UKIP costs Cameron-Conservatives an estimated 20 to 25 seats, depriving them of power

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/goldlist/2010/05/did-ukip-cost-the-tories-a-commons-majority.html
http://page.politicshome.com/uk/story/4744/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100038730/we-euro-sceptics-fail-at-the-polls-again/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/ukip/7693877/General-Election-2010-Ukip-challenge-cost-Tories-a-Commons-majority.html


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01631/ed-balls-1_1631388c.jpg



The Telegraph asks the question (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/ukip/7693877/General-Election-2010-Ukip-challenge-cost-Tories-a-Commons-majority.html) and highlights Ed Balls' victory - won by only 1,101 votes while UKIP polled 1,506. "Jason" left a comment on ConHome listing (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/05/86-of-tory-members-prefer-minority-government-to-coalition.html#comment-6a00d83451b31c69e201348098e62d970c) some of the Tory near misses and the UKIP vote (on a spot check his figures look correct):

Bolton West: Labour 18,329; Conservative 18,235; UKIP 1,901
Derby North: Labour 14,896; Conservative 14,283; UKIP 829
Derbyshire NE: Labour 17,948: Conservative 15,503; UKIP 2,636
Dorset mid & Poole: Labour 21,100; Conservative 20,831; UKIP 2,109
Dudley North: Labour 14,923; Conservative 14,274; UKIP 3,267
Great Grimsby: Labour 10,777: Conservative 10,063: UKIP 2,043
Hampstead & Kilburn: Labour 17,332; Conservative 17,290; UKIP 408
Middlesbrough South: Labour 18,138; Conservative 16,461; UKIP 1,881
Morley (Ed Balls): Labour 18,365; Conservatives 17,264; UKIP 1,506
Newcastle-Under-Lyme: Labour 16,393; Conservatives 14,841; UKIP 3,491
Plymouth Moor View: Labour 15,433; Conservatives 13,845; UKIP 3,188
Solihull: Liberal 23,635; Conservatives 23,460; UKIP 1,200
Somerton & Frome: Liberal 28,793; Conservatives 26,976; UKIP 1,932
Southampton Itchen: Labour 16,326; Conservatives 16,134; UKIP 1,928
St Austell & Newquay: Liberal 20,189; Conservatives 18,877; UKIP 1,757
St Ives: Liberal 19,619; Conservatives 17,900; UKIP 2,560
Telford: Labour 15,977; Conservatives 14,996; UKIP 2,428
Walsall North: Labour 13,385; Conservatives 12,395; UKIP 1,737
Walsall South: Labour 16,211; Conservatives 14,456; UKIP 3,449
Wells: Liberal 24,560; Conservatives 23,760; UKIP 1,711
Wirral South: Labour 16,276; Conservatives 15,745; UKIP 1,274

The trouble with these analyses is that they assume most of the UKIP vote would have gone to the Conservatives. I'm not so sure but it's worth re-reading a blogpost from Janet Daley in the light of these findings. Three weeks ago she wrote (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/janetdaley/100035668/ukip-should-withdraw-from-the-election/): "In the name of its own principles, UKIP should now feel morally obliged to withdraw its candidates from the general election – or at least from contesting any seat in which a Liberal Democrat might oust a Conservative. If it does not – and if it thus succeeds in depriving the Conservatives of a working majority and inflating the LibDem result by default - it will have been responsible for providing the most Europhile party in British politics with signficant power in a coalition government."

Well good news in that because although Conservatives who have fell for Cameron (who isnt conservative at all) will stomp and moan, complaining that the UKIP vote has allowed the europhile Liberal Democrats a hand in power and deprived the Conservatives of a majority - the fact remains that the Conservatives are also pro-European Union and Dave went back on his promise for the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in 2009 lets not forget. I'm glad David Cameron has failed in something he thought he had in the bag, and it goes to show that being Conservative leader, abandoning conservative beliefs and appealing to liberals does not work because of one reason;- we already have a liberal party, the Liberal Democrats.

