Musings on the SNP and the British General election

After the strange election of 2010, which saw Labour and the Tories realise that they might have to consider sharing power, much thought has been given to the possibility of another hanged parliament emerging after the 2015 election, barely a month away.

There are three big little parties that are likely to play a role in determining the election - though I do not think it is likely the UKIP will have much to do in the actual parliament that is formed from it.

If we accept that the polls are broadly accurate and neither Tories nor Labour will form a majority, then the question is, how will they fnd themselves placed in relation to the Liberal Democrats, UKIP and the SNP?

(There are a gaggle of other parties, many from Northern Ireland, but as their political behaviour is incomprehensible even to themselves, it is best to pretend that they do not exist, unless we really have to.)

The Lib Dems will likely lose a large number of seats, perhaps actually achieving an electoral first for them, with their share of vote matching their share of seats (usually, their share of vote wildly exceeds the number of seats they win -  but, cruel coalition has diminished their support from a robust 25% to a parlous 5%).

The SNP will win an awful lot of seats in Scotland - though not, I suspect as  many as their current share of vote suggests on a universal swing, which suggests they would win virtually every seat in Scotland.  First Past The Post is a funny beast, and Scottish voters funnier still.  It is likely the SNP will win 25 to 30 seats, maybe even 35.  And that would be a truly impressive result, and likely have a decisive impact on the British election.  But - if expectations are not cannily managed  then it will seem like something of a disappointment.

The SNP have ruled out working with the Tories and set all sorts of bottom line issues, notably around the replacement of the Trident nuclear missile system.

I think it is far more likely that the SNP will find it in their hearts to compromise on Trident. In spite of their good running, they are actually in a tricky position. If the Tories are the largest party in in a hanged parliament, and the SNP are in a position to stop them getting into power, but do not, the SNP will be abjured by the Scottish voters.

The Scottish public will not countenance a Tory led government being tacitly supported by the SNP over something the Scottish public aren't quite as vehement about as the SNP are. It is also worth pointing out that many people in Scotland have jobs that depend on military spending. I grew up in Helensburgh, beside the Faslane submarine base. We didn't like having it there, but we didn't like the idea of not having it there either, as it brought in so much money to the town.

It is (slightly) interesting that the SNP boost is not coming entirely at Labour's expense. A lot of it seems to be the anti-Tory, anti-Labour, anti-Nats who have traditionally voted Lib Dem, which is the bloc that has resulted in the Lib Dems always being over-represented in Scotland. The reality is that the SNP will be under immense pressure to support Labour, because a lot of their support is former Labour that will be disgusted if the SNP do not help Milliband into Downing Street and help keep him there.

About 12% of the SNP vote (according to polling analysis) is from Labour, and it is the most volatile. They aren't interested in Independence, but are interested in pushing Labour into power and pushing Milliband to the left - it's a tactic to outflank the still powerful Balirite pseudo-conservative, anti-progressive right wing of the party.

The other 12% of the SNP's new support is largely drawn from the Lib Dems, who have always enjoyed an unusually high degree of support in Scotland. That's largely because of the peculiar nature of Scottish politics. No-one is suggesting, I think, that the Highlands and Islands are havens for those concerned with Gay rights and electoral reform.

But these far flung Scottish constituencies are full of people who won't vote Tory (too English in profoundly conservative rural Scotland), won't vote Labour (too urban in profoundly conservative rural Scotland) and won't vote SNP (too nationalist in profoundly conservative rural Scotland) so they schizophrenically vote for the Lib Dems.  Now that vote seems to have shifted to the SNP - along with a fair chunk of Labour's vote.

It looks like being the most interesting election in aeons, or at least since 1997.

The SNP and the UKIP are wild cards, but of different sorts.  The UKIP may critically injure the Tories in crucial constituencies, allowing Labour or the Lib Dems to win what should have been unwinnable seats. But they (UKIP) won't win many seats at all, just make it harder for the Tories.

