UKIP without Farage, better or worse?

If you're going to use sums please show your workings in the margin as this doesn't make sense.

Oh dear. :hihi:

Actually it is pretty obvious.

At the election UKIP picked up 3.9 million votes (12.6%) but only one MP.

The Tories picked up 11.3 million votes (36.9%) and picked up331 MPs.

This is because you need to reach a critical mass before you start to win seats in numbers, but once past that point you pick up lots of seats without a huge increase in your vote. So an extra 150,000 votes would increase the Tories share and allow them to take even more marginals. It’s schoolboy maths but I bet it will still take some of the Corbyn supporters by surprise when they lose again in 2020.

Electoral calculus will show you how it’s done. They currently calculate an election today would give the Tories an overall majority of 52 seats just due to Labour move leftwards.

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

But on the other hand Labour should be able to increase their majorities in their ultra safe seats like Darnal that they have held for decades.

"Nigel Farage has said he made a "terrible, terrible mistake" by speaking to journalists about a car accident in France, which was branded as an assassination attempt.

The Ukip leader told LBC radio he should have put the phone down instead of giving information to a reporter who asked about the crash.

The wheel came off Mr Farage's Volvo V70 while he was driving on a motorway, but French police and mechanics have since said there was no sign of foul play."

So it never happened?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12088804/Nigel-Farage-I-made-a-terrible-terrible-mistake-over-assassination-attempt-claims.html

Oh dear. :hihi:

Actually it is pretty obvious.

At the election UKIP picked up 3.9 million votes (12.6%) but only one MP.

The Tories picked up 11.3 million votes (36.9%) and picked up331 MPs.

This is because you need to reach a critical mass before you start to win seats in numbers, but once past that point you pick up lots of seats without a huge increase in your vote. So an extra 150,000 votes would increase the Tories share and allow them to take even more marginals. It’s schoolboy maths but I bet it will still take some of the Corbyn supporters by surprise when they lose again in 2020.

Electoral calculus will show you how it’s done. They currently calculate an election today would give the Tories an overall majority of 52 seats just due to Labour move leftwards.

 

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

 

But on the other hand Labour should be able to increase their majorities in their ultra safe seats like Darnal that they have held for decades.

Well done. If you'd have written this in the first place I may have taken you seriously but baldly stating that 150,000 to Tories and 500,000 to Labour would increase the Tory majority really didn't make any sense, did it?

Well done. If you'd have written this in the first place I may have taken you seriously but baldly stating that 150,000 to Tories and 500,000 to Labour would increase the Tory majority really didn't make any sense, did it?

Well I had assumed I was dealing with folk with an ounce of intelligence who might be capable of working out that if the party in power with an overall majority increased their percentage of the vote by taking votes from the chief opposition party then they would pick up more seats and hence increase their majority.

But it is right that you should ask me to make it a bit simpler for those who don't have that ounce of intelligence so they can be spoon fed with the blindingly obvious.

But it is good that you can now see what I said in post 46 was entirely correct and your sneering comment in post 47 was just snide nonsense.

Actually that is pretty funny, if it is true. You do realise that if 150,000 Labour voters moved to the Tories because of Labours move to the left, but were replaced by 500,000 voters who moved from the Greens to Labour, the tories would increase their majority considerably?

Well done. :hihi:

Well I had assumed I was dealing with folk with an ounce of intelligence who might be capable of working out that if the party in power with an overall majority increased their percentage of the vote by taking votes from the chief opposition party then they would pick up more seats and hence increase their majority.

But it is right that you should ask me to make it a bit simpler for those who don't have that ounce of intelligence so they can be spoon fed with the blindingly obvious.

 

But it is good that you can now see what I said in post 46 was entirely correct and your sneering comment in post 47 was just snide nonsense.

 

 

 

 

Well done. :hihi:

Suddenly you're back to where you started - not making any sense mathematically.

Suddenly you're back to where you started - not making any sense mathematically.

Don't worry about it. Those with a brain will be able to work it out. The rest will imagine Corbyn is in with a chance of electoral success. Do you work for Sheffield Council by any chance?

But it is right that you should ask me to make it a bit simpler for those who don't have that ounce of intelligence so they can be spoon fed with the blindingly obvious.

Hells bells, and I thought I could be a bit of a patronizing dick at times.

Hells bells, and I thought I could be a bit of a patronizing dick at times.

Oi, I've worked very hard to get where I am today, we don't need some Johnny Come Lately like you coming along thinking that it's amateur hour.

Pacifica, you're a know nowt loon with the mathmatical dexterity of the man that commonly named the diplopoda.

Vague_Boy, quad erat demonstrandum, you must try harder in your next assignment.