We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Electoral Disaster
Generali
Posts: 36,411 Forumite
Just a thought. IIRC it is a truism that Labour and Tory will never get less than 30% of the vote as that is the 'core support' for each party.
Mr Brown's Labour Party only managed to score 29% of the vote which is perilously close to Michael 'Donkey' Foot's 27.6% in 1983. In fact, once you take off the advantage an incumbent has in the UK (can time the election, has had 5 years of Government advertising promoting their policies) Mr Brown could be thought to have done even worse than Mr Foot.
Against this and with a background of the worst recession since the 1930s, Mr Cameron's Tories failed to get 40% of the popular vote and failed to get a majority despite a voting system that is justified on the basis that it delivers decisive Government.
Useless, the pair of 'em.
Mr Brown's Labour Party only managed to score 29% of the vote which is perilously close to Michael 'Donkey' Foot's 27.6% in 1983. In fact, once you take off the advantage an incumbent has in the UK (can time the election, has had 5 years of Government advertising promoting their policies) Mr Brown could be thought to have done even worse than Mr Foot.
Against this and with a background of the worst recession since the 1930s, Mr Cameron's Tories failed to get 40% of the popular vote and failed to get a majority despite a voting system that is justified on the basis that it delivers decisive Government.
Useless, the pair of 'em.
0
Comments
-
it's only a 'truism' historically; the future IMO will be somewhat different. no party will be able to rely on core support ('I've always voted for x because me dad did'); traditional voting habit is giving way to a more consumer-led, pick and mix approach.
I'll leave other opinionated, mouthy - and, frankly, more offensive contributors to this board - to decide whether this a 'good thing'.0 -
torontoboy45 wrote: »no party will be able to rely on core support ........ traditional voting habit is giving way to a more consumer-led, pick and mix approach.
Sorry, I just don't buy that theory. I know hard-core supporters on both sides and there is nothing that will change these people. Sure, I think that probably 30% of the UK population are swing voters but I think that number has probably been fairly consistent since WW2.
(I don't understand what you mean by a pick and mix approach.)0 -
Just a thought. IIRC it is a truism that Labour and Tory will never get less than 30% of the vote as that is the 'core support' for each party.
Mr Brown's Labour Party only managed to score 29% of the vote which is perilously close to Michael 'Donkey' Foot's 27.6% in 1983. In fact, once you take off the advantage an incumbent has in the UK (can time the election, has had 5 years of Government advertising promoting their policies) Mr Brown could be thought to have done even worse than Mr Foot.
Against this and with a background of the worst recession since the 1930s, Mr Cameron's Tories failed to get 40% of the popular vote and failed to get a majority despite a voting system that is justified on the basis that it delivers decisive Government.
Useless, the pair of 'em.
I agree that the numbers really do indicate that both Labour and the Tories "lost" this election for the reasons you describe.
The Lib Dems, on the other hand, had enormous fanfare and success during the campaign, promising that they were turning into something of equal standing to the "old" parties rather than the also-rans they have been for years. On polling day, this resulted in... an increase of the share of the vote from 22% in 2005 to 23% in 2010, and the net loss of 5 seats.
Just as useless as the other two on those numbers.Do you know anyone who's bereaved? Point them to https://www.AtaLoss.org which does for bereavement support what MSE does for financial services, providing links to support organisations relevant to the circumstances of the loss & the local area. (Link permitted by forum team)
Tyre performance in the wet deteriorates rapidly below about 3mm tread - change yours when they get dangerous, not just when they are nearly illegal (1.6mm).
Oh, and wear your seatbelt. My kids are only alive because they were wearing theirs when somebody else was driving in wet weather with worn tyres.
0 -
They all lost. Cameron got a whole 3% more than Michael Howard did in 2005. A Tory shadow cabinet minister was quoted as saying that a muppet could have done as well as that. Cleggmania went nowhere which was the remarkable story of the election. Labour got their second worst result for 90 years in share of the vote. Actually though they did the best arguably. They weren't annihilated to 165 seats like the Conservatives in 1997 and it's a tribute to their core voters that they didn't get down to 25% and finish third, when their voters had a viable centre left alternative in the Lib Dems (unlike Conservative voters.) After the deepest recession for 70 years, the most unpopular war in history, a leader that the electorate weren't keen on if you're not going to vote Labour now when are you?? I guess this shows they do have a resilient core vote.0
-
!!!!!! they all won, nobody wanted to win this election they all wanted to lose, so in the end they all succeeded in losing yet some poor !!!!!!! had to pretend they had won, hence a CON-DEM nation at the moment.
