Why the Tories Won

IveSeenTheLight

antrobus wrote: »

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

No argument, I believe they are clear on this, however for the General election, they also made it clear that a vote for the SNP was not a mandate for another Independence referendum.

They will influence Westminster as best they can as the third largest party.

antrobus wrote: »

T
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"?

I've answered this.
See the post at 1:34

IveSeenTheLight

Thrugelmir wrote: »

While Nicola comes across extremely well as a leader.

Many people agree with this

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The SNP's rhetoric probably swung the undecided voters.

What rhetoric?

By rhetoric, do you mean?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rhetoric
4.the ability to use language effectively.

6.the art of making persuasive speeches; oratory.

7.(in classical oratory) the art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Along with the inevitable clamours for another Independence referendum in the not too distant future.

There are no clamours for another Independence Referendum.

How many times do SNP MP's have to re-confirm this?

If this is not a rhetoric

1. (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.

Then what is?

Thrugelmir wrote: »

English voters will focus on English issues.

As they should

antrobus

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

You'd have to ask the Labour Party that one. There is a small NI Labour Party, but the national party will not allow them to stand candidates in NI.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

It would help of course, if people understood what exactly was being analysed.:)

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

...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......

The comparison with 2005 shows that all they managed to do was recover the vote lost in 2010.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

..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?...

Outside a handful of seats, South Thanet etc, UKIP would have had little idea where to focus their efforts. Now that they know they got second place in 120 constituencies, they've got a target list.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

There you go. That's what I've been saying all along.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

Unless you have spoken to each and every one of the 30 million or so people who voted last week, I doubt you have any idea of what did or did not dominate their decision making, You are simply projecting your own prejudices.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

And how do you work that one out?:rotfl:

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

..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?...

Sturgeon said she would "force Labour's hand". I think that was very refreshing and clear.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

..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...

Sturgeon said she would "force Labour's hand". I don't see how it can be a porkie pie to point out what that means.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

....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.....

What you think might have happened in that hypothetical scenario is neither here nor there. Sturgeon said she would "force Labour's hand". Have you got that yet?

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

....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

Actually it was more like 37%. I am sure that there are people prepared to argue that it would have been 'better' if the result had been different. But that doesn't change the result.

Moby

thor wrote: »

Yes and down here in England it appeared every tory politician was legally obligated to state that Labour would join forces with the SNP if there was a hung Parliament and that ED Milliband was lying.

As someone out canvassing for Labour I agree with this. Although I liked him myself I acknowledge Ed wasn't highly regarded generally.This together with an SNP Tsunami in Scotland, Tory scaremongering about a Labour SNP conspiracy and a powerful UKIP showing up North and in the Midlands screwed us:(.
I even think the inaccurate polls helped the tories. The assertion that they were 'neck and neck' stopped complacency and shaped the narrative in the press about the SNP Labour threat to the constitution.

antrobus

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

No argument, I believe they are clear on this, however for the General election, they also made it clear that a vote for the SNP was not a mandate for another Independence referendum.

They will influence Westminster as best they can as the third largest party...

I'm sure that SNP will indeed to their best to influence Westminster. But I think you would have to be a little naive not to realise that they are persuing Plan B for independence.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I've answered this.
See the post at 1:34

I know. But you still don't seem to get it.:)

purch

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

What rhetoric?

"We will lock David Cameron out of Downing Street"

The repitition of those 9 words over and over did more to gain votes for the Conservatives than any campaigning they did themselves.

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

...I even think the inaccurate polls helped the tories. The assertion that they were 'neck and neck' stopped complacency and shaped the narrative in the press about the SNP Labour threat to the constitution.

Perhaps Labour should have shared their private polling results with the nation?

Mr Morris, a partner at Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, said that "from January 2011 to spring 2013, Labour's average vote share in the public polls rarely dropped out of the low 40s. We consistently had it around seven points lower."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32606713

antrobus

purch wrote: »

"We will lock David Cameron out of Downing Street"

The repitition of those 9 words over and over did more to gain votes for the Conservatives than any campaigning they did themselves.

Yes, but don't you understand, it's all very well for Wee Nicola to go around saying that she's going to "force Labour's hand" and "lock David Cameron out of Downing Street', but it's completely not fair for the Tories to mention it. That's cheating that is.

gadgetmind

Moby wrote: »

I even think the inaccurate polls helped the tories. The assertion that they were 'neck and neck' stopped complacency and shaped the narrative in the press about the SNP Labour threat to the constitution.

Agreed. People knew what they wanted to avoid and took the correct actions to achieve this.

IveSeenTheLight

antrobus wrote: »

Yes, but don't you understand, it's all very well for Wee Nicola to go around saying that she's going to "force Labour's hand" and "lock David Cameron out of Downing Street', but it's completely not fair for the Tories to mention it. That's cheating that is.

Come one
That's not what David was saying though was it?

Locking the Conservatives out (as they planned to do in a hung parliament) is different from claiming that there would be a "constitutional crisis' if SNP calls the shots by propping up a Labour government"

The SNP would NEVER had called the shots. That is clear exaggeration and scaremongering.

They would have had less influence than the Lib Dems had in a coalition, as the SNP would not have been in a coalition with Labour.

Cameron also said

“Now the SNP aren’t just an old political party with a bunch of ideas; they are a party dedicated to one thing: the breaking up of the UK and the breaking up of our country. They don’t come to Westminster with a list of interesting demands to make our country stronger, they come with one intention only — to break the UK up and create an independent Scotland, so I fear for our country if this were to happen,”

I challenge you to find an article where the SNP stated that this election would be a mandate for another referendum vote.

Again, political posturing, classic scaremongering and downright lies.

The SNP were are very clear and united in saying that the Scottish electorate voted to stay in the union and that this election was an opportunity for the voice of the Scottish electorate to be better represented at Westminster