UKIP itself increased its vote from its 2005 result, 2.2% - 603,298 votes to the 2010 result, 3.1% - 917,832 votes. This is bearing in mind that the vote has increased nationally so the percentage will be lower and that the vote for all smaller parties (including Liberal Democrat vote) was squeezed as people sided with the Labour Party and Conservative Party 'to keep the other out'. It is disappointing that they made no breakthough at the election in terms of seats but with a FPTP system that is expected.

In other news concerning the smaller parties, the Green Party of England and Wales picked up its first ever seat in the House of Commons in Brighton, which elected Green Party leader Caroline Lucas as its Member of Parliament. In Barking Nick Griffin had his vote squeezed as many sided with Labour to keep the Conservatives out and the same goes in Buckingham where Nigel Farage failed to take John Bercows seat as Conservatives rallied around the 'mother party'.

If UKIP has cost the Conservatives 25 seats (estimated vary) then rather than having 306 seats now and having a hung parliament, the Conservatives would of had 331 seats meaning they could have formed a majority government.

Thoughts?

[FlyingJesus]

What's to suggest that some of these UKIP voters wouldn't have voted Labour? Also I don't imagine there were only 3 parties running on those seats, so this entire story is ridiculous.

All that you and these articles are basically saying is that Conservatives would have won a majority if they'd gotten more votes - go figure.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Because Tom, as is pretty obvious - most of the UKIP voters are Conservatives who are disillusioned with the Conservative Party, I mean you only have to look at the likes of the people who have defected from the Conservative Party to UKIP in terms of viewpoint (Lord Pearson, Lord Monckton, Nigel Farage, Roger Knapman, Stuart Wheeler and Lord Tebbit). Of course not all of the people who vote UKIP vote Conservative but the fact remains UKIP is a right wing party which attracts mainly Conservative voters and its widely awknowledged including in these estimates which show the figure is varying. Therefore the story holds water.

The articles show that if the Conservatives were more conservative and actually gave us a referendum on Europe then they most likely would of made it past the majority mark, meaning we'd have David Cameron as Prime Minister right now and Gordon would be out.

[Inseriousity.]

Middlesbrough South is my constituency :D
Also it could possibly be that the only leaflets I got through my door were Labour and UKIP.
It could also be that Labour supporters became disillusioned with their party (in my constituency the Labour majority decreased majorly so they could have voted UKIP), just like the conservatives did with theirs.

[FlyingJesus]

Similarly one could argue that if they'd remained more conservative in policy then they wouldn't have attracted some other voters who may not have voted for them previously (as is in fact extremely likely given the large swing) and so it's still a moot point. No idea what you're on about the Lisbon Treaty for considering only 3 Tory MPs voted against a referendum.

[W00TZEH]

good :D I voted for UKIP, not conservatives.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Middlesbrough South is my constituency :D
Also it could possibly be that the only leaflets I got through my door were Labour and UKIP.
It could also be that Labour supporters became disillusioned with their party (in my constituency the Labour majority decreased majorly so they could have voted UKIP), just like the conservatives did with theirs.

However you could be talking about swing voters who swing from Labour to Conservative regularly.


Similarly one could argue that if they'd remained more conservative in policy then they wouldn't have attracted some other voters who may not have voted for them previously (as is in fact extremely likely given the large swing) and so it's still a moot point. No idea what you're on about the Lisbon Treaty for considering only 3 Tory MPs voted against a referendum.

It has been shown that that policy has failed because Cameron hoped that by becoming more liberal (or he is liberal) he would get liberals and those on the left to vote for him but its been destroyed by the poor election results as was expected by senior Tories such as Lord Tebbit. If you are a liberal you are going to vote for the Liberal Democrats, not the Conservative Party. The Conservatives have, in the past, been able to win good majorities (especially after such poor governments) but this hasn't transpired this time because not only has Cameron been unable to attract that many swing voters, he has lost a lot of his traditional vote to UKIP. These seats were the Conservatives should of won have not been won because mainly traditional Tory votes have gone up UKIP rather than the Conservative Party - look at any seat and it is in the Conservative seats that the UKIP vote is higher compared to safe Labour seats - the same applies with the BNP, they usually outperform UKIP in safe Labour seats.

Most conservatives admit that UKIP is their ideal party but they vote for the Conservative Party 'to keep Labour out'.

