It's very difficult to accurately gauge where the UKIP votes are coming from and how it will affect outcomes in individual seats - I imagine the reasons people turn to UKIP will vary greatly across the country.
It's worth noting that when Tories win seats they usually win by comfortable majorities; Labour are, on the other hand, get more seats considered to be marginals. This is where Labour's intrinsic advantage in the current constituency set-up lies - their voter base is more 'efficiently' spread to minimise the number of votes it needs per seat (they have fewer 'wasted votes', as any votes more than one greater the number of votes their closest rival in a seat they get are effectively wasted).
So if Tories are bleeding votes, they suffer less as they usually have more surplus votes. Now in Tory/Labour marginals, Labour rely on convincing people to turn from the Tories to and to vote for them. Except now the UKIP threat means that people don't necessarily need to turn left if they don't want to vote Tories (it is safe to say that most swing voters don't vote on a left/right paradigm, only voters who don't swing between parties tend to affirm themselves to either left or right). Therefore Labour cannot count on the usual voters who would automatically vote for the party 'not in government' as many of those voters will now be voting UKIP, meaning there is a depleted pool of swing voters for them to target.
There has been plenty of evidence and polling that suggests that voters voting UKIP for the first-time are more likely to have previously been Conservative voters, but the same evidence also suggests that many voters who would have voted Labour in the absence of UKIP are going to vote UKIP or have now switched to UKIP. Because a greater proportion of Labour seats are marginal, it only takes a smaller swing from Labour to UKIP to deny Labour the victory than it does from Tory to UKIP.
The UKIP threat is more obvious to the Tories but analysis of voting patterns in Labour seats and Labour targets means Labour cannot be complacent and consider UKIP to be a problem only affecting Tories.
September 29 Ah Mr Reckless, the nan who was promising to campaign for the Tories and then defected the next day. The man who said he wouldn't join UKIP? Is lying now a gutsy thing to do?
First of all, have you doubters noticed how the word UKIP is beginning to dominate this thread ? I believe some of you are trying to make the situation far too complicated. I am supporting them because a) I am fed up with paying millions into Europe so that they can tell us how to run our Country, and b) I want us to be far more careful about the number and the nature of migrants that are flooding into the Country. Plus, if I was able to invite one of the party Leaders into my house, it would have to be Nigel. Can you imagine getting stuck in the company of David, Ed and Alex ?
Can I ask you a couple of questions?
1 - What's the number one way in which Europe "tells us to run our own country"? Not a generalisation, but a single, specific item, for example The Working Time Directive, which prevents employees from being forced to work excessive hours. 2 - What do you mean by the nature of migrants flooding into the country? Are you saying that some migrants should be welcome and others not, based on their nature? Or is the word "nature" a proxy for the word "religion", "gender", "race" or "colour"? Or does it mean something else?
It's very difficult to accurately gauge where the UKIP votes are coming from and how it will affect outcomes in individual seats - I imagine the reasons people turn to UKIP will vary greatly across the country.
It's worth noting that when Tories win seats they usually win by comfortable majorities; Labour are, on the other hand, get more seats considered to be marginals. This is where Labour's intrinsic advantage in the current constituency set-up lies - their voter base is more 'efficiently' spread to minimise the number of votes it needs per seat (they have fewer 'wasted votes', as any votes more than one greater the number of votes their closest rival in a seat they get are effectively wasted).
So if Tories are bleeding votes, they suffer less as they usually have more surplus votes. Now in Tory/Labour marginals, Labour rely on convincing people to turn from the Tories to and to vote for them. Except now the UKIP threat means that people don't necessarily need to turn left if they don't want to vote Tories (it is safe to say that most swing voters don't vote on a left/right paradigm, only voters who don't swing between parties tend to affirm themselves to either left or right). Therefore Labour cannot count on the usual voters who would automatically vote for the party 'not in government' as many of those voters will now be voting UKIP, meaning there is a depleted pool of swing voters for them to target.
There has been plenty of evidence and polling that suggests that voters voting UKIP for the first-time are more likely to have previously been Conservative voters, but the same evidence also suggests that many voters who would have voted Labour in the absence of UKIP are going to vote UKIP or have now switched to UKIP. Because a greater proportion of Labour seats are marginal, it only takes a smaller swing from Labour to UKIP to deny Labour the victory than it does from Tory to UKIP.
The UKIP threat is more obvious to the Tories but analysis of voting patterns in Labour seats and Labour targets means Labour cannot be complacent and consider UKIP to be a problem only affecting Tories.
Thtat's not true. Of the 50 most marginal seats, 25 are Tory, 13 Labour, 10 Lib Dem and 4 others.
It takes less Labour votes to elect a Labour MP than the Tory equivalent because (a) turnout is lower in safe Labour seats than safe Tory ones (b) Safe labour seats have smaller populations than safe Tory ones (prosperous areas see population increases). Marginality has notyhing to do with it.
It's very difficult to accurately gauge where the UKIP votes are coming from and how it will affect outcomes in individual seats - I imagine the reasons people turn to UKIP will vary greatly across the country.
It's worth noting that when Tories win seats they usually win by comfortable majorities; Labour are, on the other hand, get more seats considered to be marginals. This is where Labour's intrinsic advantage in the current constituency set-up lies - their voter base is more 'efficiently' spread to minimise the number of votes it needs per seat (they have fewer 'wasted votes', as any votes more than one greater the number of votes their closest rival in a seat they get are effectively wasted).
So if Tories are bleeding votes, they suffer less as they usually have more surplus votes. Now in Tory/Labour marginals, Labour rely on convincing people to turn from the Tories to and to vote for them. Except now the UKIP threat means that people don't necessarily need to turn left if they don't want to vote Tories (it is safe to say that most swing voters don't vote on a left/right paradigm, only voters who don't swing between parties tend to affirm themselves to either left or right). Therefore Labour cannot count on the usual voters who would automatically vote for the party 'not in government' as many of those voters will now be voting UKIP, meaning there is a depleted pool of swing voters for them to target.
There has been plenty of evidence and polling that suggests that voters voting UKIP for the first-time are more likely to have previously been Conservative voters, but the same evidence also suggests that many voters who would have voted Labour in the absence of UKIP are going to vote UKIP or have now switched to UKIP. Because a greater proportion of Labour seats are marginal, it only takes a smaller swing from Labour to UKIP to deny Labour the victory than it does from Tory to UKIP.
The UKIP threat is more obvious to the Tories but analysis of voting patterns in Labour seats and Labour targets means Labour cannot be complacent and consider UKIP to be a problem only affecting Tories.
Thtat's not true. Of the 50 most marginal seats, 25 are Tory, 13 Labour, 10 Lib Dem and 4 others.
It takes less Labour votes to elect a Labour MP than the Tory equivalent because (a) turnout is lower in safe Labour seats than safe Tory ones (b) Safe labour seats have smaller populations than safe Tory ones (prosperous areas see population increases). Marginality has notyhing to do with it.
There's no point looking at the 50 most marginal seats as they are, by the very nature, the most extreme ones and by virtue of being in Government, yes the Tories are more likely to have the most extreme ones. If we look at the broader picture, say the 194 most marginal seats, those seats only make up 27% of the Tories' total seats, whereas they make up 31% of Labour's total seats, and 47% of the Lib Dems total.
Your second point is a factor but that only contributes to the fact that Labour's vote is more efficiently spread because a higher proportion of their seats, hence why marginality is a factor when considering the effect that UKIP has on chipping away Labour's majority. Labour seats have a low turnout partly due to the anti-politics vibe currently being felt, which is exactly what UKIP are capitalising on. If anyone is going to mobilise the silent voters in Labour areas, it's going to be UKIP.
It is also worth pointing out that UKIP are targeting Labour heartlands where there are no parties outside of the main three with a noticeable impact (they aren't targeting seats in Wales or Scotland, where PC and SNP replace UKIP). Thus whilst the Tories are only facing an insurgent UKIP threat as well as the usual contesting of voters with Labour or the Lib Dems, Labour face the UKIP effect in their English seats as well as the growing SNP vote north of the border. The effect of Plaid Cymru hasn't actually been particularly analysed to any effect but given how badly Wales is currently being run under Labour, I wouldn't be surprised if that translated to falling support for Labour across Wales.
First of all, have you doubters noticed how the word UKIP is beginning to dominate this thread ? I believe some of you are trying to make the situation far too complicated. I am supporting them because a) I am fed up with paying millions into Europe so that they can tell us how to run our Country, and b) I want us to be far more careful about the number and the nature of migrants that are flooding into the Country. Plus, if I was able to invite one of the party Leaders into my house, it would have to be Nigel. Can you imagine getting stuck in the company of David, Ed and Alex ?
Ha, ha. Your post did make me laugh because I know someone who was working at the same city firm as Farage when he joined them in his youth as a trainee. This bloke is lovely, extremely likeable, huge circle of friends and he never seems to have a bad word about anyone...except Nigel of course.
When I asked him what he was like he took me totally aback by saying "The man's a racist c##t!" and that was the end of the conversation.
Make of that what you will, but much like Boris, I expect the image is carefully cultivated.
First of all, have you doubters noticed how the word UKIP is beginning to dominate this thread ? I believe some of you are trying to make the situation far too complicated. I am supporting them because a) I am fed up with paying millions into Europe so that they can tell us how to run our Country, and b) I want us to be far more careful about the number and the nature of migrants that are flooding into the Country. Plus, if I was able to invite one of the party Leaders into my house, it would have to be Nigel. Can you imagine getting stuck in the company of David, Ed and Alex ?
Can I ask you a couple of questions?
1 - What's the number one way in which Europe "tells us to run our own country"? Not a generalisation, but a single, specific item, for example The Working Time Directive, which prevents employees from being forced to work excessive hours. 2 - What do you mean by the nature of migrants flooding into the country? Are you saying that some migrants should be welcome and others not, based on their nature? Or is the word "nature" a proxy for the word "religion", "gender", "race" or "colour"? Or does it mean something else?
May I add a "3" ?
Who exactly are the human beings behind this thing called "Europe"? What nationality are they? Do they also tell the French, the Germans the Dutch, the Swedes etc how to run their own country? And do you think the people in those countries would put up with it, if so?
It's none of your business how Grandpa decides which way he wises to vote or to explain himself - so how about you and Chizz respectfully butting out?
BTW, fascinating analysis from Fiiish - if I understand it correctly!
I nether asked him how he intends to vote, nor to explain himself. Nor did I ask for your comments, but, of course you're welcome to add them nonetheless.
Ah Mr Reckless, the nan who was promising to campaign for the Tories and then defected the next day. The man who said he wouldn't join UKIP? Is lying now a gutsy thing to do?
Clegg = No tuition fees ?
Two wrongs make a right? Why quote Clegg at me? I don't see what point you are trying to make, sorry :-(
Could have said Blair = WMD in Iraq, but the double point I was making is that politicians lie or "change policy" whenever they like, and I quoted Clegg because he is in a position of direct power - unlike Mr Reckless who is a mere backbencher.
Reckless has given his voters a quick opportunity to decide whether he still represents them now he has changed his view/allegiance.
Not much honourable behavior left in politics, so always worth pointing out when it arises.
But UKIP declared itself to be different to the discredited politics of recent years. My point was and is that they are no different, if anything they are more deceitful.
