Labour should be chasing Green voters, not Ukip supporters


They’d like to win the election wouldn’t they? And there’s many more UKIP supporters than there are Greens.

18 thoughts on “Labour should be chasing Green voters, not Ukip supporters”

  1. Because the fat little turd thinks replacing the English is a good thing.

    Not that he can be expected to live near Roma or Somalians, or even working class Brits. He’s a playwright you see.

  2. Because the sub-headline is “begging the question”:

    Despite Ukip’s surge, it has not recruited large swaths of loyalist Labour voters

    If you assume that is true (possibly because it offends your amour propre that any of the comrades would vote in a way that is abhorrent to Brummidgen playwrights), it would quite possibly be more effective for Labour to trend green.

    On the other hand, UKIP (who probably do have a fair handle on where they are getting their new support from) suggest Edgar ought to stick to writing plays.

    I would note that Edgar’s opinions on what he would undoubtedly label the “British far-right” have been denounced as dishonest, even by the Guardian.

  3. It’s also the case that chasing green voters would probably lose them more voters than it would gain.

    Everyone knows that limits of actual government green policy – Boris bikes, tax on plastic bags, a recycling collection. It’s small token “doing your bit” changes. If any green policy ever resulted in Coronation St not being watchable, the government would fall.

  4. Oddly the YouGov polls suggest that Labour aren’t losing many voters to UKIP.

    Mid-May, before the election, it was 4% of 2010 Labour voters switching to UKIP (vs 16% of Tory voters and 10% of LibDems).

    After the election it was a bit higher, with UKIP picking up 7% of 2010 Labour voters (plus 23% of Tories and 15% of LibDems).

    However that doesn’t seem to explain UKIP’s successes in former Labour areas in the actual election. Which is odd, because YouGov were the closest to predicting UKIP’s actual result.

    I suspect what’s happening is that UKIP are picking up ex-Labour voters who didn’t vote in 2010, so aren’t showing up as ex-Labour on YouGov’s definition.

  5. Depends on whether chasing UKIP voters will cause more Labour voters to leave than they gain (because it’s net change in voters that is important, remember: if you gain 2,000 UKIP voters but lose 3,000 of your own because of it you’ve gone backwards, and it would have been better to gain 500 Green voters and lose none of your own)…

    … or whether the remaining Labour voters are the ones who have nowhere else to go, so Ed Miliband could have a puppy-kicking contest with Andrew Neil on a Thursday evening and they’d still put their ‘X’ next to the Labour candidate’s name because they’ve never even considered doing anything different.

  6. Yes it’s the net change, but I suspect Rob is more accurate – going greener is likely to lose more of their traditional voters who are already worried that Labour has become too metropolitan.

  7. Yes it’s the net change, but I suspect Rob is more accurate

    Whichever was around, the point is that logic of the post, ‘Labour should be chasing UKIP voters not Green voters because there are more UKIP voters than Green voters’ is too simplistic because it assumes the decision will have no effect on current Labour voters.

  8. Hopefully Labour will listen to these arguments. Appealing to the eco-mentalists and watermelons could lead to decades of electoral failure.

  9. Labour should be chasing Green voters, not Ukip supporters.


    They’d like to win the election wouldn’t they? And there’s many more UKIP supporters than there are Greens.

    If we accept the Watermelon theory – not necessarily more that would be predisposed to vote Labour?

  10. I think their problem is keeping what Labour voters they have. Labour have, for far to long, shown their contempt for their supporters and they are haemorrhaging to UKIP (& possibly to the Greens)(and if rumour is true at Newark the loss in Labour voters voting UKIP may have been matched by the loss in Labour voters voting Tory to keep UKIP out.

  11. A Labour flyer in my friend’s constituency in the local elections told them that they shouldn’t vote Tory because the Tories have cut funding for the Labour Council far more than for Tory controlled councils

    “Since 2010, Wirral has lost, on average, £152 per person, compared to just £2 per head in wealthy, Tory controlled, North Dorset.”

    Which rather suggests to me that if they want to keep funding for the local council they should vote Tory, or at least have a local council the same colour as the national one.

    It all comes down to the same thing, poor areas keep voting Labour and wonder why nothing changes and they remain poor.

    UKIP almost certainly picked up a lot of votes from working class / soft BNP / unionised-anti-immigration, whether or not they voted Labour in 2010.

  12. Bloke in Costa Rica

    Sez Edgar: “my play If Only – about the making and possible unmaking of the coalition “. Who in the blue fuck would go to see a play about the coalition? I am practically sobbing with boredom just thinking about it.

  13. Surreptitious Evil

    A play about the coalition written by a Trot? Let me guess.

    The Tories will be rude rich neo-liberal bastards. The LDs will be weird unprincipled dimwits. With the possible exception of Cable.

    And the hero of the story will be a SWP supporting dustman (we’ll never hear mentioned whether he’s pro-rape or anti-rape SWP), who uncovers a heap of incorrectly binned emails*.

    * And reassembles them from the raw electrons in a homage to the Iranian students in the US embassy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *