Not like the rest at all ?

[ahinton]

No, I think it's fundamentally different. In the typical tactical voting situation a voter may not vote for the party which they would, in a PR system, prefer to vote for because they don't think the party has a chance of winning under FPTP. They may as a result look at the likely contenders for first place and if one was particularly unappealing they might vote for the other to keep that party out.

But I don't think that's happening with UKIP. Their voters seem to hate the major parties equally so that they will vote for UKIP come what may. In the last Heywood and Middleton general election result, for instance, UKIP got 2.6% of the vote. A potential UKIP voter, looking at that, might think - no chance: which of the two main parties do I hate less - and vote tactically or not vote at all. But instead they vote UKIP, and UKIP polls 38.7%.

But what is surely a commonality between the two is that a tactical voter and one fed up with the mainstream parties each vote for a party other than the one that they'd like to have voted for and at least some of those who vote UKIP for the purpose of registering a protest vote (and I suspect that plenty vote UKIP for that very reason) do so because they want to keep out those mainstream parties up with which they are fed; after all, those who do not vote tactically vote instead for the party that they favour in the hope of electing it to government by overall majority, whereas those who vote UKIP don't do so with any hope of electing a UKIP government (even Mr Farage himself has said some time ago that this would not, of course, be possible). Furthermore, those who hate all the mainstream parties don't have to vote for any party.

There have also been a few cases (and there might well soon be quite a few more) where the practice of tactical voting is a more complex one than simply voting for candidate A in order to keep out candidate B because there might be three candidates with what are perceived to be more or less equal chances of success and so the business of scuppering the success of certain candidates becomes a matter requiring electoral manipulation of candidates A, B and C; who knows, there might even surface a case in which four parties are thought to have broadly similar chances of success...

[Serial_Apologist]

We British are constantly reminded of The War being our glorious moment. Self-confident certainty and that military bearing in Farage that reminds people of our wonderful boys singlemindedly carrying out their duties and knowing what they're doing are also part of the appeal. Of that I'm quite sure. Charisma is the level at which many if not most people relate to politics beyond the promises/broken promises dichotomy. I'm certain that were the Left to come up with a figurehead equivalent of Farage we'd be much more popular. Once the "Left" became associated with mixed economy capitalism it lost sight of the goal of withering away the state, which was grabbed by the Right and is to some extent personnified in the Dads Army-like image UKIP presents. Benn associated too freely with Militant. George Galloway came close, then went and blew it in Big Brother. People think consistency, and that unlike all the others Farage sticks to his line - which is a simplistic line but preferable because it cuts through all the crap, and until it's put to the test nobody knows, they just presume.

[french frank]

But what is surely a commonality between the two is that a tactical voter and one fed up with the mainstream parties each vote for a party other than the one that they'd like to have voted for and at least some of those who vote UKIP for the purpose of registering a protest vote (and I suspect that plenty vote UKIP for that very reason) do so because they want to keep out those mainstream parties up with which they are fed

I'm more with aeolium here: I think they vote UKIP because (even in possibly vague, misinformed and contradictory ways) they do like what they hear. They read the "news" in the banner headlines of the Daily Mail and Daily Express and they don't need any more to put two and two together. Which party is against the EU and immigration? There are certainly Labour and Conservative voters who believe Something Must Be Done and UKIP mean business. So it's only partly that the other parties aren't measuring up - it's a positive vote for UKIP, hence not really tactical.

[aeolium]

at least some of those who vote UKIP for the purpose of registering a protest vote (and I suspect that plenty vote UKIP for that very reason) do so because they want to keep out those mainstream parties up with which they are fed; after all, those who do not vote tactically vote instead for the party that they favour in the hope of electing it to government by overall majority, whereas those who vote UKIP don't do so with any hope of electing a UKIP government (even Mr Farage himself has said some time ago that this would not, of course, be possible).

No, that seems to me the opposite of tactical voting. Tactical voting generally is voting to prevent one particular party winning, with the aim that your tactical vote helps another party to win. Those who voted UKIP in Heywood and Middleton could not have been voting tactically in that way, e.g. to keep Labour out, given UKIP's voting record in 2010. But plenty of people vote "hopelessly" rather than tactically, voting for the party they think the best on offer in their constituency even though it may have no chance at all of winning either that seat or a majority in government.

[french frank]

But plenty of people vote "hopelessly" rather than tactically, voting for the party they think the best on offer in their constituency even though it may have no chance at all of winning either that seat or a majority in government.