The SNP, on the other hand, probably will win a lot of seats, mostly from Labour. But as the only option for the SNP is to work with Labour, formally or informally, that doesn't hurt Labour nearly as much as the UKIP hurts the Tories.

Also, Miliband has shown he's not useless in debates, so he'll be getting lots of good coverage over the next few weeks.  Cameron, on the other hand, is coming across more and more as a loathsome toff turd - A “bunch of hypocritical, holier-than-thou, hopeless, sneering socialists” indeed.

Dave, apart from the last word (which hardly applies to Labour, alas!) you just described your own party. Too a hypocritical, holier-than-thou,, hopeless, sneering tee.

Tory MP, gun, foot

The Tories appear to have gone completely mad over their routing at the Battle of Clacton:

David Cameron is under pressure from his backbenchers to break up the coalition and harden his message on immigration after Ukip took its first seat from the party in the Clacton byelection. 

The prime minister was urged to change strategy after losing Clacton by more than 12,000 votes to one of his former MPs, Douglas Carswell, who defected in August over unhappiness about the EU and a lack of political reform. 

Sir Edward Leigh, a former minister, said breaking up the coalition would be one way of showing fed-up Conservative voters that Cameron was serious about addressing their concerns, instead of being shackled to the Liberal Democrats.

Because, of course, getting rid of your parliamentary majority and rendering your party incapable of passing any legislation without relying on parties that no longer have any interest in supporting your bigoted agenda, and leaving yourself vulnerable to a vote of no confidence and thus allowing (as Cameron can not dissolve parliament without two thirds support) other parties to form an administration is PRECISELY the way to show your supporters you are looking after their interests and are a credible party of government.

People this confused hould not be allowed to even LOOK at the levers of power, far less touch them.

Even funnier, Sir Leigh then adds that, "Every Conservative MP is desperate to stop [Ed] Miliband getting into No 10," even though his idiotic ramblings would likely do just that. If the coalition was dissolved acrimoniously, Cameron and his minority administration would last a week before being put out of Britain's misery - and as parliament can not be wished out of existence any more, the only option would be for a broad coalition to propel a slightly startled Ed Miliband into Downing Street rather sooner than anticipated.

Bloody Hell!

Ouch.  Turns out the Mail was right and I was wrong.  Labour were indeed 'clinging on,' holding Heywood and Middleton by only 617 votes.

But it's not all bad, as that shows how wildly inaccurate Ashcroft's polling in, and he's a Tory, so I can jeer and scoff at him a bit.

Obviously, that result looks like a massive blow for Labour.  It's actually more important in lots of ways that the far more predictable Clacton result.  Yeah, UKIP have ot an MP - but that was a given, once Carswell announced he was defecting and triggered a by election.  A UKIP win, for a popular local MP, in that part of the country, was pretty much a given.

But Labour getting bearded in their heartlands is very much against the form book.

Up until now the evidence has shown they are holding their vote and the UKIP are leeching Tory support.  But getting (almost) taken to the cleaners in Manchester is a bit of a bad look.  Especially when the preliminary polls (not just Ashcroft's to be scrupulously fair) were predicting a comfortable win for Labour.

It might not be as bad as it looks, as Labour's SHARE of the vote stayed stable - they still polled as as big a share of the vote much as they did at the general election.  The UKIP share was made up of the collapse in the Tory and Lib Dem vote.  The Conservative vote fell by almost 15 and the Liberal Democrat vote fell by almost 18% (The Liberal Democrat candidate appears to have retained his deposit, which is something of a novelty for the party, these days.)  The BNP also got 7% in 2010 - with no official racist bigot to vote for, a lot of that would likely have gone the UKIP's way.

The interesting thing is the massive tactical vote here - previously, anti-Labour support had been harmlessly divided between the Tories and Lib Democrats.  And the two parties hated each other sufficiently to ensure they would never sort out a tactical arrangement.  Power seems to have shaken loose the adherents of both parties, however, and fate has gifted them a third option in the form of the UKIP.  And having almost tasted victory tonight, they may be inclined to give it another go next year.

