Labour should be thanking UKIP from the bottom of their heart

First topic message reminder :

had it not been for ukip labours drubbing could have been far far worse.
there are 61 seats that labour took entirely because ukip stood and stopped the tories.
Of course some of them may well not have voted tory, but 61 seats is a big chunk of the rump labour party



there were also 6 seats that went to labour that had tories voted ukip would have gone to ukip.


Labour owes a massive vote of thanks to ukip for stopping the defeat becoming a rout.
the full results can be found here
http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/custom/uploads/2015/05/BES-2015-General-Election-results-file-v1.0.xlsx

#Labour Fail #VoteUKIPGetLabour

Belatucadros wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


But that still shows an increase in support does it not, which goes against your view point does it not Irn? Ifthe Lib Dems as you claim off collaboration does it. We would see the opposite support of the Tories, so why is that we do not and in fact they gained many pf their seats, even with UKIP support which took a third of Tory votes in many other areas? We really should have seen far more Labour support, we never did, people swung right mate

Show me this increased support for the Tories and an explanation why the LibDem vote collapsed?

I can show you plenty of increase on votes in areas as you well know Irn, si why ask when you can see for yourself? I hve many reasons why the Lib Dems collapsed, but you have a problem here. UKIP support grew, Lid des fell, so did Labour as well in areas just as ell as Tories. If we go off right wing votes based on Tory and UKIP together, it is 50%. That is the biggest swing for right wing support in years, which is what you miss at every turn

The swing to the right was based on UKIP increased votes, not an increase by the Tories. Of all the parties that increased their vote share the Tories were the lowest and they only just made it. So show me this increased Tory support and an explanation why the LibDem vote collapsed. There has to be a reason why they were reduced to only 8 seats and it certainly wasn't because the Tories increased their share of the vote to do that much damge. The LibDem vote share did not hold up - why?

Belatucadros wrote:I will leave you to ponder my last point Irn

Night mate

Okay dokay, CYA tomorrow.

Irn Bru wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:



I can show you plenty of increase on votes in areas as you well know Irn, si why ask when you can see for yourself? I hve many reasons why the Lib Dems collapsed, but you have a problem here. UKIP support grew, Lid des fell, so did Labour as well in areas just as ell as Tories. If we go off right wing votes based on Tory and UKIP together, it is 50%. That is the biggest swing for right wing support in years, which is what you miss at every turn

The swing to the right was based on UKIP increased votes, not an increase by the Tories. Of all the parties that increased their vote share the Tories were the lowest and they only just made it. So show me this increased Tory support and an explanation why the LibDem vote collapsed. There has to be a reason why they were reduced to only 8 seats and it certainly wasn't because the Tories increased their share of the vote to do that much damge. The LibDem vote share did not hold up - why?

You still cannot grasp this can you?
The Tory vote did increase in at least 24 seats if not more. It does not matter overall on percentages if they have the biggest percentage overall does it? Hence why your reasoning is absurd mate. Of course their percentage will be minimal for an increase, they lost votes big time to UKIP. If anything, we should have seen a massive percentage loss to the Tories off this, they though in fact increased. That says to me, that the people overwhelmingly voted right wing, to the tune of over 50% in the general election.

Night
The right wing vote though increased dramatically for the nation, to the point of actually 50%

Belatucadros wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:



I can show you plenty of increase on votes in areas as you well know Irn, si why ask when you can see for yourself? I hve many reasons why the Lib Dems collapsed, but you have a problem here. UKIP support grew, Lid des fell, so did Labour as well in areas just as ell as Tories. If we go off right wing votes based on Tory and UKIP together, it is 50%. That is the biggest swing for right wing support in years, which is what you miss at every turn

The swing to the right was based on UKIP increased votes, not an increase by the Tories. Of all the parties that increased their vote share the Tories were the lowest and they only just made it. So show me this increased Tory support and an explanation why the LibDem vote collapsed. There has to be a reason why they were reduced to only 8 seats and it certainly wasn't because the Tories increased their share of the vote to do that much damge. The LibDem vote share did not hold up - why?

You still cannot grasp this can you?
The Tory vote did increase in at least 24 seats if not more. It does not matter overall on percentages if they have the biggest percentage overall does it? Hence why your reasoning is absurd mate. Of course their percentage will be minimal for an increase, they lost votes big time to UKIP. If anything, we should have seen a massive percentage loss to the Tories off this, the though in fact increased. That says to me, that the people overwhelmingly voted right wing, to the tune o over 50%.

Night
The right wing vote though increased cramatically for the nation, to the point of actually 50%

Well show me this increased vote in the 27 seats they took off the LibDems. And the reason for the collapse in the LibDem vote is what.................?

