UKIP self-implosion

[hoolahoop]

Socialism is not dead.

We are destined to battle between socialism and capitalism and the centre will always be difficult to define. People will always vote for what they perceive to be the centre, they want the prosperity capitalism will bring but at the same time they fear the unfairness and the horrors that unfettered capitalism that the likes of Charles Dickens illustrated.

We want progress and wealth but we want everyone to have the opportunity to find wealth. That idea of fairness I think goes right to the heart of British people.

RD then you must be a Liberal by that definition .....what are you all messing about at ? They have the national structure to bring about future seats and a proven record over the centuries to deliver prudence economically and fairness in society.

Come in , change the things you are unhappy with then and only then are we all more electable . BTW you would still have had your EU referendum but you would have had influence over the future manifestos as full members and voters. Broaden the appeal temper the excesses of the far right and jump into the new Centre. Think you can't change things in an established party ? Well the L/Dems moved their position from an area occupied by Labour and moved further to the centre against their instincts but for the country. I know they were mauled by the press and media for the whole 5 years but the Tories had to turn folk from yellow to blue to secure a majority.

Had they have had the support of Ukippers both on the ground and in the ballot box then they would have gained not only influence but also power.

[IC1967]

There is no way most Ukippers would join the LibDems. You are far too much in favour of the EU for our liking.

[glosterred]

There is no way most Ukippers would join the LibDems. You are far too much in favour of the EU for our liking.

And far too liberal on immigration as well

 

[hoolahoop]

There is no way most Ukippers would join the LibDems. You are far too much in favour of the EU for our liking.

Where did you think you drew your support from then ? Do the maths it's no coincidence that the UKIP vote this time Eroded the L/Dem vote almost exactly. The Labour and Conservative votes in England almost matched their 2010 achievements. The 4,000,000 didn't drop out of the sky did it  ? They also don't advocate "open" immigration like the Labour party. There has to be movement around Europe , who do you think helped rebuild Germany post war and after the unification ? Our builders, plasterers etc. were much in demand . Do you remember the comedy "Auf wiedersehen pet " ?
They advocate immigration for "real" asylum seekers and that is how it should be in addition they are comfortable with an EU REFERENDUM. However they , like me , realise there would be a big price to pay if we came out. They also want an improved deal....who wouldn't ?

I'm not going to pretend that all the answers are here. They may in truth be found in the Tory party but I doubt very much that call me Dave can get a deal much better than we already have, then what ? Ukippers have a leader, one seat and little likelyhood of further growth. Politically it's just not enough with or without Farage its a one trick pony...

[Savvy]

Savvy

So when he said that he'd not be credible as leader if he didn't win a Westminster seat; then he didn't win a Westminster seat but he carried on being the leader...

Help me out here, cos all I can think is that UKIP have a literally incredible leader. 

Why do you think he resigned in the first place then Billy? Having had a successful election as party goes, increasing their share of the vote from 4% to circa 14%, achieving almost 4 million votes nationwide and finishing second in 120 seats, even you couldn't call that a disaster!!

He stuck to his word because in his own words he didn't feel he would have the credibility if he wasnt an MP and therefore resigned.  It was the National Executive of the party refused to accept this resignation, and following messages of support on social media and party members, they managed to convince him to re-track his original decision.

Where the hell does this create a credibility issue?

[hoolahoop]

Savvy the man is a "chancer" with a lot of charisma. Have you learnt nothing from the "Clegg" factor that the L/Dems benefitted from in the 2010...that is how fast the electorate can turn on you . if he is to succeed he has to be seen to be consistent ....he is not .

[BillyStubbsTears]

Savvy

It's not my opinion.

I'm using the man's own words.

"It is frankly just not credible for me to continue to lead the party without a Westminster seat.

"What credibility would Ukip have in the Commons if others had to enunciate party policy in Parliament and the party leader was only allowed in as a guest?

"Was I supposed to brief Ukip policy from the Westminster Arms? No - if I fail to win South Thanet, it is curtains for me. I will have to step down."

I don't see anywhere in there where he said "unless a few people tweet that they think I should stay on, and the NEC that is packed full of my supporters tells me it won't accept my resignation."