So Labour IS still holding onto its support.  They can be relieved about that.  But the other parties are losing theirs in such absurd numbers, and the previously fragmented Conservative / Lib Dem voters are uniting.  It could be very interesting in 2015.

Daily Mail in stupid lie SHOCK

There are a rash of by elections happening in Britain.  Most of the focus has been on the high profile Conservative defectors to the UKIP, Carsewell and Reckless, but the Daily Mail draws our attention to another contest.

According to that august and impartial rag, "Labour are expected to cling on in the northern seat of Heywood and Middleton, where another by-election was triggered by the death of local MP Jim Dobbin."

Indeed, according to the sub-heading, not only are Labour likely to merely 'cling on,' the UKIP will be 'hot on their heels.' Actually, polling suggests Labour will hold very comfortably. The latest is from Ashcroft:

CON 16%(-11)
LAB 47%(+7)
LDEM 5%(-18)
UKIP 28%(+25)

If this poll is accurate, Labour are not 'clinging on' - they are getting about half of all votes cast, as they almost always do.  Meanwhile, the Conservative and Liberal Democrat vote will collapse.The UKIP will claim about 1 in 3 votes cast - a commendable effort, but will be almost 20% behind Labour. That is neither Labour 'clinging on' nor is it the UKIP being 'hot on their heels.'

Obviously, polls can be wrong, and it is a by election, and results of those can be a bit random, but it is just dishonest by the Mail to say Labour are 'clinging on.' They're trying to continue the narrative that UKIP is drawing support from Labour, when it just isn't. By election after by election has shown Labour support holding up, and support for the coalition parties support in free-fall. Of course, some of that support will come back at a general election, but that isn't any excuse for spewing lies.

The Mail's other goal is to continue undermining Milliband's leadership (he doesn't need any help there, thank you).

Stray morning thought on the UKIP's prospects

I must say that the more I think of Douglas Carsewell's defection to the UKIP, the more it seems like a a game changer.

Up until now I've been of the opinion that the UKIP will fade away as we move closer to the election, and return a comparatively underwhelming 10% or 12% or whatever, and maybe one or two seats.

With Carsewell's defecting - perfectly timed to give them a boost, just when we were all starting to forget about them - and five weeks of continual media interest leading up to the by-election, and a likely trouncing of the Conservatives at said by-election, and the mouth-watering prospect of a UKIP having 10 months or so of grandstanding in the Commons, and the likelihood of Carswell / Farage being able to demand inclusion in debates and airtime, all bets are off.

It might not be a case of Scottish Independence, as the South East of England ceding from the union. 

Alternatively, Carsewll will try to overthrow Farage and the party will tear itself to pieces and contest the election as the Real UKIP and the Provisional UKIP and vanish.

UKIP set to hammer Tories

Douglas Carsewell stunned the British political establishment last week.

Not by defecting to the UKIP - who cares how right wing fruitcakes arrange themselves? - but by doing the honourable thing and resigning his seat so he can legitimately continue to represent the people of Clacton for his new party.  Such principle is almost unheard of in Westminster, and completely alien in the Conservative Party, which might explain why he felt the need to leave it.


Astonishingly, while Carsewell might look like Basil Fawlty, the people of Clacton must love him. A Survation poll carried out after his defection shows him utterly destroying the Tories:

CON 20%(-33)
LAB 13%(-12)
LDEM 2%(-11)
UKIP 64%(+64%)

Please note that number in brackets after the Conservative share of vote is thirty three, not three point three. And that's minus thirty three. MINUS THIRTY THREE. I can't say that enough.

Note that Labour - in spite of the onslaught of this modern day Kossuth - have managed to retain more than half their support.

Unlike the Tories.

Newark by-election

The electoral excitement just doesn't stop coming in Britain.  After the dizzy thrills of the local and Euro elections, up next is a crucial by-election, brought about by Patrick Mercer resigning his seat in Newark.

