Why the Tories Won

purch

antrobus wrote: »

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

I think you are correct, but I also think the eventual outcome will not be exactly what she wanted.

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

Surely the English voted as they wished just as the Scots, Cornish and Essex did.

purch

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

It was far less the Conservatives "scaremongering" and far more the ludicrous comments made by Sturgeon that reduced the SNP's chances of influence.

"We will lock David Cameron out of Downing Street" was only ever going to increase the chances of wavering or unlikely to bother voters going to the polling station and placing their X next to the Conservative candidate.

IveSeenTheLight

antrobus wrote: »

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.

Valid point, why not?
Are they not a unionist party?

antrobus wrote: »

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.

Agreed and no reason why others cannot respond in how they analyse the results

antrobus wrote: »

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?

Ok, so from these figures, Labour increased their vote in England by more in count and by more as a percentage from 2010, suggesting that they did an ok job in convincing their electorate to turn out, but not having the focus in the key aresa.

the comparison from 2010 to 2015 shows that they increased their vote by more, yet lost seats

antrobus wrote: »

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.:)

Agreed to an extent, but the FPTP clearly shows that you need the electorate to win those marginals.

Look at UKIP, 4 million votes yet on 1 seat whilst double the votes secured circa 230 seats for Labour

Could UKIP have fared better focussing their constituencies?

antrobus wrote: »

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.

It was a huge factor, but I agree, they out fought Labour and Lib Dems

antrobus wrote: »

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

You are totally blinkered if you do not think this election was dominated by scaremongering. By all parties. I detest it.

The Conservatives clearly won by scaremongering, else the polls would not have been so wrong.

Sturgeon said she would vote along with Labour and ensure that the Scottish "voice" was heard. No porky pies about it. That is what would have occurred if a minority Labour government returned as the polls suggested.

Is it not refreshing for politicians to be clear about what they intend to do?

The exaggeration of how much influence was the biggest "porkie pie" told by Cameron and all, which they have been slated within the Conservatives for driving a wedge in the union.

In a minority Labour government, the SNP would have had influence. Less so than the Lib Dems on the Conservatives in my opinion as they would not have joined in a coalition and only supported on a vote by vote basis.

Only 36% of the electorate voted for the Conservatives and there is an argument that a minority government would have needed to work with ALL parties which in effect would have represented the electorate better

IveSeenTheLight

purch wrote: »

It was far less the Conservatives "scaremongering" and far more the ludicrous comments made by Sturgeon that reduced the SNP's chances of influence.

"We will lock David Cameron out of Downing Street" was only ever going to increase the chances of wavering or unlikely to bother voters going to the polling station and placing their X next to the Conservative candidate.

Take a step back and look at it.

The SNP was clear what they would do in a minority government as the polls suggested at the time.

Openness and Honesty. Certainly not ludicrous or scaremongering.

Conservatives scaremongered the influence the SNP would have over a minority Labour government

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

Surely the English voted as they wished just as the Scots, Cornish and Essex did.

They did.

The English, Cornish and Essex would also have and do have representation in Westminster.

I don't see your point?

No-one is arguing against the results, were just dissecting it as best as us amateurs can

michaels

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

the comparison from 2010 to 2015 shows that they increased their vote by more, yet lost seats

As far as I understand the voter numbers are for England and Wales where Labour gainded 18 seats between 2010 and 2015 unless I am mistaken, not very different from the tories who gained 24 seats?

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

The Conservatives clearly won by scaremongering, else the polls would not have been so wrong.

While Nicola comes across extremely well as a leader. The SNP's rhetoric probably swung the undecided voters. Not least the end to austerity which is not a policy in itself. Along with the inevitable clamours for another Independence referendum in the not too distant future. English voters will focus on English issues.

antrobus

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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....

The SNP's ultimate aim is to gain independence, not influence at Westminster.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

And I'll say it again; what scaremongering? Are you saying that Nicola Sturgeon was telling porky pies when she promised to "force Labour’s hand"?

IveSeenTheLight

michaels wrote: »

As far as I understand the voter numbers are for England and Wales where Labour gainded 18 seats between 2010 and 2015 unless I am mistaken, not very different from the tories who gained 24 seats?

From these links

http://www.bbc.com/news/election/2015/results/england

http://www.bbc.com/news/election/2015/results/wales

In Wales they lost a seat, whilst in England, they gained 15, so overall a 14 seat gain in England and Wales.

Meanwhile Conservatives gained 21 seats in England and 3 seat in Wales. 24 overall

The swing was from Lib Dems who lost 39 seats in England and Wales.

So they failed to get those Lib Dem seats to swing in favour of Labour as opposed to Conservative