But as I say, skilful politicians twist and wiggle their way out of commitments. Whatever his faults, Farage is a consummate political operator.

[hoolahoop]

Your last paragraph more or less sums up exactly where we are with modern politicians. How can he possibly say all that and then stay on. Ukippers must be easily pleased.

There is a reason why he has never won a seat and for that matter neither has UKIP really. Carsfield is a disaffected Tory voted in by his constituency members for what he does in that constituency. All MPs should be voted in on that basis.

 There were many really committed MPs who were chucked out because of the fear of the SNP/Labour potential link up ; however there were many crap MPs who kept there seats despite doing sweet fa . Democracy eh now we have a mass of marauding Scots Nationalists running round the Palace of Westminster with no idea or inclination to abide by our Parliamentary history. I'm fecked off. Which other country would put up with this and bloody Sinn Fein wasting their seats altogether.

Clearly we are FAR too tolerant .

[Savvy]

Savvy

It's not my opinion.

I'm using the man's own words.

"It is frankly just not credible for me to continue to lead the party without a Westminster seat.

"What credibility would Ukip have in the Commons if others had to enunciate party policy in Parliament and the party leader was only allowed in as a guest?

"Was I supposed to brief Ukip policy from the Westminster Arms? No - if I fail to win South Thanet, it is curtains for me. I will have to step down."

I don't see anywhere in there where he said "unless a few people tweet that they think I should stay on, and the NEC that is packed full of my supporters tells me it won't accept my resignation."

But as I say, skilful politicians twist and wiggle their way out of commitments. Whatever his faults, Farage is a consummate political operator.

Yes Billy, nobody is questioning whether or not he said he was going to resign, you were questioning the man's credibility and I've asked you highlight where his actual actions have led to this so called lack of credibility. He was asked to change his mind at the behest of the party's National Executive, who knows he may well find it an awkward situation .

As for your last comments regarding skilful politicians wiggling out of situations, I'll ask you again where has the man not stuck to what he said he was going to do?

I'll await my politicians answer!!!!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Savvy

I really, genuinely haven't got a clue what you are on about. I'm not questioning the fact that he resigned and was reinstated. I'm not questioning whether there is credibility about that.

I'm pointing out that HE HIMSELF said it would not be credible for him to be leader if he wasn't an MP. He didn't say "If I'm not an MP, if I don't tender my resignation I'll have no credibility." He said ""It is frankly just not credible for me to continue to lead the party without a Westminster seat."

NOW, apparently it IS credible for him to continue to lead the party whilst not being an MP. So something BIG must have changed. Farage says that the big thing is the fact that UKIP got 4 million votes. But
a) it's been clear for 18 months that they would
and
b) what the f*** has that got to do with anything?

It's patently obvious what has happened. In a moment of hubris at a time when he was well ahead in the polls, Farage has said something that was intended to make him look like a strong, noble, honest straight-talking man. Then that statement bit him in the arse. In response he COULD have said, "I told you what I really believed. I'm a man of principle and I stick by it. It is not credible for me to lead the party if I cannot win a Westminster seat. I am therefore resigning and I will not seek to be re-elected because that would undermine my party's credibility."

THAT would have been a noble and principled stance.  Instead, his subsequent reaction shows him to be as devious, self-centred and dissembling as any other politician.

[IC1967]

There is no way most Ukippers would join the LibDems. You are far too much in favour of the EU for our liking.

Where did you think you drew your support from then ? Do the maths it's no coincidence that the UKIP vote this time Eroded the L/Dem vote almost exactly. The Labour and Conservative votes in England almost matched their 2010 achievements. The 4,000,000 didn't drop out of the sky did it  ? They also don't advocate "open" immigration like the Labour party. There has to be movement around Europe , who do you think helped rebuild Germany post war and after the unification ? Our builders, plasterers etc. were much in demand . Do you remember the comedy "Auf wiedersehen pet " ?
They advocate immigration for "real" asylum seekers and that is how it should be in addition they are comfortable with an EU REFERENDUM. However they , like me , realise there would be a big price to pay if we came out. They also want an improved deal....who wouldn't ?

I'm not going to pretend that all the answers are here. They may in truth be found in the Tory party but I doubt very much that call me Dave can get a deal much better than we already have, then what ? Ukippers have a leader, one seat and little likelyhood of further growth. Politically it's just not enough with or without Farage its a one trick pony...

We didn't draw it from the LibDems. They mostly went to the Greens and Labour. WE drew our support from the Tories, Labour and from people who never usually vote.

UKIP and the LibDems don't have a lot in common. You'd have joined the single currency. You would stay in the EU no matter what. You think the EU is great. You are far softer on getting rid of our deficit and national debt. You think we should be giving foreign aid when we have to borrow the money to do so. You're not bothered by uncontrolled immigration. You think we are better off financially inside the EU when the total opposite is true. I could go on and on.

Let me make it plain. There is no way any Ukipper worth his salt would contemplate joining the LibDems as things stand. You are miles away from us on many issues.

[IC1967]

Savvy, ignore silly Billy bullshit. He hates all politicians that aren't members of Labour.

I've done some research and can reveal that Nige answers questions honestly more than 90% of the time. Labour politicians only do so less than 10% of the time.

Billy is just very bitter and twisted that Labour have lost a lot of support to UKIP. This trend will continue and Labour can't for the life of them see where the next general election victory is going to come from.

Take it from me. UKIP will replace Labour as the main opposition within the next 10 years. Billy bullshit knows it and he is so pissed off it is untrue. He also hates the fact that I've battered him in every debate I've ever had with him and turned this from a left wing to a right wing forum by exposing his arguments for the drivel they are.


Get in.

[Savvy]

Savvy

I really, genuinely haven't got a clue what you are on about. I'm not questioning the fact that he resigned and was reinstated. I'm not questioning whether there is credibility about that.

I'm pointing out that HE HIMSELF said it would not be credible for him to be leader if he wasn't an MP. He didn't say "If I'm not an MP, if I don't tender my resignation I'll have no credibility." He said ""It is frankly just not credible for me to continue to lead the party without a Westminster seat."

NOW, apparently it IS credible for him to continue to lead the party whilst not being an MP. So something BIG must have changed. Farage says that the big thing is the fact that UKIP got 4 million votes. But
a) it's been clear for 18 months that they would
and
b) what the f*** has that got to do with anything?

It's patently obvious what has happened. In a moment of hubris at a time when he was well ahead in the polls, Farage has said something that was intended to make him look like a strong, noble, honest straight-talking man. Then that statement bit him in the arse. In response he COULD have said, "I told you what I really believed. I'm a man of principle and I stick by it. It is not credible for me to lead the party if I cannot win a Westminster seat. I am therefore resigning and I will not seek to be re-elected because that would undermine my party's credibility."

THAT would have been a noble and principled stance.  Instead, his subsequent reaction shows him to be as devious, self-centred and dissembling as any other politician.

FFS!!! I despair!!! The something BIG billy, is that the National Executive refused to accept his resignation, also the support that he received on social media (which according to you appears to have been a few messages on twitter!!!!).

Regarding your two points, where do you get this "its been obvious for the last 18 months" from? You ask what difference it makes is that they have increased their share of the vote from 4% to 14% and came second in 120 constiuencies, I'd that that was pretty damn significant wouldn't you?

Just as an aside, no one is saying you've got to like him or even agree with anything he stands for, but don't come on here trying to make him out to be something he's not, and expect people to swallow it!!!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Savvy

No, no, NO!

Farage made a crystal clear, unambiguous comment in which he gave HIS OPINION that it was not credible for him to be leader without having a Westminster seat. That is presumably what he believed to be the case. He didn't say, "it'll be frankly incredible for me to be leader without a seat UNLESS I get support from the NEC." He clearly explained WHY it would not be credible: because he couldn't lead the party whilst not having a voice in the House. Read what he said!
"What credibility would Ukip have in the Commons if others had to enunciate party policy in Parliament and the party leader was only allowed in as a guest?

"Was I supposed to brief Ukip policy from the Westminster Arms? No - if I fail to win South Thanet, it is curtains for me. I will have to step down."

It's there. Unambiguously. NOTHING that's been said by the NEC or on social media changes the basis of the argument that Farage had previously made. Nothing at all. The NEC support doesn't change the fact that "others will have to enunciate UKIP policy in Parliament" or that Farage will only be a guest in Parliament. THOSE were the reasons he gave for not being credible as a leader without a seat. But he now CHOOSES to ignore what he said previously because it is inconvenient. And to invent spurious reasons for that change of heart which are irrelevant to his original opinion.

It's not the first time that his previous foolishness has come back to bite him and forced him into dissembling mode either is it? He wrote the Executive Summary to the 2010 manifesto, then claimed never to have read the document or the "barmy" policies in it when quizzed. Which makes him either incompetent to be leading a party or a liar.

But if you are representative of UKIP supporters, it appears that he can do no wrong. He can go back on unambiguous promises. He can lie. And you'll still support him. It worries me to be honest.

[Savvy]

Billy who said he can do no wrong, all though you've made it quite apparent that in your eyes he can do no right, but I'm not here to pursuade you to!

Do yourself a favour and watch last weeks question time and you'll see just why people are voting for UKIP. The bloke his passionate about the country, a triat a few more of those in politics could do well to pick up on!  We've had enough of the talking loud whilst doing nothing politics and the Punch and Judy show between Labour and Conservative! Remember this, if you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got!!!!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Savvy

I don't question the fact that he appeals to a lot of people. That much is self-evident. But that doesn't put him above criticism. In fact, it puts him in line for MORE critical appraisal, to assess whether his appeal is based on rational truth or on knee-jerk emotion.

What worries me is the fact that those same people don't seem to worry or question him when he lies and dissembles. That REALLY worries me. I'd hope that it would worry any person who stopped and thought for a bit about it. Because there have been many politicians through history, who have become wildly popular during hard times by convincing decent people that it was "the other" who was causing their problems. By speaking bluntly in a way that "normal" politicians don't. And because they preach such a seductive line, their supporters tend not to pick up on the inconsistencies, the dissembling or the sheer lies that these politicians tell.

And that worries me. Because when someone seeking serious influence lies and dissembles, like Farage has done on several occasions (to a FAR greater extent than any other party leader would get away with) I think they should be held to account. Because if they are not held to account, we're on a slippery slope to a place that I really don't want us to go to, where we accept anything a politician says because it is what we want to hear.

[hoolahoop]

There is no way most Ukippers would join the LibDems. You are far too much in favour of the EU for our liking.

Where did you think you drew your support from then ? Do the maths it's no coincidence that the UKIP vote this time Eroded the L/Dem vote almost exactly. The Labour and Conservative votes in England almost matched their 2010 achievements. The 4,000,000 didn't drop out of the sky did it  ? They also don't advocate "open" immigration like the Labour party. There has to be movement around Europe , who do you think helped rebuild Germany post war and after the unification ? Our builders, plasterers etc. were much in demand . Do you remember the comedy "Auf wiedersehen pet " ?
They advocate immigration for "real" asylum seekers and that is how it should be in addition they are comfortable with an EU REFERENDUM. However they , like me , realise there would be a big price to pay if we came out. They also want an improved deal....who wouldn't ?

I'm not going to pretend that all the answers are here. They may in truth be found in the Tory party but I doubt very much that call me Dave can get a deal much better than we already have, then what ? Ukippers have a leader, one seat and little likelyhood of further growth. Politically it's just not enough with or without Farage its a one trick pony...

We didn't draw it from the LibDems. They mostly went to the Greens and Labour. WE drew our support from the Tories, Labour and from people who never usually vote.

UKIP and the LibDems don't have a lot in common. You'd have joined the single currency. You would stay in the EU no matter what. You think the EU is great. You are far softer on getting rid of our deficit and national debt. You think we should be giving foreign aid when we have to borrow the money to do so. You're not bothered by uncontrolled immigration. You think we are better off financially inside the EU when the total opposite is true. I could go on and on.

Let me make it plain. There is no way any Ukipper worth his salt would contemplate joining the LibDems as things stand. You are miles away from us on many issues.

