Why the Tories Won

antrobus

zagfles wrote: »

I know they aren't all anti-Tory, I was just assuming the votes they lost were mainly from those that are. Those who aren't ought to be pleased with the LDs I'd have thought.

I can understand the point about people switching to keep Labour out, and that would make sense in the sort of 3 way marginals we have round here in the NW, but it makes no sense in places like Yeovil where Labour have no chance whatsoever.

As far as the SW is concerned, it needs to be born in mind, that most of those seats (or their predecessors) were once Tory. They were taken by the Liberals\Lib Dems during the 70s/80s/90s whenever, but in one fell swoop they've all gone home.

I'm not certain why, in terms of voter psychology, but there you go.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

Of course not. It's what we economists call an 'example'.

I believe that the proper response would be to note that, one anarchist's graffiti represents an entire political group, to the same extent as that one political group represents the British public.

antrobus

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. ...

Do you mean Liam 'I am so sorry' Byrne?

"Party members ask me: what on earth were you thinking? But members of the public ask: how could you do something so crass? And so bloody offensive? I've asked myself that question every day for five years and, believe me, every day I have burnt with the shame of it, nowhere more than when standing on doorsteps with good comrades, listening to voters demanding to know what I thought I was playing at. It was always excruciating."

antrobus

tberry6686 wrote: »

We all know the Barnett formula is garbage ...

There is nothing particularly wrong with the Barnett formula itself. How do you divide £100 between ten people? Give them £10 each? Seems fair enough.

gadgetmind

CLAPTON wrote: »

people who vote for the LIbDems are people without convictions

When it comes to how to combine a large helping of capitalism with just enough socialism to keep people happy, convictions can be a bad thing. There is a lot we can learn from the Nordic Model but I'm not sure it could be applied to the UK without a lot of people (perhaps including me!) simply leaving.

BTW, I did vote Lib Dem mainly for tactical reasons, but also because our local MP is hard working and sensible. I can send him letters and he'll raise issues with ministers, so I actually feel represented.

N1AK

Generali wrote: »

It probably helps the Labour party that Unite alone pay them £3,000,000 a year in contributions. That Labour party, if in Government, then decide the pay of Unite members.

Conflict of interest?

And where does a lot of conservative funding come from, and who decides on taxation for them if the conservatives are in government... Conflict of interest?

Welcome to democracy, where the pool of candidates elected on the basis of people voting for their own interests turn out to be people who try and appeal to voters self-interests.

N1AK

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

It must be nice living life with the capacity to handle nuance of an on/off switch.

antrobus

gadgetmind wrote: »

... There is a lot we can learn from the Nordic Model but I'm not sure it could be applied to the UK without a lot of people (perhaps including me!) simply leaving.....

See for example recent Conservative inspired attempts to replicate the Nordic model in both education and health which have been greeted with horror in some quarters.

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

Instead their seats were cheap because you don't need so many votes for a Scottish seat as an English one.

When considering this, the number of seats in Scotland is representative of the UK population.

Therefore, there must be an overall average number of votes required per seat.

What you not factoring is that in English seats, there is not the same level of parties competing for the vote and thus the vote may not be spread so far i.e. partied such as the SNP, Plaid Cymru, DUP etc are not represented in the English seats.

so we see in Scotland, this election, the majority united behind a single party whilst the remainder was split across the other parties.

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

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

Indeed, very little if truth be told, although the slim majority seats that the Conservatives have may still lead to an interesting parliament