Why the Tories Won

shortchanged_2

There was only one reason the tories won.

It's called English nationalism.

Thrugelmir

Generali wrote: »

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.

Did help the SNP that a lottery winner has donated £6.5 million to their cause.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

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.

Basically, yes.

In 2010, 1 million Labour votes in Scotland got them 41 seats at a 'price' of about 25,000 votes per seat.

In 2015 700,000 Labour votes in Scotland got them 1 seats at a 'price' of, err, about 700,000 votes per seat.

That's a price increase of around 2800%.:)

zagfles

antrobus wrote: »

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.

That sums it up. The Tories have a majority simply because they took loads of seats off the LibDems. The Tory-Lab swing was trivial, not enough to convert many seats. The swing against the LibDems was massive.

The Tories have a majority because of the "anti-Tories" who voted LibDem last time but not this time. I'm sure they're all delighted.

Generali

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Did help the SNP that a lottery winner has donated £6.5 million to their cause.

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?

antrobus

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..

Well, that narrows it down to a choice of 10.

Moby wrote: »

....it was a London marginal however..

Then it would have to be Ealing Central or Enfield North.

Moby wrote: »

... 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!

Then it would be Enfield North, maj 1,086. Ealing Central was just a few hundred.

kabayiri

I think the politicians need to understand where the rise of the UKIP vote in places like the Northern seats came from.

Some of it will be a protest vote; a disaffection with the usual choices.

Some of it could be the old working class Tory who has suddenly found a new voice.

Some of it could be genuine one cause stuff, notably the migration issue.

If Labour could attract these people back they would bolster their support significantly.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

If Labour could attract these people back they would bolster their support significantly.

But they can't do that without losing votes in the middle.

Which is why they lost this time.....





Labour under Milliband was simply too far to the left to win enough support from the all important centre of the political spectrum.

Both Thatcher's Conservatives and Blair's New Labour won three elections by appealing to the middle ground, middle class, aspirational, centrist, swing voters.

And now Cameron's Conservatives are doing it again.

Milliband's Labour veered too far to the left, and every vote they picked up there cost them 2 or 3 votes in the middle.

If Labour want to win again they have to move back towards the centre from their current position on the left, and that means policies the aspirational middle classes can support - business friendly, lower taxes, wealth creating, personal responsibility, etc.

Socialism in Britain is dead......

That the Tories won an outright victory after 5 years of 'Austerity' proves that point rather decisively.

silvercar

I blame the rise of UKIP on the amount of media attention they got, far in excess of their "worth" as a party that hardly captures a seat.

LibDems got their strategy wrong, by telling voters they would get into bed with anyone, no one knew what a LibDem vote actually mean. Given they tied to the tories last time, previous voters either rejected them for that reason or were happy with what they secured and voted Tory.

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But they can't do that without losing votes in the middle.

Which is why they lost this time.....
..

You know, I agree.

They are fighting for the middle ground, yet Labour have to pretend that their hearts are with the left. *Busted*

Labour's best friend is a strong Conservative government marginalising the effect of the SNP in the next term, and getting voters to return.

How weird