Normally a safe Conservative stronghold, a pre-poll poll of Newark suggests the UKIP might pull off a stunner, if Labour voters are smart enough to vote tactically: 

CON 36%(-18)
LAB 27%(+5)
LD 5%(-15)
UKIP 28%(+24)

 Obviously, the 28% voting UKIP aren't going to vote Labour; but Labour voters should think of switching to the UKIP to humiliate the Tories. It might be strategically astute for Labour as they would benefit from the UKIP being in parliament and increasing the likelihood of a fatal split in the right vote.

The aggregate loss of support for the coalition, 33%, is awesome.  True, Mercer was a corrupt self serving Tory (ain't they all) but he was also very popular.  The people of Newark - hardly radical country - seem to be repudiating the coalition.

Will they be smart / cynical enough to switch votes to the UKIP?

Enough of the UKIP earthquake already

And enough of the vacuous "Labour not doing very well" drone.

Of course they aren't. They were only ejected from office in 2010, remember, and the time before that it took them 18 years to get back in! So it's pretty impressive that they are in a position to win just 4 years after Gordon Brown, the financial crisis, the dodgy dossier, ID cards and all the other reasons people voted them out.

Labour can also stop panicking and wailing. Several councils won, almost 300 new councillors, Hammersmith, Cambridge ... and as for the UKIP threat in the north, consider this, from the Guardian:

Labour has gained full control of Bradford council after winning seats from the Tories and Lib Dems and fighting off attacks from Ukip, which took just one spot in the West Yorkshire administration. 

George Galloway's Respect party made no gains in the city, despite Galloway touring the city in an open top bus in support of his eight candidates. 

Respect has no representatives in Bradford's town hall since its five sitting councillors – elected in the euphoric aftermath of Galloway's byelection win in 2012 – quit the party last year. They now sit as an Independent grouping. 

Bradford - with experience of high immigration, riots, ethnic division, it's history as a BNP stronghold - you'd have thought, would have been one place where the UKIP would be very strong

It's actually been a dreadful night for the anti-EU crowd. Hot on the heels of the worst financial disaster since the Great Crash, and the prolonged death rattle of western Europe's economy, the far right have managed to win a couple of elections.

It's hardly Nuremburg, is it?

(The rally, I mean, rather than the trials)

I proclaimed earlier Farage needed to get 30%.  He failed.

(Technically, I didn't do anything of the kind, but I did predict 30%, and if you aren't living up to my expectations, you are wicked, naughty and wrong)

I know other parties failed worse, but the interest in their success or failure isn't so high.  There will always be Tories and Labour.  The UKIP will survive only as long as it keeps moving forward and upward.

There will be an almighty fuss for 3-4 weeks because the media like a good exciting story, and Farage is happy to give them plenty of frothy head, never mind the dead rats and turds floating in the glass ...  Polls will soar into the low 20s.  Once or twice, they will get to within margin of error boundaries of the Tories ...

Then everyone will realise that nothing is fundamentally different, the European parliament just doesn't matter and the 'breakthough' meant nothing; the sliding share of the vote at the locals is a harbinger of 'Peak Farage' has already arrived.  Before the end of the year, a steady slide into to the high teens will begin.

The main parties will start to concentrate energy on suppressing the upstart.  Some truly unpleasant characters will start to emerge in the new ranks of councillors and the media - sensing new good exciting stories, will turn.  Farage will become shrill and desperate.  Unfortunate interviews and increasingly shrill public pronouncements won't mask the gradual ebbing of support and (more critically) interest.

They may still get one seat at the general election, two if they are lucky.  but that will make them as about as important, interesting or challenging as ... oh, Respect.  Or the Greens.  Or possibly the Lib Dems, the way things are going for them.

The UKIP 'earthquake'

So the UKIP are having a reasonable night in the British local elections (in that they are doing better than the Greens, though not actually winning any councils outright, inspite of having been trying for 21 years).

Nigel Farage inevitably described this as an 'earthquake.'

Really, Nigel?

Earthquakes are dreadful. They kill people, destroy property, businesses and disrupt lives. I wouldn't go about associating my party with them.

