The 2010 General Election was a failure for Britain’s two openly xenophobic parties.
UKIP stood in 556 constituencies and lost their deposit in 459 (83%). Their vote share varied between 0.65 and Nigel Farage’s 17.3 in Buckingham where none of the three main parties contested the Speaker’s seat. No other UKIP candidate hit double digits.
The average vote share per UKIP candidate was 3.54.
The BNP stood in 338 constituencies and lost their deposit in 267 (80%). Their vote share varied between 0.4 and Nick Griffin’s 14.6 in Barking. Only two other BNP candidates hit double digits.
Eight out UKIP’s highest ten results were in constituencies where there was no BNP candidate, which suggests UKIP do best where there is no BNP candidate to split a shared pool of supporters. But, nine out of the BNP’s highest ten results were in constituencies were there was a UKIP candidate, which suggests that the presence of a UKIP campaign stimulates a higher BNP result.
The failure of these two parties is a pleasant contrast to 2009 when UKIP came second nationally in the European Elections. Let’s make sure we defeat them there too in 2014.
Antony Hook is a Liberal Democrat campaigner in the South East.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Nick Clegg is missed in Sheffield Hallam (by some); and Jared O'Mara blasted by his Comms man
Do listen now to Don't Look Now
Trying to look on the bright side of life
Tuesday reading
I fear the country is about to be bluster bombed!
The growing success of the Lib Dem registered supporters scheme
Two leaders
Tory members vote for oblivion
John Peters
David-1
Michael BG
David Evershed
Alex
frankie
15 Comments
But there were some places, e.g. here in Wells, where the LibDems have to be grateful to UKIP – for more on which, see http://su.pr/4L4UYy for details of their dodgy dealings with the local press and what happened when their candidate refused to stand down.
Fair enough, but don’t forget that the overall BNP vote is going up – they came fourth in my constituency.
“But, nine out of the BNP’s highest ten results were in constituencies were there was a UKIP candidate, which suggests that the presence of a UKIP campaign stimulates a higher BNP result.”
OR, that UKIP fielded candidates in the BNPs strongest constituencies, while BNP didn’t do the same in UKIPs strongest constituencies, OR that in most constituencies where both parties have a candidate, most from their common voter pool will choose the more extreme option, the BNP.
Desperate times create desperate blog posts it seems.
I will ignore the trite allegation of xernophobia, driven itself by ignorance and prejudice. Dull, innaccurate and lazy.
However lets look at the main point.
“UKIP stood in 556 constituencies and lost their deposit in 45 (83%).”
Not true, we stood in 560 and saved deposits in 101. Not as good as we would like but as a Lib Dem you at the very least should understand the difficulties of the FPTP system.
However in 2005 we stood in 498 constituencies and saved 36 deposits.
Our vote went from 603,000 to 917,000, which is a significant increase in anybodies book, more than 50% increase.
Something I am surew you would be pleased with in our position.
Now when it comes to demands for PR. With PR it would be far more worthwhile voting for UKIP, and as you mention in passing, under PR we beat the Liberal Democrats into 4th place last year, just like we did in 2004.
Xernophobia? What’s that? Dislike of Scientologists who vote UKIP?
UKIP would have 20 or so seats with fair voting, probably more – as Gawain points out, PR will change voting behaviour and unfortunately there are a significant number of people in this country who hold their sort of opinions. The BNP would also be represented in Parliament, and distasteful as I find the views of both parties, as a liberal I will defend to the death their right to be heard – which would have the added benefit of exposing their idiocy to wider criticism.
What we must avoid, though, if we do achieve fair voting, is the sort of situation we are in now, with Mr Griffin – or Mr Farage – instead of Nick Clegg horsetrading behind closed doors. As a democrat, I’m distinctly uneasy with the next government being decided by the third-placed party, however much I support it myself – and although I’d prefer LibLab to ConDem, I am sure Nick Clegg was right to talk first to the party with the largest share of the vote.
But unless we the electorate get a direct say in the choice of government, PR will perpetuate this secret horsetrading. This isn’t an argument against PR, although the Tories deploy it as such, but an argument for a directly-elected executive. One (transferable) vote for MPs; another (alternative) vote for PM.
I don’t agree with any of the premises in the article.
It would be a huge mistake to think that people voting BNP and UKIP form any sort of coherent ideological bloc.
They still sweep up a protest vote, the non of the above vote and the I don’t know why I came to the polling booth in the first place vote.
If “nine out of the BNP’s highest ten results were in constituencies were there was a UKIP candidate,” it merely shows there are pockets of BNP votes – they UKIP candidate can hardly be said to stimulate people voting BNP.
(how exactly is this meant to happen ?)
Not surprisingly the anti-UK fringe acvtivists in each area will tend to fall behind one or other party.
Both parties are still pretty much seen as single issue loonies, perhaps the BNP less so, as it repositioning as a multi-issue lonnies.
The Conservative in Wells deserved to loose, and should have lost by considerably more. It is mistaken to assume that he would have been the second preference of people who voted UKIP. As the Euro elections showed, a lot of UKIP support can come form all three main parties and supporters of non party.
People will quite happily vote different ways at different elections, often on local issues or in favour of a particular candidate or for quite odd reasons that defy logic.
Could the moderator please check the trash box?
Both BNP and UKIP want the UK to leave the EU, CAP and CFP for which there is also a good liberal case. Of course they did better in the EU elections, because that was what they were about, than in a General Election choosing a government for the UK. EU-sceptic parties will do even better in the next EU election than in the last one.
Now that the Conservatives have offered a referendum on STVS (“AV”), let us hope that Liberal Democrat enthusiasm for all things EU will be restrained in a stable Conservative / Liberal Democrat coalition, providing there is a guarantee that the referendum and consequent legislation will be put through before the next General Election.
The Lib Dem vote in Ealing North collapsed 30%. I came 4th just behind the Lib Dems and I easily beat UKIP, the Greens and the Christian Party.
David Furness
British National Party Candidate for Ealing north.
David Furness – BNP scum are not welcome on our site! You will never be part of decent politics. Sod off!
Eight out UKIP’s highest ten results were in constituencies where there was no BNP candidate, which suggests UKIP do best where there is no BNP candidate to split a shared pool of supporters. But, nine out of the BNP’s highest ten results were in constituencies were there was a UKIP candidate, which suggests that the presence of a UKIP campaign stimulates a higher BNP result.
With regards to the second point here, the BNP and UKIP overlapped in almost all their seats – there were, I think, only about twenty of their 340 where the BNP stood and UKIP didn’t. Given this ratio, it’s not surprising at all that only one of their highest results was in a constituency with no UKIP candidate – if the vote shares had simply been random it’s pretty much what you’d expect.
isn’t it true that the bnp got 3 times their number of votes but they stood 3 times the number of candidates.? so overall it was static
Is not the post by leekliberal very illiberal and does it not violate your policy?
I am surprised by the number of people who comment but do not know what the ukip policies are.
I have just read the policy on immigration and it is very similar if not identical to the policy of the lib/con coalition
Perhaps it wpuld be a good idea for everyone to read our policy boklet.
The way you all compare UKIP and the BNP is as if they are the same thing. The BNP are socialists and the UKIP are hard-line tories, mildly thatcherite. If you thought they were the same in any way; you are frankly an idiot. And it says a lot about LibDem supporters if thats what you all think… the sheer irony that you would call UKIP an ignorant party.