First of all, have you doubters noticed how the word UKIP is beginning to dominate this thread ? I believe some of you are trying to make the situation far too complicated. I am supporting them because a) I am fed up with paying millions into Europe so that they can tell us how to run our Country, and b) I want us to be far more careful about the number and the nature of migrants that are flooding into the Country. Plus, if I was able to invite one of the party Leaders into my house, it would have to be Nigel. Can you imagine getting stuck in the company of David, Ed and Alex ?
First of all, have you doubters noticed how the word UKIP is beginning to dominate this thread ? I believe some of you are trying to make the situation far too complicated. I am supporting them because a) I am fed up with paying millions into Europe so that they can tell us how to run our Country, and b) I want us to be far more careful about the number and the nature of migrants that are flooding into the Country. Plus, if I was able to invite one of the party Leaders into my house, it would have to be Nigel. Can you imagine getting stuck in the company of David, Ed and Alex ?
Can I ask you a couple of questions?
Could have fooled me.
Yes, I think I could have. But I didn't. Neither did I ask anyone to explain himself. If my questions were too brusque for Granpa, I am sure he'll say.
Fiish, I'll have to take your word for it re the 194 most marginal seats.
The UKIP target list of 12 seats comprises 9 Tory, 1 Lib Dem (Eastleigh, Tory until the by-election), 1 Independent (was Lib Dem), 1 Labour (Grimsby).
Having said that, quite a few of those targets are also Labour targets, like Thurrock.
It's certainly not going to be easy for Labour to win the next election. They have a poor legacy, an ineffective leader, an incoherent platform and a number of challenges in the celtic heartlands. But they might just win on 35% of the vote and if they do it will be because of UKIP.
I don't support any party at the moment, although I would vote to stay in the EU. I find it deeply ironic that the hugely increased prospective vote for UKIP provides the best possible chance of the UK staying in the EU by giving Labour a chance of winning which they otherwise would not have and therefore avoiding an in/out referendum.
Ah Mr Reckless, the nan who was promising to campaign for the Tories and then defected the next day. The man who said he wouldn't join UKIP? Is lying now a gutsy thing to do?
Clegg = No tuition fees ?
Two wrongs make a right? Why quote Clegg at me? I don't see what point you are trying to make, sorry :-(
Could have said Blair = WMD in Iraq, but the double point I was making is that politicians lie or "change policy" whenever they like, and I quoted Clegg because he is in a position of direct power - unlike Mr Reckless who is a mere backbencher.
Reckless has given his voters a quick opportunity to decide whether he still represents them now he has changed his view/allegiance.
Not much honourable behavior left in politics, so always worth pointing out when it arises.
But UKIP declared itself to be different to the discredited politics of recent years. My point was and is that they are no different, if anything they are more deceitful.
Reckless really had no choice after Carswell decided to resign his seat. In both cases, I imagine Farage wanted them to. Lots of publicity and momentum leading up to the general election.
I suspect this is now an amendment to ourunwritten constitution. It will be very difficult for any MP to change parties without promising a by-election in future.
You think "Cast Iron Dave" is actually going to honour his" repeated promise"of an in-out referendum on EU membership? Dream on! There will never be an in-out referendum from Con/Lib/Lab! There will always be another excuse not to hold one! As it stands now it`s 3 years away!
Under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty another 43 sovereign powers are passed to the EU on November 1st this year which makes a referendum practically impossible. The EU will simply not allow the British people a say on this. Look at their track record with referenda and total contempt and disregard with which they treated the people of Denmark, France, Ireland and Holland!
You think "Cast Iron Dave" is actually going to honour his" repeated promise"of an in-out referendum on EU membership? Dream on! There will never be an in-out referendum from Con/Lib/Lab! There will always be another excuse not to hold one! As it stands now it`s 3 years away!
Under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty another 43 sovereign powers are passed to the EU on November 1st this year which makes a referendum practically impossible.
Yes. It would be political suicide not to hold a referendum in 2017. Look what happened to the Lib Dems on a comparatively minor issue (tuition fees).