Elsewhere, he's claiming, "The Ukip fox is in the Westminster hen house," which suggests he's either drunk or doesn't know the difference between local and general elections.

It might also be worth noting that the UKIP success is generally in areas that haven't experienced high levels of immigration.  London has largely resisted Nigel's advances.

This suggests two, non-mutually exclusive possibilites.  First, that the support of the UKIP is the result of fear and paranoia, rather than actual experience; and that people voting for the UKIP are largely Tories who have jumped ship.

Whether they stay jumped is, of course, a matter upon which much depends.

Why the Farage barrage?

I do wish the proper press would row back on the whole Farage UKIP thing.  He's not the anti-Christ, he's just a self-promoting knob, and doesn't deserve the free publicity.

He's not as important or as interesting as the continual wailing and ngnashing of teeth would make him out to be.  Or, at any rate, whether or not he is important is irrelevant; FPTP wont allow him to be.

Obviously, there's a better story in "Farage is Intensely Controversial" than there is in "Farage is not Important."  And a bit of me wonders if there a deliberate policy to continue splitting the rightwing vote.  Either way, it is not the role of responsible media to manufacture or manipulate the news like this.

Also, there are stupid people out there who do this sort of thing if they are told enough times that Farage = Moseley and the UKIP are his Blackshirts reformed.

Euro elections

I predict:

CON 22%
LAB 30%
LDEM 10%,
UKIP 30%
GRN 5%
BNP 3%

... or something like that.

The UKIP will hail the result - whatever it is - as a 'massive break through,' a 'transformational' moment in British politics and so on.  They will, briefly, enjoy an increase in support for Westminster, topping 20% consistently until support starts to fade away again as people become tired of Farage and the media obsession with him.  They will poll about 12% in the 2015 election and get one vanity seat with Farage if they are lucky.

Labour will claim victory as they thoroughly beat the Tories, heroically ignoring the fact a solid 50% of the population voted for insane right-wing parties, not for them.  Even if the people voting Tory and UKIP aren't baked in mad-people, that makes it worse in some ways - they are so unenthused by Labour they vote for the Tories and UKIP regardless of how they know it is an insane, disgusting thing to do.

The Lib Dems will claim they have 'steadied the ship' and 'turned the tide' in a revolting display of metaphor mixing.  They may well have done; but the ship is no longer the sleek Destroyer they had in the last election; it is a leaky little life boat, and the huddled survivors on board are eyeing each other up, wondering when they'll have to resort to cannibalism.

The Tories will bleat about how they are doing really well, all things considered, and it is quite normal for a governing party to be deeply unpopular in mid term, trying to hide the fact it isn't really mid term any more and even if it was, any party taking over from the PR disaster of Brown's Labour government should have enjoyed a gold plated honeymoon lasting until about 2050.

Former Tory Does The Right Thing

After the decision of the Standards Committee to suspend him from parliament for six months over cash-for-questions allegations, former Tory MP Patrick Mercer, who currently sits as an independent, has just announced his resignation.

UNelECTUD CORRRIpT SKKKKummM REsiHnsZZZ!!!

Note he only did the right thing after he stopped being a ToRIE SKKKKummM.  Obviously, there is something in the ToRIE DNA which prevents them from ever doing the Right Thing.

The very rightwing and unbiased New Statesman suggests the by-election might offer the UKIP a chance to win a seat.  It looks possible - The ToRIEzzZ polled 53% of the vote, Labour 22%, Lib Dems 20% and UKIP 3%.  A massive tactical vote by the opposition parties, plus some Tory defection and a low turn out, might do it.

The question for Farage would be, would he want to win a seat only to lose it in less than a year, when it almost certainly turns ToRIE again in the General Election?  It isn't natural Yukker territory, and they could only win it through a fortunate combination of circumstance and tactical support, neither of which they can rely on in a GE.  Think of all those massive Lib Dem victories in the Major years, which mostly turned blue in the general elections.  A short term boost, versus the longer term humiliation of very likely being expunged in May 2015?

