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

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

09-05-2010, 08:55 PM
-:Undertaker:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catzsy

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.
09-05-2010, 09:03 PM
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.
09-05-2010, 09:06 PM
Jordy

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.
09-05-2010, 09:06 PM
FlyingJesus

Dan I love how you talk about the "blindingly obvious" and then advocate proportional representation as though it's actually a good idea.
10-05-2010, 05:46 PM
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
10-05-2010, 05:55 PM
Technologic

Yet another ludicrous UKIP claim just to get some attention...
10-05-2010, 06:01 PM
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.
10-05-2010, 07:00 PM
-:Undertaker:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Technologic

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saurav.

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.
10-05-2010, 07:04 PM
Tintinnabulate

So basically lets blame the UKIP for the hung parliament and messing us up. :).
10-05-2010, 07:06 PM
-:Undertaker:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saurav.

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.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page