The Lisbon Treaty point;- Cameron gave a 'cast-iron' gurantee that if he became Prime Minister he would give the British people a referendum, granted he did say if it hadn't passed by that time. However the fact that he promised a referendum and then went back is bad enough, coupled with the fact that nearly all conservatives and the public in general want withdrawal and he should give us that choice.

[FlyingJesus]

I'd hardly call a 5% swing with only 3 seats lost "poor election results", especially when the guy heading (what was) the opposition is as unpopular as Cameron. Also I'm not denying the fact that plenty of would-be Conservative backers shifted to vote UKIP instead, just that you cannot possibly claim that each and every one of the UKIP voters in those close areas would have voted Conservatives if they didn't have the UKIP option - which is what the article suggests by saying UKIP have made the Tories lose.

You do realise the Conservatives weren't in power in 2009 right? And when he "went back" on it that was because it would be literally impossible to do considering EU laws and posts since that time - I don't care for the man myself but he can't be blamed for having to concede a point that cannot be won.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'd hardly call a 5% swing with only 3 seats lost "poor election results", especially when the guy heading (what was) the opposition is as unpopular as Cameron. Also I'm not denying the fact that plenty of would-be Conservative backers shifted to vote UKIP instead, just that you cannot possibly claim that each and every one of the UKIP voters in those close areas would have voted Conservatives if they didn't have the UKIP option - which is what the article suggests by saying UKIP have made the Tories lose.

You do realise the Conservatives weren't in power in 2009 right? And when he "went back" on it that was because it would be literally impossible to do considering EU laws and posts since that time - I don't care for the man myself but he can't be blamed for having to concede a point that cannot be won.

I did not say the Liberal Democrats had poor election results, they did very good in this election and they only lost seats because of the first past the post system which needs to be scrapped immediately. I am saying that with such an unpopular and awful goverment as we have now, David Cameron achieved poor results for what should have been a complete walkover because of the reasons I stated, he is leader of the Conservative Party and not the Liberal Democrats therefore he should be a conservative and have conservative policies.

I did not say that each and every one of those voters would of voted UKIP, however its safe to assume that the majority of UKIP voters in those seats would of voted UKIP as UKIP is a right wing party with old Conservative policies, check any comments section really on any conservative natured website and its very apparent (best rated) to see what I am saying and what many commentators are also saying; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1274954/UK-ELECTION-RESULTS-2010-Did-UKIP-cost-Tories-seats-fielding-candidates-constituencies-Conservatives-set-win.html

The point on Lisbon, no Dave could still hold a referendum on Lisbon and repeal all EU laws since that time passed. A treaty can be broken or amended just as Lisbon itself can because its self-amending. David Cameron knew that Lisbon would be passed before he reached Number 10, so in light of the upcoming European Elections 2009 he promised a referendum on Lisbon - and many fell for it at the time, only to be told a few months later once the treaty had been passed that 'it would be impossible to hold a referendum on Lisbon' - totally and utterly wrong.

[Bun]

oh please! that's like saying the BNP cost the Tories votes because they're both right wing, when really most BNP voters would normally opt for Labour :S. absolute shambles of a story. yeh i'll accept UKIP may have brought out the euro-sceptics from the Tories but this is just pathetic lmao! clutching at straws much?

[Catzsy]

Fact: UKIP will have lost their deposit in 90% of the seats they fought.
Fact: They are not representing the silent majority.
Fact: In the present democratic system of government in the UK they do not matter at all.

It is also extremely arrogant of whoever suggested that they cost the Conservatives 20 -25 seats as tbh it is more likely in the absence of UKIP they would have voted for the BNP whose policies are the most similar. Thank god for small mercies I guess as they don't matter either.

[-:Undertaker:-]

oh please! that's like saying the BNP cost the Tories votes because they're both right wing, when really most BNP voters would normally opt for Labour :S. absolute shambles of a story. yeh i'll accept UKIP may have brought out the euro-sceptics from the Tories but this is just pathetic lmao! clutching at straws much?

Evidence to suggest otherwise?

