THE FRINGE EFFECT
The Bruges Group has issued the following press release:
The point made in the press release may be simplistic in that it assumes that UKIP/Veritas support is at the Tories’ expense. But certainly, if the Tories were genuinely prepared to deal with the EU problem, then they should be attracting that support.
But it is not the whole picture. The big issue in the election campaign was not the EU but immigration. On this issue, the Tories made a big noise, but their policy was weak and not credible. They were trying to get the vote of those who wanted an end to mass immigration, and yet the Tory policy would not have achieved that objective even if it had worked. The Tories were promising ‘controlled immigration’ and their policy involved the uncooperative UN and the setting up of asylum centres in unidentified foreign countries.
Using the logic of the Bruges Group, the BNP also deprived the Tories of several seats. For example, in the Calder Valley constituency, Labour won a majority of 1,367 over the Tories and the BNP vote was 1,887 (4% of the vote). In Dewsbury, the Labour majority was 4,615 and the BNP vote 5,066 (13.1% of the vote).
In Shipley, where there was no UKIP candidate, the Tories won the seat back from Labour with a majority of 422, the BNP vote was 2000 (4.2%). Clearly, if UKIP had stood, or chooses to stand there in 2009, or if the BNP vote improves in 2009, then Labour would have won/or will win.
Neighbouring Keighley, another marginal constituency, also had no UKIP candidate (although there had been one in 2001). Labour won with a majority of 4,852, and the BNP polled 4,240 (9.2%).
The Tories did retake Scarborough and Whitby from Labour, with a majority of 1,245. There was a UKIP candidate, but no BNP candidate.
The Tories failed to retake Selby, one of the most marginal Labour seats in the UK. Labour defended a 2,138 majority and held on by 467 votes. There was neither a UKIP or a BNP candidate.
In Batley and Spen, Labour held the seat from the Tories with a majority of 5,788 and the BNP polled 2,668 (6.8%). In Elmet, another marginal, Labour won by 4,528 and the BNP polled 1,231 (2.6%).
Labour won in a number of other constituencies where there was no BNP candidate, and yet such constituencies are Tory target seats. In Brigg and Goole, Labour won by 2,894. In Cleethorpes, Labour won by 2,642. In Leeds North East, Labour won by 5,262. In both Brigg and Goole, and Cleethorpes there was a UKIP candidate, in Leeds North East there was not.
These are examples only from Yorkshire, the main target area for the BNP, and this is not a comprehensive picture of either Yorkshire or the country as a whole. It is to be expected that the BNP will continue to make progress, especially as Labour will continue with its policy of mass immigration.
Immigrants are also far more likely to vote Labour than Tory.
The fact is that the BNP are already costing the Tories seats and are likely to cost them even more seats in 2009, unless the Tories cut the waffle finally grapple with the immigration issue (which seems highly unlikely). Alternatively, another fringe party will properly deal with the immigration issue and will itself take support from the Tories - and that fringe party may not have the BNP’s image problem and so will attract more support more easily.
Then there is the West Lothian Question and the Barnett Formula. Both of these issues are certain to move up the political agenda, given that Labour is totally dependent on its Scottish and Welsh MPs for its majority. The English Democrats are already fielding candidates and are certain to field very many more in 2009.
Yet on these English issues, the Tories have policies which will alienate their core English voters (they are opposed to an English parliament to put the English on an equal footing with the Scottish and Welsh, and also wish to increase the amount of money paid to Scotland rather than end this unjustified subsidy, currently running at £10billion per year and rising). So the Tories are likely to lose increasing support to the English Democrats (who also have policies on immigration and the EU far closer to public opinion than the Tories’).
The Tories are already haemorrhaging support to UKIP, Veritas and the BNP, and will soon be haemorrhaging support to the English Democrats as well. The Tories are stuck at 33% of the vote, the same that they achieved in the 2001 general election, and even this level of support could collapse in 2009.
‘The incredible, untold story of the general election is the effect that UKIP (and to a lesser extent Veritas) has had on the outcome. Overall, the combined votes of these two parties affected the outcome of 27 seats which might have otherwise gone to the Conservatives.
