UKIP are on to give the major parties a good kicking.

[Joseph Anton]

What are the tories trying to excuse it as then?

 

Results in so far are..

 

Conservative........................ 201 seats

Liberal Democrat..................... 73 seats

UKIP/Indepenent .....................67 seats

Labour ..................................42 seats.

 

A bit early to say just yet but what excuses are Labour going to come up with?

[L00b]

Really - there haven't been elections in the Labour strongholds in the cities.

Bit early to tell yet, wouldn't you say?

 

And if you're going to narrow the issue artificially (the thread has a national context, to my mind), what happened in South Shields, for all the media hulabaloo and hyperbole surrounding it, is a clear slap (not punch, mind) for Labour, wouldn't you say?

 

The South Shields byelection – caused by the resignation of David Miliband, the Labour leader's brother – saw the party's candidate Emma Lewell-Buck, a social worker, hold the seat with a majority of 6,505, down from 11,109 in the 2010 general election. She is the constituency's first woman MP.

(The Grauniad for the sake of debating objectivity )

[SevenRivers]

It's all protest voting. They are not a threat to the 'big two'.

 

Besides, they have 1 policy; immigration. All they would do is close the doors to Britain. Then they would sit twiddling their thumbs.

 

Plus, they would go too far and stop all immigration, which is a bad thing!

 

All votes are protest votes unless you are voting for the incumbents.

 

I'm guessing you have not read anything of UKIP policy, judging by what you think is UKIP immigration policy.

 

---------- Post added 03-05-2013 at 10:37 ----------

 

Yes - people have voted for a party that wants lower taxes and increased spending on welfare, health and defence.

 

How does that work

 

I don't think they want higher spending on welfare or health.

[Mister M]

Who cares? UKIP are closer to the Tories than Labour, so a vote lost to UKIP isn't half as bad as one lost to Labour!

 

I'm sure the Tories won't be saying that this morning!

[WeX]

What are the tories trying to excuse it as then?

 

The only excuse I have heard so far is that Brown was at his all time low in popularity the last time around so this time the Torys are going to do badly.

 

But at present, Labour are in joint third place with UKIP who have gained more seats than Labour.

 

This whole tit-for-tat between the Torys and UKIP could well be a smoke screen. I'm willing to bet, the same scenario will be played out come 2015 and then after the election there is a chance of a coalition between UKIP and the Torys.

 

---------- Post added 03-05-2013 at 10:50 ----------

 

I'm sure the Tories won't be saying that this morning!

 

Don't be so sure, this could easily be a ruse. UKIP and the Torys could easily form the next coalition while Labour look to be becoming the 4th party in Uk politics.

[altus]

Results in so far are..

 

Conservative........................ 201 seats

Liberal Democrat..................... 73 seats

UKIP/Indepenent .....................67 seats

Labour ..................................42 seats.

 

A bit early to say just yet but what excuses are Labour going to come up with?

Those figures are pretty meaningless if you don't know where they were.

 

Of those 42 Labour seats 30 are gains.

 

Conflating UKIP and Independents also implies you think UKIP don't deserve consideration as a party in their own right - or did you do that to make it look like UKIP got more seats than they really did?

[Joseph Anton]

Those figures are pretty meaningless if you don't know where they were.

 

Of those 42 Labour seats 30 are gains.

 

Conflating UKIP and Independents also implies you think UKIP don't deserve consideration as a party in their own right - or did you do that to make it look like UKIP got more seats than they really did?

 

You have to ask yourself how Labour came to be in the position of having hardly any seats in the first place.

 

I put UKIP?independents together as that is how the media is reporting them.

[Longcol]

Bit early to tell yet, wouldn't you say?

 

And if you're going to narrow the issue artificially (the thread has a national context, to my mind), what happened in South Shields, for all the media hulabaloo and hyperbole surrounding it, is a clear slap (not punch, mind) for Labour, wouldn't you say?

 

The local elections were overwhelmingly in the shire counties, so the Lib Dems and the Conservatives are the parties you'd expect to lose votes, especially given the Conservative gains in 2009.

 

As for South Shields - incumbent party holds with reduced majority on low turnout. Seen that at many a by election haven't we?

[tinfoilhat]

The local elections were overwhelmingly in the shire counties, so the Lib Dems and the Conservatives are the parties you'd expect to lose votes, especially given the Conservative gains in 2009.

 

As for South Shields - incumbent party holds with reduced majority on low turnout. Seen that at many a by election haven't we?

 

We have but it's note worthy that a labour stronghold ended up with a lower majority despite being in opposition and the government being less than popular.

[Longcol]

We have but it's note worthy that a labour stronghold ended up with a lower majority despite being in opposition and the government being less than popular.

 

And that's never happened before? A lower turnout (the norm in by-elections) will almost certainly mean a lower majority.

 

If it had been a Conservative or Lib Dem "marginal" (with Labour 2nd at the last GE) that Labour had failed to take then it would have been significant.