Chances of UKIP winning General Election?

[Gilly]

Not really 7,000 behind as such

Except that it was, you mean?

 

[greywolf]

You don't understand basic arithmetic and your fantasy option of 3,501 votes going to UKIP could easily be changed to going to any other party.

UKIP were miles behind. Not as far as before but still far enough from winning a seat as to be meaningless.

Hardly in the realms of complete fantasy. I am going to hazard a guess and say that if a conservative voter were to switch due to issues not being confronted by them, it is quite likely they would vote for UKIP. That being, if UKIP could have taken the approx 3,501 votes from con they would have won what with FPTP. So wouldn't take so many people to switch.

Except that it was, you mean?

Yes it was, not saying it wasn't. What I am saying is it is not a great victory for con and downfall for UKIP as is made out. What it does show is an increasing support for UKIP. Also shows Lib Dems doing worse and worse.

Funny when you see the likes of the LibDems saying they didn't get their message across well enough, need to shout louder as such. Or maybe perhaps they did and the voter has decided their policies are complete rubbish and out of touch, hence them doing so shockingly badly.

 

[robgmun]

greywolf is spot on and it's Mags that's had a basic maths fail

 

[Sankari]

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Hardly in the realms of complete fantasy. I am going to hazard a guess and say that if a conservative voter were to switch due to issues not being confronted by them, it is quite likely they would vote for UKIP. That being, if UKIP could have taken the approx 3,501 votes from con they would have won what with FPTP. So wouldn't take so many people to switch.

Yes it was, not saying it wasn't. What I am saying is it is not a great victory for con and downfall for UKIP as is made out. What it does show is an increasing support for UKIP. Also shows Lib Dems doing worse and worse.

Funny when you see the likes of the LibDems saying they didn't get their message across well enough, need to shout louder as such. Or maybe perhaps they did and the voter has decided their policies are complete rubbish and out of touch, hence them doing so shockingly badly.

If's and buts don't change the fact that UKIP were 7,000+ votes behind the winner. Speculating on where they could have gone is grasping at straws as it's clear where they went. 7,000 more people wanted someone other than UKIP to get their vote and this happened.

greywolf is spot on and it's Mags that's had a basic maths fail

I know you're trying hard to keep up and that's great to see but if I have 7,000 sandcastles and you have no sandcastles, how many more sandcastles than you do I have? Take your time.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Hardly in the realms of complete fantasy. I am going to hazard a guess and say that if a conservative voter were to switch due to issues not being confronted by them, it is quite likely they would vote for UKIP. That being, if UKIP could have taken the approx 3,501 votes from con they would have won what with FPTP. So wouldn't take so many people to switch.

If it's a game of what if then you can play that with almost anything, if Andy Murray had hit more winners yesterday than Rafa Nadal he'd probably be going through to the French Open Final.

You may be right and UKIP is the most likely alternative for a displaced Conservative voter but then again it's quite possible they'd abstain entirely, spoil their ballot or vote for another single issue party. Then again you could have the potential of many more people choosing to vote (and do so tactically) so perhaps the gap would increase rather than decrease. Essentially it might be a bit of fun trying to work out how close it could have been but you'd have to assume that all other factors remained the same except that a significant number of Conservative voters decided to change to UKIP - possible but it's also possible that they'd do something else entirely.

If's and buts don't change the fact that UKIP were 7,000+ votes behind the winner. Speculating on where they could have gone is grasping at straws as it's clear where they went. 7,000 more people wanted someone other than UKIP to get their vote and this happened.

While I agree with the basic point that UKIP were 7,000+ votes behind the inner pedant in me feels compelled to note that there weren't just 7,000 more people wanting someone other than UKIP - across the whole election it was over 28,000 voters who wanted someone other than UKIP (approx. 38,700 turnout with 10,028 voting for UKIP and that's with a 53% turnout which is down from the 74% in the last running of the by-election). It's a higher percentage for UKIP than last time but it's a higher percentage from a pool that has shrunk overall so that might say more about general disenfranchisement with politics than approval for a particular party but that's merely a supposition.

 

[elmarko]

Hardly in the realms of complete fantasy. I am going to hazard a guess and say that if a conservative voter were to switch due to issues not being confronted by them, it is quite likely they would vote for UKIP. That being, if UKIP could have taken the approx 3,501 votes from con they would have won what with FPTP. So wouldn't take so many people to switch.

It is a fantasy.

If you look at the socio-demographic split of the average UKIP voter they simple don't have a wide enough appeal to gain the rest of the electorate in the numbers required to actually win anything.

They are good at connecting with the disenfranchised, the politically abandoned & the moderate racist vote - the problem is that by attending to this specific groups needs so much they have invalidated themselves to the moderate Conservative, Liberal Democrat or Labour voters.

These are the people who tend to swing, not extreme Labour or extreme Conservatives - these are the people who win elections. The only impact I can envisage the 'Rise of UKIP' having is removing a small section of Conservative support resulting in a Labour win in the next generation election.

A result I'd find hilarious because Labour are the main contenders to win have specifically stated they have no intention of holding an EU referendum.

 

[McPhee]

The numbers are interesting. Turnout was down from 51,228 to 38,707. The Tories scored 17,431 votes, down from 27,590. UKIP were up from 1,594 to 10,028. Other parties fell from 21,684 votes to 11,248.

So, was there a significant Con/UKIP swing, with a large number of people who voted for other parties in 2010 just not bothering?

Or was there a large swing from other parties to UKIP, with a large proportion of the Tory vote not turning out?

It's not brilliant news for the Conservatives either way, as they either lost a large number of voters to UKIP, or a large number of their voters couldn't be bothered to vote.

 

[Gilly]

Funny when you see the likes of the LibDems saying they didn't get their message across well enough, need to shout louder as such. Or maybe perhaps they did and the voter has decided their policies are complete rubbish and out of touch, hence them doing so shockingly badly.

I don't think you can seriously marginalise the policies of lib dem whilst promoting a one trick pony

 

[D.P.]

Hardly in the realms of complete fantasy. I am going to hazard a guess and say that if a conservative voter were to switch due to issues not being confronted by them, it is quite likely they would vote for UKIP. That being, if UKIP could have taken the approx 3,501 votes from con they would have won what with FPTP. So wouldn't take so many people to switch.




Yes it was, not saying it wasn't. What I am saying is it is not a great victory for con and downfall for UKIP as is made out. What it does show is an increasing support for UKIP. Also shows Lib Dems doing worse and worse.

Funny when you see the likes of the LibDems saying they didn't get their message across well enough, need to shout louder as such. Or maybe perhaps they did and the voter has decided their policies are complete rubbish and out of touch, hence them doing so shockingly badly.

You've made a massive assumption that every voter that decided not to vote Tory voted UKIP, which is about as likely as winning the lottery every week for the rest of your life. You'll find far more people, if they are going to switch from Tories, going to labour, lib-dems, greens or simply abstaining.

Since what you are saying has absolutely no basis in reality it is just as correct to say the Green Party were likely to win if people voted differently.

 

[D.P.]

It is a fantasy.

If you look at the socio-demographic split of the average UKIP voter they simple don't have a wide enough appeal to gain the rest of the electorate in the numbers required to actually win anything.

They are good at connecting with the disenfranchised, the politically abandoned & the moderate racist vote - the problem is that by attending to this specific groups needs so much they have invalidated themselves to the moderate Conservative, Liberal Democrat or Labour voters.

These are the people who tend to swing, not extreme Labour or extreme Conservatives - these are the people who win elections. The only impact I can envisage the 'Rise of UKIP' having is removing a small section of Conservative support resulting in a Labour win in the next generation election.

A result I'd find hilarious because Labour are the main contenders to win have specifically stated they have no intention of holding an EU referendum.

I agree with this analysis. If the UKIP voters are really that concerned about the EU then their best vote is with th Tories. Voting UKIP, although having a fairly minimal effect, will increase the chances of a labour win.
The same thing with the EU elections, why vote for a party that has the lowest turn out for a parliament where they cannot decide upon EU membership. Having a load of UKIP MEPs has only removed power from Brtiain and given us less voice in EU issues.

 

[robgmun]

I know you're trying hard to keep up and that's great to see but if I have 7,000 sandcastles and you have no sandcastles, how many more sandcastles than you do I have? Take your time.

Oh dear! If half those sandcastles turn from blue to purple, how much of each are there?

 

[spankingtexan]

Homosexuality is perfectly natural, to argue otherwise is "old fashioned" for want of a better phrase. We don't live in the early 20th century anymore. It's shameful that people today, so long since then, still take issue with it. Whoever a person decides to bed is none of your business! Also, homosexuality doesn't just occur in humans.

Just a thought, for all us straights, if in an alternate dimension, men reproduced with men, but you were only attracted to women. Would you be happy to accept "treatment" to make you attracted to men, in the name of procreation? Question mostly aimed at spankingtexan and Co. I mean, this is assuming you are not allowed to have children by any other means people can have them like adoption and surrogacy.

LOL! are you being serious? I'm not really interested in your hypothetical homosexual alternate dimension on Planet Captain, Jesus H Christ just absolutely rolling round lmao

 

[spankingtexan]

complications in the neural structure, hence natural.

iirc the currently count is over 1000 species which show homosexual behaviors.

especially black swans where homosexual parents offspring survive better due to the extra territory two males can provide.

how is homosexuality unnatural?

What a load of bs.

Nature intended to reproduce but didn't bless the 1000+ on how to do it except give them animal urges to reproduce the species, mistake were made until they got it right, we humans were blessed with superior intellect , well some of us, and learned how to reproduce just as nature intended. Homosexuality is not natural end of. Continues rolling round lmao.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Homosexuality is not natural end of.

When I read that I just thought that you were saying this:

I don't have any basis for my argument, can't refute the points made with any evidence and so I'm going to reiterate my opinion as fact, try and shut down the conversation and hope for the best.

 

[RDM]

When I read that I just thought that you were saying this:

I don't have any basis for my argument, can't refute the points made with any evidence and so I'm going to reiterate my opinion as fact, try and shut down the conversation and hope for the best.

Not to mention there are so many unnatural things we do every single day that I am not entirely sure what the issue is?

 

[Tonester0011]

we humans were blessed with superior intellect , well some of us, and learned how to reproduce just as nature intended. Homosexuality is not natural end of. Continues rolling round lmao.

Then by that logic the gene(s) responsible for same sex attraction would have been lost long ago. I mean, by proxy of having same sex relations you tend not to reproduce

Love the bull that comes from the religious 'unnatural' lot

 

[zyzzyzus]

What a load of bs.

Nature intended to reproduce but didn't bless the 1000+ on how to do it except give them animal urges to reproduce the species, mistake were made until they got it right, we humans were blessed with superior intellect , well some of us, and learned how to reproduce just as nature intended. Homosexuality is not natural end of. Continues rolling round lmao.

Which means protected sex is not natural and thus evil.... I guess AIDS is sent by god for us to show how determined we are to not have protected sex?

Humans are animals, anything we do is natural since we are animals doing what our species naturally does.

Why does it even matter if 2 men or 2 women love each other or even just want a bit of fun? Who are you to determine what is natural anyway?

How would you even determine if something is natural or not? Like I said, we are animals so how can anything we do not be natural?

 

[Meridian]

Homosexuality is not natural end of.

Of course it's natural: if it wasn't natural, it wouldn't exist. If it exists, it's natural. People flying like birds by flapping their arms isn't natural, because it doesn't happen. Homosexuality happens, therefore it's natural. You seem to be confusing "I don't like" with "natural". If you want to say that you don't like homosexuals, be my guest. But that's just a feeling you have, not the way of the world.

 

[elmarko]

Homosexuality is not natural end of. Continues rolling round lmao.

Are you suggesting that homosexuality is supernatural?. Are homosexuals akin to vampires & bigfoot now?

Or do you not quite understand what the term 'natural' means in either this sense or generally?. Not to mention the fact (yes fact, this isn't subjective you are just wrong) that homosexuality occurs in nature across a myriad of different species.