OMG, was there a swing in support in many of these seats Irn?
Seriously, I can post the evidence, but have no wish to embarrass you.


The Conservatives have won 331 seats, securing a parliamentary majority of 12 after all 650 constituencies declared. They have made a net gain of 24 seats and their share of the vote increased by 0.8%.




http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32624405





Goodnight

Belatucadros wrote:OMG, was there a swing in support in many of these seats Irn?
Seriously, I can post the evidence, but have no wish to embarrass you.


The Conservatives have won 331 seats, securing a parliamentary majority of 12 after all 650 constituencies declared. They have made a net gain of 24 seats and their share of the vote increased by 0.8%.




http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32624405





Goodnight

0.8%. See, the lowest vote share of all the parties who increased their share of the vote.
And the reason for the collapse of the LibDem vote is what..............?

Do the maths Irn, and goodnight mate:

Lib Dem collapse

The Conservatives swept to victory across the South West, wiping out Liberal Democrat representation in the region.
The Lib Dems lost all 15 of their seats, including North Devon, a constituency that they had held for the past 23 years.
Cornwall's six constituencies all returned Conservative MPs. Ten years ago they had all gone to the Liberal Democrats.

Capital battleground

Labour bucked the national trend in London, gaining seven seats and increasing their number of MPs in London to 45 out of 73.
The Lib Dems were almost wiped out in the capital, losing all but one of their London MPs. Carshalton and Wallington Liberal Democrat MP Tom Brake was the only party member to hold on to his seat.
The most high-profile scalp came in [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/[ %7B]Twickenham[/url], where Business Secretary Vince Cable, Lib Dem MP since 1997, lost his seat to Conservative rival Tania Mathias by more than 2,000 votes. In the last election in 2010, Mr. Cable won by a majority of 12,140 votes.

Tory dominance

The Conservatives strengthened their dominance in the South East while holding UKIP at bay in key marginals in the region.
UKIP leader Nigel Farage failed to gain the seat of Thanet South, despite his party's share of the vote across the UK rising by 9.5 percentage points. Mark Reckless also lost out on a seat to Tory candidate Kelly Tolhurst in Rochester and Strood by 16,009 votes to 23,142.
The Lib Dems lost all four of their 2010 seats in the South East. In the Green Party's only seat of Brighton Pavilion, Caroline Lucas increased her majority.

Who turned out to vote?

Turnout at this general election was 66.1%. This compares with 65.1% in 2010.
Turnout was particularly high in Scotland at 71.1%, as the map below shows. The Scottish National Party made historic gains and took all but three seats.
Two seats have seen turnout rise above 80%, Dunbartonshire East andRenfrewshire East, both seats were gains for the SNP.

That is well and truly game over.
Support vastly increased for RW parties to the tune of 50%.
Labour need to wake up to this fact

Now I am really going 

Night, sorry Irn, you have no argument here, just some lame one over here some Lib dem support went to Labour, most when in favour of he Tories

Ciao

Yes Didge, but where is the increase in the Tory vote and why did the LibDem vote collapse? There's 15 for you for starters.

What you have just posted bears out what I have been saying all along.

Belatucadros wrote:That is well and truly game over.
Support vastly increased for RW parties to the tune of 50%.
Labour need to wake up to this fact

Now I am really going 

Night, sorry Irn, you have no argument here, just some lame one over here some Lib dem support went to Labour, most when in favour of he Tories

Ciao

RW parties incrreased their share of the vote but it wasn't on the back of an increase by the Tories. Check the figures and then come back and show me where they did.

And why did the LibDem vote collapse?

Again your maths is very poor Irn

Tories

• 11,334,576 total votes taken. 2015
  
• 10,703,654 total votes 2010
  

= 630,922 votes more.

Labour

• 9,347,304 total votes taken.2015
  
• 8,606,517 total votes 2010
  

= 740,787 votes more

UKIP

• 3,881,099  total votes taken 2015.
  
• 919,471  total votes 2010
  

= 2,961,628

SNP

• 1,454,436 total votes taken 2015.
  
• 491,386 Total votes 2010
  

= 950,050

•   total votes taken 2015.
  

Total extra RW votes

= 3,592550

Total extra LW votes

= 1,690837


Difference in votes

+ 1,901713 more RW extra votes


Total RW

= 49.5% of the vote

Total LW

= 35.1% of the vote



Of course I could include the greens and then I could include many other parties as well, but choose the 2 biggest on both sides as a reflection on this.

well there was a big jump in the BME vote for the tories almost doubling the 2010 vote.

but getting back to the OP, will labour be thanking UKIP for handing them 61 seats? that seems to have been avoided in the ongoing discussions.