Of these 18 are held by Labour and if the Conservatives had won them the government would have had an overall majority of 30 instead of the 66 they actually have. Also the Conservatives would have 224 seats instead of 197. Liberal Democrat gains would have been reduced to a mere two.
The seats are as follows:
- Battersea (Lab hold) Majority: 163 - UKIP: 333
- Burton (Lab hold) Majority: 1,421 UKIP plus Veritas: 1,825
- Carshalton & Wallington (LD hold) Majority: 1,068 - UKIP: 1,111
- Cornwall North (LD hold) Majority: 3,076 - UKIP plus Veritas: 3,387
- Crawley (Lab Hold) Majority 37 - UKIP 935
- Dartford (Lab hold) Majority 706 - UKIP: 1,407
- Eastleigh (LD Hold) Chris Huhne Majority: 568 - UKIP: 1,669
- Gillingham (Lab hold) Majority 254 - UKIP 1,191
- Harlow (Lab hold) Majority 97 - UKIP plus Veritas 1922
- Hereford (Lab hold) Majority: 962 - UKIP: 1,030
- High Peak (Lab hold) Majority: 735 UKIP 1,106
- Hove (Lab hold) Majority 420 - UKIP 575
- Medway (Lab hold) Majority: 213 - UKIP 1,488
- Portsmouth North (Lab hold) Majority: 1,139 - UKIP 1,348
- Romsey (LD hold) Majority 125 UKIP: 1,076
- Sittingbourne & Sheppey (Lab hold) Majority: 79 - UKIP plus Veritas: 1,118
- Solihull (LD Gain) Majority: 279 - UKIP: 990
- Somerton & Frome (LD hold) Majority: 812 - UKIP plus Veritas: 1,531
- Staffordshire Moorlands (Lab hold) Majority: 2,438 - UKIP: 3,512
- Stroud (Lab hold) Majority: 350 - UKIP: 1,089
- Stourbridge (Lab hold) Majority: 407 - UKIP: 1,087
- Taunton (LD gain) Majority: 573 UKIP: 1,441
- Thanet South (Lab hold) Majority: 664 - UKIP (Nigel Farage) 2,079
- Torbay (LD hold) Majority: 2,029 - UKIP 3,726
- Warwick & Leamington (Lab hold) Majority: 306 - UKIP: 921
- Watford (Lab hold) Majority: 1,148 - UKIP: 1,292
- Westmorland & Lonsdale (LD gain) Majority: 267 - UKIP: 660
From this, it is clear that potentially, UKIP/Veritas had a far more significant effect on the election than their vote would imply. Given how different today would look if Blair has a majority of 30 and Kennedy had only taken two seats, it could be said that the "UKIP effect" is the political sensation of the election - and one that the mainstream media missed completely.
Furthermore, from provisional data, it is evident that UKIP is –– almost under the radar –– making steady gains in a hostile electoral environment. Seats fought over the last three elections have increased from 194 and 434 to 497, while the national share of vote has increased from 0.34% and 1.47% to 2.38%, with deposits saved increasing from one in 1997 to six in 2001 and 45 in this current election.
Total votes stood at 106,001 in 1997, at 390,910 in 2001 and at roughly 610,000 this time round. Given the tenacity of the Party, even where funding had dried up, fielding 497 candidates was a considerable achievement and there is no reason to expect that the Party will be any less tenacious in the next general election.
On the basis that the UKIP vote increases the same amount in the next election, having gone through the current results and worked out, provisionally, that some 15 extra Conservative seats could be lost to the "UKIP effect" in the next election.
These include Devon West, Eastbourne, Guildford, Totnes and the Wrekin, these would be in addition to the current 27 potentials, which would bring Conservative losses to 42.
All this, of course, is theoretical but there is good reason to believe that –– all things being equal –– UKIP could maintain its rate of growth or even improve its performance. For instance, with a prolonged EU referendum battle, it could improve its profile and attract greater support.
Crucially, the most probable year for the next general election is 2009 which, this time, coincides with the Euro-elections, which might even be held on the same date. That would put ““Europe”” firmly on the agenda and could significantly benefit UKIP.
The failure to develop a fully Eurosceptic policy and the missed opportunity of making "Europe", in just a small way, a part of the Conservatives Party's election campaign handicapped them and allowed Labour to retain a sizeable majority. Clearly, the Conservatives cannot afford to ignore neither "Europe" nor UKIP at the next election, if they are to stand a chance of winning and forming a government.’
The point made in the press release may be simplistic in that it assumes that UKIP/Veritas support is at the Tories’ expense. But certainly, if the Tories were genuinely prepared to deal with the EU problem, then they should be attracting that support.
But it is not the whole picture. The big issue in the election campaign was not the EU but immigration. On this issue, the Tories made a big noise, but their policy was weak and not credible. They were trying to get the vote of those who wanted an end to mass immigration, and yet the Tory policy would not have achieved that objective even if it had worked. The Tories were promising ‘controlled immigration’ and their policy involved the uncooperative UN and the setting up of asylum centres in unidentified foreign countries.
Using the logic of the Bruges Group, the BNP also deprived the Tories of several seats. For example, in the Calder Valley constituency, Labour won a majority of 1,367 over the Tories and the BNP vote was 1,887 (4% of the vote). In Dewsbury, the Labour majority was 4,615 and the BNP vote 5,066 (13.1% of the vote).
In Shipley, where there was no UKIP candidate, the Tories won the seat back from Labour with a majority of 422, the BNP vote was 2000 (4.2%). Clearly, if UKIP had stood, or chooses to stand there in 2009, or if the BNP vote improves in 2009, then Labour would have won/or will win.
Neighbouring Keighley, another marginal constituency, also had no UKIP candidate (although there had been one in 2001). Labour won with a majority of 4,852, and the BNP polled 4,240 (9.2%).
The Tories did retake Scarborough and Whitby from Labour, with a majority of 1,245. There was a UKIP candidate, but no BNP candidate.
The Tories failed to retake Selby, one of the most marginal Labour seats in the UK. Labour defended a 2,138 majority and held on by 467 votes. There was neither a UKIP or a BNP candidate.
In Batley and Spen, Labour held the seat from the Tories with a majority of 5,788 and the BNP polled 2,668 (6.8%). In Elmet, another marginal, Labour won by 4,528 and the BNP polled 1,231 (2.6%).
Labour won in a number of other constituencies where there was no BNP candidate, and yet such constituencies are Tory target seats. In Brigg and Goole, Labour won by 2,894. In Cleethorpes, Labour won by 2,642. In Leeds North East, Labour won by 5,262. In both Brigg and Goole, and Cleethorpes there was a UKIP candidate, in Leeds North East there was not.
These are examples only from Yorkshire, the main target area for the BNP, and this is not a comprehensive picture of either Yorkshire or the country as a whole. It is to be expected that the BNP will continue to make progress, especially as Labour will continue with its policy of mass immigration.
Immigrants are also far more likely to vote Labour than Tory.
The fact is that the BNP are already costing the Tories seats and are likely to cost them even more seats in 2009, unless the Tories cut the waffle finally grapple with the immigration issue (which seems highly unlikely). Alternatively, another fringe party will properly deal with the immigration issue and will itself take support from the Tories - and that fringe party may not have the BNP’s image problem and so will attract more support more easily.
Then there is the West Lothian Question and the Barnett Formula. Both of these issues are certain to move up the political agenda, given that Labour is totally dependent on its Scottish and Welsh MPs for its majority. The English Democrats are already fielding candidates and are certain to field very many more in 2009.
Yet on these English issues, the Tories have policies which will alienate their core English voters (they are opposed to an English parliament to put the English on an equal footing with the Scottish and Welsh, and also wish to increase the amount of money paid to Scotland rather than end this unjustified subsidy, currently running at £10billion per year and rising). So the Tories are likely to lose increasing support to the English Democrats (who also have policies on immigration and the EU far closer to public opinion than the Tories’).
The Tories are already haemorrhaging support to UKIP, Veritas and the BNP, and will soon be haemorrhaging support to the English Democrats as well. The Tories are stuck at 33% of the vote, the same that they achieved in the 2001 general election, and even this level of support could collapse in 2009.
posted by erc @ 10:51 pm
<< Home