Why the Tories Won

skintmacflint

Thrugelmir wrote: »

On a one policy ticket. Voting in a 20 year old student as an MP shows that it mattered little who stood for the SNP. Though time will now judge a number of them and their capabilities. In order to demonstrate that they are indeed little more than puppets being pulled along on a tide of optimism.

Having watched some of her interviews earlier this year, had rated her chances of being a capable MP at zero. But she seems to be a grafter and has toned down a bit, so now revised my opinion to about 30%.+ if she can grow up and shift from her simplistic rhetoric of blaming everything which is wrong in Scotland on Thatcher and the Labour Party.

As for the rest, as someone said how can they be a strong voice for all of Scotland, when they're not allowed to speak for themselves outside SNP party line, thanks to SNPs new gagging rule. Unless that rule has now been lifted.

Has been interesting to watch interviews of all the various new party candidates as they try to find their way around Westminster and settle in. Despite my low opinion of SNP and all it stands for, I wish them all well.

Moby

gadgetmind wrote: »

Because they were wandering around in a left wing bubble that was (and still is) completely out of touch with the majority of those in the UK. The lefties are still completely flabbergasted that they lost (big time BTW) because everyone they know on twitter has agreed with them for ages, and tweeted and retweeted the same kind of bilge that they do.

Even if they'd looked closely at the surveys showing that their policies were alienating the voters, they'd have shook their heads in disbelief that any study should be so out of kilter with the noisy twitterati.

It's all benefit of hindsight stuff now though isn't it. I mean everyone seems to be a clever !!!!!! after the event. I was flabbergasted by the result. Everyone I know was flabbergasted. The tories had no idea either. On here a couple of weeks before I predicted a 20 seat tory majority and a hung parliament and said Cameron was finished because his heart wasn't in it. Fact is he was also receiving a lot of criticism within his own camp about his lack of energy etc........and yet two weeks later he is walking on water after a masterful campaign and articles are being written about how they did it. It's a crock of crap! Cameron won big but it wasn't down to any great love of him or the tories. Labour were caught in a twin prong attack of SNP nationalism and English nationalism. It was a victory of fear and Miliband didn't convince but there's a long stretch from this to Cameron being a colossus. We live in volatile times and the public will build them up and then just as quickly pull them down. There will be plenty of 'events' in the pipeline to expose that tory 37% coalition of interests.

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

Cameron didn't say in your quote that putting the SNP into Government was a mandate for another referendum. I don't see how you make that leap TBH.

His words are factually completely correct. This is one of the most prominent links on the SNP's homepage:

http://www.snp.org/vision/better-scotland/independence

Independence from the UK is the point of the SNP. Pointing that out isn't scaremongering it's just stating the bleedin' obvious.

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Please show a link where Nicola said she would be "Calling the shots". That was the conservatives I believe.

Forcing a hand is a figure of speech with regards to persuading, just as her hand was was forced in the Scottish minority government by the other parties.

Same as Clegg was not calling the Shots in the coalition, but we was able to make some minor adjustments to policy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3057205/I-call-shots-Westminster-m-not-going-MP-says-Sturgeon-warning-Miliband.html

I will call the shots in Westminster even though I'm not going to be an MP, says Sturgeon in warning to Miliband

chewmylegoff

Moby wrote: »

It's all benefit of hindsight stuff now though isn't it. I mean everyone seems to be a clever !!!!!! after the event. I was flabbergasted by the result. Everyone I know was flabbergasted. The tories had no idea either. On here a couple of weeks before I predicted a 20 seat tory majority and a hung parliament and said Cameron was finished because his heart wasn't in it. Fact is he was also receiving a lot of criticism within his own camp about his lack of energy etc........and yet two weeks later he is walking on water after a masterful campaign and articles are being written about how they did it. It's a crock of crap! Cameron won big but it wasn't down to any great love of him or the tories. Labour were caught in a twin prong attack of SNP nationalism and English nationalism. It was a victory of fear and Miliband didn't convince but there's a long stretch from this to Cameron being a colossus. We live in volatile times and the public will build them up and then just as quickly pull them down. There will be plenty of 'events' in the pipeline to expose that tory 37% coalition of interests.

I love the labour rhetoric about being caught in a twin pronged attack of nationalism driven by fear - or as it is otherwise known, people voting for other parties because they thought the Labour Party unfit to rule.

Labour can't really cry about the politics of fear when their campaign was "Tories will destroy the NHS and make the disabled scrounge from the bins" and in Scotland "vote SNP get Tory".

Also, pretty much every labour politician interviewed since the election seems to have waxed lyrical about how fantastic their campaign was - Harriet Harman in particular has been vigorously shouting about this to anyone who will listen - despite all the evidence being that their campaign was completely and utterly disastrous.

Generali

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I love the labour rhetoric about being caught in a twin pronged attack of nationalism driven by fear - or as it is otherwise known, people voting for other parties because they thought the Labour Party unfit to rule.

Labour can't really cry about the politics of fear when their campaign was "Tories will destroy the NHS and make the disabled scrounge from the bins" and in Scotland "vote SNP get Tory".

Miliband was basically a low rent Kinnock and suffered from the same credibility problems.

He had policies that people didn't want to have imposed on them and was too far to the left.

The history of the last 30+ years is that people will vote for the very right of the Labour party but nothing to the left of that. I do wonder what the future of the Labour party is. The New Statesman sums up a chunk of how I feel about things:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/labours-path-back-power-tougher-you-think

I'm not going to quote from it as I think people should read it. Whilst reading it, remember that they discuss the potential for Labour to win in 2020 as if the boundaries of constituencies will remain unchanged. Add in the fact that one of the first things the Tories will do if they have any sense is get the boundaries changed to make it fairer, the road back to power is a very long, steep one for Labour.

gadgetmind

Generali wrote: »

the road back to power is a very long, steep one for Labour.

I really do hope you're right. It's been 18 years since we've had a "proper" Conservative government, and it really was starting to show. OK, so things have been on the mend a bit over the last few years, but we ain't seen nothing yet!

Jennifer_Jane

How much will the House of Lords destroy any reforms that the Tories want? I know that the Commons can ultimately override a House of Lords vote, but it presumably means that every single thing will take longer and longer to get through. (Currently 224 Conservative Lords out of 779 total). Presumably some more Lib/Lab Lords will be coming in too?

(I know they are not all men: 190 of the 779 are female).

kabayiri

gadgetmind wrote: »

I really do hope you're right. It's been 18 years since we've had a "proper" Conservative government, and it really was starting to show. OK, so things have been on the mend a bit over the last few years, but we ain't seen nothing yet!

They will need to look in every nook and cranny to make the necessary cuts.

In most places this will be seen as uncomfortable but necessary. I reckon that in Scotland though this will be seen as some anti-Scottish agenda by those nasty Tories.

It might limit what the Conservatives can achieve.

gadgetmind

kabayiri wrote: »

They will need to look in every nook and cranny to make the necessary cuts.

Very few spending reductions have been made to date, so there is still plenty of fat to trim. Falling unemployment and rising wages will also help.