Why the Tories Won

Generali

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11593854/Votes-Per-Seat-for-each-party.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11593854/Votes-Per-Seat-for-each-party.html

Party         Votes per seat 
  Conservatives         34,244 
   Labour                   40,290 
   SNP                       25,972 
   Lib Dem               301,986 
   DUP                        23,032 
   Sinn Ffein               44,058
   Plaid Cymru            60,564 
   SDLP                      33,269 
   UUP                        57,467 
   Ukip                   3,881,129 
   Green                  1,157,613

The SNP and the Conservatives were simply better at converting votes into seats.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11593854/Votes-Per-Seat-for-each-party.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11593854/Votes-Per-Seat-for-each-party.html

Party         Votes per seat 
  Conservatives         34,244 
   Labour                   40,290 
   SNP                       25,972 
   Lib Dem               301,986 
   DUP                        23,032 
   Sinn Ffein               44,058
   Plaid Cymru            60,564 
   SDLP                      33,269 
   UUP                        57,467 
   Ukip                   3,881,129 
   Green                  1,157,613

The SNP and the Conservatives were simply better at converting votes into seats.

Yes, I noticed the same thing.

In 2010 the Cons needed 34,940 votes for every seat they won, for Labour the figure was 33,370 i.e Labour was about 5% more efficient in terms of translating votes into seats. In 2015 the numbers were 34,244 for the Cons, but for Labour it was 40,290; even if you strip out Scotland the numbers are 33,033 against 37,403. Now the Cons are over 10% more efficient in terms of translating votes into seats.

This harks back to what I said in another thread about the loss of Scotland and the Lib Dem collapse being 'game changers'. They have stripped away much of the advantage that Labour once enjoyed under FPTP.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=68174336&postcount=435

That and a very professional, well organised campaign by the Conservatives targetting the seats that mattered.

P.S. I'm relieved that the DT has come with the same numbers that I had.:)

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

Yes, I noticed the same thing.

In 2010 the Cons needed 34,940 votes for every seat they won, for Labour the figure was 33,370 i.e Labour was about 5% more efficient in terms of translating votes into seats. In 2015 the numbers were 34,244 for the Cons, but for Labour it was 40,290; even if you strip out Scotland the numbers are 33,033 against 37,403. Now the Cons are over 10% more efficient in terms of translating votes into seats.

This harks back to what I said in another thread about the loss of Scotland and the Lib Dem collapse being 'game changers'. They have stripped away much of the advantage that Labour once enjoyed under FPTP.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=68174336&postcount=435

That and a very professional, well organised campaign by the Conservatives targetting the seats that mattered.

P.S. I'm relieved that the DT has come with the same numbers that I had.:)

I'm quite relieved you came out with the same numbers as the Torygraph because I was going to calculate the figures but came across the DT article instead!

antrobus

Or you could say why the Conservatives won the election was quite simple.

They defended the 307 seats that they had. In marginal after marginal, they fought off Labour, and only lost a net 2 seats.

They gobbled up Lib Dem seats with all the enthusiasm of a starving rottweiler faced with a litter of blind baby kittens. Net gain 27 seats.

307 plus 27 less 2 less Clacton is 331.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

I'm quite relieved you came out with the same numbers as the Torygraph because I was going to calculate the figures but came across the DT article instead!

I was looking at it, because I noticed something odd about the overall result.

Labour got over 700,000 more votes than in 2010, and increased their share of the vote by 1.5%, and yet they lost seats. I cannot think of any previous occasion when the opposition party has managed to achieve such a thing.

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

I was looking at it, because I noticed something odd about the overall result.

Labour got over 700,000 more votes than in 2010, and increased their share of the vote by 1.5%, and yet they lost seats. I cannot think of any previous occasion when the opposition party has managed to achieve such a thing.

Presumably that's because they lost all those 'cheap' seats in Scotland.

I'd guessed prior to this that SNP seats would be 'expensive' because they got far more majority than required. Instead their seats were cheap because you don't need so many votes for a Scottish seat as an English one.

Moby

Well I'm happy to say that their strategy of defending their marginals didn't work in our case because we turfed the tory out...it was a London marginal however. It was very tight and I got the impression fearmongering about the SNP by the tories was hitting home but we just squeaked in by a 1000 votes. Interesting times ahead now with the referendum and 50 odd SNP MP's!

CLAPTON

the Tories won because Nicola couldn't keep her mouth shut.

forget about the lion that roared : think more about the lion whose tail was pulled too often

Generali

Moby wrote: »

Well I'm happy to say that their strategy of defending their marginals didn't work in our case because we turfed the tory out...it was a London marginal however. It was very tight and I got the impression fearmongering about the SNP by the tories was hitting home but we just squeaked in by a 1000 votes. Interesting times ahead now with the referendum and 50 odd SNP MP's!

The referendum will be very interesting as will the Labour leadership vote. Do they go left to try to regain Scotland or right to gain England?

They'll struggle to form a Government without Scotland but can't without England.

The SNP will have about the same power as the SDP in the 1980s.

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

Well I'm happy to say that their strategy of defending their marginals didn't work in our case because we turfed the tory out...it was a London marginal however. It was very tight and I got the impression fearmongering about the SNP by the tories was hitting home but we just squeaked in by a 1000 votes. Interesting times ahead now with the referendum and 50 odd SNP MP's!

It's very rare for me to agree with you but you are right.

People have woken up to the largess of the English (largely Londoners) to the Scots whose idea of thanks is 'anyone but the English'.

A new Scottish referendum (with a YES) would leave more money for the poor of London.
The only problem is that the Scots aren't all stupid and might vote NO again.

michaels

Is it possible that because the polls were so wrong labour were targeting their efforts in the wrong seats. It was suggested that the tories were concentrating their efforts on the air war, expensive national advertising whereas labour with less money but more members were going to win a ground war. However if the ground war wasn't actually taking place in the key marginals becasue labour had assumed that they would comfortably win the easiest seats say swing up to 3% they went after the 4-10 percent seats whereas actually they should have been looking at the closer ones. Yes that might be defeatest if hoping for a majority but in terms of maximising seats it might have worked better and prevented a tory majoroty?