It is very clear from even examning UKIPs top brass that they are disillusioned Tories and Tory HQ is getting worried. The same occured in th 1980s with the Labour Party where many votes started going to splinter votes such as the militant side of Labour and the socialist/communist groups (and if you dispute what i'm saying, go read on it).


Fact: UKIP will have lost their deposit in 90% of the seats they fought.
Fact: They are not representing the silent majority.
Fact: In the present democratic system of government in the UK they do not matter at all.

It is also extremely arrogant of whoever suggested that they cost the Conservatives 20 -25 seats as tbh it is more likely in the absence of UKIP they would have voted for the BNP whose policies are the most similar. Thank god for small mercies I guess as they don't matter either.

Fact: UKIP beat Labour in European 2009 (PR) elections.
Fact: UKIP has far more policies in agreement with public than Labour does.
Fact: Under the unfair FPTP system they have no say despite having a large vote share.

You are both putting party politics inbetween it, UKIP have had an effect as proven by the reaction of both Conservtive bloggers, commentators and Conservative HQ as well. UKIP did have an effect, fourth biggest party with 900,000 votes which deseated even some eurosceptics such as David Heathcoat-amory and Bob Spink sadly where UKIP did not stand down despite Lord Pearson demanding they did so. Let us use some examples from Conservative leaders even; Michael Howard threw many out of the Conservative Party who sympathised with UKIP and David Cameron launched an attack a few years ago on the party not to mention his article in the Daily Mail days before the election which tried to bring in disllusioned Tories.

If you followed politics, you'd know that all is not as it seems within the Conservative Party.

[Catzsy]

Fact: UKIP beat Labour in European 2009 (PR) elections.
Fact: UKIP has far more policies in agreement with public than Labour does.
Fact: Under the unfair FPTP system they have no say despite having a large vote share.

You are both putting party politics inbetween it, UKIP have had an effect as proven by the reaction of both Conservtive bloggers, commentators and Conservative HQ as well. UKIP did have an effect, fourth biggest party with 900,000 votes which deseated even some eurosceptics such as David Heathcoat-amory and Bob Spink sadly where UKIP did not stand down despite Lord Pearson demanding they did so. Let us use some examples from Conservative leaders even; Michael Howard threw many out of the Conservative Party who sympathised with UKIP and David Cameron launched an attack a few years ago on the party not to mention his article in the Daily Mail days before the election which tried to bring in disllusioned Tories.

If you followed politics, you'd know that all is not as it seems within the Conservative Party.

They do not matter in UK Politics. End of. Not interested in what is happening in the conservative party as this thread was about a claim that UKIP denied the consevatives 25 seats which is a pretty silly claim and a poor excuse to try and big up was an absolutely disastrous showing in the polls.

[-:Undertaker:-]

They do not matter in UK Politics. End of.

As we have said before, under FPTP no party matters apart from the Conservative Party and Labour Party and once in a lifetime, the Liberal Democrats. The system is fixed against both smaller parties and the Conservative Party in favour of the Labour Party and thats why many are wishing that Nick Clegg can bring about the change (proportional representation) that this country needs. How is it right that if I vote any other party in my area other than the winning party (Labour) that my vote does not count? - thats not fairness.

UKIP did cost the Conservative Party the election and if UKIP did not exist then another party similar to UKIP would be there and that would have also of cost the Cameron-Conservatives the election. Its you vs the figures provided & political commentators just so you can prove some party political point. I will refer as I always do to the comments on many Conservative newspapapers to see the affect UKIP is having on the Conservatives and theres no doubt in my mind that if the election hadn't been so close, then the UKIP vote would of been well over the one million mark.

[Bun]

evidence to suggest otherwise? oh god you sound desperate. this election must have been a big blow to you eh? and yes, i know all about the 1980s so don't patronise me, kiddo.

[-:Undertaker:-]

evidence to suggest otherwise? oh god you sound desperate. this election must have been a big blow to you eh? and yes, i know all about the 1980s so don't patronise me, kiddo.