For Labour and the Lib Dems, the question is whether they run a candidate.  The Lib dems might like to not lose a deposit - not running a candidate would at least allow them to say they didn't!  Labour know they can't win, but might still want to be see to be in the contest.  If they don't it maximises the chance of the UKIP humiliating Cameron.  But it also opens the way to accusations of them acknowleding they can't win, letting the UKIP do their work for them and so on.

I suppose the question has to be asked whether it is worth the ToRIEzzZ running a candidate.

More waffle on the Yucker 'triumph'

As the scale of the UKIP achievement continues to be exaggerated, here are more of my branz on the matter.

For all their success in the local elections, the Yuckers are unlikely to replicate anything like this in the parliamentary General Election in 2015. First Past The Post dooms most small parties. Look at the electoral history of the Liberal Democrats - polling 20% of the vote, and getting less than 10% of the seats. They may poll 20% across the country, but their only impact may be to split the right wing vote.  The difference between South Shields and Eastleigh suggest it is, fundamentally, appealing to right wing voters.

The move towards the UKIP appears to be in traditionally conservative (small c) areas which either voted Tory since time immemorial, or Lib Dem as the alternative, as they would never, ever vote Labour. This happens in rural Scotland as well where conservative, pro-union Scots vote Lib Dem because they hate the Tories and Labour equally

What happened last night was essentially, a protest vote, not a genuine vote in support of UKIP policy.  People are angry with the coalition and are voting against it, not for the UKIP.  And, it is important to reiterate, Labour wwould never have a look in in the areas where the local elections took place, just as it would necver have had a look in at Eastleigh.

South Shields showed there isn't much movement from Labour to the UKIP. All we're seeing is the right wing vote reallocating itself. Probably, massively to the detriment of all three right wing parties.

Which will make 2015 wildly unpredictable, as it may come down to whether the right vote is so split it allows Labour to grab seats that would normally be off their target list.

The Yuckers might get a few seats at the election but I don't think they will get many because from now until the election they are (probably) going to be under continual attack from the Tories and / or their appeal to voters will wane.

Farage pretty much conceded he's going to be nothing more than a historical footnote when the UKIP was compared to the SDP in the 80s. He pointed out that the SDP 'won' in the long run as Tony Blair was effectively an SDP Prime Minister. Yes, Nige, but that was 20 years later and he wasn't the leader of the SDP.

I think Farage, if he is smart and picks a good seat, might be in with a shot. Maybe a couple of others. But I don't think they could hope to get into double figures. Also, that woold require them to concentrate most of their resources in these key seats and so their national profile would slip. So they might grab a couple of Southern seats while their overall share of the vote declines, oddly.

The problem for the UKIP isn't the Tories or Labour, but the idiot electoral system. It puts them in a position where, unless they can win over the majority of the Conservative vote in seat after seat, they face being left with very little in terms of representation.

That cuts both ways, of course - I do think a few of the smarter Tories might be reflecting on how they sank the Alternative Vote campaign and wishing they'd gone for it.  Alternative Vote would allow all disaffected Tories to vote for the UKIP as first choice - and Conservative as second, meaning the number of seats in jeopardy from a split vote would be minimal.

I really do think the party that will come out of this best will be Labour. They won't deserve it, as they won't have done anything to earn it, but they will benefit.  They will benefit from the split in the right wing vote, from the fact the Tories will make themselves hideous and ugly and unelectable to stop more bleeding to the UKIP (though I don't think the support they are losing are people who have suddenly decided to be anti-immigration or quasi-racist; a lot of the new UKIP support were Lib Dems in 2010 and expressing anger with the government) and because of the resources that will be diverted to fighting the UKIP.

Welcome to the 80s, Tories!

Have the good people of South Shields doomed David Cameron?

Normally, you would think not. Normally, the vote in South Sheilds - a rock solid Labour constituency in the North of England - are about as relevant to the fortunes of the Conservative party as elections in New Zealand. But perhaps this time it is different, because the wild card in this election, and perhaps in 2015, has been the UK Independence Party.

