The actual aggregate results of the local elections (vote share) have not been published

 

        Before the election I predicted that UKIP would not win any Councils, and would not win more Council seats than the Conservatives, or Liberals, or Labour. The final results show the Conservatives won 1124 seats, Labour 560, Lib Dems 371, Independents 165 and UKIP 147. The Conservatives won 18 Councils, Labour won 3 Councils and 13 are now in no overall control. Despite doing much better  in the popular vote where they did stand, UKIP got very little representation.

      The curious thing is the BBC published adjusted figures for vote share designed to adjust for  the fact that some parties did not fight all the seats, and adjusted to allow for different voting patterns in parts of the country not facing elections. All this requires difficult judgements based on past voting, at a time when there are big changes in voting behaviour where there are elections. Did they adjust enough and in the right directions?

        I would like to see the unadjusted date, so we can know what share of the actual votes cast each party recorded on Thursday.  This information is normally easily available, but for some reason is not this time. It would be useful to compare this with the adjusted figures.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

110 Comments

  1. lifelogic
    Posted May 4, 2013 at 9:12 am | Permalink

    Well perhaps, but the adjusted figure are perhaps more relevant as they will have far more candidates at the next election and this adjusted % reflects the electorates support, rather better than overall vote will anyway.

    It is true it perhaps over represents it a little as UKIP are more likely to put candidate in strong UKIP areas but they are not a regional party like the barmy Libdems, their support is well spread over the country but if anything stronger in Tory areas. Especially in the 50% of constituencies with pro EU MPs like Cameron and Ken Clarke.

    • Jerry
      Posted May 4, 2013 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

      @Lifelogic: What ever, as I pointed out elsewhere, even the adjusted figures (as published by both Sky and the BBC) don’t look good for UKIP and not that good for the Tories, the projected figures from Sky News gave Labour a 12 seat majority – but no UKIP MPs elected, whilst those from the BBC more or less called a hung parliament – but no UKIP MP s elected.

      What has got to happen, a return of the hard-left with a working majority, before UKIP supporters accept the fact that all the are achieving is a split in the right-of-centre vote – heck, judging by some of the local election results, UKIP even seem to be splitting the centre (LD) vote now, so even more scope for Labour to ‘mop-up’ if the this voting pattern continues into a GE.

      • Roy Grainger
        Posted May 5, 2013 at 10:22 am | Permalink

        “What has got to happen, a return of the hard-left with a working majority, before UKIP supporters accept the fact that all the are achieving is a split in the right-of-centre vote ”

        In case you didn’t notice UKIP came second in South Shields. What has got to happen before Conservative supporters accept the fact that all they are achieving by running candidates in Labour seats is a split in the right-of-centre vote ? UKIP can gain support from Labour voters switching, the Conservatives can’t.

        • Leslie Singleton
          Posted May 5, 2013 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

          Roy–Well said–Unarguably true

        • Jerry
          Posted May 5, 2013 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

          @Roy Grainger: South Shields being a very safe Labour Seat and all that, thus plenty of room for those mid-termprotest votes – other than that Roy, what was the point you were attempting to make, surely not more hyperbolic pipe-dreams about UKIP winning 50 to 100 seats in 2015 and thus holding the balance of power?!

          The SDP, as has been pointed out before, won seats in their first three years, they went o0fn to change left-wing politics in the UK. By comparison UKIP might well change politics on the right in the UK but they are will to do so by either compromising and thus helping the only party on the right that has actually won Westminster seats in the past 20 years or by destroying the right as an electable group.

          No one is arguing that UKIP has won the argument, what people are now discussing is how to make progress, deep down and in the cold light of the morning, after the night before with little sleep, Mr Farage seemed to accept this when (in an unguarded moment perhaps) he acknowledged that sometimes the cause is bigger than the party whilst admiring the (effectively defunct) SDP…

    • zorro
      Posted May 4, 2013 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

      There must be a massive conspiracy by the illuminati hiding behind the BBC to promote UKIP at the expense of chief Eurosceptic and ‘Battler for Britain’, Cast Iron David Cameron, glorious leader of the Tory Party and almost ‘hammer’ of Gordon Brown at the 2010 elections………Why cannot Britons trust the word of David Cameron? When has he ever let us down? Why do you listen to people like that horrible zorro who are forever pointing out that he twists and turns like a rattlesnake….?

      zorro

      • zorro
        Posted May 4, 2013 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

        Horrible tricksy UKIP winning votes to councils and not in any way shape or form causing our glorious leader and first lord of the treasury David Cameron……How mischievous and devious, did they not put faith in our glorious leader’s pronouncement that he would allow us a vote on Europe when we re-elected him with ease in 2015. Why do the great British Public not immediately reaffirm their faith in David Cameron?

        zorro

  2. Leslie Singleton
    Posted May 4, 2013 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    You know what they say about Statistics and I am having trouble believing that actual votes cast are not (you use the word easily?) available. I am not saying you are wrong but what do those “Full Results” show if not that? Before I try to find such a table and play with the numbers myself (frightening), is it or is it not true that UKIP got 25% of the votes cast? Also, and very significant, that UKIP’s votes were cast reasonably uniformly over all areas that voted and came essentially from every other party? Representation as you now put it would of course be nice but once again you (inadvertently) put doubt in my mind about the merits of our system of using MP’s rather than referenda. It is not clear to me that votes being concentrated (as with the Liberals in the South West) is so marvellous, albeit of course that such concentration enables them to win some, but not many, seats.

    Reply If UKIP got 25% of the votes cast where they stood, I guess they got 19% of the total votes cast. The main figures being run are the countrywide adjusted figures, showing Labour as the winners on 29%, when Labour of course did not poll as many votes as the Conservatives.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted May 4, 2013 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

      Comment on Reply–I am beginning to see what you are getting at (I’m sure you will be relieved to know). We now seem to have “Actual UKIP votes cast, as a percentage of actual total votes cast, where UKIP stood”, 2) “Estimated UKIP votes, as a percentage of estimated total votes, that would have been cast if UKIP had stood everywhere voting”, and, thirdly, “Ditto 2) but with the whole country voting”. Anyway I now realise what I saw last night and can hardly believe it. At the time I sort of assumed it was part of a wider presentation that I had come to late. Now I understand it better I think that the bandying around of the single word “adjusted” without anything worth a damn as to explanation was unforgivable especially as the BBC’s huge fancy histogram showed Labour “winning” which was ridiculous at least ridiculous without a very thorough explanation. Personally I am not all that sure (especially given that we now have proof that UKIP’s support is even and ubiquitous) that 2) and 3) above have much meaning at all so I agree with you that at the very least we should have been given an analysis of straightforward actual votes as well. Estimates are fine but still only estimates. I would lay money that 90% of the country had no real idea what was being presented by the BBC and even less idea of the bases of the estimations involved even if they did vaguely follow the desire to assess how the whole country might have voted. Changing gear, if I understand correctly, the basis of your drop from 25% to 19% (from 1) to 2) above) is premised on the idea that UKIP chose not to stand in places where they knew their support to be low but I had thought that UKIP were reasonably equally popular everywhere (as I believe just proved in fact) so I do not quite follow. I had simply thought that, as in the past, the main reason UKIP didn’t stand everywhere was lack of money and candidates. If that is anything like true what is the basis of the relatively large 6% drop?? I note you describe it as a guess but even so I puzzle myself with why, if it’s just a guess, it’s not (a ’round’) 20% instead of 19%??? You probably have a basis for such precision (What are the confidence limits?) but so far it eludes me.

      Reply We were told UKIP scored 25% of the votes cast where they stood, and they only stood in three quarters of the seats (roughly), so that means they must have actually received around 19% of the total votes cast. The one thing we were never told was how many actual votes each party received.

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted May 5, 2013 at 7:54 am | Permalink

        Comment on Reply–Ah, now I at last understand what you were saying (which I now realise was very much not in line with my attempt above simply to understand) but it never occurred to me that you would come up with a figure so bereft of meaning as your 19%. You are not comparing apples and oranges in that you are comparing UKIP votes cast in 90% (or whatever) of areas that voted with total votes cast in all areas that voted. That amounts, does it not, to assuming zero support for UKIP in areas where they did not stand? It would be like estimating how many people eat fish and chips in a town with 1,000 people by asking a sample of 10, getting a result of say 5, and instead of estimating from that that about half do so, coming up with a (completely spurious) answer of half of one percent. Unless I am missing something, in which case I apologise in advance, you lay yourself open to the charge that you are willing to fiddle the presentation to make UKIP support look lower because I suggest that nobody would expect a number to be produced on so misleading a basis. Maybe I still do not understand. I have even less faith now in the BBC figures, bringing in as they must have done estimates where there was no voting at all.

        Reply It is usualy first to show people the actual votes cast, and then to apply adjustments. It is better if these adjustments are transparent and subject to discussion. Why would you adjust SNP votes for the fact that they do not stand in England. It’s not quite as simple as some suggest.

        • Leslie Singleton
          Posted May 5, 2013 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

          Comment on Reply–I agree with a lot of what you have said, my only beef being, as described, your meaningless and misleading 19% figure, which I at first took to be some kind of sophisticated estimate of the percentage UKIP would have achieved had they stood everywhere that voted. Most people have more than the average number of legs.

  3. Harryeff
    Posted May 4, 2013 at 10:50 am | Permalink

    The BBC presents the results as a victory for UKIP – “UKIP got 25% of the votes”, “UKIP came third” – and the number of times UKIP is mentioned far exceeds the actual votes cast for them.
    Very little is made of UKIP getting 6% of the seats, less than that of independent candidates.
    To a casual watcher of the BBC’s coverage it might seem that UKIP is in a position to gain overall control of the country at the next general election.
    With the continued support of the BBC this may well be the case. but who gave the BBC the mandate to canvass on behalf of this minority party?

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted May 4, 2013 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

      I don’t believe that UKIP has been mentioned more than a million times.

    • Sean O'Hare
      Posted May 4, 2013 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

      the BBC biased in favour of UKIP? Now I’ve heard everything!

    • lifelogic
      Posted May 4, 2013 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

      Well the BBC has spent years trying to shut UKIP out of coverage and taint them as racist at every opportunity. Even today they were trying to brand them as the sort of people who feared the MMR jab. God knows where that came from?

      The BBC is almost to a man or woman. Pro EU, pro big state, pro big taxes, pro more regulation of everything, fake green/AGW scare religion, enfored equality by government decree, anti science, anti business, anti landlord, Guardian/Independent reading slightly dim art graduates.

      They tend to “think” like the nightmare vision of a cross between the dreadful Lord Oakeshott, Shirley Williams, Polly Toynbee, Neil Kinock, Lord Patten, Ken Clarke and Harriet Harman. Every question they ask come from this direction almost without fail.

      • Duncan
        Posted May 8, 2013 at 5:50 am | Permalink

        How that dreadful Ken Clarke is still in the Conservative party astounds me. Perhaps it is “call-me-Dave” that facilitates it?

    • Richard1
      Posted May 4, 2013 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

      We should open our eyes. Everything UKIP stands for is anathema to the BBC view of the world. But the BBC sees a chance for 1983 in reverse with UKIP doing to the Tories what the SDP did to Labour. A Milliband govt would stop any renegotiation on Europe, probably introduce PR to stop a future Conservative majority, further entrench big state social democracy and deny a referendum. No wonder BBC types are prepared to hold their noses and hope for UKIP success.

      • Jerry
        Posted May 4, 2013 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

        @Richard1: “[yet another rant about the BBC]

        What would you prefer the BBC to do, not report, not mention UKIP at all, and no doubt5 if they did you would be complaining that the BBC is attempting to make people think that UKIP don’t exist! Also, in the last 48 hours, both ITN/Ch4 and Sky News (plus no doubt many other news agencies etc.) have reported much the same as the BBC yet “rent-a-rants” like you (and Mr Logic) NEVER ever complain about them.

        With people like you around the BBC are dammed if they do and dammed if they don’t, go find another whipping boy -better still- grow up…

        • Bazman
          Posted May 5, 2013 at 11:42 am | Permalink

          They never mention the others such as SKY and C4 as they use the licence fee as a red herring and have nothing to say on how adversing revenue effects bias. Basically they are just thick bigots who would like to close down all viewpoints they deem as not ‘sensible’. Arguing with them about anything is just seen as intellectual nonsense. However as soon as anyone else takes an intellectual nonsense view they are straight on them.

          • Edward2
            Posted May 5, 2013 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

            Baz,
            Your claim that the other TV channels news outputs are not left leaning eg Channel 4 and 5 or have London metrocentric views eg Sky, are wrong.
            Their main advertising revenues come from the gaps in their non news programmes.
            But the point you fail top get (and its not because you are thick as you claim those who hold an alternative view to you are) is that the BBC is funded by a licence fee which we are forced to pay if you want to watch the main TV channels and that licence fee has a charter which obliges it to be balanced in its output and the BBC in my opinion is not balanced.
            It has a corporate view on many topics and this in my opinion is contrary to their Charter.

          • Richard1
            Posted May 5, 2013 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

            Nonsense. I’m surprised your unintelligent insults pass editing. I welcome the presence of you and other leftists on this blog, your ‘arguments’ such as they are normally serve to illustrate how weak and devoid of evidence the left-wing / socialist perspective is.

          • Jerry
            Posted May 5, 2013 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

            @Edward2: “Their main advertising revenues come from the gaps in their non news programmes.”

            What about the adverts show within the news, it might shock you but most people do NOT make the tea during adverts [1], thus adverts are just as much a part of the news on these commercail news stations/channels as any other programme.

            No one is being forced to use a TV, many people manage without a TV, and the Radio licence [2] was abolished many years ago, back in the 1970s I think. Also, no one escapes from funding TV via commercial advertising, unlike deciding not to use TV reception equipment and thus stop paying the TVL fee, it is very difficult to live without contributing to television advertising, buy any branded goods or buy from any of the large chain stores and you will be funding TV channels – even if you are blind and thus do not have a TV, never had a TV, never mind use it.

            [1] if they did, do you really think any commercial company would waste vast sums of money on such advertising?

            [2] unless the radio is used in a public/workplace, although the fee doesn’t go to the broadcasters

          • Bazman
            Posted May 6, 2013 at 7:15 am | Permalink

            Well Richard your lack of replies to a number of my posts is telling and I would say that my insults are true. I am not particularly left wing, but I am not a right wing fantasist who believes in welfare for the rich and their corporations at the expense of the population. Collective banking being in effect socialism for the rich. Zero interest rates for them and underpinning by the state and high interest rates, fees and the tax burden for the rest. This idea that you can have the majority of the population in poverty as it is for their own good. As Jerry says you cannot escape commercial TV by not buying products that contribute to the funding. The next thing you will be telling us is that people are volunteering to pay for Their SKY subscription!

          • Edward2
            Posted May 6, 2013 at 11:09 am | Permalink

            Yes Jerry thanks for stating the obvious, I’m well aware that not having a TV at all is an option for me, if I dislike the biased and blinkered coverage of many political arguments broadcast by a number of TV channels news output.
            But its not a very satisfactory decision for me to make when I enjoy a lot of light entertainment and sports coverage which make up the majority of my viewing.
            ( and the advertising revenues for these companies due to their relatively huge audiences.
            Its not just the BBC that is left leaning in its news output. Have a listen to Channel 4 and Channel 5’s news and current affairs programmes.
            Where is the TV channel on Freeview that has a right leaning news output that reflects the views of what seems now to be close to a a majority of the voters opinions.?