It was a good result really, although disappointing that we did not pick Buckingham up where the vote was split between the opposition. As now proven by your post, you cant actually find anything to suggest that the Tories didnt lose the election/come much shorter of a parliamentary majority because of UKIP in the face of the numerous articles which have provided figures on the topic. If you know all about the 1980s then you should also see how the same is occuring now to the Conservative Party where its core vote is being hammered away by UKIP.

On one hand we have two Labour supporters on here saying 'nonono it wasnt UKIP' just because they'll naturally oppose anything to do with UKIP and on the other hand we have conservative newspapers saying that UKIP did prevent a Conservative Party win, backed up with polling figures in various seats - whose argument holds more water?

[Catzsy]

As we have said before, under FPTP no party matters apart from the Conservative Party and Labour Party and once in a lifetime, the Liberal Democrats. The system is fixed against both smaller parties and the Conservative Party in favour of the Labour Party and thats why many are wishing that Nick Clegg can bring about the change (proportional representation) that this country needs. How is it right that if I vote any other party in my area other than the winning party (Labour) that my vote does not count? - thats not fairness.

UKIP did cost the Conservative Party the election and if UKIP did not exist then another party similar to UKIP would be there and that would have also of cost the Cameron-Conservatives the election. Its you vs the figures provided & political commentators just so you can prove some party political point. I will refer as I always do to the comments on many Conservative newspapapers to see the affect UKIP is having on the Conservatives and theres no doubt in my mind that if the election hadn't been so close, then the UKIP vote would of been well over the one million mark.

No Political point to be made - you made the thread. Unfortunately they are just a minor party with minor support whose chances have been vastly overated particularly on this forum. The silent majority are not behind them as has been claimed so there is really nothing more to be said. All the candidates looked like James Bond lookalikes to me from the old films :P I actually watched every minute of the election so I knew what the figures were. They achieved on average between 900 and 1400 and mostly lost their deposits.

[Hitman]

I think UKIP did well. An increase in votes (albeit small, but an increase nonetheless). Under PR they'd of got 20 seats. They came 4th in regards to overall votes. Nearly one million votes. That's 1 in 32 voters voted UKIP - not a huge amount but not insignificant either.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No Political point to be made - you made the thread. Unfortunately they are just a minor party with minor support whose chances have been vastly overated particularly on this forum. The silent majority are not behind them as has been claimed so there is really nothing more to be said. All the candidates looked like James Bond lookalikes to me from the old films :P

In a FPTP system they will remain a minor party (although still the 4th largest in the UK), nobody is pretending they have the same throw as the Labour or Conservative Party. However under a proportional representation system they could very well form a government with the Conservatives (provided this system comes in) which this article shows up very well; http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100035689/ukip-would-be-crazy-to-withdraw-from-the-election-this-could-be-their-moment

Because whether you like it or not, the vast majority of the British public want more prisons, harsher sentences, withdrawal from the European Union and once the FPTP system has been removed you will find people becoming much more fluid in their voting, abandoning tribal politics and thats when we have real change on both sides of the political spectrum.

[Catzsy]

In a FPTP system they will remain a minor party (although still the 4th largest in the UK), nobody is pretending they have the same throw as the Labour or Conservative Party. However under a proportional representation system they could very well form a government with the Conservatives (provided this system comes in) which this article shows up very well; http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100035689/ukip-would-be-crazy-to-withdraw-from-the-election-this-could-be-their-moment

Because whether you like it or not, the vast majority of the British public want more prisons, harsher sentences, withdrawal from the European Union and once the FPTP system has been removed you will find people becoming much more fluid in their voting, abandoning tribal politics and thats when we have real change on both sides of the political spectrum.

How do you work out they are the 4th largest party in the UK? The only parties behind them were the nutters and the Raving Monster loony party as far as I could see in any constitunency. Sorry if the vast majority of people had wanted what you said then they would have voted for them. That's democracy.

[-:Undertaker:-]

How do you work out they are the 4th largest party in the UK? The only parties behind them were the nutters and the Raving Monster loony party as far as I could see in any constitunency. Sorry if the vast majority of people had wanted what you said then they would have voted for them. That's democracy.