Of course you didn't 4,400,000 or - 15.2 % of those that voted L/Dem in 2010 didn't come to UKIP are you having a giraffe mate . Are you seriously not going to withdraw your post  or do I have to point out the maths to you completely and really show you up ? Yes they were down 4.5 million and you were up some 3 million . Roughly the same % voted and in roughly the same numbers from 2010-2015. Had these votes gone to the Conservatives then they would have a majority of roughly 100 seats, to Labour then a majority of smaller numbers and finally to the Greens 3rd/4th spot nationally. No Mick many many went to UKIP or if not to the Tories who then had a massive desertion to UKIP (extremely unlikely)

Dont believe me then do the numbers....

[IC1967]

I won't be withdrawing anything. It's you that needs to.

You can't be serious in suggesting UKIP is now mainly made up of ex LibDems. That is patently ludicrous.

We have very little in common with you. Most of you have gone to the Greens and Labour. I'm not saying none of you have gone to UKIP but I would put that at about 15% who previously voted LibDem in 2010.

[IC1967]

I must say I have a little laugh to myself every time I see this topic.

What's going on at UKIP is nothing compared to what's happening at Labour. You have to admire the brass neck of silly Billy.

Just shows how blinkered he is in his view of politics. Any excuse to have a go at UKIP when his own party is crumbling all around him.

Hahahahahaha.

[Savvy]

Savvy

I don't question the fact that he appeals to a lot of people. That much is self-evident. But that doesn't put him above criticism. In fact, it puts him in line for MORE critical appraisal, to assess whether his appeal is based on rational truth or on knee-jerk emotion.

What worries me is the fact that those same people don't seem to worry or question him when he lies and dissembles. That REALLY worries me. I'd hope that it would worry any person who stopped and thought for a bit about it. Because there have been many politicians through history, who have become wildly popular during hard times by convincing decent people that it was "the other" who was causing their problems. By speaking bluntly in a way that "normal" politicians don't. And because they preach such a seductive line, their supporters tend not to pick up on the inconsistencies, the dissembling or the sheer lies that these politicians tell.

And that worries me. Because when someone seeking serious influence lies and dissembles, like Farage has done on several occasions (to a FAR greater extent than any other party leader would get away with) I think they should be held to account. Because if they are not held to account, we're on a slippery slope to a place that I really don't want us to go to, where we accept anything a politician says because it is what we want to hear.

Bill, I don't think anyone is saying that he is beyond reproach, all I'm saying that any criticism should be justified. You feel that he has lied and dissembled, other's may take the view that I have insofar as he said he would resign, and did, and was then persuaded to retract it follow support from the National Executive of the party and others.  Some might say " Man in retraction of resignation shocker"!!!! Others will not let a hapax legomenon drop and seek to wheel it out as and when the occasion suits no doubt!!!

[BobG]

The crucial question, Savvy, is whether or not one believes the retraction at the insistence of the NEC was a genuine statement of independent belief, or whether it was something staged to get our Nigel out of a big hole he'd dug for himself.

Given the various public statements recently and not so recently from plenty of insiders I know which way I'd plump. But then, no one except the NEC and Nigel will know for sure - and they'll make damn sure it stays that way if they value their futures.

BobG

[Savvy]

Bob, its sounds like you've got some pre-conceived idea of how you percieve the fella so not really much to add to what you've said. I'm not trying to canvass support for him, my point is that I don't see how the criticism of him on this issue is just!

Just to draw a parallel and in the interest of balance, what's your take on Len McCluskey?

Leader of the biggest Union in the country threatening to severe all links with the Labour Party this morning and now appears to have back tracked on what he's said about pulling funding to the party. Does this not create a credibility issue? Can this man's word now be trusted? Should he stand down or resign?

[IC1967]

What about the credibility of the Labour leadership contenders? Before the election they were all saying Labour didn't spend too much, now they are all saying they did (except Yvette Cooper). They all defended the manifesto, now they are all rubbishing it saying it was anti business and aspiration. I could go on.

Nige staying as leader due to overwhelming support of the party is nothing compared to the lack of credibility Labour leadership candidates have.

Lets get one thing straight. Labour did overspend when they were in power. This is going to be the main question these candidates will face. If they don't restore economic credibility the party is finished. They all need to offer an abject apology to the British public and promise they will never do it again.