The Lisbon Treaty gives a specific right to leave the EU and a procedure for withdrawal to be negotiated (although it can simpley be unitlateral). It's completely tin hat to think that Lisbon precludes a referendum.
Well why put it so far down the line then relying on re-election instead of having it this parliament. If they were serious about it they could have held it this year. It`s the same as Dave`s EU reform agenda which we all know is not going to happen! He hasn`t got the clout or credibility to get any meaningful reform.
Ah Mr Reckless, the nan who was promising to campaign for the Tories and then defected the next day. The man who said he wouldn't join UKIP? Is lying now a gutsy thing to do?
Clegg = No tuition fees ?
Two wrongs make a right? Why quote Clegg at me? I don't see what point you are trying to make, sorry :-(
Could have said Blair = WMD in Iraq, but the double point I was making is that politicians lie or "change policy" whenever they like, and I quoted Clegg because he is in a position of direct power - unlike Mr Reckless who is a mere backbencher.
Reckless has given his voters a quick opportunity to decide whether he still represents them now he has changed his view/allegiance.
Not much honourable behavior left in politics, so always worth pointing out when it arises.
But UKIP declared itself to be different to the discredited politics of recent years. My point was and is that they are no different, if anything they are more deceitful.
Reckless really had no choice after Carswell decided to resign his seat. In both cases, I imagine Farage wanted them to. Lots of publicity and momentum leading up to the general election.
I suspect this is now an amendment to ourunwritten constitution. It will be very difficult for any MP to change parties without promising a by-election in future.
The night before he defected, he left a voicemail promising to be at the party conference. The defection was very deliberately scheduled to unsettle the Tory Party Conference. Reckless just told lie after lie and he knew exactly what and why he was doing it.
Let's just say all you UKIP supporters are right and they are what everyone should be voting for, even if UKIP won every seat they contested they are not contesting enough to win the election. So the best they can hope for based on other seats is a hung parliament giving them an equalish say in the governing of the country. But a very likely scenario is that labour due to Tories losing so many votes to UKIP will just get the majority and win or even like Tories last time pull in the lib dem puppets to make a majority. Isn't it then the case that by voting UKIP we/you could be handing the government over to their binary opposite "labour"? Ironic eh?
Well why put it so far down the line then relying on re-election instead of having it this parliament. If they were serious about it they could have held it this year. It`s the same as Dave`s EU reform agenda which we all know is not going to happen! He hasn`t got the clout or credibility to get any meaningful reform.
I agree. He has no hope of getting any serious reform through. Thta's a long way from saying that he will not hold a referendum in 2017 though. If elected, he will. He has no choice.
Let's just say all you UKIP supporters are right and they are what everyone should be voting for, even if UKIP won every seat they contested they are not contesting enough to win the election. So the best they can hope for based on other seats is a hung parliament giving them an equalish say in the governing of the country. But a very likely scenario is that labour due to Tories losing so many votes to UKIP will just get the majority and win or even like Tories last time pull in the lib dem puppets to make a majority. Isn't it then the case that by voting UKIP we/you could be handing the government over to their binary opposite "labour"? Ironic eh?
You're spot on.
However, how about this mad scenario...
Labour having an overall majority is what Farage wants. Here's the thinking... If UKIP take sufficient votes from the Tories (and elsewhere) to cause Labour to take an overall majority, the Tories will be in meltdown, torn down the middle (as they have been for decades) on the subject of Europe. There will be the Eurosceptics desperate for the party to lurch right and ditch Europe and there will be the Europhiles, headed by Cameron, massively discredited by losing power again. The rank-and-file, blue-rinse, heartland Tories will be happy to ditch Cameron in favour of a new leader. (As they should: a leader losing an election must go; and Cameron will have failed to win two in a row in this scenario). So (in Farage's thinking) who better to offer himself as the white knight to rescue the Tories on an anti-EU, all-out, far-right ticket than Farage himself?
