Yougov Poll - The Pessimism Of Ukip Supporters

[billybong]

Well done to UKIP in Rochester and Strood and to Mr Reckless.

Also in Rochester and Strood yesterday there was UKIP's councillor Mr Chris Irvine (previously Conservative) winning UKIP's first Medway council seat with another huge swing.

UKIP's Mr John Bickley and his achievement of coming close to winning Labour's safe Heywood and Middleton seat in October (on the same day as UKIP's Clacton victory with Mr Carswell) shouldn't be forgotten.

Edited November 21, 2014 by billybong

[@contradevian]

Blue Tory gets back in as a Purple Tory, loosing 70% of his majority and dependent on Labour/LibDem votes.

Would really have needed to get 10,000 majority to be the stuff of real band wagons.

One thing about the next GE is the extent of consituency by constituency polling (due to Lord Ashcroft millions going into it), but can't see many Tory's or even Labour coming over to UKIP on the back of this. Much more data to enable tactical voting.

Seems very subdued this morning. Not as disastrous for Cameron as first thought.

Might be wrong but I don't think there is enough time for by elections now, so close to GE so any defections are going to have to be quick.

Think the main risk for Labour/Tory will be defections very close to election, if private polling reveals an MP could win as UKIP.

Think the problem is that as spotlight on UKIP the more they sound more 'corporate' Labour/Tory in responses. Funny to see Feckless being heckled when back tracking on EU repatriation.

Edited November 21, 2014 by aSecureTenant

[MarkG]

Most young people cant remember the disaster of Lawson/Major/Lamont/ Tory govt. ERM catastrope, 15% int rates, nhs starved of funding. Lucky them!

Yeah, that disastrous time when I never took more than two weeks to find a new job on more money than the last, and my friends were buying big houses almost as soon as they left university.

Those sick Tory bastards!

[BlokeInDurham]

I wonder if Mark Reckless's last minute talk of deportations scared off some of those toying with voting UKIP. It certainly made me think again about them.

Both of the 'scandals' of the past couple of days have seemed distinctly odd to me.

On 'Deportation-gate': from the actual clip (rather than the news headlines/opposing politician "outrage"), he never actually suggested deporting anyone! Asked about foreign residents at the time of any EU exit, he said that "They'd be looked on favourably" and that there might be transitional work visas. To suggest that the absence of an outright statement that "They can stay for ever" was equivalent to calling for deportation seems incredibly disingenuous. The worst that can really be said is that he didn't directly mention deportation one way or the other (whether deliberately skirting it or not).

On 'Flag-gate': the amazing thing to me about this was that it was just a picture, completely without context. The very fact that the people who picked up upon it, and the Labour party who responded to it, inferred that the only context could be a slur is the interesting thing to me. The "snobbery" context added by the outraged viewer requires that viewer to understand white vans and English flags (or at least their combination) as somehow intrinsically shameful. It seems to me that the very idea of the party leadership being outraged and angry at the tweet and demanding Emily Thornberry's resignation (because it suggests that they have an intrinsic snobbery about England flags and white vans) only makes sense in a world where you do have that mindset and hence read the picture as demeaning. The outrage and resignation only proves the suspicion was valid as far as I can see!

Both of the 'scandals' are only really scandals if you approach them from a particular mindset, a mindset akin to that commonly portrayed as the "politically-correct, metropolitan media/Westminster chattering classes" worldview. I can't help but think they both indicate exactly the type of disconnect that explains the popularity of UKIP.

[Liquid Goldfish]

On 'Flag-gate': the amazing thing to me about this was that it was just a picture, completely without context. The very fact that the people who picked up upon it, and the Labour party who responded to it, inferred that the only context could be a slur is the interesting thing to me. The "snobbery" context added by the outraged viewer requires that viewer to understand white vans and English flags (or at least their combination) as somehow intrinsically shameful. It seems to me that the very idea of the party leadership being outraged and angry at the tweet and demanding Emily Thornberry's resignation (because it suggests that they have an intrinsic snobbery about England flags and white vans) only makes sense in a world where you do have that mindset and hence read the picture as demeaning. The outrage and resignation only proves the suspicion was valid as far as I can see!

If it wasn't intended to mean anything then it seems a bizarre image to have tweeted.

[BlokeInDurham]

Yep, but it's what it was assumed to mean that's the issue.

The fact that it was assumed to be a slur (I'm not on Twitter, so you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong, but not everything on there is abusive, is it?) is the interesting thing precisely because of the lack of context. Getting outraged at the slur means that you see white vans/flags as intrinsically shameful. Otherwise, why would you assume a slur?

Am I the only one that would think it could equally likely have been intended to mean "Wow, look at the effort they've made!" or "Isn't patriotism great?" as it was to mean "Haha, chavs!"? Until of course the resignation proved that the real intention was the latter.

[pig]

UKIP revealed to be far right reactionaries shocker ? Oh please.

Practically the only people who aren't saying this are UKIP themselves.

[EUBanana]

Both of the 'scandals' of the past couple of days have seemed distinctly odd to me.

On 'Deportation-gate': from the actual clip (rather than the news headlines/opposing politician "outrage"), he never actually suggested deporting anyone! Asked about foreign residents at the time of any EU exit, he said that "They'd be looked on favourably" and that there might be transitional work visas. To suggest that the absence of an outright statement that "They can stay for ever" was equivalent to calling for deportation seems incredibly disingenuous. The worst that can really be said is that he didn't directly mention deportation one way or the other (whether deliberately skirting it or not).

On 'Flag-gate': the amazing thing to me about this was that it was just a picture, completely without context. The very fact that the people who picked up upon it, and the Labour party who responded to it, inferred that the only context could be a slur is the interesting thing to me. The "snobbery" context added by the outraged viewer requires that viewer to understand white vans and English flags (or at least their combination) as somehow intrinsically shameful. It seems to me that the very idea of the party leadership being outraged and angry at the tweet and demanding Emily Thornberry's resignation (because it suggests that they have an intrinsic snobbery about England flags and white vans) only makes sense in a world where you do have that mindset and hence read the picture as demeaning. The outrage and resignation only proves the suspicion was valid as far as I can see!

Both of the 'scandals' are only really scandals if you approach them from a particular mindset, a mindset akin to that commonly portrayed as the "politically-correct, metropolitan media/Westminster chattering classes" worldview. I can't help but think they both indicate exactly the type of disconnect that explains the popularity of UKIP.

+1

Both "scandals" seemed incredibly synthetic to me.

[R K]

Yeah, that disastrous time when I never took more than two weeks to find a new job on more money than the last, and my friends were buying big houses almost as soon as they left university.

Those sick Tory bastards!

and high inflation. thanks

[dances with sheeple]

+1

Both "scandals" seemed incredibly synthetic to me.

That is because they are. Mass deportation is never going to happen, it exists only in the Daily Express mind, and basing the values of society on trial by Twitter is like basing the economy of a society on debt, it is going to end very badly. If benefits were scaled back many people would change their minds about coming here. We could have tiered benefits, if you came here as a care worker/nurse and worked for three years you get one years benefit, if you find yourself out of work (unlikely unless you were negligent) However if you come and pick spring onions for a week you can just go home if the work dries up, that sort of thing. The real scandal is that bankers are still walking free and morons on MSE are still trying to push HPI

Edited November 22, 2014 by dances with sheeple

[Wayo]

I guess most young people would be stupid not to want to go back to 1994...the Major/ Clarke dream ticket........ house prices at a post war price to earnings low of less than three times, the deficit heading south and set for 33% debt to GDP by 1999. No credit to Brown 1997-99...they inherited a structural surplus and you can't turn around a steamliner in two years.

Then we got Labour to triple house prices and bring in a compulsory £50,000 rite of passage at Uni for job entry. Just one massive wet dream for an academic like Bliar and a property speculator to boot.