Especially in by-elections, where there's no question of them 'voting for a governemnt'.

[ahinton]

We British are constantly reminded of The War being our glorious moment.

Notwithstanding the courage of many British (and other) armed service personnel during WWII, the notion of that ghastly event being anyone's "glorious moment" has never cut any ice with me, reminders or no reminders; I'm sure that I'm far from alone in this and, as I have ruefully observed before (about that part of it which took place in Europe), the Germans lost and the Brits didn't win - only the bankers achieved what they'd hoped to achieve.

Self-confident certainty and that military bearing in Farage that reminds people of our wonderful boys singlemindedly carrying out their duties and knowing what they're doing are also part of the appeal. Of that I'm quite sure.

I suppose that this might work for some, but whist Farage's image of "self-confident certainty" might constitute part of the impression that he creates (it questionable credibility notiwithstanding), the nearest to any "military bearing" that I can perceive in him is that of the loud-mouthed barrow-boy or pub bore equivalent to Colonel Blimp.

Charisma is the level at which many if not most people relate to politics beyond the promises/broken promises dichotomy.

Charisma is a term whose widespread overuse had distorted ints meaning almost beyond recognition; Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charisma - has
"The term charisma (/kəˈrɪzmə/; pl. charismata, adj. charismatic) has two senses: (1) compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others, (2) a divinely conferred power or talent. For some theological usages the term is rendered charism, with a meaning the same as sense 2."
Now it would be hard, I suspect, for most of us to convince ourselves that Mr Farage exudes "compelling attractiveness or charm" and almost impossible for almost all of us to agree that he possesses "a divinely conferred power or talent"; any "theological use" for the term could therefore hardly be applied to him.

I'm certain that were the Left to come up with a figurehead equivalent of Farage we'd be much more popular.

Whilst that may be true in theory I cannot see it applying in practice; not only would the very prospect that "the Left...come up with a figurehead equivalent of Farage" simply seem untenable on the grounds of fundamental incompatibility between Left-oriented thinking and what passes for "thinking" on the part of Farage the barrage, but also the sheer fact that the Left, in the form of the British Labour Party, has a long history whereas UKIP is no more than the new kid on the block with no MPs until today and a narrow-minded one-trick-pony approach to politics surely rules out that possibility as firmly as anything could?

Once the "Left" became associated with mixed economy capitalism it lost sight of the goal of withering away the state, which was grabbed by the Right and is to some extent personnified in the Dads Army-like image UKIP presents.

At least Dad's Army had its amusing moments, whereas the antics and brayings of UKIP are about a humourless as (albeit also different from!) those of Leonid Brezhnev on a bad hair day.

Benn associated too freely with Militant. George Galloway came close, then went and blew it in Big Brother. People think consistency, and that unlike all the others Farage sticks to his line - which is a simplistic line but preferable because it cuts through all the crap, and until it's put to the test nobody knows, they just presume.

The issues here are that, whilst the Farage line is indeed simplistic, as you write, that's the very reason tht it does not - and indeed cannot - cut through more than a tiny proportion of the "crap", although I accept that some people who listen to him have allowed themseves to be hoodwinked (or browbeaten) into assuming that it does indeed cut through all the crap. "Until it's put to the test"? The chances of it being put properly to the test by UKIP seizing governmental power having achieved an overall majority are about as slim as a hair on the head of William Hague but, until and unless that party does indeed manage to do just that, it will not and cannot be put to any meaningful test; the most that UKIP is likely to be able to achieve is to muddy the waters for some or all other parties by reducing the likelihood of any of them securing overall majority.

[ahinton]

I'm more with aeolium here: I think they vote UKIP because (even in possibly vague, misinformed and contradictory ways) they do like what they hear. They read the "news" in the banner headlines of the Daily Mail and Daily Express and they don't need any more to put two and two together. Which party is against the EU and immigration? There are certainly Labour and Conservative voters who believe Something Must Be Done and UKIP mean business. So it's only partly that the other parties aren't measuring up - it's a positive vote for UKIP, hence not really tactical.

I think that only those voters who are capable of being coerced and browbeaten by the noise of Farage the barrage into believing the assertions of a British political party of a mere two decades' vintage without a single MP until today that Britain's EU membership and immigration into Britain are the principal or even the only issues that matter in a General Election could be described as voting positively rather than tactically for UKIP and, since Farage himself has said that UKIP will not form a government, their votes would be made in the conscious certainty of failure.