So Farage's thinking might be on these lines: if the Tories win the election, Farage sits on the opposition backbenches for five years. But if the Tories win the election, Farage spends five years preparing to be Prime Minister!
They were both bullying him with rhetorical questions because they don't agree with his opinion
And there's no such word as 'wanky'.
Bullying. I'll remember that next time you disagree on here with something I've written. Which is a regular occurrence, and leaves me with no problem whatsoever, beyond the urge to reply.
You actually seem to have fallen into a John Redwood mindset.
My understanding of a rhetorical question isthat it's asked just for effect or to lay emphasis on some point discussed when no real answer is expected.
I felt that both Chizz and Prague's questions were just that.
Comments
It's worth noting that when Tories win seats they usually win by comfortable majorities; Labour are, on the other hand, get more seats considered to be marginals. This is where Labour's intrinsic advantage in the current constituency set-up lies - their voter base is more 'efficiently' spread to minimise the number of votes it needs per seat (they have fewer 'wasted votes', as any votes more than one greater the number of votes their closest rival in a seat they get are effectively wasted).
So if Tories are bleeding votes, they suffer less as they usually have more surplus votes. Now in Tory/Labour marginals, Labour rely on convincing people to turn from the Tories to and to vote for them. Except now the UKIP threat means that people don't necessarily need to turn left if they don't want to vote Tories (it is safe to say that most swing voters don't vote on a left/right paradigm, only voters who don't swing between parties tend to affirm themselves to either left or right). Therefore Labour cannot count on the usual voters who would automatically vote for the party 'not in government' as many of those voters will now be voting UKIP, meaning there is a depleted pool of swing voters for them to target.
There has been plenty of evidence and polling that suggests that voters voting UKIP for the first-time are more likely to have previously been Conservative voters, but the same evidence also suggests that many voters who would have voted Labour in the absence of UKIP are going to vote UKIP or have now switched to UKIP. Because a greater proportion of Labour seats are marginal, it only takes a smaller swing from Labour to UKIP to deny Labour the victory than it does from Tory to UKIP.
The UKIP threat is more obvious to the Tories but analysis of voting patterns in Labour seats and Labour targets means Labour cannot be complacent and consider UKIP to be a problem only affecting Tories.
September 29
Ah Mr Reckless, the nan who was promising to campaign for the Tories and then defected the next day. The man who said he wouldn't join UKIP? Is lying now a gutsy thing to do?
I'll never trust my Nan ever again !
1 - What's the number one way in which Europe "tells us to run our own country"? Not a generalisation, but a single, specific item, for example The Working Time Directive, which prevents employees from being forced to work excessive hours.
2 - What do you mean by the nature of migrants flooding into the country? Are you saying that some migrants should be welcome and others not, based on their nature? Or is the word "nature" a proxy for the word "religion", "gender", "race" or "colour"? Or does it mean something else?
It takes less Labour votes to elect a Labour MP than the Tory equivalent because (a) turnout is lower in safe Labour seats than safe Tory ones (b) Safe labour seats have smaller populations than safe Tory ones (prosperous areas see population increases). Marginality has notyhing to do with it.
Your second point is a factor but that only contributes to the fact that Labour's vote is more efficiently spread because a higher proportion of their seats, hence why marginality is a factor when considering the effect that UKIP has on chipping away Labour's majority. Labour seats have a low turnout partly due to the anti-politics vibe currently being felt, which is exactly what UKIP are capitalising on. If anyone is going to mobilise the silent voters in Labour areas, it's going to be UKIP.
It is also worth pointing out that UKIP are targeting Labour heartlands where there are no parties outside of the main three with a noticeable impact (they aren't targeting seats in Wales or Scotland, where PC and SNP replace UKIP). Thus whilst the Tories are only facing an insurgent UKIP threat as well as the usual contesting of voters with Labour or the Lib Dems, Labour face the UKIP effect in their English seats as well as the growing SNP vote north of the border. The effect of Plaid Cymru hasn't actually been particularly analysed to any effect but given how badly Wales is currently being run under Labour, I wouldn't be surprised if that translated to falling support for Labour across Wales.
