Jump to content

Did UKIP keep the Tories out of No.10 ?


trousers
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was reading today that if UKIP didn't exist and all their votes had gone to the Tories instead (which would be the 'best fit' home for those voters) then Mr Cameron would have got the 326 seats he needed.

 

Is that true or some made up nonsense? A bit ironic if true: "vote UKIP, vote for closer ties to Europe"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are at least two seats to my certain knowledge where the UKIP + Tory vote would have ousted the Labour MP when in fact the Labour MP survived. One of those seats is John Denham's in Soton Itchen.

 

I suspect there are probably about five or six seats where this occurred. That would have been enough to have made a significant difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are at least two seats to my certain knowledge where the UKIP + Tory vote would have ousted the Labour MP when in fact the Labour MP survived. One of those seats is John Denham's in Soton Itchen.

 

I suspect there are probably about five or six seats where this occurred. That would have been enough to have made a significant difference.

 

Europe - The bain of the Tories raises its head again. :-D

 

I can't help but laugh, for all the we've changed talk they are still split over Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely the "best fit" for UKIP voters if UKIP didnt exist would be BNP?

 

Oooh, you're provocative...but I like you... ;-)

 

No, I disagree...most UKIP votes would go to the conservatives IMHO.

 

Perhaps cameron's best bet if he gets squeezed out by the parties thst came 2nd and 3rd in the election is to agree to hold a EU membership referendum after the next election thus clawing back those oh so decisive UKIP votes? That said, labour and the lib- debs will have changed the voting system by then (without a referendum initially) so all a bit academic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was reading today that if UKIP didn't exist and all their votes had gone to the Tories instead (which would be the 'best fit' home for those voters) then Mr Cameron would have got the 326 seats he needed.

 

Is that true or some made up nonsense? A bit ironic if true: "vote UKIP, vote for closer ties to Europe"

 

I said this the other day. I would vote Conservative if I lived in a marginal constituency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had UKIP not stood, and their voters all opted to vote Tory instead, there would have been several extra blue seats on last Friday morning. Just as an example, each of the following seats would probably have elected a Tory MP:

 

St Ives,

Somerton and Frome,

St Austell and Newquay,

Morley and Outwood,

Southampton Itchen,

Dudley North

 

It probably wouldn't have been enough seats to make a majority though, as the media are slipping in seats such as Oldham East and Saddleworth, which would only have not gone Labour, if the UKIP voters had swung to the Lib Dems... which I can't see happening. Certainly, with the extra seats UKIP prevented the Tories from winning, Cameron would be more likely to be able to create a coalition (with the DUP), and would have made it harder for the 'rainbow' coalition to form.

 

However, you could extend the argument further, did the Lib Dems standing prevent Labour from winning? When you think about it like this, the UKIP are a valid political party, who should be allowed to stand and challenge for seats. Under PR UKIP would have won a number of seats, and been able to reflect their views in the commons, probably in alliance with the Conservatives. More choice, more democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UKIP came 4th in this general election and second in the European Elections. PR will help them establish themselves more, particulary if AV is the prefered reform.

 

Perhaps if the Tory policy on Europe was more in line with their grassroots, then UKIP wouldn't have taken so many votes in the above areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UKIP came 4th in this general election and second in the European Elections. PR will help them establish themselves more, particulary if AV is the prefered reform.

 

Perhaps if the Tory policy on Europe was more in line with their grassroots, then UKIP wouldn't have taken so many votes in the above areas.

 

Precisely. The vast bulk of UKIP voters are right wing Conservatives. If theConservatives were more right wing they would win me back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Precisely. The vast bulk of UKIP voters are right wing Conservatives. If theConservatives were more right wing they would win me back.

 

What if the Conservatives offered a referendum on EU membership but didn't campaign on way or t'other (i.e. just let the electorate decide off their own backs). Would that appease UKIP voters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the Conservatives offered a referendum on EU membership but didn't campaign on way or t'other (i.e. just let the electorate decide off their own backs). Would that appease UKIP voters?

 

It could, depending on the result.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Precisely. The vast bulk of UKIP voters are right wing Conservatives. If theConservatives were more right wing they would win me back.

 

 

But this is why the Tories will always have a problem. For each UKIP voter they regain they lose more to the LDs. In reality the Tories need LD and Lab voters to ever get above 40% of the popular vote so have to actually go to the left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taxpayers face £13 billion bailout after Alistair Darling caves in

 

It exposes the British taxpayer to £9.6 - £13 billion in liabilities should Spain or Portugal go the way of Greece.

 

Mr Darling had no choice but to surrender because the decision was taken under a Lisbon Treaty "exceptional occurrences" clause that stripped Britain of its veto.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/7703034/Taxpayers-face-13-billion-bailout-after-Alistair-Darling-caves-in.html

 

The grubby Labour Party signed us up to this treaty despite promising a referendum.:mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The grubby Labour Party signed us up to this treaty despite promising a referendum.:mad:

 

What utter ba*****ds! How dare we consider helping a neighbour in need.

