Why the Tories Won

stator

Generali wrote: »

Of course not. It's what we [STRIKE]economists [/STRIKE] bigots call [STRIKE]an 'example'[/STRIKE] stereotyping.

fixed it for you

dktreesea

tberry6686 wrote: »

I can't say about the rest of Britain but where I live it was easy to see why Labour lost. During the run up to the election we had 1 knock on the door (SNP) and 3 leaflets through the door (SNP, Cons, Lib Dem). Around the area there were posters for all of the three parties mentioned. I have yet to see or hear anything mentioning Labour. That is why Labour lost in my neck of the woods, they didn't even try.

Same for us. The only people who knocked on our door was the SNP. If I lived in Oxford I would have voted for Cameron. I think he is a decent man.


But here in Scotland, I say thank you to the SNP every time I go over a toll free bridge. They are the easy choice because we see them in action. New train lines, no road tolls, new roads built quickly, new social housing being built, quite low public transport costs, a sensible amalgamation of the various police forces (why have 8 chief constables? We only need one). New hospitals - the one in Govan looks like something out of a science fiction movie. Free prescriptions. They're a very grass roots lot. And they like natural solutions, so wind or wave farms rather than nuclear power, tree planting upstream to slow down high waters that could potentially flood places rather than just building flood defences in the towns. And I very much doubt if there would be any fracking north of the border while the SNP is in power.


Cameron's problem will be with his own party. He wants to be "fair to England", but I wonder if he realises that means what the Scots get the English should also get? Why are there still tolls on the Dartmouth Crossing, which has long since been paid for in full?

michaels

dktreesea wrote: »

Why are there still tolls on the Dartmouth Crossing, which has long since been paid for in full?

Probably helps pay for some of the extra £8bn the Scots get each year under Barnett?

dktreesea

zagfles wrote: »

Oops looks like you're right - I did check a couple of Cornish seats where the Tory vote had either gone down or stayed about the same and they still won the seat off the LDs. But it seems in other the Tory vote increased substantially.

I can understand people switching from the LDs to the Tories to keep Labour out in 3-way marginals, but not in SW seats where Labour have no chance whatsoever.

That was probably more to give the Conservatives the seat so that the SNP wouldn't be running the UK. If the point of the day is to keep labour and the SNP out of power, and to avoid another "don't get much done" coalition, then a vote for the Lib Dems is a wasted vote.

Graham_Devon

zagfles wrote: »

Oops looks like you're right - I did check a couple of Cornish seats where the Tory vote had either gone down or stayed about the same and they still won the seat off the LDs. But it seems in other the Tory vote increased substantially.

I can understand people switching from the LDs to the Tories to keep Labour out in 3-way marginals, but not in SW seats where Labour have no chance whatsoever.

It was a strange one in the South West. Those that normally voted lib dem to try and hold off the tories couldn't face voting lib dem as they went into coalition with the tories.

The only problem with this tactic is that the conservative vote was still naturally strong, so a reduction in the lib dem vote just meant handing the seat over to the tories.

If the lib dems hadn't gone into coalition 5 years ago, the South West would be coloured mostly orange. As it happens, peoples annoyance at voting lib dems and getting tory last time round....and switching their vote has seen the South West turn completely blue bar one seat.

I've talked to a few people since who wish, in hindsight, they could revisit the polling station. But alas, what's done is done. The tories are in, put simply, because so many avoided voting lib dem as they feared a tory / lib dem coaltion. In the end, they forced a tory majority.... St Ives being a good example of the tories losing votes, but the lib dems losing a hell of a lot more, hence the tories get the seat.

Strange system our voting system really when the tories can take so many seats precisely because people were not happy with the tories governing.

The tories didn't win because they are the party most want. They won quite simply because of people tactically voting to try and stop another tory government via a coalition....at least this is true in my area.

ruggedtoast

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It was a strange one in the South West. Those that normally voted lib dem to try and hold off the tories couldn't face voting lib dem as they went into coalition with the tories.

The only problem with this tactic is that the conservative vote was still naturally strong, so a reduction in the lib dem vote just meant handing the seat over to the tories.

If the lib dems hadn't gone into coalition 5 years ago, the South West would be coloured mostly orange. As it happens, peoples annoyance at voting lib dems and getting tory last time round....and switching their vote has seen the South West turn completely blue bar one seat.

I've talked to a few people since who wish, in hindsight, they could revisit the polling station. But alas, what's done is done. The tories are in, put simply, because so many avoided voting lib dem as they feared a tory / lib dem coaltion. In the end, they forced a tory majority.... St Ives being a good example of the tories losing votes, but the lib dems losing a hell of a lot more, hence the tories get the seat.

Strange system our voting system really when the tories can take so many seats precisely because people were not happy with the tories governing.

The tories didn't win because they are the party most want. They won quite simply because of people tactically voting to try and stop another tory government via a coalition....at least this is true in my area.

I am still unsure of your manifesto, Graham.

BobQ

I was quite amused to hear a comment on TV just now referring to the Liam Byrne "there is no more money" note that Cameron has made so much capital out of in the election. Her point was everyone in politics knows it is a tradition for an outgoing minister to leave an amusing note to their successor which by tradition remains private. She made the point that it was Lib Dem David Laws that publicised the note, rather unfairly, but that it did not do him or his party any good given the decimation of his party.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It was a strange one in the South West. Those that normally voted lib dem to try and hold off the tories couldn't face voting lib dem as they went into coalition with the tories.

The only problem with this tactic is that the conservative vote was still naturally strong, so a reduction in the lib dem vote just meant handing the seat over to the tories.

If the lib dems hadn't gone into coalition 5 years ago, the South West would be coloured mostly orange. As it happens, peoples annoyance at voting lib dems and getting tory last time round....and switching their vote has seen the South West turn completely blue bar one seat.

I've talked to a few people since who wish, in hindsight, they could revisit the polling station. But alas, what's done is done. The tories are in, put simply, because so many avoided voting lib dem as they feared a tory / lib dem coaltion. In the end, they forced a tory majority.... St Ives being a good example of the tories losing votes, but the lib dems losing a hell of a lot more, hence the tories get the seat.

Strange system our voting system really when the tories can take so many seats precisely because people were not happy with the tories governing.

The tories didn't win because they are the party most want. They won quite simply because of people tactically voting to try and stop another tory government via a coalition....at least this is true in my area.

people who vote for the LIbDems are people without convictions ie. people who vote to feel good about themselves but are afraid
to vote for actual hard policies

in 2010 they were appalled when their votes actually led to actions.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

I was quite amused to hear a comment on TV just now referring to the Liam Byrne "there is no more money" note that Cameron has made so much capital out of in the election. Her point was everyone in politics knows it is a tradition for an outgoing minister to leave an amusing note to their successor which by tradition remains private. She made the point that it was Lib Dem David Laws that publicised the note, rather unfairly, but that it did not do him or his party any good given the decimation of his party.

some sort of justice for both maybe
although one is still an MP

tberry6686

michaels wrote: »

Probably helps pay for some of the extra £8bn the Scots get each year under Barnett?

We all know the Barnett formula is garbage but it is not to blame for every little percieved blight on England. Try looking at the Blair/Brown largesse with the benefits/pension system for a scapegoat instead.

For clarity I am Scottish by birth but British by nature, I live in Scotland, truly believe that the Barnett formula needs to be urgently addressed and detest the SNP for the division that they alone have created in one of the worlds greatest and friendliest countries.