The Politicus

Create | Share | Influence

United Kingdom: UKIP false flag is decisive to outcome (13% of vote moves 30 to 40 seats to Tories)

5 min read

Recalculating the UK 2015 election vote to remove UKIP impact, the Conservative Party majority victory (329 seats) goes down to at best a 318-308 loss to Labour/SNP coalition. One helluva false flag operation.

United Kingdom Independence Party remains a well financed, Murdoch supported propaganda operation that prior to 2015 had been taking 3% or so of the vote in England and Wales. UKIP has not taken hold significantly in Scotland. Now, come May 6th of 2015 that operation has snagged 13% of the overall vote — overwhelmingly damaging Labour.

UKIP handed the election to the Tories.

The Liberal Democrats collapsed, here, from ceasing to exist as an influence on UK politics. They went down by 39 seats. But it was UKIP that kept these anything-but-safe constituencies from falling over to Labour instead of the Tories.

UKIP is a more polite version of the American Tea Party. A billionaire financed piece of fakery. They are not shy about their mission to peal off anti-Establishment “patriotic” voters who otherwise would be voting heavily for Labour:

This party has never put forward actual legislative programs nor did it state how it intended to pay for a long list of proposed budget increases. UKIP targets its actions as a Right Populist vote sink. Their campaign featured glossy mailers in multiple waves that attacked immigration, the European Union, crime, a shortage of doctors, and such local items as parking fees.

The one and only appearance of a non-Caucasian in their Manifesto comes with an African woman in the two-page “Overseas Aid” section on page 68. Lots of White guys in suits, otherwise. No Asians. Not a hint of diversity.

They succeeded as never before at snagging votes from Britain's “Reagan Democrat” Labourites. Read through the Manifesto if you think that Britain lacks “Reagan Democrats.” It offers everything short of White Citizens Councils.

One key to UKIP success is that there's always more money flowing into the till for flashy Ad Biz campaign assets. Here is the UKIP Manifesto in pdf format. There's 76 pages of it. This got mailed out on request.

Between the full Manifesto, a Summary of the Manifesto in mass mailings, and posters all over England and Wales some 4,000,000 contacts items were posted in the last week of this 2015 election.

It worked.

Financial Times glows:

Stating that he would “take the summer off”, Mr Farage hit out at the British electoral system after his party looked set to finish with just one Westminster MP despite gaining a near 13 per cent share of the vote.

“I want to make a more vibrant, energetic Ukip, not just to control immigration sensibly but build a fairer society and an electoral system that engages [people] and will give them a government and a parliament that’s representative of their views,” he said following his defeat.

UKIP's campaign quite pointedly spread out its resources instead of making concentrated efforts, as would be necessary if this party aimed to gain seats in Parliament.

It's a temporary phenomenon. Here since 1990 as a splinter group, then taken over by deep pockets conservatives and reengineereed to lay waste to Labour in the national elections.

There's no there, there.

UKIP is not a governance engine. Not at all. With 13% of the vote they managed to keep their MP list down to one seat.

Whatever this scam cost the Conservative Party's backers, it was a great buy.

And Murdoch played his part in the scam to a tee. Supper with Nigel Farage and editorials in his rags built UKIP up as serious stuff. Guardian coverage of the Murdoch surge.

Labour ??? Who? Whazzat?

Labour response to UKIP reminds me of the Kerry campaign operation in 2004. Kerry had Jim Rassmann. Ready, willing and able to take out the Swiftboaters. His Ad Biz crew 86'd doing that counterattack.

No punch. No counterpunch. All issues, no gut.

I can't find one example of Labour tagging UKIP for what they are. The Labour Party get their throats ripped out by this deep pockets false flag, while their supposed tacticians play the Three Monkeys Polka.

You guys still pissed at Ralph Nader for taking “Libertarian” money and buggering the 2000 presidential election? Good. The little shxt brought us Bush/Cheney, the Iraq War with 1,455,000 total extra deaths among Iraqis, and the 2007-2009 No Regulation Recession.

Labour pissed at UKIP and their Big Money backers ??? It's not clear that the people running their tactical operations recognize the meaning of “false flag” in UK politics.

I have to get the detail vote counts by constituency and follow-up 2nd choice data to calculate the range of likelihood for impact. First cut guesstimate (using pre-election 2nd choice) puts the impact at roughly 30 to 40 seats. That's moving a Labour win to a Tory win.

Actuals yield: Tory/Labour/SNP/LibDem/UKIP at 329/232/56/8/1.

If UKIP had failed utterly with its mailer/Murdoch scam, a 30 seat difference would have brought in 299/262/56/8/1. The likelihood of a Labour/SNP government would have been obvious.

At a 30 seat change that would have yielded a different outcome:

— Labour/SNP at 318 seats

— Tories/LbiDem/UKIP at 308.

Use of 2nd choice stats is the key to understanding what happened. long time Labour voters were two-thirds of the folks who went over to UKIP this time around.

A close win for the left-center parties, the interests that prefer Scandinavian Model policies. Of course Labour also went public saying that they would not form a coalition with Scottish National Party. A loopy position at best. There's more wrong over there inside the Labour Party than Three Monkeys Polka.

Today we have “Conservative Triumph” and “Sweeping Win for Cameron in Britain:
Conservative Party Secures Majority” at the Gray Lady.

Dirty Tricks work.

Never underestimate conservative dishonesty. Never underestimate Murdoch. Or ignore their tactics. They are poisonous to democracy. They have the resources to beat you every time out, barring eternal vigilance.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Check out the comments. A dozen of them are dismissive, insulting, arrogant — not a single reference to the UK 2015 vote counts or to the background statistical work related to 2nd choice mechanics.

“8-centers” ??? The language of the put-downs presents a common grammatic tell — see if you can identify it within the first two or three. (Part of the liespotting tool kit.)

Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments