Why the Tories Won

Generali

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

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).

AIUI, under the Parliament Acts the HoC can push through laws in the face of opposition of the HoL as long as they were in the Government's manifesto.

As a result, the HoL couldn't prevent a vote on staying in the EU but could prevent a law on becoming part of France.

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

A majority or even a MAJORITY of votes in Scotland in a UK election is meaningless.

One would beg to differ.

But then my opinion is one of a voter who resides in Scotland and whose vote value is being considered, whilst your opinion is of one who has never voted in Scotland, didn't vote in the election and resides in Australia.

How can you truly believe that 56 seats that represent the majority of the voting electorate to be meaningless.

If these MP's have no purpose or reason, then why have a House of Commons where opposition parties meet with the government?

IveSeenTheLight

chucknorris wrote: »

I'd be willing to bet that she doesn't do as well as Hague in her political career, any takers?

Surely a strawman argument as Hague sat for a party in power, whilst Mhairi Black will never be in a UK government as long as she is an SNP MP and we have a FPTP system.

That's not to diminish what potential she could achieve.

Would Hague have done as well as a Green or other minority party?

michaels

Generali wrote: »

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 am not sure miliband per se was the problem, despite a concerted campaign this probably backfired in the end as he didn't have to do very well to exceed expectations and thus gain postive headlines. I think it was the policies including the unwillingingness to accept there was a problem in the past and take responsibility.

Ad I still don't understand how rUK could reject labour for being too far left and yet Scotland fall in love with a much further left SNP, does not compute. I must admit during the campaign I thought that labour would have done better if they had pitched even further to the left away from economic reality (but probably I only got this impression because I was getting most of my info through the prism of bbc coverage.....)

michaels

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

One would beg to differ.

But then my opinion is one of a voter who resides in Scotland and whose vote value is being considered, whilst your opinion is of one who has never voted in Scotland, didn't vote in the election and resides in Australia.

How can you truly believe that 56 seats that represent the majority of the voting electorate to be meaningless.

If these MP's have no purpose or reason, then why have a House of Commons where opposition parties meet with the government?

Surely if there were 1600 more votes in Scotland for parties other than the SNP than there were for the SNP then it is not 'the majority of the electorate'?

CLAPTON

michaels wrote: »

I am not sure miliband per se was the problem, despite a concerted campaign this probably backfired in the end as he didn't have to do very well to exceed expectations and thus gain postive headlines. I think it was the policies including the unwillingingness to accept there was a problem in the past and take responsibility.

Ad I still don't understand how rUK could reject labour for being too far left and yet Scotland fall in love with a much further left SNP, does not compute. I must admit during the campaign I thought that labour would have done better if they had pitched even further to the left away from economic reality (but probably I only got this impression because I was getting most of my info through the prism of bbc coverage.....)

you under estimate the corrosive power of nationalism

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

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

[/B]

Go to the link again Generali and listen to the video.

She did not say she would call the shots, that was the media wording.
I clarified this earlier

antrobus

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

Well, obviously not. It's what Sturgeon was saying. It's not my fault if you don't like what she was saying.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

Sturgeon said she was going to "force Labour's hand". Clearly you are unhappy with the fact that such statements were taken advantage of by the Conservatives. Tough.:)

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

The SNP can adopt whatever tactics it likes over any call for another referendum vote. None of which changes the fact that its raison d'etre is independence.

IveSeenTheLight

michaels wrote: »

Surely if there were 1600 more votes in Scotland for parties other than the SNP than there were for the SNP then it is not 'the majority of the electorate'?

So it seems.
I totted up the percentages of the others and it came to 49.6%.

Shows the error of rounding and not taking the time of doing the calculation as you have taken the time to do so

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

Yes I saw that in the Guardian yesterday and on Newsnight. I suppose they didn't want to publish bad news. Interestingly this article popped up a couple of days before the election and it was dismissed because Atul Hatwal was seen within Labour as being anti Ed:-
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/05/02/revealed-eds-night-time-dash-to-casa-brand-driven-by-postal-ballot-panic/

Now that is very interesting.

I've been wondering !!!!!! Miliband thought he was doing when he did that Brand interview. Now I know it was what is known as a Hail Mary in the NFL.:)