          • Jerry
            Posted May 6, 2013 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

            @Edward2: You still have not quite grasped the fact that you pay for both Commercial and subscription TV just like the you do with the BBC. If the TVL is wrong in principle then so is forcing people to pay for product advertising on TV via profits made on the “High Street”. At least with the TVL one does have an option, even if some people think it impracticable to live without a broadcast TV service, the same is not the case with subscription or commercail TV as I pointed out, unless one becomes either Tom or Barbara Good from “The Good Life”…!

            Its not just the BBC that is left leaning in its news output. Have a listen to Channel 4 and Channel 5′s news and current affairs programmes.

            Yes thanks, and if you think their output is left-wing it says far more about how far right you are in your politics, I suspect that you think Fox News is middle of the road… To me, Ch5 news is simply Tabloid, it is that which makes it appear to be ‘lefty’, Ch4 is very much middle of the road, although they are not scared to rock the boat, it is that which sometimes makes them appear ‘lefty’ but there again during the last Labour government (especially during Blair tenure) Ch4 news sometimes appeared to be swinging towards the right.

            Where is the TV channel on Freeview that has a right leaning news output

            There isn’t one, well not these days, but you’ll have to ask BSkyB why they dropped Sky News from the DVB-T platform, just as there isn’t a (UK based [1]) news channel pushing left-wing news either, nor should there be one – try taking off those tinted sun glasses and try actually viewing things in an unbiased way for a change, oh and the same goes for the left-wing too who think that broadcasters should peddle their political wears…

            [1] you will need to ask Ofcom why the7y allowed “RT” to broadcast in the UK on DVB-T

          • Edward2
            Posted May 7, 2013 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

            Jerry
            I do not agree with you that I pay for commercial TV, but I know that I do have to pay £145 per year to watch other Freeview channels even if I don’t want the BBC offerings.
            And it is stating the bloomin’ obvious to point out I would have to pay for subscription TV if I chose to take it.
            Your argument on advertising I a weird one. It costs me nothing to look at adverts (or to switch them off or ignore them if I choose) and I can decide to buy whatever products I want to either boycotting those I see on TV or the opposite as I wish.
            Re Bias
            You are entitled to your thoughts on my political position I can’t be bothered to argue, I presume you say right wing as an insult as many do these days.
            You I presume you are happy with your left of centre views which are ever so fashionable around the dinner party circuit, but I do try to keep an open mind and listen to both sides of an argument which is my main complaint about biased news channels in that you only get one side of a story.
            I’ve never watched Fox News much as its only on Sky which I don’t have and when I have watched it I’ve found it far too USA in style and so right wing without any contrary argument it rapidly becomes boring.
            If you think Channel 4 is not left leaning in its news coverage then you haven’t listened to John Snow lately!
            And thanks for agreeing with me that there isn’t a single TV channel on Freeview which could be described as right leaning

          • Jerry
            Posted May 7, 2013 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

            @Edward2: “I do not agree with you that I pay for commercial TV, but I know that I do have to pay £145 per year to watch other Freeview channels even if I don’t want the BBC offerings.

            Then, sorry, you are either without a clue as to how the commercial/subscription broadcast industry works or (as I suggested) must be totally self sufficient! Nor was I actually talking about the channel/package subscription, I was talking about the fact that these channels show such adverts.

            “I presume you say right wing as an insult as many do these days.”

            Not at all, why would I use it as an insult when I would be insulting myself in effect, although I am not so far to the right that I dogmatically reject anything left of centre-right like some seem to.

            If you think Channel 4 is not left leaning in its news coverage then you haven’t listened to John Snow lately!

            Funny that, when Labour was in power he used to be quite right of centre – never heard the expression “Devils Advocate”?…

      • zorro
        Posted May 4, 2013 at 9:42 pm | Permalink

        Exactly, what do you expect of the BBC?……But the current Tories are useless, so who gives a damn?

        zorro

      • davidb
        Posted May 5, 2013 at 6:38 am | Permalink

        The Machiavellian side of Aunty may see a kneejerk shift to the right by the Conservatives as something they would want to promote.

        The results are interesting. I voted against the recent specific PR proposals because they were for a method which would solely help bolster their sponsors – the Lib Dems. I am all for electoral reform and PR, but not a system which is no more democratic than the present one. Incidentally, why is it assumed that the great British public will elect left of centre governments post PR? I hear views from many people that are far enough right that Oswald Mosley could have campaigned for them. I did note wryly however that under a PR system – say like the one for the European elections, the Lib Dems would have taken a drubbing last week.

        What was most interesting was that Labour did less well than was expected. I was reading recently that their target was in the mid 350’s. They got under 300. I would not expect them to pitch a high target number deliberately – that would be hard to spin as a great success. Miliband did badly. Labour have another Foot. Even that bastion of the left, the News Quiz rips into him this week – and its even funny!

        Might I suggest that since on election day the press covered yet another foreign undeportable rapist, raping another person – what about the victims human rights? – a good move would be for the Government ( or a private member ) to do something to make the human rights act apply only to British citizens. I would also strongly suggest that prior to the next election, assuming Abu Hamza still to be resident here, Ms May puts him on a flight to Jordan anyway and to hell with the consequences. A lot of people see us being constantly humiliated by people we consider ourselves to be better than on the other side of the Channel. The HR act is news every other day.

        British people are fairly tolerant. But there comes a point where that tolerance is stretched to breaking.

        UKIP will of course now be subject to scrutiny. Theres no telling what will come out of the woodwork. Sure, they will have some impact, but I wouldn’t panic yet. The SNP won Hamilton in 1967, but Scotland isn’t independent yet – and her party does have policies that seem to many to be sensible and coherent.

        • uanime5
          Posted May 5, 2013 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

          a good move would be for the Government ( or a private member ) to do something to make the human rights act apply only to British citizens.

          People do not lose their human rights simply because they’re not British.

          I would also strongly suggest that prior to the next election, assuming Abu Hamza still to be resident here, Ms May puts him on a flight to Jordan anyway and to hell with the consequences.

          The consequences of ignoring the rule of law for political reasons will be pretty severe.

      • Richard1
        Posted May 5, 2013 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

        I do not think this constitutes a ‘rant’. I certainly don’t argue that UKIP success should not be reported. I argue that many opponents of small-state, low-tax, Conservative policies hope for a Labour govt or a Labour-LibDem coalition. Accordingly splits on the Conservative side are played up and encouraged, whereas, as John Redwood observes, splits on the left are not. That’s the point about 1983. I think the criticism of the BBC as broadly sympathetic to left-leaning views is perfectly justified by the evidence from its reporting on a number of issues over the years.

    • Nina Andreeva
      Posted May 4, 2013 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

      It does not matter that they will probably have no MPs in 2015. What matters today is that they are sufficiently attractive to enough voters to eject Cameron from No 10 and deprive Milliband of a decent majority, that is the real game changer. The Conservatives must act now to dump a loser and get some one who knows what life is about like DD. What would really make me roll about on the floor laughing is if multi millionaire Dave were to do a Clinton and tell the toiling masses that he feels their pain. Sorry but he may have the best of intentions, but just like Clegg, someone who has been cosseted from the trials of life by Daddy’s money, is just not going to develop a mass appeal to the voters, hence thats why he keeps backing losers like gay marriage

  4. Nina Andreeva
    Posted May 4, 2013 at 11:07 am | Permalink

    JR that is hardly going out on a limb to make predictions about UKIPs ability to win a council Call it a peasants revolt but its remarkable what they have achieved so far. You need to consider they do not have big money behind them (Wheeler’s money is relative peanuts to what the Conservatives get or Labour from the unions) and that their organisational infra-structure seems to be non existent past their HQ, which I believe is based on a business park in Devon. Nor do they have the the benefit of a biased BBC as Lab/Lib do and they had to contend with the Tory press who were more than willing to print the examinations of some of their candidates social media output.

    I wish them the best of luck as you know as with all movements of this type it will end in tears. But in the meantime I will vote for them as long as the alternative is three millionaires sons (check out the value of Ralphie’s house in Primrose Hill because that includes Milliband too) with PPE degrees telling me there is essentially no alternative to the EU, the human rights laws, immigration, money printing etc

    Reply I aim to make accurate predictions, and did again this time do just that.

