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

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/go...-majority.html
http://page.politicshome.com/uk/story/4744/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...e-polls-again/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-majority.html

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/m...1_1631388c.jpg

Quote:

---

The Telegraph asks the question and highlights Ed Balls' victory - won by only 1,101 votes while UKIP polled 1,506. "Jason" left a comment on ConHome listing 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: "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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

good :D I voted for UKIP, not conservatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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/elec...s-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.

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?