[P. G. Tipps]

No, that seems to me the opposite of tactical voting. Tactical voting generally is voting to prevent one particular party winning, with the aim that your tactical vote helps another party to win. Those who voted UKIP in Heywood and Middleton could not have been voting tactically in that way, e.g. to keep Labour out, given UKIP's voting record in 2010. But plenty of people vote "hopelessly" rather than tactically, voting for the party they think the best on offer in their constituency even though it may have no chance at all of winning either that seat or a majority in government.

There could well be quite a bit of truth in what you say. However, all the contributions here as to why people vote as they do are pure speculation rather than being particularly 'reasoned', though, knowing some people as I do, I feel pretty sure there will be normal Conservative voters who voted UKIP in a vain attempt to make Labour lose in H&M just as there would have been Labour & Lib Dem followers in Clacton who did the same to foil the Tories! After all, it's only a bye-election, eh? ...

For me, H&M was much more significant than Clacton (which could have been almost hand-picked by UKIP to win a bye-election) as it demonstrated that UKIP can take votes off Labour and the LDs and not just the Tories. I think it would be wrong to dismiss any 'tactical voting' going on in both cases unless political human nature has changed almost overnight?

Of course, next year's General Election could be very different. The trouble is that, because we are now in entirely new political territory, no one really knows what might happen. Some in the media refer to this as ''exciting', I rather look on it as just another bit of uncertainty this country can well do without at the present time.

[french frank]

There could well be quite a bit of truth in what you say. However, all the contributions here as to why people vote as they do are pure speculation rather than being particularly 'reasoned'

People are asked by researchers about such things and even "pure" speculation must surely be partially correct if one is speculating on the motives of members of a large group?

though, knowing some people as I do, I feel pretty sure there will be normal Conservative voters who voted UKIP in a vain attempt to make Labour lose in H&M just as there would have been Labour & Lib Dem followers in Clacton who did the same to foil the Tories! After all, it's only a bye-election, eh? ...

By-election or byelection, yes. Members of the public will vote in any number of ways for any number of reasons. This Lib Dem voter would certainly not vote UKIP for any reason whatever. Quite the contrary: I would probably be ready, in a moment of madness, to vote for any party that would keep UKIP out. That would be tactical voting. I suspect that any committed voter would vote to keep UKIP out.

[mercia]

For me, H&M was much more significant than Clacton (which could have been almost hand-picked by UKIP to win a bye-election) as it demonstrated that UKIP can take votes off Labour and the LDs and not just the Tories.

.... but did UKIP take Labour votes in H&M? - the Labour vote increased by 1% [which I take to mean 1% increase in share over the last general election].

I notice the turnout in H&M was 36% [51% in Clacton] - do you think Labour voters stayed away believing it would be safe - or was the weather particularly bad in H&M?

Interesting point from James Landale - UKIP is now part of the Westminster establishment it purports to loathe. Every step UKIP takes towards the political mainstream is a step away from its status as the insurgent outsider

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29562579

Looks as if Rochester is seen very differently - The Tories gave up on Clacton, believing it to be unwinnable. But they are throwing the kitchen sink at winning Rochester - spending tens of thousands of pounds paying for an open primary in which every voter in the constituency is invited to help choose their by-election candidate. Douglas Carswell was an assiduous and popular local MP regarded as a man of principle who risked all to jump ship. Tory HQ is portraying Rochester's former Tory MP Mark Reckless as a lying opportunist who has eaten his words and ditched his principles to ensure he can, in David Cameron's words, keep "his fat arse on the green benches" of the Commons. If the Conservatives win there it will stall the UKIP bandwagon and may persuade other Tory MPs not to take the risk.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29571412

That does rather portray MPs as desperate above all things to keep their seats, even if that means ditching all their beliefs. Perhaps a pay-cut rather than increase would change that attitude.

[P. G. Tipps]

.... but did UKIP take Labour votes in H&M? - the Labour vote increased by 1% [which I take to mean 1% increase in share over the last general election].

I notice the turnout in H&M was 36% [51% in Clacton] - do you think Labour voters stayed away believing it would be safe - or was the weather particularly bad in H&M?