 

I know, we are on our knees too, and this might push us over the edge, but personally I'd share my last chuck of bread to help a friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What utter ba*****ds! How dare we consider helping a neighbour in need.

 

I know, we are on our knees too, and this might push us over the edge, but personally I'd share my last chuck of bread to help a friend.

 

Why should we use our money to prop up the Euro? It's not our problem. Will the EU prop up the pound?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should we use our money to prop up the Euro? It's not our problem. Will the EU prop up the pound?

 

We are not propping up the Euro. We are helping support the EU of which we are a part. If Spain and Portugal go the way of Greece it affects all EU nations, not just those who use the Euro as currency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are not propping up the Euro. We are helping support the EU of which we are a part. If Spain and Portugal go the way of Greece it affects all EU nations, not just those who use the Euro as currency.

 

But the reason Greece is in such a dire state is because it cannot devalue its currency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should we use our money to prop up the Euro? It's not our problem. Will the EU prop up the pound?

 

Dune, as you can see from the link you provided, the UK has paid into a EU stabilisation fund - nothing to do with the Euro. However, we decided not to pay into the larger Euro Zone rescue package of £624 billion.

 

If the UK were to go into meltdown, we could therefore expect some help from the EU stabilisation package; but why would Steling expect a Euro bailout, when we aren't paying to prop it up? Interestingly, Sweden, who are in the same position as us (in EU, outside Eurozone) suggested it would "not rule out" being part of the wider fund.

 

Perhaps the UK should be more generous when our neighbours are in need, we might not get a 'sod off' next time we need some help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the reason Greece is in such a dire state is because it cannot devalue its currency.

 

Oh, yes, the miracle devalue your own population's wealth answer.

 

The real reason Greece (like the UK) is in such a state, is it's Government spends more than it brings in.

 

What happens during a US recession? Can Texas devalue it's currency? Or do different economic rules work in the States?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why were you moaning yesterday about the death of centralist politics due to coalitions/PR if you want the tories to lurch right?

 

Because it's be a double sided coin and as much as a hardline rightwing coalition would be great, a hardline leftie coalition would be a nightmare. Governments would lurch from one extreme to another and there would be anarchy and division and violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, yes, the miracle devalue your own population's wealth answer.

 

The real reason Greece (like the UK) is in such a state, is it's Government spends more than it brings in.

 

What happens during a US recession? Can Texas devalue it's currency? Or do different economic rules work in the States?

 

Greece needs to devalue, every economist says so, but they can't. This is why the UK is lucky to have the £ because we have this option if need be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What utter ba*****ds! How dare we consider helping a neighbour in need.

 

I know, we are on our knees too, and this might push us over the edge, but personally I'd share my last chuck of bread to help a friend.

 

Your sentiments are admirable if they applied to neighbours being a family living next door to you and friend was an actual person that you knew socially.

 

Where it all falls down is where you attempt to call other Countries friends and neighbours. We are bound into this payment to bail out the economies of these other states because the Treaty of Lisbon took away our right of veto. We the voters, were never asked via a referendum whether we wanted to accept this further reduction in our sovereignty. We are not a member of the Euro, having thankfully retained the £.

 

Our economy is a basket case too, thanks to the profligacy of the Labour Party. Why should we bail out other European States who have tied themselves into a straight-jacket that renders them incapable of making adjustments to their individual economies that would avoid them slumping or overheating?

 

Charity begins at home. We are already facing massive tax increases and cuts in services here. Why should we have to increase our taxation further to prop up the Greeks and others because their budget deficit has been caused to a large extent because most Greeks don't pay their taxes properly?

 

And I wonder about the validity of Darling to making these decisions until the situation has been resolved about who is the legitimate Government of the Country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happens during a US recession? Can Texas devalue it's currency? Or do different economic rules work in the States?

 

Don't the United States have one Government nationally, based in Washington? I didn't realise that Texas was a different country with their own Government. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't the United States have one Government nationally, based in Washington? I didn't realise that Texas was a different country with their own Government. :rolleyes:

 

Same princple. As the name indicates, the Texas is one of the United States which make up America. It could easily be suffering from high unemployment while New York is booming. How can Texas devalue it's dollar when it needs to? Or as I queried before, does the US obey different laws of economics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same princple. As the name indicates, the Texas is one of the United States which make up America. It could easily be suffering from high unemployment while New York is booming. How can Texas devalue it's dollar when it needs to? Or as I queried before, does the US obey different laws of economics?

 

 

A valid point. However the US is a political union, the EU is an economic one although right wingers predictably worry about potential loss of sovereignty obviously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your sentiments are admirable if they applied to neighbours being a family living next door to you and friend was an actual person that you knew socially.

 

Where it all falls down is where you attempt to call other Countries friends and neighbours.

 

Sorry Wes, why does calling other countries friends and neighbours change the sentiment? Are they strangers? Do these countries not have more in common with us that there are differences? So you argue we should help needy individuals, but ignore the suffering of entire countries of individuals (even when doing so could cause us to suffer from the fall out)?

 

And I wonder about the validity of Darling to making these decisions until the situation has been resolved about who is the legitimate Government of the Country.

Err, because that's the law? Would you rather we have no governance between the ballots being closed and the new leader is decided?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A valid point. However the US is a political union, the EU is an economic one although right wingers predictably worry about potential loss of sovereignty obviously.

 

I recognise the difference in the type of union - but they are both still examples of areas which are geographically and economically distinct, which are bound by the same currency.

 

By extention of the 'Greece can't devalue currency' arguement - should say Rhonda, Middlesboro, or Lanacashire be able to devalue their sterling if they are in recession while London and the SE are booming? Obviously not, they have to find other ways to stimulate their economy. What, I am pointing out, is that the 'Euro devaulation problem' arguement is flawed, as fundamentally the same problem can be attributed to every currency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I wonder about the validity of Darling to making these decisions until the situation has been resolved about who is the legitimate Government of the Country.

AD stated that he had consulted with both George Osborne and Vince Cable over the weekend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same princple. As the name indicates, the Texas is one of the United States which make up America. It could easily be suffering from high unemployment while New York is booming. How can Texas devalue it's dollar when it needs to? Or as I queried before, does the US obey different laws of economics?

 

I'm surprised that you seem unable to grasp the concept. The United States of America is not the same as this ragbag collection of COUNTRIES that make up the European Union. Each of these countries have their own governments and some were republics and others monarchies.

 

The simple answer to your question about Texas, is that the central government would apply aid packages to Texas to assist their local economy. The American taxpayers would feel fine about it, because it is part of the USA. The USA states are not that different to our Counties. If there is an area of the UK suffering from high unemployment, the government gives regional grants to encourage companies to build or expand there and these are paid for by the taxpayer.

 

If you really believe there is ANY parallel between that situation and Europe, you go down in my estimation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Wes, why does calling other countries friends and neighbours change the sentiment? Are they strangers? Do these countries not have more in common with us that there are differences? So you argue we should help needy individuals, but ignore the suffering of entire countries of individuals (even when doing so could cause us to suffer from the fall out)?

 

It depends on how long your perspective goes. In even comparatively recent history, some of those friends were mortal enemies of ours. And yes, in many ways they are strangers. Some of them especially will selfishly look after their own interests rather than paying much attention to those of others. Why should we not do so too?

 

Err, because that's the law? Would you rather we have no governance between the ballots being closed and the new leader is decided?

 

Yes, I would. We have no governance in effect when the Parliament is in recess, so what's a few days delay until this is sorted? After the results of the election were known, Labour effectively no longer had a mandate to govern. But if it has been cleared with the other two parties' financial spokesmen, that is fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So by extention, voters are only happy to help bail out failing economies when they consider the economy to be within their same country? What happens if Scotland's economy fails? As a seperate country, would England not send aid to support them?

 

I think you can see what I'm getting at, that essentially, Europeans share broadly identical aims, they have similar views on education, society, health, defense etc. When you think about it we have more in common with most Europeans than we have differences. Why should helping one another overcome economic difficulties be unacceptable to some voters? Surely it's just another safety mechanism to keep our economies strong. I see little difference in the EU helping Greece than if Westminster were to bail out Scotland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So by extention, voters are only happy to help bail out failing economies when they consider the economy to be within their same country? What happens if Scotland's economy fails? As a seperate country, would England not send aid to support them?

 

I think you can see what I'm getting at, that essentially, Europeans share broadly identical aims, they have similar views on education, society, health, defense etc. When you think about it we have more in common with most Europeans than we have differences. Why should helping one another overcome economic difficulties be unacceptable to some voters? Surely it's just another safety mechanism to keep our economies strong. I see little difference in the EU helping Greece than if Westminster were to bail out Scotland.

 

Well, Scotland is an interesting case, for the simple reason that although part of the United Kingdom, until comparatively recently in their history since the Union, they sent MPs to a central Parliament which was responsible for collecting taxation from the Scots and then distributed towards the fabric of the whole Union, towards where it was felt the need was greatest. They have already derived some considerable benefits from being part of that Union.

 

But the situation changed when the momentum grew towards Scottish Independence and as a sop to them, we allowed them their own Parliament. But the scandalous Mid-Lothian question can do nothing else eventually than to foment resentment that they have representation in our Parliament, but we have none in theirs.

 

Naturally, if Scotland's economy failed, there would increasingly be a feeling that as they have control over much of their economy, that the blame should fall on their shoulders.

 

As for your second paragraph, I disagree with much of it, so excuse me if I don't get what you're trying to say.

 

I don't think that we have much in common with most of our European neighbours at all. Arguably we have more in common with New Zealanders on the opposite side of the World than we do with the French just 22 miles away. I don't even agree that they hold similar views to ours on Health, Education, Defence, society, etc. I've already explained why some voters (most, I'd say) would resent having to pay their taxes towards bailing out some European state, especially when our economy was in such a mess and when they perceive that some of those countries have made tax evasion an artform, or where they have had inefficient industries subsidised by the EU, often at the expense of our industries in those fields.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})