The UKIP recently drove the Tories and Labour into third and fourth place in the Eastleigh by-election. Eastleigh is the polar opposite of South Shields, a constituency that traditionally returns a Tory or (if they are feeling daring) a Liberal Democrat. In the recent poll there, the UKIP took substantial amounts of votes off the incumbent Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The Labour vote - though negligible - remained solid:

Mike Thornton (Liberal Democrat) 13,342 32.1 (-14.4%)

Diane James (UKIP) 11,571 27.8 (+24.%)

Maria Hutchings (Conservative) 10,559 25.4 -13.9%

John O'Farrell (Labour) 4,088 9.8 (+0.2%)

The UKIP had turned what should have been a safe coalition seat into a coin toss - it could have gone any one of three ways, with just minor reallocation of votes or changes in turnout.  If the message of Eastleigh holds good for the whole of the South of England, an awful lot of seats that might once have been judged safe for either Conservatives or Lib Dems suddenly look vulnerable and (worse!) unpredictable.  Incumbents might cling on as the vote splits three ways; or one party may triumph as a result; or the whole thing might be an appalling mess.

The message from South Shileds was much clearer:

Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour) 12,493 (-1.51%)

Richard Elvin (UKIP) 5,988 (+24.21%)

Karen Allen (Conservative) 2,857 (-10.04%)

Ahmed Khan (Independent) 1,331 (+5.38%)

Phil Brown (Independent Socialist) 750 (+3.03%)

Lady Dorothy MacBeth Brookes (BNP) 711 (-3.65%)

Hugh Annand (Liberal Democrat) 352 (-12.79%)

The ranking might be different, and the gross numbers different, but the changes in share of vote virtually the same. Labour, solid. UKIP surging from no-where. Conservative and Liberal Democrat, catastrophic.

So, you'd think, another good night for the UKIP?  Maybe.  But the UKIP sharein South Shields would appear to be made up almost entirely of Tories and Lib Dems.  They failed to make any impact on Labour's vote.  And the Tories and Liberal Democrats have never had enough votes to challenge Labour's dominance in the North.  Even if every non-Labour single voter in South Shields had voted for one party, they would have failed to win.  That's how dominant Labour are.  Near invulnerable in many places, and too strong for a vote split between three squabbling right wing parties to bother them.

In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher won landslide victories inspite of recording a decreasing share of the vote at each election.  Even after the Falklands, the Conservativ Party's share of the vote declined in the 1983 election.  What allowed her to rout the left was the fatal split between Labour and the SDP - converting scores of Conservative marginals that might have fallen into rock solid strongholds, and allowing Conservative candidates to record wins in scores of Labour seats.  Thatcher was never loed or popular; she was merely fortunate enough to face an opposition divided against itself.

The upshot of all this might be the end of David Cameron, certainly of Cameronism as a political creed.  Everyone of his MPs in the South of England will be looking over his or her shoulder to see how close the UKIP is - and that means, how much of the vote they are losing to them.  I don't think their faith in democracy extends to letting the voters boot them out in 2015; they'll be shrilling Cameron for a change in direction (and that means a hard turn to the right) otherwise they'll be thinking of changing the leader if he's not for turning.

A likely consequence may be the political demise of George Osborne.  Cameron will need to offer up something to appease his critics and signal the change of direction they desire; it would also serve to make the Tories marginally less hateful, as Osborne's special skill (god knows it isn't economics) is attracting voter opprobrium.  But the sane option - installing a paternal, One Nation wet like Ken Clarke - is also impossible.  The voters might like it.  The Tory right wouldn't tolerate it.  Not for one little minute.

There is probably nothing to be gained for the Tories by lurching right.  The people voting for the UKIP aren't doing so because they have suddenly discovered Euroscepticism.  They are voting for the UKIP because they loathe the coalition but will never, ever vote Labour.  Moving right will simply alienate them further.  Though the likely Tory response will be to move even further right, just as Labour in the 80s sought support out in the further extremes of leftist lunacy - and failed to find it.

Welcome to your version of the lefts nightmare 80s, Mr Cameron.