Why the Tories Won

IveSeenTheLight

antrobus wrote: »

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

I criticise all negative campaigning.

Nicola was clear in what she would do in a minority government were to prevail as per the polling.
It was refreshing to see such clear and open politics.
It is clear to any same person that in a minority government, the SNP would have had SOME influence, but certainly not any controlling influence

Cameron and the Conservatives over egged the influence the SNP would have that controlling influence.

Alex Salmond even mocked this by joking he would be writing the Labour Budget plan

antrobus wrote: »

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.:)

She did say she would "Force Labour's Hand".
How does any sane person consider how far she could force Labour in a minority government as being a controlling factor.
The SNP would have had some small influence.

As for the tough part, you obviously prefer negative campaigning rather than clear to the point open politics.

It's does nothing for being clear to the electorate.

antrobus wrote: »

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.

We all agree and understand that this is one of their key points of being a party.

One wonders why non SNP voters cannot accept that the party respects the results of the referendum last year and therefore acknowledges that there is no case at this time for another referendum.

Is the position of the UK electorate so tarnished by politicians that they cannot accept politicians accepting the will of the people?

Have politicians in the UK tarnished the viewpoint of the electorate so much with their scandal.

It may be a Utopian view, but I so wish for open, transparent, honest politics to come to the fore. Only then will the electorate truly appreciate the politicians we have elected.

antrobus

chewmylegoff wrote: »

If it is a criminal offence to publish an exit poll before the polls close it seems likely that revealing the outcome of postal votes (if labour did really have the information suggested - the blog could just be made up) would similarly be illegal as would the reporting of the information in newspapers (or blogs).

Yup, s66a(1) ROPA 1983 - No person shall, in the case of an election to which this section applies, publish before the poll is closed (a) any statement relating to the way in which voters have voted at the election where that statement is (or might reasonably be taken to be) based on information given by voters after they have voted

I belive you can get six months for it.:)

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

We all agree and understand that this is one of their key points of being a party.

One wonders why non SNP voters cannot accept that the party respects the results of the referendum last year and therefore acknowledges that there is no case at this time for another referendum.

The SNP 'respect' the results of the referendum in exactly the same way as all parties 'respect' the results of elections.

That is, they respect the result until the opportunity arises to overturn it.

Nicola is 100% clear that her aim is independence.

There are ifs or buts: a further referendum is simply a matter of timing.

In my view that will be within the next 2 or 3 years: but I 'respect' other views that say either a shorter or longer time frame.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

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.

There is the Salisbury Convention, - the Lords will not block any legislation that is based on a manifesto commitment. But that is an 'understanding' rather than satute.

The Parliament Acts only allow the Lords to delay legislation for a year. After which the Commons can just cite the Parliament Acts and pass the bill into law anyway.

antrobus

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I criticise all negative campaigning....

That's Labour's entire 2015 campaign well and truly trashed then.:rotfl:

antrobus

kabayiri wrote: »

I find it hard to believe we are complaining about politicians doing what politicians do....

I know.

Strange, ain't it?

Some people actually expect a political party to fight an election campaign without pointing out that its opponents are wrong and will spread ruin and desolation across the nation?

IveSeenTheLight

antrobus wrote: »

I know.

Strange, ain't it?

Some people actually expect a political party to fight an election campaign without pointing out that its opponents are wrong and will spread ruin and desolation across the nation?

All I'm asking for is to campaign based on facts.

Let's pass legislation that "accounts" for exactly what is manifestoed.

That way a true debate can be held with a deeper understanding.

It's far too much soundbite and negative campaining without any measure in my opinion.

antrobus

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

All I'm asking for is to campaign based on facts.

Let's pass legislation that "accounts" for exactly what is manifestoed.

That way a true debate can be held with a deeper understanding.

It's far too much soundbite and negative campaining without any measure in my opinion.

All you are doing is quoting from the Labour Party Activist Bumper Book of Excuses for Losing an Election.

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

All I'm asking for is to campaign based on facts.

Let's pass legislation that "accounts" for exactly what is manifestoed.

That way a true debate can be held with a deeper understanding.

It's far too much soundbite and negative campaining without any measure in my opinion.

you mean like the phase 'reducing austerity' should be banned and replaced with more open and honest 'increasing borrowing without limits'

PixelPound

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Cameron and the Conservatives over egged the influence the SNP would have that controlling influence.

Alex Salmond even mocked this by joking he would be writing the Labour Budget plan

It was an effective strategy though, and probably pushed Cameron into a majority. Nicola pushing Ed on the post-election relationship and Alex joking, did help the SNP, but it also helped the tories south of the border

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

She did say she would "Force Labour's Hand".
How does any sane person consider how far she could force Labour in a minority government as being a controlling factor.
The SNP would have had some small influence.

Its not the reality, but the perception that matters. Analysing the last coalition the Lib Dems will point to issues they put in, but in reality its more which of their policies Cameron was fine with adopting. Even though we had just had 5 years of coalition the perception of a post 2015 coalition would be that the minority parties would wield the power, labour would be held to ransom by the SNP and the tories would be held to ransom by UKIP. There wasn't rational talk of what actual power they would wield, so the fear drove people to vote tory