Not like the rest at all ?

[Richard Barrett]

http://ramblingsofapr.com/2014/05/26/farage-victory-mirage-ukip-2014/

There’s been much hyperbole surrounding the “UKIP Earthquake”. With the BBC (when it is not seriously breaching editorial independence) going overboard in repeating Nigel Farage’s claims that the party’s topping of the UK Euro polls is the biggest political event in 100 years.

Well it isn’t.

(...)

What [the diagram in the linked site] reveals is that the combined independent / neo-fascist / Christian / anti-EU vote was 29.8% in 2009 and 32.2% in 2014. So roughly only taking a couple of percentage points off the Tories.

The more significant shift is how Labour has regained supporters from those who voted Lib Dem in the 2009/2010 electoral period.

And that the ‘centre and left progressive’ vote which was 30.7% in 2009 as the Brown government staggered toward the end of days (42.2% including Greens / SNP / PC) has also taken votes from independents and actually grown to 32.4% (43.5%).

So it isn’t that more people have joined the extremes of British politics – it’s just that UKIP forged them into an unholy alliance. And that the mainstream media has decided a pint wielding MEP is a more palatable poster boy to give acres of media coverage to than previous incarnations of the same politics.

[Beef Oven!]

http://ramblingsofapr.com/2014/05/26...age-ukip-2014/

There’s been much hyperbole surrounding the “UKIP Earthquake”. With the BBC (when it is not seriously breaching editorial independence) going overboard in repeating Nigel Farage’s claims that the party’s topping of the UK Euro polls is the biggest political event in 100 years.

Well it isn’t.

(...)

What [the diagram in the linked site] reveals is that the combined independent / neo-fascist / Christian / anti-EU vote was 29.8% in 2009 and 32.2% in 2014. So roughly only taking a couple of percentage points off the Tories.

The more significant shift is how Labour has regained supporters from those who voted Lib Dem in the 2009/2010 electoral period.

And that the ‘centre and left progressive’ vote which was 30.7% in 2009 as the Brown government staggered toward the end of days (42.2% including Greens / SNP / PC) has also taken votes from independents and actually grown to 32.4% (43.5%).

So it isn’t that more people have joined the extremes of British politics – it’s just that UKIP forged them into an unholy alliance. And that the mainstream media has decided a pint wielding MEP is a more palatable poster boy to give acres of media coverage to than previous incarnations of the same politics.

UKIP won. In a result that can’t be spun away. They won by a third of a million votes over the Westminster opposition. And by raising their share of the vote by over 10%. However good Labour’s rise of 9.9% is, UKIP still beat them in votes, seats and swing.

[Flosshilde]

& they'll collapse at the next election like the bag of wind that Farage is.

[MrGongGong]

UKIP won. In a result that can’t be spun away. They won by a third of a million votes over the Westminster opposition. And by raising their share of the vote by over 10%. However good Labour’s rise of 9.9% is, UKIP still beat them in votes, seats and swing.

You are wrong there
NO ONE "won" because most people voted for something else
and the greater majority didn't vote at all !

[Beef Oven!]

You are wrong there
NO ONE "won" because most people voted for something else
and the greater majority didn't vote at all !

UKIP won. In a result that can’t be spun away. They won by a third of a million votes over the Westminster opposition. And by raising their share of the vote by over 10%.

[ahinton]

UKIP won. In a result that can’t be spun away. They won by a third of a million votes over the Westminster opposition. And by raising their share of the vote by over 10%.

Repetition. Mr Parsons now hands the subject to another panellist.

[Beef Oven!]

Repetition. Mr Parsons now hands the subject to another panellist.

Well, there's nothing else to be said.

Some people can't deal with the world not turning out as they want it to be.

All this pseudo-statistical analysis that these people go in for, arises out of the cognitive dissonance that they experience.

UKIP won. In a result that can’t be spun away. They won by a third of a million votes over the Westminster opposition.

[MrGongGong]

UKIP won. In a result that can’t be spun away. They won by a third of a million votes over the Westminster opposition.

Deviation

If it was a GCSE exam and someone got that percentage with the media doing this whole song and dance about what a great success it was
folks would be banging on about how education was 'dumbed down' !

And also you make the mistake (that ALL parties do) in thinking that people vote FOR something
I wonder how many people were voting AGAINST ?

They didn't "win" as (repetition) i'm sure you realise if anyone "won" then it was Russell

[french frank]

UKIP won. In a result that can’t be spun away. They won by a third of a million votes over the Westminster opposition.

They won by a 'third of a million' votes over Labour, specifically, the opposition party to the government: 3.38m to 3.02m. But the other Westminster parties, in opposition to UKIP, polled over 10m.

The Conservatives and Lib Dems combined 'won' in 2010, so 2014 illustrates that Pride Comes Before A Fall ;-).

