Your comment indicates you don't understand parliamentary forms of government in general and Britain's system of gov't in particular. Britain doesn't have an electoral college which results in the presidential candiate who gets an absolute majority of electoral votes becoming President. If we had had a parliamentary type of gov't then Perot would have been kingmaker and would have cut a deal with either Bush or Clinton to make one of them President, depending of course on who offered him the sweetest terms.
In the case of your scenario, where the Tories and UKIP got a majority of parliamentary seats, then they would almost certainly form a coalition. That's a much more plausible scenario than Labor Party cutting a deal with UKIP to put Labor in charge.
And Gore would have been in charge from 2001-2009.
I didn't say that they'd get a combined majority of *seats*,I said that,combined,they could get a majority of the *vote* in many,maybe even the majority,of constituencies.So,combined,they get 55% of the votes in constituency after constituency (Tory-40%,UKIP-15%) while Labour gets 41% in each of them.
I love Nigel Farage.I make it a point to watch youtube videos of his European Parliament speeches on a regular basis.I also thought that Ross Perot had some worthwhile things to say.But I didn't vote for him...because I knew he didn't have a prayer and all he could do was cause Bush to lose.Same goes in Britain.Farage will win,perhaps,a handful of seats and very,*very* probably will cost Cameron a umber of seats that he otherwise would have taken.Result? You know what the result will be.
Post #28 is very good.