Why the Tories Won

antrobus

Dansmam wrote: »

... Haven't seen much reference recently to how under- employment is being masked. It's more complex than just zero hours contracts.

The ONS produces data on underemployment if you're interested.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/underemployed-workers-in-the-uk/2014/rpt-underemployment-and-overemployment-2014.html

IveSeenTheLight

antrobus wrote: »

Oh good grief! First of all you don't spot that that I'm talking about 2005, then you don't spot that I'm talking about England and Wales!

I thought this was a UK election and Labour was contesting in all parts of the UK.

Labour increased their votes on the previous election, but lost it by not focusing on the marginals and personally I think that Ed Milliband was a woeful leader.

Conservatives focused very well, concentrating as I understand it on the South West were they saw they could convert a number of seats and used scaremongering to appeal to the rest of the electorate

antrobus

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I thought this was a UK election and Labour was contesting in all parts of the UK....

Yes, it was a UK wide election, but Labour did not contest it in all parts of the UK. There were no Labour candidates in Northern Ireland.

The fact that we have 'UK wide elections' does not prevent us from breaking down and analysing the results in any way that we choose.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

...Labour increased their votes on the previous election, but lost it by not focusing on the marginals and personally I think that Ed Milliband was a woeful leader.....

Yes, but isn't it worth noting that in England and Wales, the Labour vote went from 8.6m in 2005, down to 7.6m in 2010, and then back up to 8.6m in 2015, whilst the Conservative vote went from 8.4m to 10.3m to 10.9m?

No amount of "focusing on the marginals" is going to win you an election if your main opponent is getting 2.3m (or 25%) more votes than you.:)

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

..Conservatives focused very well, concentrating as I understand it on the South West were they saw they could convert a number of seats....

The South-West was only part of it. And that was a Con-Lib Dem fight. Team 2015 out fought Labour on the ground where it mattered.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

.. and used scaremongering to appeal to the rest of the electorate

What scaremongering? Are you saying that Nicola Sturgeon was telling porky pies when she promised to "force Labour’s hand"?:rotfl:

kabayiri

antrobus wrote: »

...
What scaremongering? Are you saying that Nicola Sturgeon was telling porky pies when she promised to "force Labour’s hand"?:rotfl:

Nicola would have been daft not to leverage the SNP influence beyond their seat numbers. So I don't think she was telling porkies. She thought they had a right to steer UK policy from a marginal position.

She probably didn't expect the spook effect though. If the SNP had toned down the anti-Tory / pro-Labour rhetoric they may have won greater influence.

antrobus

kabayiri wrote: »

Nicola would have been daft not to leverage the SNP influence beyond their seat numbers. So I don't think she was telling porkies. She thought they had a right to steer UK policy from a marginal position.

She probably didn't expect the spook effect though. If the SNP had toned down the anti-Tory / pro-Labour rhetoric they may have won greater influence.

Ah, so you don't think that Nicola actually said that "she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM"?

Personally, I think that she has got exactly what she wanted.

gadgetmind

Interesting quote here from the Times.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4438536.ece

"Most people in this country — and particularly those willing to vote for a centre-right prime minister — aren’t that bothered about politics. They are at the office. They have a job.

"These people know what they think but they don’t particularly want to advertise it. It’s not really anyone else’s business. They’d like people to share their views but they aren’t going to spend a lot of time persuading others. These aren’t shy people. They are sociable, successful, frank. They might be the life and soul of a social occasion. But they don’t have much time for people who sound off. They make the world a better place for themselves, for their families, for their communities and they expect that from others. They admire — quietly — those who make something of themselves. They despair — quietly — of those who expect to take without contributing.

"They don’t think that talking loudly about equality is the same as being kind. Caring for the vulnerable is a practical not a theoretical issue. They are in touch with the modern world but don’t feel they need to wear a badge saying so. They listen carefully to business leaders without thinking them saints or geniuses."

kabayiri

antrobus wrote: »

Ah, so you don't think that Nicola actually said that "she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM"?

Personally, I think that she has got exactly what she wanted.

Well, that's interesting.

Sometimes, someone is a very effective opposition leader, but not so good in a position of power.

I'd suggest she would have rather seen a weak Cameron as PM.

We will have to wait for her memoirs!

antrobus

kabayiri wrote: »

Well, that's interesting.

Sometimes, someone is a very effective opposition leader, but not so good in a position of power.

I'd suggest she would have rather seen a weak Cameron as PM.

We will have to wait for her memoirs!

I do believe that Nicola denied saying it. Sort of.

My opinion is that it suits the SNP's purpose to have a Conservative government in office.

Generali

gadgetmind wrote: »

Interesting quote here from the Times.

Billy Bragg once said that you care much more about splitting up with your girlfriend than who runs the Government. Just a thought I share with someone I rarely agree with.

IveSeenTheLight

antrobus wrote: »

Ah, so you don't think that Nicola actually said that "she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM"?

Personally, I think that she has got exactly what she wanted.

I can understand your opinion on it, however it's hard to consider that by having a 56 seat influence at Westminster, the best result would have been to maximise that persuasion by having a minority Labour government as the Polls were indicating.

To that end, Cameron's scaremongering clearly worked and in effect significantly reduced the influence SNP can have at Westminster this parliament