, modern progressive change (capitalist economic development) is no different, it favours the interests of the middle class because of their higher market economic value and leads to the growth of that demographic and disfavours the interests of the lower social groups because of their lower market economic value leading to the decline of their demographic which creates an overall imbalance in the demographic character of progressive societies or gentrification, mass immigration is simply the corrective consequence of that change, we eliminate the native poor and import foreign poor for reasons of economy.

Mass immigration is the means by which a gentrified economy operates, an economy which reflected better the native surviving British population would not require the mass importation of labour or population. The problem is that the debate, analysis and policy decisions are monopolised by the middle class who are favoured by that progressive change and so have a vested interest in its continuance, politically correct taboos like "racism" arguably are simply the means to dissuade people from raising those issues which are inconvenient to the economic interests of the dominant middle class.

The fact that the left have become complicit in this shows that like the mainstream left and right they too have become gentrified and are part of the progressive consensus and that is why an increasing number of people look to the parties which express a culturally conservative view like UKIP as an alternative to the current consensus to defend native interests rather than to the left.
 
Certainly in Sheffield/South Yorkshire it seems to me that the percentage of traditional Labour voters in what has been considered safe Labour areas switching to UKIP is quite a bit higher than 17.3%;

This vote could have gone to the left, the question has to be asked, why hasn't it?

a massive one admittedly.
 
Its a question you've been asking with tedious regularity for as long as I can remember. One which has been answered many times over, yet you still ask it. Why?
 
Because it may explain what went wrong here in England, why we have no Syriza, Podemos, no Die Linke, etc.

the European Social Forum had some bearing on the creation of these formations, the UK was central to it, but nothing like the above came out of it, the SWP wreckers?
 
Bloody HELL!



"UKIP Calypso", by former Radio 1 DJ and former Conservative Party conference entertainer Mike Read.
 
Exactly which definition of 'gentrification' are you using? Because I'm not sure it's the one in the Shorter OED.


Gentrification as I use it is how a population or parts of a population adapt to the exceptional and historically atypical social conditions of an economically developed economy and in so doing deviates from its traditional and surviving character, the population becomes economically specialised in order to service that economy and to afford its higher living costs and becomes dependent on its higher levels of amenity which I would argue is the intrinsic nature of economic and social class.
 
Amazing - an economically developed economy - which the UK has had for the last 300 years - is 'atypical'. Yet 'the real' character which you claim is being wiped out is somehow also the 'surviving character'. You don't know what the words that you try to use mean. 'Higher levels of amenity' :D You are fucking ridiculous you silly racist.
 
Mike Read banned Frankie Goes to Hollywood's 'Relax', so there's some kind of Twitter campaign to get that to no.1 instead, not that I can see there being much of a groundswell behind Mike Read's number in comparison. It's a bit like those dicks you get as a filler article on the local news every December who claim to be having a go at attempting a Christmas No.1 with some turgid dad-rock recorded in their shed in Wakefield.
 
Gentrification as I use it is how a population or parts of a population adapt to the exceptional and historically atypical social conditions of an economically developed economy and in so doing deviates from its traditional and surviving character, the population becomes economically specialised in order to service that economy and to afford its higher living costs and becomes dependent on its higher levels of amenity which I would argue is the intrinsic nature of economic and social class.

You fucking idiot. Gentrification as it is used by every other cunt except you isn't about social and demographic adaptation. It's about human geography and how economics influence demography.

get a fucking clue, you cuntwit.
 
Amazing - an economically developed economy - which the UK has had for the last 300 years - is 'atypical'. Yet 'the real' character which you claim is being wiped out is somehow also the 'surviving character'. You don't know what the words that you try to use mean. 'Higher levels of amenity' :D You are fucking ridiculous you silly racist.

It probably impresses his fellow-travellers, though, the dull-minded shitpokes.
 
Back
Top Bottom