So go on Flap, I'm sure you can try and twist it around and and blame UKIP for the Tories failing to take 61 seats of Labour.

And while your at it thank the collapse of the LibDem vote for handing Cameron the keys to No. 10. because that';s what really happened wasn't it.

Belatucadros wrote:Again your maths is very poor Irn

Tories

• 11,334,576 total votes taken. 2015
  
• 10,703,654 total votes 2010
  

= 630,922 votes more.

Labour

• 9,347,304 total votes taken.2015
  
• 8,606,517 total votes 2010
  

= 740,787 votes more

UKIP

• 3,881,099  total votes taken 2015.
  
• 919,471  total votes 2010
  

= 2,961,628

SNP

• 1,454,436 total votes taken 2015.
  
• 491,386 Total votes 2010
  

= 950,050

•   total votes taken 2015.
  

Total extra RW votes

= 3,592550

Total extra LW votes

= 1,690837


Difference in votes

+ 1,901713 more RW extra votes


Total RW

= 49.5% of the vote

Total LW

= 35.1% of the vote



Of course I could include the greens and then I could include many other parties as well, but choose the 2 biggest on both sides as a reflection on this.

I have to hand it to you Didge for doing all that work in collecting that data to prove that I was actually bang on the money with what I said. Well done

Irn Bru wrote:So go on Flap, I'm sure you can try and twist it around and and blame UKIP for the Tories failing to take 61 seats of Labour.

And while your at it thank the collapse of the LibDem vote for handing Cameron the keys to No. 10. because that';s what really happened wasn't it.

I have shown already where ukip handed labour 61 seats, or perhaps you cant add up. the tories had more votes than ukip in those seats and with the ukip vote would have exceed the labour vote in those 61 seats. that is simple maths.
Of course it cannot be assumed that all kippers would have voted tory, but it cant automatically be assumed they would not.
Perhaps you will show me where my figures are wrong

there were of course 5 seats where voting tory stopped ukip taking the seats as well.

so perhaps credit where credit's due and a vote of thanks to ukip for saving labour 61 seats would be in order.

I think the main thing you are struggling to understand is that the electorate whole heartedly rejected labours failed policies once again. Even you rejected them yet again I believe.

As to your diversion from the thread OP about the Ld's, how odd they punished their party for joining the tories, by voting for the tories. Perhaps a thread about that in its own right would make more sense, rather than avoiding the issue of this thread.

Irn Bru wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:Again your maths is very poor Irn

Tories

• 11,334,576 total votes taken. 2015
  
• 10,703,654 total votes 2010
  

= 630,922 votes more.

Labour

• 9,347,304 total votes taken.2015
  
• 8,606,517 total votes 2010
  

= 740,787 votes more

UKIP

• 3,881,099  total votes taken 2015.
  
• 919,471  total votes 2010
  

= 2,961,628

SNP

• 1,454,436 total votes taken 2015.
  
• 491,386 Total votes 2010
  

= 950,050

•   total votes taken 2015.
  

Total extra RW votes

= 3,592550

Total extra LW votes

= 1,690837


Difference in votes

+ 1,901713 more RW extra votes


Total RW

= 49.5% of the vote

Total LW

= 35.1% of the vote



Of course I could include the greens and then I could include many other parties as well, but choose the 2 biggest on both sides as a reflection on this.

I have to hand it to you Didge for doing all that work in collecting that data to prove that I was actually bang on the money with what I said. Well done

so you prefer a 2% rise in votes to reality of losing seats.
I would hope labour can continue to have such stunning success's again and again, and now with Dr Death as the leading contender for party leader that is probably assured. Of course what len wants len gets, he has already bought and paid for 63% of the MP's and funds the lions share of the party donations. why not go the whole hog and change the name to LenIte

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:So go on Flap, I'm sure you can try and twist it around and and blame UKIP for the Tories failing to take 61 seats of Labour.

And while your at it thank the collapse of the LibDem vote for handing Cameron the keys to No. 10. because that';s what really happened wasn't it.

I have shown already where ukip handed labour 61 seats, or perhaps you cant add up. the tories had more votes than ukip in those seats and with the ukip vote would have exceed the labour vote in those 61 seats. that is simple maths.
Of course it cannot be assumed that all kippers would have voted tory, but it cant automatically be assumed they would not.
Perhaps you will show me where my  figures are wrong

there were of course 5 seats where voting tory stopped ukip taking the seats as well.

so perhaps credit where credit's due and a vote of thanks to ukip for saving labour 61 seats would be in order.

I think the main thing you are struggling to understand is that the electorate whole heartedly rejected labours failed policies once again. Even you rejected them yet again I believe.

As to your diversion from the thread OP about the Ld's, how odd they punished their party for joining the tories, by voting for the tories. Perhaps a thread about that in its own right would make more sense, rather than avoiding the issue of this thread.

You've answered yourown question Flap and I've highlighted where.

There is no diversion because the result of Cameron getting back into Downing Street wasn't because of a surge in Tory support - it was because they got the seats they needed from the collapse of the LibDems. Do you disagree with that?

Reality check for you old bean.

Irn Bru wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
I have shown already where ukip handed labour 61 seats, or perhaps you cant add up. the tories had more votes than ukip in those seats and with the ukip vote would have exceed the labour vote in those 61 seats. that is simple maths.
Of course it cannot be assumed that all kippers would have voted tory, but it cant automatically be assumed they would not.
Perhaps you will show me where my  figures are wrong

there were of course 5 seats where voting tory stopped ukip taking the seats as well.

so perhaps credit where credit's due and a vote of thanks to ukip for saving labour 61 seats would be in order.

I think the main thing you are struggling to understand is that the electorate whole heartedly rejected labours failed policies once again. Even you rejected them yet again I believe.

As to your diversion from the thread OP about the Ld's, how odd they punished their party for joining the tories, by voting for the tories. Perhaps a thread about that in its own right would make more sense, rather than avoiding the issue of this thread.

You've answered yourown question Flap and I've highlighted where.

There is no diversion because the result of Cameron getting back into Downing Street wasn't because of a surge in Tory support - it was because they got the seats they needed from the collapse of the LibDems. Do you disagree with that?

Reality check for you old bean.

you have failed, yet again to address the point of the thread, and that is the 61 seats that labour owe to ukip splitting the vote.
labour, lets face it are now seen as a busted flush anyway. I am not surprised that so many died in the wool reds have now jumped ship. They were totally unelectable for some time before 2010. 2015 has just confirmed this.


and on your point, which has nothign to do with the OP, but never the less I will comment.
It amazes me that the LD's supporters punish the LD's for getting into bed with the tories, by voting tory.
Perhaps there is rather more going on there than meets the eye as well, but maybe that's for a different thread

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
I have shown already where ukip handed labour 61 seats, or perhaps you cant add up. the tories had more votes than ukip in those seats and with the ukip vote would have exceed the labour vote in those 61 seats. that is simple maths.
Of course it cannot be assumed that all kippers would have voted tory, but it cant automatically be assumed they would not.
Perhaps you will show me where my  figures are wrong

there were of course 5 seats where voting tory stopped ukip taking the seats as well.

so perhaps credit where credit's due and a vote of thanks to ukip for saving labour 61 seats would be in order.

I think the main thing you are struggling to understand is that the electorate whole heartedly rejected labours failed policies once again. Even you rejected them yet again I believe.

As to your diversion from the thread OP about the Ld's, how odd they punished their party for joining the tories, by voting for the tories. Perhaps a thread about that in its own right would make more sense, rather than avoiding the issue of this thread.

You've answered yourown question Flap and I've highlighted where.

There is no diversion because the result of Cameron getting back into Downing Street wasn't because of a surge in Tory support - it was because they got the seats they needed from the collapse of the LibDems. Do you disagree with that?

Reality check for you old bean.

you have failed, yet again to address the point of the thread, and that is the 61 seats that labour owe to ukip splitting the vote.
labour, lets face it are now seen as a busted flush anyway. I am not surprised that so many died in the wool reds have now jumped ship. They were totally unelectable for some time before 2010. 2015 has just confirmed this.


and on your point, which has nothign to do with the OP, but never the less I will comment.
It amazes me that the LD's supporters punish the LD's for getting into bed with the tories, by voting tory.
Perhaps there is rather more going on there than meets the eye as well, but maybe that's for a different thread

I hit the point you were making right on the nose by throwing your own words back at you.

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Of course it cannot be assumed that all kippers would have voted tory, but it cant automatically be assumed they would not.

And if this thread is about how votes were cast and how they influenced the result then the collapse of the LibDem vote allowing Cameron back into Downing Street is very much part of this debate.

Parties have been a busted flush in the past but it can change very easily. Let's face it Cameron's campaign was even worse that Miliband's as shown that the Tories increased their vote share worse than any other party who increased their share. Cameron was under threat that if he couldn't get a majority then he was going to be binned.

And it won't take much of a swing for it to come back to Labour so Dave and his bunch of liars now have to deliver on all the false promises they made.

Hang on to your hat - It's going to be a rollercoaster

Anf where did I reject them yet again? You making things up again Flap?

Tut tut.