Actually if you look at most results they came 4th and beat the Liberal Democrats in one/a few seats I believe. Here are the election results, its rather sad that its got to the stage where I have to copy and paste numbers for you to state the blindingly obvious, but here we are;

General Election 2010 results
http://www.iaza.com/work/100510C/ukip4th72765.bmp


European Election Results 2009
http://www.iaza.com/work/100510C/ukipeuro23358.bmp


General Election 2005 results
http://www.iaza.com/work/100510C/ukip200554385.bmp


European Election Results 2004
http://www.iaza.com/work/100510C/ukip200414502.bmp


(applies to all) - smaller parties cut from the tables to make space for charts in my post.

[Catzsy]

No need to be sarky! Actually that was probably only because they wasted all those deposits in 300 seats for very little reward. Most of the parties behind them don't have the resources to put candidates up in that many seats so I don't see they have any credibility at all apart from the fact somebody was bank rolling them. Pro rata to the number of seats contested they are way behind some of the other minor parties. Style over substance.

[Jordy]

No need to be sarky! Actually that was probably only because they wasted all those deposits in 300 seats for very little reward. Most of the parties behind them don't have the resources to put candidates up in that many seats so I don't see they have any credibility at all apart from the fact somebody was bank rolling them. Pro rata to the number of seats contested they are way behind some of the other minor parties. Style over substance.Come on that is quite low. Of course UKIP are the fourth biggest party based on what we know. Who's to say that if the monster raving loonies contested every seat they wouldn't be the fourth largest party? No one, but seeing as we don't know we can't conclude that they could be the fourth biggest party, yet we can safely conclude that UKIP is.

[FlyingJesus]

Dan I love how you talk about the "blindingly obvious" and then advocate proportional representation as though it's actually a good idea.

[Black_Apalachi]

I don't get how you can tell it was UKIP's votes that prevented the Tories from winning. I was considering UKIP but I voted Lid Dem in the end so surely my vote helped to prevent the Tories (or Labour) from winning, just like anybody who voted for anyone other than Conservative (or Labour)?

Also why are there stats there for South Wirral and not North Wirral.. or even just Wirral (since I've never in my life heard it named North or South before) :P

[Technologic]

Yet another ludicrous UKIP claim just to get some attention...

[Tintinnabulate]

Its ridiculous and pretty stupid to assume that UKIP cost the Conservatives the election. Its the same as saying Greens or BNP etc cost them the election. You are assuming people who voted UKIP would have voted Tories if UKIP didn't exist and that's ridiculous.

Its like saying "Oh no, Lib Dems cost Conservatives the Election as if Lib Dems didnt exist, Tories could have won".

This is such a lame move.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No need to be sarky! Actually that was probably only because they wasted all those deposits in 300 seats for very little reward. Most of the parties behind them don't have the resources to put candidates up in that many seats so I don't see they have any credibility at all apart from the fact somebody was bank rolling them. Pro rata to the number of seats contested they are way behind some of the other minor parties. Style over substance.

A political party raises donations mainly through members and some richer donors, much like the Labour Party is funded mainly by the Unions. A donor does not have to donate to UKIP, they could donate to the BNP/Green Party or various other parties but they dont - because UKIP has their support and the support of many others.


Dan I love how you talk about the "blindingly obvious" and then advocate proportional representation as though it's actually a good idea.

How is a system where a party that gets 36% gets nearly 50% of the parliamentary seats fair?
Many other countries have proportional representation and function perfectly well.


I don't get how you can tell it was UKIP's votes that prevented the Tories from winning. I was considering UKIP but I voted Lid Dem in the end so surely my vote helped to prevent the Tories (or Labour) from winning, just like anybody who voted for anyone other than Conservative (or Labour)?

Also why are there stats there for South Wirral and not North Wirral.. or even just Wirral (since I've never in my life heard it named North or South before) :P

Not all UKIP supporters would vote Tory, however its same to assume that the vast majority would usually vote Conservative - which can be backed up by the fact UKIP performs its best in Tory strongholds, Howard & Cameron have both attacked the party and finally that you only have to look at UKIPs top brass who are nearly all (I think they all are actually) former members of the Conservative Party.


Yet another ludicrous UKIP claim just to get some attention...

So various commentators and analysts are wrong and you are right?