[ahinton]

Well, there's nothing else to be said.

Some people can't deal with the world not turning out as they want it to be.

All this pseudo-statistical analysis that these people go in for, arises out of the cognitive dissonance that they experience.

UKIP won. In a result that can’t be spun away. They won by a third of a million votes over the Westminster opposition.

As in world wars, no one really "wins". Persistent repetition, however, does not a whole truth make; likewise, what you complacently term "pseudo-statistical analysis" does less to obscure the value of genuine statistics than it encourages due and sensible consideration to be given to all relevant factors in addressing the results of those elections and the contextual effect of these.

To begin with, neither election in UK was a UK General Election.

Secondly, not all areas of UK held local authority elections (mine didn't, for starters).

Thirdly, whilst UKIP undoubtedly fared better than they had ever done previously in any election (a fact which cannot be denied), many people did not vote for it in either the European or local government elections and many more did not vote at all in on or other or both of them.

Fourthly - and perhaps more importantly of all in the longer run - UKIP's declared revised manifesto (in replacement of the one so contemptuously "shredded" by Mr Farage) has far too little to say about the party's stance on issues other than UK's continued EU membership and immigration into UK (and its stance on the former is arguably undemocratic) - and what it does say on many of those other electorally important matters seems not to be on any kind of firm foundation, to the extent that it seeks to reduce the burden of taxation but proposes to spend considerable sums not currently being spent without clarifying the source of revenue from which it anticipates being able to do so.

All of this and more will no doubt be made clear by UKIP's detractors in the run-up to next year's UK General Election and I would be less than surprised if the suspicion that UKIP's recent comparative successes turn out to be little more than a mere a flash in the pan prove to be well founded. Even Mr Farage himself does not believe that there will be a UKIP government after the next UK General Election and, since he's right about that if little else, all that a greater showing from his party will likely do is muddy the waters for stable government of any kind in UK.

And, as I've pointed out before, that's only if there IS a UK by then (a factor that UKIP of all parties ought - yet appears not - to take into consideration given that "UK" is half of its very name)...

[Beef Oven!]

Deviation

If it was a GCSE exam and someone got that percentage with the media doing this whole song and dance about what a great success it was
folks would be banging on about how education was 'dumbed down' !

And also you make the mistake (that ALL parties do) in thinking that people vote FOR something
I wonder how many people were voting AGAINST ?

They didn't "win" as (repetition) i'm sure you realise if anyone "won" then it was Russell

Take a look out of the window, MrGG.
There's a real world out there, which is just as much fun as the one you live in!

[Beef Oven!]

As in world wars, no one really "wins". Persistent repetition, however, does not a whole truth make; likewise, what you complacently term "pseudo-statistical analysis" does less to obscure the value of genuine statistics than it encourages due and sensible consideration to be given to all relevant factors in addressing the results of those elections and the contextual effect of these.

To begin with, neither election in UK was a UK General Election.

Secondly, not all areas of UK held local authority elections (mine didn't, for starters).

Thirdly, whilst UKIP undoubtedly fared better than they had ever done previously in any election (a fact which cannot be denied), many people did not vote for it in either the European or local government elections and many more did not vote at all in on or other or both of them.

Fourthly - and perhaps more importantly of all in the longer run - UKIP's declared revised manifesto (in replacement of the one so contemptuously "shredded" by Mr Farage) has far too little to say about the party's stance on issues other than UK's continued EU membership and immigration into UK (and its stance on the former is arguably undemocratic) - and what it does say on many of those other electorally important matters seems not to be on any kind of firm foundation, to the extent that it seeks to reduce the burden of taxation but proposes to spend considerable sums not currently being spent without clarifying the source of revenue from which it anticipates being able to do so.

All of this and more will no doubt be made clear by UKIP's detractors in the run-up to next year's UK General Election and I would be less than surprised if the suspicion that UKIP's recent comparative successes turn out to be little more than a mere a flash in the pan prove to be well founded. Even Mr Farage himself does not believe that there will be a UKIP government after the next UK General Election and, since he's right about that if little else, all that a greater showing from his party will likely do is muddy the waters for stable government of any kind in UK.

And, as I've pointed out before, that's only if there IS a UK by then (a factor that UKIP of all parties ought - yet appears not - to take into consideration given that "UK" is half of its very name)...

Repetition!!

The fact remains that the UKIP won. In a result that can’t be spun away.

[jean]

All you're doing is attempting to spin it into something it isn't.

[Beef Oven!]

All you're doing is attempting to spin it into something it isn't.

UKIP won. The first time that a party other than the Conservatives or Labour has won a national election in one hundred years.

No spin.

Why not leave it at that?

[jean]

Because it's pure spin on your part, that's why.