mrabody

Thanks for the interesting Link. In Lewes we fully recognize the importance of targetting our resources. Given how weak we are compared to the Tories and the Lib Dem's we haven't any choice in the matter. We are planning a meeting in the near future specifically for the purpose of determining what areas we need to target.

I note with interest that those areas of Liverpool which the Tories are ignoring include Bootle, which is the constituency where Paul Nuttall stood in 2005 and where he came a very close second behind Labour in this years local elections. With the Tories out of the picture there, this seat would seem to be a prime candidate to become one of UKIP's target seats in 2010.

Interestingly enough, in "safe" seats such as Bootle, the dominant party's strength is sometimes but an illusion. Apparently in Glasgow East, during the recent by-election, Labour organizers discovered that the local party had absolutely no record of who normally voted Labour - they had never needed any. This of course made it pretty much impossible to get their core voters to the polls on election day.

__________________
Drew Belobaba,
UKIP PPC for Lewes
Not an MEP candidate

Raymond Finch

In Havant we targeted specific wards this year. We ignored 4 wards where we were weak. We subsequently more than doubled our % share. But the main thing is to be there all year. We now have a regular presence and are seeing some wards "come into play". Unfortunately it is the county elections next year so we have to switch our strategy somewhat. However we are hopeful of one specific seat next year.

douglas denny

Short answer: YES.

It is always good value for the money for a political party to put candidates into elections even if they ony get a few votes; because if they did not there would be no point in being a political party.

You have to start somewhere and keep hammering away.
If you are not on the ballot paper you do not exist at all.

The costs are just part of the exercise. No candidate = no costs = zero gain = no point! just go home.

All pretty obvious really.

DED
-

Millennium3

Once again DD brushes aside any suggestion that the leadership is incompetent with consummate ease.

BASILDON BOY

You have to start somewhere?

Exactly how long does it take UKIP to get started? How long has it existed?

There is something flawed with the whole election strategy. We need more votes for every £1 spent. UKIP complains about EU waste but just look how much is wasted during election campaigns!

If this was The Apprentice I think the answer would be - "You are all fired!"

__________________
Mike Nattrass MEP is HOT HOT HOT!!!

Anthony Butcher

That is a rather bizarre way of looking at it. Some spending is better than others. Some is just wasteful while some can provide excellent value for money. Simply spending money does NOT mean that the party gets good value.

In this specific case, it is not a huge sum in comparison to previous by-election budgets (Bromley), or indeed the opposition.

However, in 2005 UKIP received 1,162 votes in Henley. In the by-election they received 843 votes, although retained pretty much the same percentage. So, the £17K gave UKIP a loss of votes, but a steady share, against an increased number of opposition parties

The fact that the UKIP vote held, even with the BNP standing, suggests that UKIP actually gained some votes (there is a substantial crossover between the two parties) as well as losing some, if that makes sense.

Another question that should be asked, in regard to value, is what would have happened if UKIP hadn't spent the money? Would the vote have dropped? Avoiding negative publicity and morale drops has to be a factor in value for money.

And as I have said before, members should be encouraged by the fact that UKIP has the money to spend; it can still outspend the BNP and the Greens (its main competitors).

__________________
If you care about what's in your food and where it comes from, then get it labelled!
Label My Food - http://www.labelmyfood.org.uk

douglas denny

Well (glibbly) spoken! (Words are so cheap aren't they !!).

Well of course we need more bangs per buck! Any fule nows that!

So: clever Dick! - then just how do you propose to change the political situation to obtain "more votes per £1 spent"? .... Go out and offer money for people to vote for us perhaps?? (Illegal old boy! - in case you didn't know.)
==========

With every by-election the problem always is the same: go short on the expenses and have a lacklustre, mediocre campaign; or, spend the money and go to town on it with all the razamatazz?

You people are so naive in what you say - you haven't a bloomin' clue! To know what it is really all about - go ask Steve Allison about it - he will give you chapter and verse! I guarantee you will be amazed! You will come away very chastened indeed.

If you spend just a nominal amount on leaflets (and you need really at least three leaflet postings as an absolute minimum to be up with the big boys league of the LibLabCon) you can knock up a bill for thousands (£5K minimum) on them alone. Super quality colour printing - double - nay - treble that!
Then there is the distribution. Volunteers are just not enough; so if you start to pay people for 'professional' distribution, there is another good few thousand pounds. Then there are posters (if you can find the sites at £2000 a pop); and advertising in media.. and expenses for the rent of 'committee rooms' and phone lines to be installed ........ and so on and on ....

It takes an absolute minimum of £10K to make a fair show at a by-election, and prefereably £15K is more realistic for a de minimus campaign. £20K and you are getting somewhere at today's prices.
The others spend much more.

Bottom line always though ... get on the ballot paper and do whatever you can with whatever you have got. (And that applies to ANY election).

No need to 'brush aside' anything ....
It really is that simple.....

.......you are either IN the game or you are OUT.

Take your pick.
Whatever way ... it takes money! ... lots of it!
A la - Harry Enfield ... LOOADS-A-MONEY!!

DED.
-

tamashi

UKIP do need to set realistic goals and then target to meet them. The practicalities of doing this are not so simple. The BNP targeted the blue collar areas in the North of the constituency around Oxford and to a lesser extent the similar areas in the south of the constituency near Reading. The Greens targeted the ward where the Candidate was known.

UKIP couldn't target the wards where we have Councillors, we don't have any! Similarly we couldn't target the areas where the demographic favoured us because no-one has yet managed to define what that demographic is? Who are the UKIP Voters? Where do they live? We appear to have the problem faced by the Lib-Dems, an almost uniform level of support right across the spectrum which makes it difficult to win first past the post as you need concentrated support to do that.

This is why fighting local elections is so important. It is the only way we are going to identify our support. If you look where UKIP is winning Council seats then the conclusion must be Labour areas are best for UKIP, so why do we continue to target the disgruntled Tories?

BASILDON BOY

Elections are not won and votes not obtained by glossy leaflets, poster board sites and newspaper adverts.

Elections are won by banging on doors and speaking to people and voter identification.

Douglas Denny is wrong about giving voters money that is highly illegal and he could end up in jail.

__________________
Mike Nattrass MEP is HOT HOT HOT!!!

douglas denny

It helps quite a lot.

Quote:

Douglas Denny is wrong about giving voters money that is highly illegal and he could end up in jail.

B.B. Can you read?
Read again.
I can recommend a good optician.

Agreed - but this is what is mostly needed before any election, preferably over a long period of time. That is what local electioneering is all about. There is not much time for this in by-elections, and you need large numbers of volunteers to go canvassing - something which is in short supply for all parties.

you were on about costs .... Just look at what the Cons and Lib Dims spent .... over £95K !!
Now tell me we are spending too much.
UKIP cuts it's cloth according to our purse. Better target - more money spent.

DED.
-