Its ridiculous and pretty stupid to assume that UKIP cost the Conservatives the election. Its the same as saying Greens or BNP etc cost them the election. You are assuming people who voted UKIP would have voted Tories if UKIP didn't exist and that's ridiculous.

Its like saying "Oh no, Lib Dems cost Conservatives the Election as if Lib Dems didnt exist, Tories could have won".

This is such a lame move.

Most UKIP supporters would vote for the Conservative Party and indeed are mostly former Conservatives supporters. It is not a question of whether UKIP exists or not, it is a statement which the voters have shown which rings to the heart of the Tory Party - it has become something which has lost it support and lost it a parliamentary majority.

[Tintinnabulate]

So basically lets blame the UKIP for the hung parliament and messing us up. :).

[-:Undertaker:-]

So basically lets blame the UKIP for the hung parliament and messing us up. :).

The blame lays with David Cameron for trying to be something his party is not, I believe your own party has also accused him of this in the past.

[Tintinnabulate]

I just find it hilarious that you think its because of UKIP that the Tories didn't get a overall majority.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I just find it hilarious that you think its because of UKIP that the Tories didn't get a overall majority.

I just find it rather strange that you are actually ignoring both figures (mathematics provided), articles and Conservatives themselves saying that it did loose the Conservatives an overall majority. One example is where David Heathcoat-Amory was de-seated because a UKIP candidate refused to stand down despite party HQ demanding he do so.

The Conservatives got what? 305 odd seats.
UKIP prevented them getting 20 to 25 of these seats because it split the Tory vote.
Therefore 305+25=330 which would have resulted in an overall majority for the Conservative Party.

Lord Pearson offered Cameron the chance to give the people a referendum before the election in the knowledge that UKIP would not stand for election and actually support and campaign for the Conservatives, Cameron declined and now he has no majority in the Commons thanks to his vote being split.

[Tintinnabulate]

I just find it rather strange that you are actually ignoring both figures (mathematics provided), articles and Conservatives themselves saying that it did loose the Conservatives an overall majority. One example is where David Heathcoat-Amory was de-seated because a UKIP candidate refused to stand down despite party HQ demanding he do so.

The Conservatives got what? 305 odd seats.
UKIP prevented them getting 20 to 25 of these seats because it split the Tory vote.
Therefore 305+25=330 which would have resulted in an overall majority for the Conservative Party.

Lord Pearson offered Cameron the chance to give the people a referendum before the election in the knowledge that UKIP would not stand for election and actually support and campaign for the Conservatives, Cameron declined and now he has no majority in the Commons thanks to his vote being split.

Yes if Lib Dems, Green etc didnt stand for election, Labour would have an overall majority and there would be no hung parliament.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes if Lib Dems, Green etc didnt stand for election, Labour would have an overall majority and there would be no hung parliament.

Indeed you are correct in saying that as most Greens/Liberal Democrats would be more inclined to vote Labour rather than Conservative. However we are talking about the effect on the Conservative vote that UKIP has had, and as the numbers show;- it has deprived them of a parliamentary majority.

[Tintinnabulate]

Indeed you are correct in saying that as most Greens/Liberal Democrats would be more inclined to vote Labour rather than Conservative. However we are talking about the effect on the Conservative vote that UKIP has had, and as the numbers show;- it has deprived them of a parliamentary majority.

You are presuming all of them would have voted Tories but that isnt true.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You are presuming all of them would have voted Tories but that isnt true.

Not all of them but the vast majority, yes.

[jam666]

You are presuming all of them would have voted Tories but that isnt true.

Your also presuming that everyone who voted for the greens and liberals would of voted for labour, but that isnt true. You cant have it both ways.

[Tintinnabulate]

Your also presuming that everyone who voted for the greens and liberals would of voted for labour, but that isnt true. You cant have it both ways.

I was using a ridiculous example to try and get it in to UT's head.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I was using a ridiculous example to try and get it in to UT's head.

Well it failed, didn't it.

The question is when will you allow the figures and examples to get into your own head?
Or maybe they have, hence why you have no response to the figures I have provided and that commentators have described as the 'UKIP effect'.

I think often you disagree just for the sake of disagreeing.