Here's the evidence:

By the time Labour left office total public spending was nearly 50% of national income. It was under 40% under the previous Tory administration who Labour at the time branded big spenders. Labour said they were going to be wise spenders not big spenders.

Out of 22 industrialised countries, pre-crash the UK had the second largest increase in public spending as a share of national income and including the period of the crash the UK had the largest increase.

Spending on public services under Labour increased by an average of 4.4% a year in real terms which is significantly more than the 0.7 % under the Tories.

Welfare spending grew less quickly under Labour than it did under the Tories!!!

We also need to bear in mind the £300bn Labour have committed us to on PFI. Done the usual way it's estimated hospitals and schools etc would have only cost 20% of what Labour spent. The money spent on PFI does not even show up in the public spending at the start of my post. PFI was a ruse by Labour to spend hundreds of billions that wouldn't show up on the balance sheet.

So it is clear as day. Labour massively overspent which caused the crash to affect us much more than it should have done.

Until all Labour politicians admit this they will never be electable again.

It beggars belief that you lefties are accusing Nige of lacking credibility for carrying on as leader of UKIP when you lot have got so much blood on your hands.

You couldn't make it up. 

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn92.pdf

[Glyn_Wigley]

When are you going to start talking about UKIP in this UKIP thread Mick, and stop trying to deflect away from them..?

[IC1967]

When are you going to start talking about UKIP in this UKIP thread Mick, and stop trying to deflect away from them..?

Can't you read man?

Nige staying as leader due to overwhelming support of the party is nothing compared to the lack of credibility Labour leadership candidates have.

It beggars belief that you lefties are accusing Nige of lacking credibility for carrying on as leader of UKIP when you lot have got so much blood on your hands.

What's going on at UKIP is nothing compared to what's happening at Labour.

Any excuse to have a go at UKIP when his own party is crumbling all around him.

I've done some research and can reveal that Nige answers questions honestly more than 90% of the time.

Billy is just very bitter and twisted that Labour have lost a lot of support to UKIP. This trend will continue and Labour can't for the life of them see where the next general election victory is going to come from.

Take it from me. UKIP will replace Labour as the main opposition within the next 10 years. Billy bullshit knows it and he is so pissed off it is untrue.

UKIP and the LibDems don't have a lot in common. You'd have joined the single currency. You would stay in the EU no matter what. You think the EU is great. You are far softer on getting rid of our deficit and national debt. You think we should be giving foreign aid when we have to borrow the money to do so. You're not bothered by uncontrolled immigration. You think we are better off financially inside the EU when the total opposite is true. I could go on and on.

Let me make it plain. There is no way any Ukipper worth his salt would contemplate joining the LibDems as things stand. You are miles away from us on many issues.

There is no way most Ukippers would join the LibDems. You are far too much in favour of the EU for our liking.



So as you can see there are plenty of references to UKIP.

There is also the issue of credibility that needs sorting. I'm merely showing the hypocrisy of you leftie lot and the Labour party for what it is.

How you lot can think its OK to have a go at Nige when there is far more lack of credibility in the Labour party is totally amazing. As the voice of reason it is my duty to expose you lefties for your total lack of credibility.

Sorted.

[wilts rover]

Yawn 

[hoolahoop]

I won't be withdrawing anything. It's you that needs to.

You can't be serious in suggesting UKIP is now mainly made up of ex LibDems. That is patently ludicrous.

We have very little in common with you. Most of you have gone to the Greens and Labour. I'm not saying none of you have gone to UKIP but I would put that at about 15% who previously voted LibDem in 2010.

I didn't suggest that and once again although the parties may be poles apart ( thank Christ) the maths don't lie . Those voting increased by less than 1% despite big turnouts in Scotland , where there was little Tory or UKIP impact and the increased Greens vote certainly did not account for the 4.4 million voters lost this time.
Any way you look at it there had to be traditional L/Dems voting for UKIP...,they won't do it next time around that's for sure. the lost votes went in3 directions but I think you had 2,000,000 of them sadly.
They simply voted for the Union and that meant you or the Tories.