Simples.0 -
Entertainer wrote: »They all lost. Cameron got a whole 3% more than Michael Howard did in 2005. A Tory shadow cabinet minister was quoted as saying that a muppet could have done as well as that. Cleggmania went nowhere which was the remarkable story of the election. Labour got their second worst result for 90 years in share of the vote. Actually though they did the best arguably. They weren't annihilated to 165 seats like the Conservatives in 1997 and it's a tribute to their core voters that they didn't get down to 25% and finish third, when their voters had a viable centre left alternative in the Lib Dems (unlike Conservative voters.) After the deepest recession for 70 years, the most unpopular war in history, a leader that the electorate weren't keen on if you're not going to vote Labour now when are you?? I guess this shows they do have a resilient core vote.
I must admit I did expect a Tory landslide last week, along the lines of Labour in 1997 regardless of the polls, so I was surprised at the result. I was convinced the exit polls were wrong for all the parties, but especially for the LibDems. It turned out the exit polls were spot on.
On the face of it with the majority of the media and the scale of the money supporting them the Conservatives should have walked it. People were unhappy with Labour and Gordon Brown, the most unpopular prime minister we have ever had, we have the worst recession since the 1930s, we have an eye watering amount of debt, which is all the fault of Gordon Brown. And the Tories had their "A" list of new candidates parachuted in to a number of constituencies. It was a gift. An open goal.
The winners in the general election are:
Gillian Duffy, made a lot of money
Manish Sood, made a lot of friends
BBC, stayed above all the media frothing and to my amazement were pretty impartial.0 -
I think the Tories may be still suffering from people's memories of having hated Thatcher. She seems to crop up more than one might expect in conversations about the election.Do you know anyone who's bereaved? Point them to https://www.AtaLoss.org which does for bereavement support what MSE does for financial services, providing links to support organisations relevant to the circumstances of the loss & the local area. (Link permitted by forum team)
Tyre performance in the wet deteriorates rapidly below about 3mm tread - change yours when they get dangerous, not just when they are nearly illegal (1.6mm).
Oh, and wear your seatbelt. My kids are only alive because they were wearing theirs when somebody else was driving in wet weather with worn tyres.0 -
On polling day, this resulted in... an increase of the share of the vote from 22% in 2005 to 23% in 2010, and the net loss of 5 seats.
.
23% of the vote is the highest proportion of the vote since 1925. So... I am wondering if they are reaching a "core voter" cap... that is, despite the press, this is the best result they are ever likely to get under this system. They are in government now, so they are likely to get less popular, since that's how government works:D.
Mr Brown's Labour Party only managed to score 29% of the vote which is perilously close to Michael 'Donkey' Foot's 27.6% in 1983.
They were in government during the worst recession since the 1970's... is it a surprise they are deeply unpopular?“The ideas of debtor and creditor as to what constitutes a good time never coincide.”
― P.G. Wodehouse, Love Among the Chickens0 -
Just a thought. IIRC it is a truism that Labour and Tory will never get less than 30% of the vote as that is the 'core support' for each party.
Mr Brown's Labour Party only managed to score 29% of the vote which is perilously close to Michael 'Donkey' Foot's 27.6% in 1983. In fact, once you take off the advantage an incumbent has in the UK (can time the election, has had 5 years of Government advertising promoting their policies) Mr Brown could be thought to have done even worse than Mr Foot.
Against this and with a background of the worst recession since the 1930s, Mr Cameron's Tories failed to get 40% of the popular vote and failed to get a majority despite a voting system that is justified on the basis that it delivers decisive Government.
Useless, the pair of 'em.
The real winners were the people running the exit polls. Ask 16500 people from approx 130 seats and run it through your model and get the result almost exactly right. Amiracle of maths, stats & modelling.US housing: it's not a bubble
Moneyweek, December 20050 -
23% of the vote is the highest proportion of the vote since 1925. So... I am wondering if they are reaching a "core voter" cap... that is, despite the press, this is the best result they are ever likely to get under this system. They are in government now, so they are likely to get less popular, since that's how government works:D.
They were in government during the worst recession since the 1970's... is it a surprise they are deeply unpopular?
Pretty sure they polled around the 25% mark in 1983.
I think Labour did well to limit the damage, in roughly 80 seats, their share of the vot actually went up (1/2 of these seats in Scotland).
I think the long term worry is the utter polarisation of votes regionally.US housing: it's not a bubble
Moneyweek, December 20050
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards