Sunday 12 October 2014

Kipper Cobblers

"Ukip has shown that it can beat Labour in the North of England, where the Tories cannot," says Peter Hitchens.

Except that it has not done any such thing.

Labour won the Heywood and Middleton by-election. With far fewer votes, but it was a by-election. And with an increased share.

I really did think that Hitchens was better than they "any vote cast in the North would otherwise have gone to Labour" brigade, which is also the "everyone in the North is working-class" brigade and the "all working-class people vote Labour (or did until UKIP)" brigade.

No, it would not. No, they are not. No, they do not.

If there is a lesson from Heywood and Middleton, beyond that UKIP stands no chance under First Past The Post in the North of England, then it is that there remains here, even if not in the South (although I expect so), a core of people who would never under any circumstances vote for anyone apart from the Conservative Party candidate. Those will be very, very, very right-wing people. Think on that, Nigel.

Presumably, if there were no such candidate, then those people simply would not vote. But that is never going to put to the test. Especially after UKIP loses Rochester and Strood, all talk of pacts will be off. No one on the UKIP side ever engaged in any such talk, anyway. Nor did anyone of the slightest importance in the Conservative Party; before anyone says "Tebbit", he left office a very long time ago.

In a competently run party, anyone making any such suggestion would have the Whip withdrawn on the spot. After Rochester and Strood, that may very well happen.

10 comments:

  1. Except that the facts show Peter is absolutely right. UKIP is on 25% nationally, according to yesterday's poll. Fabian Society research shows it could beat Labour in up to 59 seats, if more Tory voters switched.

    The fact that it came within a few hundred votes of beating Labour in a Labour safe seat, means that- as a matter of simple arithmetical fact-if just a few more Tory voters had switched sides, UKIP would have won Heywood and Middleton.

    Whereas the Tories never could have, (which is why they got nowhere near UKIP's vote numbers)

    Arithmetically, then, Peter is right.

    While the Tories have no chance in these Northern constituencies,UKIP plainly does (600 votes is nothing, and well within reach) so, if more Tory MP's defected and more of their voters switched, we'd win.

    We are on 25% support nationally and got over six million votes (more than Labour) in the last national election. The constituency is there and waiting to be represented.

    Putting the arithmetic aside, you should be happy. A UKIP-Tory alliance keeping Labour out of key seats is the best way of ensuring an anti-EU alliance in Parliament.

    Why wouldn't you be on mine and Peter's side in desiring this? Unless an anti-EU alliance is not what you really want...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stop reading after the first paragraph. 59 seats, indeed!

      Delete
  2. David Lindsay writes "Except that it has not done any such thing." Of course, that is precisely what it's done-slashing a Labour lead from 6,000 to 600 (despite the fact thousands still voted Tory) shows that, had the local Tory and UKIP vote united behind UKIP, they'd have easily beaten Labour.

    Since the Tories still got 12% of the Heywood and Middleton vote, it's pure and simple arithmetic. Even you can work it out.

    The Tories were effectively splitting the UKIP vote and thus letting Labour in.

    Peter Hitchens is quite rightly pointing out that had that 12%, instead voted UKIP, we'd have won.

    And the same in many other Labour constituencies.

    Those Tories who really want to beat Labour (and form an anti-EU backbone in Parliament) should take Peter's advice and defect to us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Until now, his view and yours has been that it made no difference whether or not Labour won.

      And no, UKIP hasn't.

      Delete
  3. Peter Hitchens simple factual statement that if Northern Tory voters switched to UKIP, they'd "thrash Labour" is simple statistical fact. 12% of Heywood and Middleton voters still voted Tory; yet UKIP was still just 600 votes off Labour. So if even some of those Tory voters had switched to UKIP, they would have easily beaten Labour. Its called simple arithmetic.

    What school did Lindsay go to?

    Anyone who has been looking at the Fabian Society's excellent in-depth polling analysis on UKIP's support in Labour constituencies has been able to see this for ages.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Might I add that Peter's comments are even more true in respect of the last European elections where, although UKIP still won, the Tories and UKIP combined won over half the popular vote.

    Peter's is quite right to respond to David Cameron's drivel "vote UKIP-get Labour" by pointing out that, in many seats, it is the Tories who are splitting the UKIP vote and actually letting Labour in.

    If those Tory voters did the sensible thing and switched to us, we could wipe Labour out in numerous seats, as the Fabian Society academics noted last month.

    Peter's got his work cut out taking on the disease of irrational tribalism. He's been trying to reason with these people for years...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Labour voters defecting to UKIP at Heywood and Middleton is so obviously not true, it's possibly a blatant lie. Labour increased its share of the vote compared to 2010. It was pushed close because nearly all of the non Labour vote went to a single party, UKIP, as opposed to being split more uniformly between Conservative and Lib Dem. The true story is one of tactical voting and collapse of the Conservative and Lib Dem vote.

    ReplyDelete