  5. Tad Davison
    Posted May 4, 2013 at 11:20 am | Permalink

    A man from Ipsos-Mory said on the news this morning, that to compare these figures to what might happen in a General Election, is a mugs game.

    Yet no matter how these figures are spun, or whatever things are extrapolated from them, the inescapable fact is that UKIP support is growing, and that is directly because of the disaffection felt by people who aren’t having their concerns addressed by the other three main parties. All three now say they are listening to the legitimate concerns of the voters, but that isn’t quite the same thing as getting off their chuff and doing something about it.

    I got sick to the back teeth of lobbying smooth and slippery Tory MPs on Europe, to have them agree with almost everything I said, and then do absolutely nothing. I was even made to feel like persona non grata at times, when all I was actually doing, was to promote a proper true-blue ideology.

    Friends within the Parliamentary party who hold similar views to my own, have described their own position as ‘bed-blocking’. In other words, the party would like the constituency they have fought hard to build up, to be turned over to pro-EU placemen who creep around the leadership for their own reasons.

    You’re one of the few Tories I have any time for these days John, because you have stood firm along with men like Richard Sheppard, and Bill Cash. And I admire men of indefatigable principle, but I wouldn’t pay some of the others in washers! They are gutless toadies, the ones Tony Benn would call ‘weathercocks’, when what we really need are ‘signposts’. What more evidence do they need to make them see sense, that the EU is a disaster zone, in keeping with a failing soviet state?

    My guess is, they don’t really care about their constituents quite so much as their position and future prospects, but if the ‘weathercocks’ want to go with whichever way the wind is blowing, they should keep watching! And if UKIP manages to take the bulk of the seats at the European elections next year, the collective desire of the British people will be laid before them. Whether the disaster that a Labour government would bring in 2015, comes to pass, depends on what the Tories do right now. It really couldn’t be any more stark and clear-cut!

    Tad Davison

    Cambridge

    • Tad Davison
      Posted May 4, 2013 at 11:44 am | Permalink

      I see the BBC are at it again!

      Try to get to watch today’s edition of Dateline with Gavin Esler. Don’t they just love to give a lefty (in this case, Michael White of the Guardian) a platform, without giving anyone else the chance to put a view to the contrary.

      There was a brief mention of Labour’s failings, but that wasn’t given anywhere near enough weight, and I cannot recall hearing the Lib Dems mentioned once, despite getting all-but wiped out in places! Most of the focus was on the Tories.

      And we’re paying for this, like it or not!

      Tad

      • lifelogic
        Posted May 4, 2013 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

        Indeed Polly Toynbee “think” every time. The the Friday comedy slot for political bias (not for anything amusing though).

      • Nina Andreeva
        Posted May 4, 2013 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

        Hey whats wrong with Michael White? Anybody who can (annoy-ed) Alistair Campbell enough to such an extent (words left out ed) is ok in my books!

    • Gwen Tanner
      Posted May 4, 2013 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

      Very well said! Let’s hope the snoring stops soon!

    • uanime5
      Posted May 5, 2013 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

      Yet no matter how these figures are spun, or whatever things are extrapolated from them, the inescapable fact is that UKIP support is growing, and that is directly because of the disaffection felt by people who aren’t having their concerns addressed by the other three main parties.

      Given that of the three main parties the Conservatives and the Lib Dems are losing votes while Labour is gaining votes it’s more likely that people aren’t voting for the Conservatives and the Lib Dems because of the way they’re running the country, not because of general disaffections with the three main parties.

      I suspect that had the Conservatives won the majority of the votes in 2010 that Labour and the Lib Dem counillors would have gained votes; while the Conservative councillors would have lost votes and UKIP would have kept getting the same number of votes.

  6. Kenneth
    Posted May 4, 2013 at 11:24 am | Permalink

    The most frustrating thing about all this: UKIP know that, at some stage, they must reach a deal with the Conservatives. The Conservatives know that, at some stage, they must reach a deal with UKIP.

    Enabling legislation in this Parliament is only I part of the equation. Even if the BBC turned the attack dogs on UKIP tomorrow it is too late to expect UKIP to fade away.

    John, there is no point in you talking of wasted voted for UKIP. Many people feel they wasted their votes on the Conservatives at the last election. There is no point in UKIP voters (like me) saying that Mr Farage will never deal with Mr Cameron. Of course he will.

    We have a choice:

    1. Allow the eu-sceptic split to continue allowing for a Lib/Lab government next time (or a Labour government) and a French-like decline

    2. Come to an agreement with UKIP. Since UKIP will be the junior partner, this will allow for a majority Conservatives government. Add to this some very strong support from other unionists and we will have a Parliament that will do wonders for the country.

    If the Conservatives downplay or denigrate UKIP (as you are still doing), this will lead to stalemate and the split will continue. I think you should change tack and be far more positive, welcoming an agreement between UKIP and the Conservatives.

    And what of those like Mr Clarke and other ‘wets’ in the Conservatives? I’m afraid they may need to look elsewhere, such as quango jobs e.g. chairman of the BBC, eu commissioner etc.

    • Tad Davison
      Posted May 4, 2013 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

      That might be so Kenneth, but who is going to trust Cameron to deliver on Europe?

      Tad

      • lifelogic
        Posted May 4, 2013 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

        no one with a brain.

        • zorro
          Posted May 4, 2013 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

          John, do you think Cameron will deliver on Europe?

          zorro

          • zorro
            Posted May 5, 2013 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

            I’ll take that as a ‘no’…..;-)

            zorro

    • Brian Tomkinson
      Posted May 4, 2013 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

      Kenneth,
      The problem is that the Conservative party is not, and never has been, anything but a pro-EU party. That being the case they will do anything to keep us in the EU and therefore I suggest that they would not want an agreement with UKIP, as Cameron demonstrated before the last election. The leadership of the Conservative party has to change and this will not happen because those who don’t like it and could do something about it won’t. They only stir themselves when someone leads them who shows too much antagonism to the EU as they did when they disgracefully removed Mrs Thatcher, the best leader they have had, but the EU must come first.

    • Chris S
      Posted May 4, 2013 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

      Kenneth, I believe you and I are way ahead of Conservative MPs who seem to operate almost exclusively within the Westminster Bubble.

      I’m quite sure that the vast majority think that they can either see off the UKIP threat or believe that those who voted UKIP will return to the fold at the General Election.

      They are in for a seismic shock. If David Cameron does not demonstrate conclusively that he is shifting policy and firms up the referendum proposition in the next 12 months he will be in serious trouble.

      The 2014 Euro elections, to be fought on a much more favourable PR system, will probably result in UKIP taking the most UK seats anyway but that will give the party a springboard to fight every seat at the General Election.

      We know that under the first past the post system the Conservative party will again find it almost impossible to get an overall majority, largely because the party is so unpopular in Scotland, Wales and much of the North of England.

      David Cameron will have to try and do a deal because while he remains leader, UKIP will not back down and nor will it’s supporters.

      Without a deal giving both the Conservatives and UKIP an unopposed run in strategically chosen seats, UKIP will cost the Conservatives any chance of victory, even though they know that they won’t gain anything like the number of seats necessary to form a UKIP-Conservative coalition with the with a majority.

      It might seem necessary to us but I am not optimistic that David Cameron will see the need for a deal to be done.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted May 4, 2013 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

      What sort of deal could there be between a party whose leaders are bound by this unequivocal commitment embedded in the party’s constitution:

      http://www.ukip.org/page/constitution-of-the-uk-independence-party-ukip

      “… it shall be the policy of the Party that the United Kingdom shall cease to be a member of the European Union …”

      and another party whose present leaders are totally, adamantly, unswervingly, even fanatically, committed to ensuring that the UK remains in the EU, at all costs, until its final extinction as an independent sovereign state?

      • sjb
        Posted May 5, 2013 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

        First of all, UKIP’s remarkable result has certainly made politics more exciting. UKIP have certainly got their tails up and with the European elections next year may be in no mood to reach a deal (yet) with the Tories in relation to the 2015 General Election.