When I asked him what he was like he took me totally aback by saying "The man's a racist c##t!" and that was the end of the conversation.
Make of that what you will, but much like Boris, I expect the image is carefully cultivated.
Who exactly are the human beings behind this thing called "Europe"? What nationality are they? Do they also tell the French, the Germans the Dutch, the Swedes etc how to run their own country? And do you think the people in those countries would put up with it, if so?
It's none of your business how Grandpa decides which way he wises to vote or to explain himself - so how about you and Chizz respectfully butting out?
BTW, fascinating analysis from Fiiish - if I understand it correctly!
The UKIP target list of 12 seats comprises 9 Tory, 1 Lib Dem (Eastleigh, Tory until the by-election), 1 Independent (was Lib Dem), 1 Labour (Grimsby).
Having said that, quite a few of those targets are also Labour targets, like Thurrock.
It's certainly not going to be easy for Labour to win the next election. They have a poor legacy, an ineffective leader, an incoherent platform and a number of challenges in the celtic heartlands. But they might just win on 35% of the vote and if they do it will be because of UKIP.
I don't support any party at the moment, although I would vote to stay in the EU. I find it deeply ironic that the hugely increased prospective vote for UKIP provides the best possible chance of the UK staying in the EU by giving Labour a chance of winning which they otherwise would not have and therefore avoiding an in/out referendum.
I suspect this is now an amendment to ourunwritten constitution. It will be very difficult for any MP to change parties without promising a by-election in future.
Under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty another 43 sovereign powers are passed to the EU on November 1st this year which makes a referendum practically impossible. The EU will simply not allow the British people a say on this. Look at their track record with referenda and total contempt and disregard with which they treated the people of Denmark, France, Ireland and Holland!
Yes. It would be political suicide not to hold a referendum in 2017. Look what happened to the Lib Dems on a comparatively minor issue (tuition fees).
The Lisbon Treaty gives a specific right to leave the EU and a procedure for withdrawal to be negotiated (although it can simpley be unitlateral). It's completely tin hat to think that Lisbon precludes a referendum.
The defection was very deliberately scheduled to unsettle the Tory Party Conference. Reckless just told lie after lie and he knew exactly what and why he was doing it.
If he chooses to share those thoughts on here, he does so in the likelihood that someone will comment. Indeed he probably hopes they do.
So I think you can butt out on this one.
However, how about this mad scenario...
Labour having an overall majority is what Farage wants. Here's the thinking... If UKIP take sufficient votes from the Tories (and elsewhere) to cause Labour to take an overall majority, the Tories will be in meltdown, torn down the middle (as they have been for decades) on the subject of Europe. There will be the Eurosceptics desperate for the party to lurch right and ditch Europe and there will be the Europhiles, headed by Cameron, massively discredited by losing power again. The rank-and-file, blue-rinse, heartland Tories will be happy to ditch Cameron in favour of a new leader. (As they should: a leader losing an election must go; and Cameron will have failed to win two in a row in this scenario). So (in Farage's thinking) who better to offer himself as the white knight to rescue the Tories on an anti-EU, all-out, far-right ticket than Farage himself?
So Farage's thinking might be on these lines: if the Tories win the election, Farage sits on the opposition backbenches for five years. But if the Tories win the election, Farage spends five years preparing to be Prime Minister!
Oh and you also missed a question mark from your post. I've corrected it here for you. No need to thank me.
They were both bullying him with rhetorical questions because they don't agree with his opinion
And there's no such word as 'wanky'.
I'm not entirely sure you know what a rhetorical question is. Do you?
And you need to look up the definition of rhetorical mate.
You actually seem to have fallen into a John Redwood mindset.
I felt that both Chizz and Prague's questions were just that.