Can tactical voting backfire? - I mean if I vote X to keep Y out I'm not necessarily wanting (or expecting) X to win either, am I not assuming that all the people who usually vote for second-place Z will do so again and that Z will win? But then if everyone else has the same idea X storms ahead. (is this what happened in Clacton?). On the news a lady in Clacton said Carswell will lose in the general election and beg to rejoin the Tories ("on bended knee").

Apparently in H&M Labour took votes from the the Lib Dems which just goes to show how complicated things are becoming when trying to figure out who switched to where! Why would natural LD voters switch to Labour in a reasonably safe Labour seat? To try and keep out UKIP, perhaps? I certainly don't think it would have much to do with, say, Mr Clegg and tuition fees. Considering the UKIP vote was so high it would be remarkable if at least some of its support hadn't come from the traditional Labour vote.

I think both turnouts were about par for the course for by-elections. The higher one in Clacton can be explained by keener media interest and a constituency with a large number of normally Tory-voting pensioners who generally can be relied upon to turn out and vote. I was never convinced that the Scottish Referendum turnout had 'changed the mould of British politics for ever'. That poll was a quite different animal where intensely emotional national pride was involved and a debate that has been simmering under (and sometimes above) the surface for 300 years had suddenly to be decided with a straight 'yes' or 'no' answer. It also attracted worldwide media interest which only added to the huge sense of something historically important being played out.

I agree that tactical voting can be self-defeating and, of course, can give a false picture of the various political views of the electorate. However, as a floating voter, I have on occasion voted for my second choice candidate, considering he/she has the best chance of defeating the candidate I fear the most, politically. I feel certain I've not been alone in such shabby calculations!

No point in voting for one's favourite (or least worst) only to finally end up with the dreaded bête noire ... ?

[mercia]

sorry, I edited out my tactical voting paragraph - it didn't make much sense when I reread it.

[french frank]

The two quotes in mercia's last both seemed very pertinent. By-elections have sometimes very low turn-outs when there's "nothing to see". But Carswell >>> UKIP following the last big nation-wide elections was always going to get the media going. And that feeds the whole exercise, particularly as 'minor' parties usually get proportionately little coverage. In line with the tactical voting phenomenon, people will vote for their favoured party once it's perceived as having a chance of winning. And a party can be 'favoured' for many reasons, including giving the government of the day a kick up the pants.

I'm not sure that by-election winners (i.e. those who overturn the previous result) have a very good record in defending their seats at General Elections. Here, I suppose it will depend on how the UKIP bandwagon rolls.

I wonder ... just as Scotland stepped back from the brink of the uncertain, will UK voters begin to doubt whether life outside the EU will be better? Jus' speculatin' .

[amateur51]

I'm not sure that by-election winners (i.e. those who overturn the previous result) have a very good record in defending their seats at General Elections. Here, I suppose it will depend on how the UKIP bandwagon rolls.

When Sarah Teather (LibDem) beat Labour in a by-election in Brent in 2003, it was largely on the back of her opposition to the Iraq war (the last one). She captured the voters' mood well and was successful. She showed herself to be a good constituency MP and was returned twice, each time with an increased majority.

In the Coalitiion she was brought into Government in junior posts which exopwerience she did not enjoy and she did no excel. Reading the runes she has decided to step down in 2015.

I hope this contribution has proved to be satisyfyingly analytical for the upper echelons.

[amateur51]

Farage is making up policy as he goes along, which I guess he is entitled to do, but he does seem a bit accident-prone, witness his recent outburst about refusing entry to people who are HIV positive because the NHS is overloaded and treatment is expensive.

Let's analyse this a bit (ahem). According to National AIDS Trust, by the end of 2012, an estimated 98,400 people were living with HIV in the UK, including about 77,610 people diagnosed with HIV and 21,900 who were infected but undiagnosed.
- See more at: http://www.nat.org.uk/HIV-Facts/Stat....2bALoTGO.dpuf

Is this huge in NHS terms? Let's look at a seriously prevalent disease in UK. At the end of 2013, the known diagnosed population with diabetes is now 3.2 million people or 6% of population, making HIV infection pretty small beer in terms of workload.

http://www.diabetes.org.uk/About_us/What-we-say/Statistics/Diabetes-prevalence-2013/

If Farage were serious about NHS workload, he would have gone for diabetes before HIV, I'd suggest. By going for HIV, Farage appears to me to be targetting unpopular grouips, such as gay men and people from immigrants from Africa, good solid UKIP targets. This feeds the UKIP populist 'let's drag the country back to the 1970s' line.