        I searched the constitution for “bound” but it seems only UKIP employees are bound by the terms of the constitution and then only to the extent of their contract of service. Would MPs, MEPs or councillors be employees of UKIP?

        New Labour distinguished between policies that were aspirations and those that were commitments – although as I recall this tended to be after the election 😉

        Following UKIP’s ‘breakthrough’ it seems likely the Party will come under more detailed scrutiny. To that end let me point out what appears to be two drafting errors in para 2.3:

        1. The sentence before the text you quoted implies that the common law (decided cases and customs) would be ousted because “the only laws that should [shall?] apply within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom are those wholly made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.”

        2. The definition of the term ‘United Kingdom’ is given in the first sentence but then repeated in the last sentence.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted May 5, 2013 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

          I would agree with those two niggles but not allow them to distract me from the crucial statement:

          “… it shall be the policy of the Party that the United Kingdom shall cease to be a member of the European Union …”

          On who is bound by the constitution, all party members including those in senior positions are bound by the constitution:

          “4.1.1 Membership of the Party shall be open to any natural person who shares the objectives and core beliefs of the Party and who agrees to abide by this Constitution and any Rules which may from time to time be made by the Party and who have not been excluded from membership by virtue of rules made under Article 4.2.1 or Article 4.2.2.”

    • Sean O'Hare
      Posted May 4, 2013 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

      The day UKIP do a deal with Cameron will be the day I return my UKIP membership card.

      • Jerry
        Posted May 5, 2013 at 6:51 am | Permalink

        @Sean O’Hare: Then what, join the SLP or perhaps the BNP or will you simply carry on before voting for the best party you think able to get the UK out of the EU?

        It really isn’t a big deal joining or handing back a club membership, least of all a political one as most people who vote for a party have never and will never join the party in question although many may well donate to the cause.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted May 5, 2013 at 9:46 am | Permalink

        I’m sure that Nigel Farage is aware that any deal with Cameron would split UKIP, which would probably also be the case for any deal with any likely alternative Tory leader which the latter could possibly find acceptable.

        • Jerry
          Posted May 5, 2013 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

          @Denis Cooper: Indeed, and I’m sure the Labour Party are rubbing their hand in glee at the prospect…

    • lifelogic
      Posted May 4, 2013 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

      I suspect even a deal with UKIP may not be enough now no one trust Cameron or his heart and soul.

      • zorro
        Posted May 4, 2013 at 9:45 pm | Permalink

        I think that you might be right……..

        zorro

      • Jerry
        Posted May 5, 2013 at 6:58 am | Permalink

        @Lifelogic: Your point was what Mr Logic?

        As many people who mistrust Mr Cameron there is an equal (if not greater) number who mistrust Mr Farage – that said, the reasons are very different, UKIP supporters seem to mistrust Cameron because they don’t seem to be able to understand when a treaty becomes law and thus can not be ‘un-ratified’, on the other hand those who mistrust Farage do so on basic manifesto stomping/soap-box issues.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted May 5, 2013 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

          “… they don’t seem to be able to understand when a treaty becomes law and thus can not be ‘un-ratified’ …”

          Or they understand that you’re talking complete rubbish.

          Explain: what was the point of the 1975 retrospective referendum when the Treaty of Rome had been ratified and according to your mistaken view could not be “un-ratified”?

          • Jerry
            Posted May 5, 2013 at 7:36 pm | Permalink

            @Denis Cooper: Sorry but you are simply wrong on this, which I am very surprised about considering how you like reading/quoting EU documents and the like!

            In 1975, if the referendum had resulted in an “Out” vote the UK would, like now, have had to negotiate terms for withdrawal, in fact the Labour manifesto of 1983 (were withdrawal was a manifesto pledge) even accepted this fact within the said document [1]. Things have becomes a lot more complex since, even without Article 50 of the very treaty that came into force (on the 2009/12/01) once the treaty under discussion had come into effect once all member states had ratified it!

            All this talk of 1975 (and 1983) rather misses the point though, we were talking about the UK repealing a (Lisbon) treaty, that required all EU member states to ratify before it became law, both of which had been done by 2010 and thus the treaty had become law [2] -this is why there would have no treaty to vote down or even repeal, any referendum would have had to be the same as in 1975, an In/Out question. Yes the UK could simply stop paying the membership fees, refuse to pay the fines, default etc. and thus fall out of the EU but that really is not the best approach if at all possible -although perhaps better than staying in…

            [1] This from the 1983 Labour manifesto on leaving the EEC – my emphasis;

            “On taking office we will open preliminary negotiations with the other EEC member states to establish a timetable for withdrawal; and we will publish the results of these negotiations in a White Paper. In addition, as soon as possible after the House assembles, we will introduce a Repeal Bill: first, in order to amend the 1972 European Communities Act, ending the powers of the Community in the UK; and second, to provide the necessary powers to repeal the 1972 Act, when the negotiations on withdrawal are completed.

            By the way, both ’74 Labour manifestos also mention “negotiations” but it is not clear (reading it very quickly) if they meant membership re-negotiations, exit negotiations or perhaps a combination of both

            [2] just as a UK parliamentary Bill becomes an “Act of Parliament” on royal assent (that then becomes law on a given date), one can’t just then vote down the Bill should it be decided that it wasn’t a good idea, one would need to repeal the Act by introducing a Repeal Bill

            Apologies to JR for the length of this comment, and if I repeated myself.

          • Leslie Singleton
            Posted May 6, 2013 at 9:12 am | Permalink

            Denis–Well put–I cannot point to one of these newfangled links but I have read a lot of History and would hazard a guess that the ratio of Treaties abrogated to those still in force (or, to make it more of a contest, that stayed in force for at least a few years) is over 100 to one and perhaps much more.

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted May 6, 2013 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

            You said:

            “when a treaty becomes law and thus can not be ‘un-ratified’”

            but that is clearly an incorrect view when the UK’s Treaty of Accession to the EEC had previously been ratified and yet if the 1975 referendum had gone the other way then it would have been “un-ratified” in due course.

            Now you say about the Lisbon Treaty:

            “this is why there would have no treaty to vote down”

            when that amending treaty is still listed in the EU’s collection of treaties here:

            http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/index.htm

            and from that collection you can read it here:

            http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12007L/TXT:EN:HTML

            “Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon, 13 December 2007”

            and that treaty having been ratified by the UK as a separate legal document, with its own instrument of ratification separate from those for the earlier treaties, it could still be “un-ratified” simply by sending a formal letter to the government of the depository state – Italy, as it happens, see Article 6 – stating that the UK no longer consents to be bound by its terms.

            On November 4th 2009 when Cameron pleaded that it was no longer possible to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty because it no longer existed as a treaty that was untrue, and as he must have known that his statement was untrue that is what is commonly called “a lie”.

            Reply He believed it was no longer possible because the UK had given its word and had undertaken the necessary legal acts. Parliament had approved it all, with the Conservatives voting against and beign defeated. In 1975 had we won the referendum then, the government would have had to renounce the Treaty. By 2010 the UK could no longer renounce Lisbon but stay in the rest – that was Cameron’s point. Those who want to renounce all the Treaties do have to understand this distinction. Mr Cameron never volunteered to reject all the Treaties.

          • Jerry
            Posted May 7, 2013 at 9:38 am | Permalink

            @Denis Cooper: You seem to be forgetting that the Treaty of Rome, and all other treaties before the Treaty of Lisbon no longer exist since 2009, if the UK revokes Lisbon (just like had we revoked UK’s Treaty of Accession to the EEC in the 1970s) then we also revoke our membership of the EU (EEC).

            It really is that simple, thus I am totally mystified why you don’t seem to understand – unless it is just ‘political’ confusion!

    • A different Simon
      Posted May 4, 2013 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

      “Allow the eu-sceptic split to continue”

      Some how I don’t think you will be able to persuade BNP supporters to vote UKIP .

