Quote:
Originally Posted by Zak64
Let me see if I've understood this correctly.
If the Lib Dems get 1.5% of the vote it's a crushing humiliation for them. But if UKIP get 1.5% of the vote then it's what, a stunning electoral victory perhaps?
|
I thought someone was going to ask this.
Let me put it this way: 'pro-rata' a 1.5% vote share for the Liberal 'Democrats' is much worse for them than is a 1% of 1.5% vote share for UKIP. Because the Liberal 'Democrats' would have dropped from a higher base to 1.5% of the vote than UKIP would have done.
The europhile Liberal 'Democrats' got a national vote share of 23% at the last General Election and they won 62 Parliamentary constituencies: for them to fall to 1.5% of the vote in a local ward election is for them a total (but well-deserved) humiliation at the polls.
UKIP got a national vote share at the last General Election of about 2.6% - to fall to 1.5% of the vote in a local ward contest is not good for UKIP but it is a far smaller drop from 2.6% to 1.5% (for UKIP) than is a fall from 23% to 1.5% (for the pro-EU Liberal 'Democrats').
By the way Zak64, no one ever said that UKIP getting 1.5% of the vote in a local ward contest "was perhaps a stunning electoral victory" (your words from the quote above).
1.5% of the vote for the Liberal 'Democrats' in the local ward By-Election in the key marginal target constituency of Dartford on 21.2.2008 is even worse for that party because they have just chosen a new leader - and the usual thing is a new leader of a political party has a 'political honeymoon' which attracts extra votes for his/her party. The exact reverse may have happened for the europhile Liberal 'Democrats' at Dartford last week
.