Tony was just a Tory who thought students from 'those sorts of families' all went to University to study Media Studies and should be discouraged.

A small amount of fees e.g. £1k per year is probably a good thing to discourage students from going on a 3 year bender, but it is now a rich mans game, and undoubtedly many with good grades and no money behind them will not want to go near it.

How about going back to 27/11/90 when Thatcher told Mark Oaten that incomes in all brackets had risen in real terms, against RPI during her tenure? Now we are not expecting any real growth in median wages until 2016, even against CPI.

[Wayo]

One thing about the next GE is the extent of consituency by constituency polling (due to Lord Ashcroft millions going into it), but can't see many Tory's or even Labour coming over to UKIP on the back of this. Much more data to enable tactical voting.

If he has any sense, Ashcroft will keep those polls to himself.

The main thing holding back UKIP as the underdogs is first past the post - if people can see they are in with a shout locally, as with Rochester and Clacton, UKIP voters are far more likely to vote for Farage rather than against someone else. If we hadn't had constituency polling, their national vote share of 15-20% would have been more believable.

Can't see many switching between Con and Lab to vote against UKIP either.

[SarahBell]

If it wasn't intended to mean anything then it seems a bizarre image to have tweeted.

Have you seen the tweet after it?

[iamnumerate]

Blue Tory gets back in as a Purple Tory, loosing 70% of his majority and dependent on Labour/LibDem votes.

That is a unique point of view that Reckless only won due to tactical voting by Lib Dems and Labour - not one that anyone else has said. Of course why would a tactical voter switch in the next election to let the Tories win? (Assuming that was the reason which I doubt).

[R K]

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/11/21/supporting-ukip-has-more-personal-stigma-than-the/

A significant minority of voters would find it hard to stay friends with a UKIP convert

The last-ditch effort clearly wasn’t enough – the UKIP candidate, Mark Reckless, won with a majority of nearly 3,000 votes – but it did raise the question of whether there was a particular stigma attached to voting UKIP, and new YouGov research suggests there is to a greater degree than any of the other main parties.

To test this, YouGov asked the following question about supporters of the four main parties: How would you feel if a good friend of yours became a supporter of ­­­_________?

Respondents were allowed to say whether they would ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ with their friend, but also whether it would affect their friendship either positively or negatively.

It revealed that while most Labour voters would (predictably) ‘disagree’ with their friend if they began supporting the Conservatives, few (only 14%) would find it harder to stay friends. The same was true of Conservatives on a Labour-supporting and Lib Dems on a Labour- or Tory-supporting friend. Overall, only 3% of voters would find it difficult to be friends with a Labour supporter, 3% would find it difficult with a Green supporter, 5% for a Lib Dem and 7% for a Conservative.

With UKIP, the numbers are much higher. One in four voters (24%) would find it harder to stay close with a ‘good friend’ if the friend became a UKIP supporter. While most voters still wouldn't feel this way – 31% would even 'agree' with their newly UKIP-supporting friend – the response to the UKIP convert is significantly more negative than for other parties.

Edited November 24, 2014 by R K

[stormymonday_2011]

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/11/21/supporting-ukip-has-more-personal-stigma-than-the/

A significant minority of voters would find it hard to stay friends with a UKIP convert

The last-ditch effort clearly wasnt enough the UKIP candidate, Mark Reckless, won with a majority of nearly 3,000 votes but it did raise the question of whether there was a particular stigma attached to voting UKIP, and new YouGov research suggests there is to a greater degree than any of the other main parties.

To test this, YouGov asked the following question about supporters of the four main parties: How would you feel if a good friend of yours became a supporter of ­­­_________?

Respondents were allowed to say whether they would agree or disagree with their friend, but also whether it would affect their friendship either positively or negatively.

It revealed that while most Labour voters would (predictably) disagree with their friend if they began supporting the Conservatives, few (only 14%) would find it harder to stay friends. The same was true of Conservatives on a Labour-supporting and Lib Dems on a Labour- or Tory-supporting friend. Overall, only 3% of voters would find it difficult to be friends with a Labour supporter, 3% would find it difficult with a Green supporter, 5% for a Lib Dem and 7% for a Conservative.

With UKIP, the numbers are much higher. One in four voters (24%) would find it harder to stay close with a good friend if the friend became a UKIP supporter. While most voters still wouldn't feel this way 31% would even 'agree' with their newly UKIP-supporting friend the response to the UKIP convert is significantly more negative than for other parties.

If by supporter they mean activist there are not many of those left in any of the main political parties. If they mean voters then it is a secret ballot so people can simply lie as millions have done for decades about voting Conservative.

BTW my wife gets on quite well with one of the UKIP councillors (ironically a former Lib Dem not a former Conservative) even though they are political rivals on the District council. The rest she can not stand. She also despises some of her fellow Tories while being great friends with others. In my experience enmity in politics and enmity in real life rarely match. In fact the oldest piece of wisdom in politics is that the other parties are merely opponents. The true enemies (i.e. the ones who are going to shag you over) all lie in your own party. As for ordinary voters while many may have strong views on certain political issues such as housing, immigration or elements of foreign policy that rarely translates into strong party allegiance which has become much more fickle in the past two decades. I doubt more than a tiny number know or care how their friends vote and almost certainly won't choose their chums based on that information. Those who do must be incredibly shallow is all I can say.

Edited November 24, 2014 by stormymonday_2011

[iamnumerate]

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/11/21/supporting-ukip-has-more-personal-stigma-than-the/

A significant minority of voters would find it hard to stay friends with a UKIP convert

The last-ditch effort clearly wasn’t enough – the UKIP candidate, Mark Reckless, won with a majority of nearly 3,000 votes – but it did raise the question of whether there was a particular stigma attached to voting UKIP, and new YouGov research suggests there is to a greater degree than any of the other main parties.

To test this, YouGov asked the following question about supporters of the four main parties: How would you feel if a good friend of yours became a supporter of ­­­_________?

Respondents were allowed to say whether they would ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ with their friend, but also whether it would affect their friendship either positively or negatively.

It revealed that while most Labour voters would (predictably) ‘disagree’ with their friend if they began supporting the Conservatives, few (only 14%) would find it harder to stay friends. The same was true of Conservatives on a Labour-supporting and Lib Dems on a Labour- or Tory-supporting friend. Overall, only 3% of voters would find it difficult to be friends with a Labour supporter, 3% would find it difficult with a Green supporter, 5% for a Lib Dem and 7% for a Conservative.

With UKIP, the numbers are much higher. One in four voters (24%) would find it harder to stay close with a ‘good friend’ if the friend became a UKIP supporter. While most voters still wouldn't feel this way – 31% would even 'agree' with their newly UKIP-supporting friend – the response to the UKIP convert is significantly more negative than for other parties.

So 24% of voters believe the smears from the LibLabCon well 76% don't that is good. Amazing that people can't be friends with someone who supports UKIP but can with someone who supports Labour which started a war that made millions refugees - weird priorities.

Edited November 24, 2014 by iamnumerate

[robo1968]

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/11/21/supporting-ukip-has-more-personal-stigma-than-the/

A significant minority of voters would find it hard to stay friends with a UKIP convert

The last-ditch effort clearly wasn’t enough – the UKIP candidate, Mark Reckless, won with a majority of nearly 3,000 votes – but it did raise the question of whether there was a particular stigma attached to voting UKIP, and new YouGov research suggests there is to a greater degree than any of the other main parties.

To test this, YouGov asked the following question about supporters of the four main parties: How would you feel if a good friend of yours became a supporter of ­­­_________?

Respondents were allowed to say whether they would ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ with their friend, but also whether it would affect their friendship either positively or negatively.

It revealed that while most Labour voters would (predictably) ‘disagree’ with their friend if they began supporting the Conservatives, few (only 14%) would find it harder to stay friends. The same was true of Conservatives on a Labour-supporting and Lib Dems on a Labour- or Tory-supporting friend. Overall, only 3% of voters would find it difficult to be friends with a Labour supporter, 3% would find it difficult with a Green supporter, 5% for a Lib Dem and 7% for a Conservative.

With UKIP, the numbers are much higher. One in four voters (24%) would find it harder to stay close with a ‘good friend’ if the friend became a UKIP supporter. While most voters still wouldn't feel this way – 31% would even 'agree' with their newly UKIP-supporting friend – the response to the UKIP convert is significantly more negative than for other parties.

I can't believe people spend time doing such ridiculous surveys

So 24% of voters believe the smears from the LibLabCon well 76% don't that is good. Amazing that people can't be friends with someone who supports UKIP but can with someone who supports Labour which started a war that made millions refugees - weird priorities.

Well put

[FallingAwake]

I can't believe people spend time doing such ridiculous surveys

It's almost like Yougov have an agenda...

[robo1968]

It's almost like Yougov have an agenda...

Since when did who you vote for become a popularity contest?

What crap

[billybong]

That latest survey by yougov is just another variant on

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Even so it's good of them to put some figures to the issue.

If they'd done a similar survey say 40 years ago then it's likely they would have identified a similar rift between Conservative and Labour voters - before the LibLabCon became so blatant.

Edited November 24, 2014 by billybong

[olde guto]

So 24% of voters believe the smears from the LibLabCon well 76% don't that is good. Amazing that people can't be friends with someone who supports UKIP but can with someone who supports Labour which started a war that made millions refugees - weird priorities.

This sort of post is a good example of why 24% would find it more difficult.

UKIP is a party that is happy to smear 29 million Bulgarians and Romanians, yet when anyone has a go at UKIP someone will soon pipe-up about unfair smear campaigns or bullying or even trolling.

If a Labour, Liberal or Conservative MP/MEP/Cllr was caught doing some of the things UKIP ones have got up to they would quite rightly be given a hard time. Yet go to a newspaper comments sections when a UKIP whatever is caught doing something wrong...

Take Emily Thornberry's utterly stupid comments in Rochester, I don't recall seeing any comments from Labour supporters saying this is a witch-hunt or smear campaign etc.

UKIP are playing with the big boys now and they've wanted to for such a long time, they can't just run off crying to mummy every time one of the bigger boys does something they don't like.

[robo1968]

This sort of post is a good example of why 24% would find it more difficult.

UKIP is a party that is happy to smear 29 million Bulgarians and Romanians, yet when anyone has a go at UKIP someone will soon pipe-up about unfair smear campaigns or bullying or even trolling.

If a Labour, Liberal or Conservative MP/MEP/Cllr was caught doing some of the things UKIP ones have got up to they would quite rightly be given a hard time. Yet go to a newspaper comments sections when a UKIP whatever is caught doing something wrong...

Take Emily Thornberry's utterly stupid comments in Rochester, I don't recall seeing any comments from Labour supporters saying this is a witch-hunt or smear campaign etc.

UKIP are playing with the big boys now and they've wanted to for such a long time, they can't just run off crying to mummy every time one of the bigger boys does something they don't like.

I don't see UKIP trying to smear Bulgarians or Romanians at all, more like putting forward a system that would allow immigration control to make sure the UK receives immigrants with the suitable skills from the entire world.

[gf3]

UKIP is a party that is happy to smear 29 million Bulgarians and Romanians, yet when anyone has a go at UKIP someone will soon pipe-up about unfair smear campaigns or bullying or even trolling.

So what the other party's are happy to smear Indians American Australian etc.

[billybong]

Mind you there's always "one".

Apparently 1 percent of the Labour supporters would find it harder to remain friends with someone who turned to Labour.

It's probably a rounding or weighting error or something.

Edited November 24, 2014 by billybong