  7. they work for us
    Posted May 4, 2013 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

    UKIP may not be able to win many (any?) seats at Westminster in 2015 .

    BUT they represent the views of the “real” conservatives who would support the conservative party IF they actually had proper conservative policies of low taxation, drastic welfare reforms, work permits not right to remain, trading only status with the EU, prompt deportation according to UK not European law. etc etc.

    LibLabCon won’t do these. Unless the conservatives listen and act on what UKIP supporters are saying then the conservatives as they are now may well be consigned to history. MPs please start by doing as your constituents want by putting forward an in/out EU referendum very very soon. Negotiation will be from a stronger position if we are “out” because Brussels will be terrified that the EU structure will come crashing down once we have set a precedent. Yes there will be come businesses that want full EU membership because it suits their own (non national) interest.

    Cameron believes he can fudge and obfuscate and it will all go away until the unpleasant nuisance of the next general election is over.

    A leadership bid from a proper conservative like yourself, David Davies, etc could be an election winner in 2015. Champagne socialism should have died with Blair not continued with Cameron, Clark, Osborne and Clegg. Socialism has been proved not to work elsewhere and it should not be creeping in by the back door or through the lack of will to rock the boat..

  8. uanime5
    Posted May 4, 2013 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

    The closest thing I’ve been able to find is this map by the BBC:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21240025

    If you click on a council it shows you the composition of this council, however it does not explain how many votes were cast for each party. It seems that in most councils where no one party has over control the Conservatives are still the largest majority.

  9. ntropywins
    Posted May 4, 2013 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

    No-one expects the new kid on the block to become king of the castle on day one. Rome wasn’t built in a day and other such cliches can be evoked at this stage in the game.

    But I think we can all agree that UKIP have put down their marker and irrespective of what the adjusted or unadjusted figures say they are now very much on the political map. And there are good reasons to believe their popularity will increase.

    There are an enormous number of people who do not vote simply because no real choice exists – the falling turnout over the last 20 years or so reflects a general cynicism amongst the electorate. One bunch of bozos is much like any other bunch of bozos. But here we have something new, something different, a party that seems to offer a chance to break with all the accumulated rubbish that membership of the EU and the dominance of liberal bien pensant narcissistic institutions have heaped upon a weary and downtrodden people. There is reason to believe that the emergence of UKIP will lead to a renewed interest in the political process and this will be reflected in the EU elections next year.

    I have just sent instructions to UKIP HQ to start to push energy policy as the ace in their hand. The biggest concern for the electorate is the economy and the money in people’s pockets (or lack thereof). UKIP can promise reduced energy costs by getting rid of renewable subsidies with an immediate benefit for the pound in voters’ pockets and they can press home the fact that there will be no meaningful economic recovery without affordable energy. This will add to the political risk for those looking to invest in the energy sector. A win win win win situation for UKIP.

    A week is a long time in politics. By the time the next general election comes along the political scene will be unrecognisable from the one you see today, John. Your days of influence are running out. Make the most of them.

    • Brian Tomkinson
      Posted May 4, 2013 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

      ntropywins,
      Quite. John can manipulate the statistics as much as he likes but his energy should be going into addressing the policy failures of his party in government.

      • Jerry
        Posted May 5, 2013 at 7:21 am | Permalink

        @Brian Tomkinson: …and UKIP don’t manipulate the statistics?…

        But in a way you are quite correct, John like all other Tories (and their LD partners in government, in fact all elected Westminster politicains) should be far more concerned about the problems with the economy, socail issues, housing, transport, energy etc. etc. than allowing UKIP to dominate on a single issue. If the UK was as strong and had the influence of Germany would UKIP even get a second glance, the effects of the EU and migration would look very different.

        Whilst I want out of the EU, like the many within the silent majority -that I used to be part of, if after a democratic vote (either via a referendum or stomping GE majority) the UK decided to remain within the EU I like so many other true democrats would live with that – I’m not so sure that UKIP or their ‘hard-line’ members would leave it at that though.

    • uanime5
      Posted May 5, 2013 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

      UKIP can promise reduced energy costs by getting rid of renewable subsidies with an immediate benefit for the pound in voters’ pockets and they can press home the fact that there will be no meaningful economic recovery without affordable energy.

      1) Due to contracts the Government negotiated you can’t just end these subsidies.

      2) Approximately how much do these subsidies cost the average person?

      3) How much will the average energy price be reduced without these subsidies? Make sure to factor in that without these subsidies the extra cost will be passed onto whoever pays the energy bill.

      • Jerry
        Posted May 5, 2013 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

        @U5: “Due to contracts the Government negotiated you can’t just end these subsidies.

        Not sure you are correct, I bet a socialist government would have no problems, if the contracts can’t be changed they would just simply nationalise the industry – problem sorted! Not that I expect UKIP or any Tory party to go to that extreme but with careful prodding most industries can be lead down the required path.

  10. The PrangWizard
    Posted May 4, 2013 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    At the time, and now, I’m not sure what you meant by ‘win’, was it ‘end up with’? If that is so I don’t think anyone thought there was any likelihood of their getting 1200, say, or even 372. From what I read numbers of between 50 and 100 only were being talked about. If I am right I think you know that was rather disingenous. You also made much of UKIP previously having only about 3 Council seats. I don’t know how many candidates they put up. I must keep mentioning that UKIP is not my preferred party but I share many of their sentiments.

    I don’t inderstand the issue of the interpretation of the number of votes, but the question I have to ask is, do you consider that moving from 3 to about 14o seats is a breakthrough, or even significant? You will deny a breakthrough, but then why is The Times saying the Tories are in a state of near panic? As you know ‘muck sweat’ is the phrase I prefer. I suspect the BBC is in near panic too. And David Davies, a man whose views I like, has come out with a big swipe at Cameron.

    It may not be the number of seats you should take note of but the voices of the people. There will be many more who think like UKIP but didn’t vote for them, or at all. Maybe the reticent ones and others who have in recent years disengaged will come out next time now they have heard Farage maybe for the first time.

    I have used the phrase ‘lawful rebellion’ a number of times, maybe the groundswell of discontent is more important to take note of the the numbers. You can’t calculate that away.

    Reply My aim is to provide accurate and sensible analysis, and worthwhile forecasts where appropriate.
    I have made clear that I think 19% of the votes cast or 25% in seats fought is interesting, and I have repeated my requests of the parties with votes in the Commons to get on and hold a referendum. UKIP supporters should work out who is helping the Eurosceptic cause and who is not, and learn to be less touchy about the truth and the figures. UKIP has shown it can poll better but cannot win much so far. As I suspected, UKIP took no Councils and are still well behind Labour and the Lib dems in seats in the Counties, limiting their ability to deliver their local manifesto in most places.

    • zorro
      Posted May 4, 2013 at 9:48 pm | Permalink

      What percentage of available votes went to the Tory Party at the last GE?

      zorro

      • uanime5
        Posted May 5, 2013 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

        36.1% went to the Conservatives, 3.1% went to UKIP.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uk_general_election_2010

        • zorro
          Posted May 5, 2013 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

          Indeed, 36.5% of votes cast….hardly a ringing endorsement for an aspirant governing party….and against Gordon Brown…… I suspect that UKIP will probably do a lot better in the 2014 European and 2015 GE unless Cast Elastic come sup with the goods……

          zorro

    • Jerry
      Posted May 5, 2013 at 7:32 am | Permalink

      @TPW: “I have used the phrase ‘lawful rebellion’ a number of times, maybe the groundswell of discontent is more important to take note of the the numbers.

      Sorry but, unless you mean simply using ones vote as usual (but then why bother making such a point), you have just reinforced my comment about some within UKIP not settling for a democratic outcome that I made in my reply to Brian Tomkinson above, such talk actually does UKIP more harm than good – it is all to easy to start sounding like the more radical elements of British politics and then get mistaken for them, if you get my PNB point…

  11. alan jutson
    Posted May 4, 2013 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    John

    The exact figures do not really matter.