[wing commander]

  Well I'm a tory so was obviously delighted with the outcome of the election but I do have one very big worry here...The lack of credible opposition....Weve got UKIP and there implosion and Labour with exactly the same...Weve got all the leadership candidates queing up to do a Caesar with the knife in millibands back...and the same for Farage..And the liberals of course are now that far behind they know they have to just concentrate on starting again from the ground up...It's not healthy for them to be so fractured for our Politics.....And one for Billy on the Murdoch press..When I was a boy growing up the Sun was a staunch Labour paper doing exactly the same things then, just the other way round,The question is do they take their stance on whats best for Britain or whats best for Murdoch??
     Finally even as a Tory I'm a believer in proportional representation..4 million voters voted UKIP and even though I don't agree with what they say that's irrelevant..Every vote should have the same importance..The first past the post system was set up for two party politics and whatever our personal views those days are long gone...

[IC1967]

I won't be withdrawing anything. It's you that needs to.

You can't be serious in suggesting UKIP is now mainly made up of ex LibDems. That is patently ludicrous.

We have very little in common with you. Most of you have gone to the Greens and Labour. I'm not saying none of you have gone to UKIP but I would put that at about 15% who previously voted LibDem in 2010.

I didn't suggest that and once again although the parties may be poles apart ( thank Christ) the maths don't lie . Those voting increased by less than 1% despite big turnouts in Scotland , where there was little Tory or UKIP impact and the increased Greens vote certainly did not account for the 4.4 million voters lost this time.
Any way you look at it there had to be traditional L/Dems voting for UKIP...,they won't do it next time around that's for sure. the lost votes went in3 directions but I think you had 2,000,000 of them sadly.
They simply voted for the Union and that meant you or the Tories.

I'm sorry but you are way off the mark. I'm at a loss as to why you think UKIP is now made up of 50% LibDems. The number of total votes cast this time compared to the previous time is irrelevant. I can't believe you are looking at it in such a simplistic manner. I previously thought you were reasonably intelligent.

When Yougov did some research into who made up the UKIP vote before the election they found that ex Tories made up 60%, Labour 7% and LibDems 15%. The rest were people who hadn't voted before. I doubt very much that the LibDem share of UKIP voters was going to change much come election time. There is no doubt that a lot of Ukippers went back to the Tories (to vote tactically) and that the percentage of Labour voters attracted to UKIP went up considerably. There is no way on this earth that a lot more LibDems came across to UKIP. We are just far too different.

I'd be supremely confident that UKIP's LibDem share at 15% is much nearer the mark than your ridiculous 50%.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/03/05/analysis-ukip-voters/

Now get an abject apology sorted pronto and we'll all try and ignore your brain fade. Get on with it man. You know you should.

[IC1967]

  Well I'm a tory so was obviously delighted with the outcome of the election but I do have one very big worry here...The lack of credible opposition....Weve got UKIP and there implosion and Labour with exactly the same...Weve got all the leadership candidates queing up to do a Caesar with the knife in millibands back...and the same for Farage..And the liberals of course are now that far behind they know they have to just concentrate on starting again from the ground up...It's not healthy for them to be so fractured for our Politics.....And one for Billy on the Murdoch press..When I was a boy growing up the Sun was a staunch Labour paper doing exactly the same things then, just the other way round,The question is do they take their stance on whats best for Britain or whats best for Murdoch??
     Finally even as a Tory I'm a believer in proportional representation..4 million voters voted UKIP and even though I don't agree with what they say that's irrelevant..Every vote should have the same importance..The first past the post system was set up for two party politics and whatever our personal views those days are long gone...

I'm afraid it will be the SNP that will be the only opposition to the Tories for some considerable time. UKIP will pull itself together and will only be focusing on the EU referendum. This is their reason for being in politics and they won't be looking at anything else until the referendum is out of the way. With only one MP it is difficult to see how they could be an effective opposition anyway. Labour is tearing itself apart and this will only continue. If Burnham (the hot favourite) becomes leader there won't be much change to what's gone on before so Labour will effectively be finished.

Once the referendum is out of the way and we've decided to leave the EU, that's when UKIP will emerge as the party of opposition. We will only be able to be effective though after the next election when we've got a lot more MPs. That said it would just be a matter of agreeing whether policies were right wing enough or not. The left will be finished.