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.

[afleitch]

No. They are a protest vote party.

[minionofmidas]

Personal votes for some of the current LD MPs ought to make it impossible.

They might end up saving more deposits if things go really badly for the LDs.

[doktorb]

Short answer :  No

Long answer :

[bore]

No. They are a protest vote party.

This. Until we get some evidence that people are willing to vote for UKIP in important elections, they can't be compared to an already successful, albeit very unpopular party like the lib dems.

[You kip if you want to...]

The hack in me says yes, the realist says no. Could be close though.

[Gary J]

The past is not necessarily a guide to the future, but I would say no. Looking at local by-elections for some clues, Lib Dem results will be patchy. In some areas the vote will collapse, compared with 2015, but in others it has the potential to hold steady or increase.

Even now, in mid term, the Lib Dems are actually winning more local by-elections than UKIP. This difference, in results, should be more pronounced in a general election.

It would be interesting to see what would happen in a parliamentary by-election in a traditional Conservative-Lib Dem marginal. The dynamic of such a by-election might be completely different to what has happened in any of the contests so far in this Parliament.

I was involved, a bit, in the recent Pinkneys Green local by-election in Maidenhead. In a stronger than average Lib Dem ward (where even in the last Council election, which was a disaster for the Windsor and Maidenhead Lib Dems, they managed to retain one of the seats in the ward) the Lib Dem by-election candidates percentage vote went up slightly. UKIP came no where near winning, but seems to have cut into the Conservative vote sufficiently for an eight vote Liberal Democrat victory. Note that the reason the Lib Dems won was because they had the ability to improve their vote share. If the candidate had polled the same percentage as in the previous election, he would have lost again despite the UKIP intervention.

This Pinkneys Green sort of scenario might well happen in selected areas, during the next general election.

[You kip if you want to...]

The past is not necessarily a guide to the future, but I would say no. Looking at local by-elections for some clues, Lib Dem results will be patchy. In some areas the vote will collapse, compared with 2015, but in others it has the potential to hold steady or increase.

Even now, in mid term, the Lib Dems are actually winning more local by-elections than UKIP. This difference, in results, should be more pronounced in a general election.

It would be interesting to see what would happen in a parliamentary by-election in a traditional Conservative-Lib Dem marginal. The dynamic of such a by-election might be completely different to what has happened in any of the contests so far in this Parliament.

I was involved, a bit, in the recent Pinkneys Green local by-election in Maidenhead. In a stronger than average Lib Dem ward (where even in the last Council election, which was a disaster for the Windsor and Maidenhead Lib Dems, they managed to retain one of the seats in the ward) the Lib Dem by-election candidates percentage vote went up slightly. UKIP came no where near winning, but seems to have cut into the Conservative vote sufficiently for an eight vote Liberal Democrat victory. Note that the reason the Lib Dems won was because they had the ability to improve their vote share. If the candidate had polled the same percentage as in the previous election, he would have lost again despite the UKIP intervention.

This Pinkneys Green sort of scenario might well happen in selected areas, during the next general election.

Local by-elections =/= general election

Local voters aren't voting on whether or not they want Nick Clegg as a potential PM.

[Leftbehind]

Also, the areas Liberals are winning tend to be straight Con-Lib fights.

I don't expect UKIP to get >10% at the 2015 GE, so no.

[RodPresident]

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

[Leftbehind]

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.

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's very unlikely at this stage. UKIP have never shown any sign of being anything more than an occasional receptacle for protest votes for some people some of the time.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[adma]

Remember, too, that re-offering sitting Tory members stand in the way of higher UKIP numbers--much different from a byelection scenario...

[King of Kensington]

My feeling is no.  But the Lib Dems look like they're going to lose a lot of support as the progressive vote will coalesce around Labour. 

[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.

[Leftbehind]

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.

[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.

[Leftbehind]

I think that difference is crucial, though. The fact that Canada's parliament is much more responsive means that a vote elsewhere isn't seen as as handing the election to the opposition in the way it is in the UK. Just like the Alliance before them, all that will happen is UKIP will get a tonne of votes with very few seats (if any) to show for it, and repeated Labour landslides. Of course if it all depends on how resolved they are - I personally don't see a Labour victory offering much of a threat to them, and perhaps they're thinking that too.

[MaxQue]

I think that difference is crucial, though. The fact that Canada's parliament is much more responsive means that a vote elsewhere isn't seen as as handing the election to the opposition in the way it is in the UK. Just like the Alliance before them, all that will happen is UKIP will get a tonne of votes with very few seats (if any) to show for it, and repeated Labour landslides. Of course if it all depends on how resolved they are - I personally don't see a Labour victory offering much of a threat to them, and perhaps they're thinking that too.

I suppose than UKIP goal is to replace the Tories as the main right-wing party.
It is in the interest of UKIPers than Tories get the worse results possible to be able to overtook them.

Not than I believe than it will happen, I'm very, very, very sceptic, but that's how I would think if I were on UKIP leadership.

[Leftbehind]

Oh yeah, that's definitely in UKIPs interest, it's when you consider their voter's interest it becomes much less so. The sort of defeat whereby UKIP could overtake them is not at all realistic: UKIP on 15% support would still struggle to win seats (their evenly spread support hinders them as much as it did the Alliance), so they'd need to surpass the Alliance's 25% and achieve a far greater split than 1983, lest by left with a tiny rump (like '83 Alliance's 3.5% of seats, up from 1.7% despite an almost doubling of vote!).

[minionofmidas]

I suppose than UKIP goal is to replace the Tories as the main right-wing party.

If the party leadership think big, then that is their goal, yes.

The voters though... most of them probably have the goal of getting the Tories to adopt the UKIP platform.

[You kip if you want to...]

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.

[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.