    The simple fact is UKIP, like it or not, has now got the momentum going, I suggest this will be continued at the European elections next year, then, if they make a good showing, there may well be a breakthough as it reaches a critical mass of votes.

    Since it is the only Party which is growing fast, the other Party’s should be getting rather more worried than they appear at the moment.
    The present government say they get it, but their policies suggest otherwise.

    If the UKIP momentum continues on its current upward trend, then the breakthrough may come at the next general election, as the first past the post system which has been working against them (and any other minority Party) so far, may then all of a sudden work in their favour.

    Your Party leader, and many MP’s in a marginal constituancy of any Party colour, should be really getting worried !

    The fact is the electorate are getting seriously p…..d off with all three of the main traditional Party’s, who are seen to be simply tinkering about the edges to no real effect, when very major reform on almost everything is needed to get us back on track.

  12. MickC
    Posted May 4, 2013 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    As a member of the Conservative party, I will vote UKIP until the Conservative party becomes conservative again.

    Yes, Labour will win the next general election-but that will still be better than more years of CastIron Dave who treats his party followers with total contempt. And I see that Theresa “nasty party” May is still as clueless as ever-another one who should be got rid of.

    • Brian Tomkinson
      Posted May 4, 2013 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

      MickC,
      Agreed. When I hear them I now have the same feelings of revulsion for most of the Conservative front bench that I used to have for Blair, Brown, Blunkett, Straw, Balls, Milibands et al! In fact on both backbenches there is talent languishing which would make a far better government and opposition than the current ones – I suppose that is why they are on the backbenches.

    • Jerry
      Posted May 5, 2013 at 7:52 am | Permalink

      @MickC: Sorry but your comment really doesn’t make any sense what so ever, what, better to allow in a europhile party [1] that -had it not been for Gordon Brown- would have happily taken us into the Euro, a party that did more to ‘enhance’ the EU and their ever larger spiders-web etc, better that than a still broadly eurosceptic Tory party – this doesn’t even come close to cutting ones own nose off, you seem to be advocating cutting your own face if not head off to spite someone (namely Mr Cameron), totally irrational! 🙁

      [1] and don’t Labour are still just as europhile under the two Ed’s, but if they do become more eurosceptic/phobic I would also expect a move to the left, and perhaps quite a large step, not to the hard left but large enough to make it noticeable and thus start undoing the last 33 or so years…

  13. Christopher White
    Posted May 4, 2013 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

    BBC has published adjusted vote share – this certainly adjusts for unrepresentative nature of shire counties – UKIP 23 CON 25 LAB 29 LIB 14. I think that they would have to adjust for different no.s candidates. If not UKIP & LIB vote shares higher.

    • Chris S
      Posted May 4, 2013 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

      If these figures are right and repeatable at a general election and there is a strategic deal on seats to be fought between UKIP and the Conservatives, a coalition of the right would have a very good chance of winning a decent majority with 48% of the popular vote and our referendum would be guaranteed.

      In any other country in Europe that is what would happen. Here, only arrogance, complacency and stupidity stand in the way.

      We could then see a return to broadly left / right politics with UKIP and the Conservatives on one side and Labour and the LibDems on the other.
      If he has any sense, Clegg should go off and take a European job leaving Miliband and Cable to get into bed together.

      Bring it on !

      • uanime5
        Posted May 5, 2013 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

        One thing you’re not factoring in is that not all councillors were standing for re-election and before this election nearly all of these councils had Conservative majorities or the Conservatives were the largest minority. So you can’t use figures mostly from the parts of England with strong Conservative support to calculate how the whole of the UK will vote in a general election.

  14. John Wrake
    Posted May 4, 2013 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    Mr. Redwood,
    Your figures may well be correct, but comparative figures are now not really significant. What is significant is that the electorate has begun to recognise that there is a viable alternative to the policies which the present political class wish to maintain. Differences of opinion between Conservative, Labour and LibDem resemble the fisticuffs between schoolboys – noisy and entertaining perhaps – but irrelevant to grownups.
    There are growing numbers of people who want none of those parties with their disdain for the ordinary citizens who have loaned them the power which they continue to misuse.
    All three parties have conspired to give away what does not belong to them – the sovereignty of this nation – and refuse to take action to regain it. Thinking people will trust them no longer.

    John Wrake

    Reply Winning 19% of the vote in County elections does not give you a UKIP Parliament

  15. Denis Cooper
    Posted May 4, 2013 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

    There are a number of reasons for caution in interpreting the local election results, but here is one that is rarely mentioned: the widespread use of multi-seat wards.

    So the last time we had local elections here I had three votes which I could cast for my chosen three candidates for three council seats; but while the Tories and the Liberal Democrats put up three candidates in our ward there was only one UKIP candidate, and incidentally as I recall Labour also did not manage a full slate of candidates.

    If a total of N valid votes are cast, up to three for each elector, and the solitary UKIP candidate receives n of those votes, then obviously the fraction of the votes won by UKIP in that ward can be correctly stated as n/N.

    But if it is asked “What would have happened if UKIP had been strong enough locally to find three eligible people prepared to stand as candidates in that ward, rather than just one?” then one answer could be that the additional two candidates would also have got about n votes each, and then the fraction of votes won by UKIP in that ward would have been 3n/N, three times higher.

    Of course there is no certainty that this would have been the case if UKIP had in reality put up a full slate of candidates, but it means that n/N may considerably understate the level of support for UKIP in that ward.

    Reply The BBC figures do adjust for the seats which UKIP did not contest in the way you want. They also extrapolate the results into the big areas of the country that had no elections. That’s why they make Labour the winner, though Labour got under half the number of seats the Conservatives won on the night.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted May 5, 2013 at 8:10 am | Permalink

      If the BBC have done that then it will give a more realistic assessment of the level of support for UKIP than the straightforward numbers of votes cast. Of course they should also do the same for other parties in places they haven’t fielded a full slate of candidates.

  16. Electro-Kevin
    Posted May 4, 2013 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    I don’t think that many UKIP switch-voters see UKIP as a viable party. That is not the point of them.

    UKIP is somewhere for ex Tory voters to put their cross and say to you “We have abandoned you. This is where we have gone and this is why.”

    It may let Ed Miliband into power but I point blankly refuse to continue to give your party a mandate to continue to do things I don’t like.

    “Vote for us or else Labour will get in.” does not wash anymore.

    • Electro-Kevin
      Posted May 4, 2013 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

      The only ‘adjusted data’ you need to see should be in available in party records. That is the amount of votes the Conservatives have lost.

      • zorro
        Posted May 4, 2013 at 9:50 pm | Permalink

        Well said

        zorro

    • Jerry
      Posted May 4, 2013 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

      Electro-Kevin: That seems to be an admission that UKIP quite like the idea of giving the Tories a Bloody nose even if it does leave the UK saddled with the EU, much more talk like that and I might even start believing my own far-fetched conspiracy that UKIP is actually a bunch of Pro-EU Federalist!

      Sorry but “Vote UKIP to get the UK out of the EU” doesn’t seem to wash any more either, this seems to be more about siblings having a childish squabble than serious politics…

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted May 5, 2013 at 8:30 am | Permalink

        A profound disagreement over whether or not the UK should remain in the EU is not a “childish squabble”; it is a fundamental constitutional issue, even more fundamental than the disagreement that caused the Civil War, which was “only” about who should exercise sovereignty in the country and not about whether the country should cease to exist as a sovereign state and be legally subordinated in a pan-European federation; and the present Tory leadership are still on the wrong side in that dispute, still aligned with the EU against the people.

        • Jerry
          Posted May 5, 2013 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

          @Denis Cooper: My comment about “childish squabble” was not about the EU argument but the Birth of UKIP in effect and why UKIP was born, this all started with the ousting Mrs Thatcher.

          I am fully aware just how serious all this is, I sometimes wonder if members of the more radical elements of both UKIP and the Tories do though. Here we have two political parties tha6t basically believe in the same thing yet both seem prepared to destroy the right-wing of UK politics to protect their pride!

