Will UKIP get more votes than the Lib Dems in 2015?

[DC Al Fine]

I personally think that, no they won't. Some UKIP supporters will hold their nose and vote Tory. That said, it will be close. UKIP won't win any seats, but they will screw the Tories out of many.

[DC Al Fine]

It's a posibility, if crisis gets worse and election gets to be seen as only a formality towards a Labour landslide.

It's just as likely the inevitability of a Labour win would more than likely persuade newly-gained UKIP support back into the Tory fold to stop it. Even though Labour hold substantial leads and enjoy election victories, our Rightist press never fail in the scepticism, influencing the general outlook for Labour, and Tories and other right-wingers are rather complacent, utterly convinced that Ed Miliband's unelectable and that it's only a matter of time (perhaps under the glare of an election battle) he's found out and it all comes crumbling down upon Labour.

In Canada we had a similar situation where the establishment party scoffed at the upstarts, but eventually the centre right vote split 16% Tory/19% Reform. Granted, Reform had managed to win a by-election already and the Tories ran a horrendous campaign, but still, people didn't run back the second it looked like the left would win.

That said, I don't think UKIP's situation is as favourable Reform's was since their support is not concentrated in one region. I still Lib Dem's ahead with UKIP keeping most, but not all of their current support.

[DC Al Fine]

In Canada...

This isn't Canada. British people are much more fixed in their political affiliations, at least as far as the big ticket election is concerned.

I just took a look at the UK election of 1983. About 9% of the UK swung from Labour to Lib/SD. UKIP needs a smaller swing than that to equal the Lib Dems at current polling. It's plausible, if not probable.

[DC Al Fine]

Funny that you mention 1983, as that has had a tremendous impact on thinking here in the UK regarding split votes, in a way I don't really believe is reflected in Canada - Canada's parliament seems to have been able to better represent multi-party politics, whereas the Alliance venture just gave Thatcher whopping majorities, and no real opposition to speak of.

Yes & No. We've had similar elections to UK-1983, but since the parties are so regionally concentrated, the big sweeps tend not to be so bad. The difference is that several parties tend to dominate one particular region instead of one party dominating all of them.

[DC Al Fine]

In Canada...

This isn't Canada. British people are much more fixed in their political affiliations, at least as far as the big ticket election is concerned.

I just took a look at the UK election of 1983. About 9% of the UK swung from Labour to Lib/SD. UKIP needs a smaller swing than that to equal the Lib Dems at current polling. It's plausible, if not probable.

Exactly. Even in terms of Labour and the Liberals, if there was an election today, we'd see a 13.5% swing from Liberal to Labour and when you consider that the Tories lost in 1997 on a 10% swing... Any such result would be fatal to the LibDems, surely.

The problem when you talk about UKIP's figure in polling is that there's sort've an air of complacency in the media and definitely in both Coalition parties in that nobody quite believes that UKIP are really at 10(ish)%. For them, by-elections are acting like by-elections and polls are acting like polls.

True. Their support will go down under the scrutiny of an election campaign. They got 3% in 2010 and I could see them getting 5-8% next time.

[DC Al Fine]

In Canada...

This isn't Canada. British people are much more fixed in their political affiliations, at least as far as the big ticket election is concerned.

I just took a look at the UK election of 1983. About 9% of the UK swung from Labour to Lib/SD. UKIP needs a smaller swing than that to equal the Lib Dems at current polling. It's plausible, if not probable.

Exactly. Even in terms of Labour and the Liberals, if there was an election today, we'd see a 13.5% swing from Liberal to Labour and when you consider that the Tories lost in 1997 on a 10% swing... Any such result would be fatal to the LibDems, surely.

The problem when you talk about UKIP's figure in polling is that there's sort've an air of complacency in the media and definitely in both Coalition parties in that nobody quite believes that UKIP are really at 10(ish)%. For them, by-elections are acting like by-elections and polls are acting like polls.

True. Their support will go down under the scrutiny of an election campaign. They got 3% in 2010 and I could see them getting 5-8% next time.

But they would struggle to get a seat.

With the Greens, at least, we could see so much work in Brighton leading to Caroline Lucas' victory.

I can't think of a single constituency where UKIP has put in the work.

Why haven't they put in the work? If the Greens can win or at least be competitive, why hasn't UKIP picked a few wealthy Tory seats and started putting the moves on them?

[DC Al Fine]

I can name exactly 3 MEP's

Hannan (Tory)
Farage (UKIP)
Taylor (Green)