          If the right doesn’t get their act together then the left will, if that happens then all us europhobes will just have to prey that the hard left (such as the SLP) come to the fore, four or five years of socialism might be a price worth paying just to extract ourselves from the EU, if push comes to shove…

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted May 6, 2013 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

            No, it started with Major and the Maastricht Treaty.

          • Jerry
            Posted May 7, 2013 at 9:52 am | Permalink

            Denis, just as night follows day no doubt…

            Ask yourself why, check the history of why, Mrs Thatcher was challenged for the leadership and lost. The disputes between the Conservatives and the UKIP are a carry over from the battle between the “Wet” and the (Dry) “Thatcherite” wings of the party in 1991 that lead to Major becoming leader. The issues contained within Maastricht and the ERM etc. existed long before Major’s leadership.

  17. Elliot Kane
    Posted May 4, 2013 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

    I’d love to see those figures myself. I think they’d make fascinating reading.

  18. Denis Cooper
    Posted May 4, 2013 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

    I see that Charles Moore in the Telegraph is urging Cameron to hold an EU referendum before the general election, saying:

    “… a referendum, though certainly fraught with difficulty for the Tories, is equally so for Labour and the Liberal Democrats. If he now proposes one in this Parliament, rather than merely offering one if he wins the election, where will they be if they oppose it?”

    But, as I pointed out the other day, even if Cameron decided to go for that and decided that he would push ahead with a Bill over the objections of his coalition partners it is now getting very late to start a Bill for a referendum before the next general election.

    Suppose that Cameron over-ruled Clegg and insisted that the Bill must be included in the plans outlined in the Queen’s Speech next week; suppose that it was drafted as quickly as possible and introduced into the Commons; suppose that it was then given high priority in the timetable so that it could rapidly progress through all its stages; suppose that the Labour and LibDem MPs and also some Tory MPs spoke against it but fearing a hostile reaction from their constituents and the general public they did not dare to actually block it; what then?

    Well, then the Bill would go to the Lords, where having been installed for the rest of their natural lives pro-EU peers need not fear either the electorate or their party whips, with a high probability that they would succeed in blocking the Bill; what then?

    Well, then the Commons could use the Parliament Acts to have the Bill passed and given Royal Assent without the consent of the Lords, but only after a delay of about thirteen months; so even if Cameron persisted the opposition from the Lords would mean that the Bill could not become an Act until some time in the summer of 2014; and how would the EU referendum then fit in with the Scottish independence referendum already set for September 18th 2014?

    I’m not saying that Cameron should not make the attempt, because he should, but he would need to think carefully about what he would do if the irremovable EU pensioners and fellow travellers in the Lords were successful in delaying the Bill.

  19. waramess
    Posted May 4, 2013 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

    If UKIP are not an important development, then don’t worry. Just move on.

    The Conservatives have far more important things to attend to. Like the deficit for example.

    • MickC
      Posted May 4, 2013 at 7:27 pm | Permalink

      But they can only get the deficit down by fiddling the figures!

      Post Office Pension Fund are the words which spring to mind-take the assets but ignore the liabilities. It doesn’t take a genius to reduce the deficit by doing that-only dishonesty.

      • Jerry
        Posted May 5, 2013 at 8:03 am | Permalink

        @MickC: …and you think UKIP, in government, would be any different?

    • zorro
      Posted May 4, 2013 at 9:51 pm | Permalink

      Probably best that they stick with gay marriage…..?

      zorro

  20. gpmgroup
    Posted May 4, 2013 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

    Lincolnshire County Council has a really nice set of web pages showing a graphical overview with drill downs to individual votes cast for every candidate.

    http://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/local-democracy/about-your-county-councillor/elections/election-results/

  21. Bert Young
    Posted May 4, 2013 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    I was asked shortly after lunch what my formula was for turning a company round ; I replied ” start at the top ” . My questioner was the Chairman of our local Conservative Party who had commented on the Simon Heffer article in the Daily Mail . If you simply tinker around at the sides and deal with issues that seem to be a problem , whatever changes are adopted have to be endorsed and supported from the top . If the top is not in tune with its market a company will never be able to adopt the right policies and actions to suit its customers and shareholders . The message equally applies to the Conservative Party today and I fully endorse Simon Heffers view .

    • Jerry
      Posted May 5, 2013 at 8:12 am | Permalink

      @Bert Young: The same message also applies to UKIP, if the top brass are more intent on childish, petty, squabbles about who call who what, when and where rather than the serious business of working with the one supplier who can help get their product to market… Put it like this, would Colin Chapman’s “Team Lotus” have been so successful in the 1960/70s had both he and Ford been at each others throats all the time rather than complimenting each others development work.

  22. Anthem
    Posted May 4, 2013 at 8:24 pm | Permalink

    Say it quietly but what are the chances of getting Farage to come back to the Conservatives and making him leader?

    Would seem to solve all the problems and add numerous benefits all around, to me.

    • Jerry
      Posted May 5, 2013 at 8:24 am | Permalink

      @Anthem: Mr Farage leader of the Tory party? Well if the party wants to loose more members/voters than it gains from UKIP…

      The problem is, whilst the right-wing make a lot of noise, the Tory party and their supporters actually come from a very wide cross section, some are even disaffected Labour voters of the 1970/80s, if the Labour party remain very much of the centre (Thatcherism lite) then expect these and the more europhile Tory voter to move into the centre ground with their vote.

  23. Jerry
    Posted May 4, 2013 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

    John, or anyone else, is there a list that shows the regional breakdown of the gains and losses, it seems to me that UKIP took most of their gains from the Tories and in the home counties and the south, if this is so it seems very unlikely that UKIP can do anything other than keep the Conservatives OUT of government in 2015 – thus the projections that Labour would have a working majority as Labour will no doubt pick up LD seats.

  24. they work for us
    Posted May 4, 2013 at 9:30 pm | Permalink

    Should not the real mandate of any political party be based on the number of members that it actually has. With paid up membership in the LibLabCon continuing to fall what right do they have to stand at all to represent the large majority of people who are non members.

    What is the actual formal membership of the political parties?
    A thriving local party would generate its own finances and select (on its own) highly electable and local candidates and NOT have placepersons inflicted on them by the party leadership and a central office. Of course there would be right of recall for MPs who did not tow the local electorate’s party line.

    MPs elected in this manner might be more likely to properly represent the views of their own electorate and act in their constituentst best interests irrespective of attempts to “party whip”. The central organisation would be put back in its box and government would be more democratic and by consent.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted May 5, 2013 at 8:18 am | Permalink

      There should be a right of recall, and the recall petition should not have to state any specific reasons; a general affirmation that the undersigned persons, being registered electors in that constituency, are “greatly dissatisfied with the conduct of our present elected representative … ” should be enough.

      • Jerry
        Posted May 5, 2013 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

        @Denis Cooper: Without the need to state a reason not only would their be multiple “recall petitions” doing the rounds but every single MP would be subjected to them week-in, week-out, for anything from not supporting the local football team, may-be even not drinking the ‘correct’ brand of beer or being seen to smoke in the street (note to Mr Farage…), to not voting the correct way on an issues that affects the constituency. Politics would crippled, few would likely want to become MPs.

  25. Roy Grainger
    Posted May 5, 2013 at 10:27 am | Permalink

    John: Making a prediction like “UKIP will not win any councils” is not a prediction at all but rather a statement of the obvious – no bookmaker would have offered you odds on that one. Try a proper prediction – what % of the total vote will UKIP get in the EU elections next year ?

    • uanime5
      Posted May 5, 2013 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

      They got 16.5% of the votes and 13 seats in 2009. I predict they will get 17% of the votes and 14 seats in 2015.

      • Jerry
        Posted May 5, 2013 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

        @U5: Did you mean Euro 2014 elections or were you actually making a prediction for the 2015 GE, if the latter then UKIP will be happy!…

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page