Why the Tories Won

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

Revolutionary change has generally been ruinous. Not just in the UK.

Although the Glorious Revolution might well be an exception.



Of course, the answer to the question, 'Why were the polls wrong' might well be different to the question, 'Why the Tories won'.

I think of the thread as two things:

- Why did the Tories win the election?

and

- Why did the Tories win despite the polls saying that they wouldn't?

I honestly think that Labour face a huge problem. What are they now? The political wing of Unite and a bunch of career politicians who would just as much join the Greens, SNP or Lib Dems if they thought it would give them a turn at government.

The Scots hate them, 'ethnic minorities' are defecting as the racist wing of the Tory Party dies off (at last) and people who live mostly on benefits don't vote so Labour can't even buy the votes of the poor (9% of Ds and Es voted at the last election).

Thrugelmir

Generali wrote: »

I honestly think that Labour face a huge problem.

Tony tried valiantly and ultimately failed.

Suspect that PPR may come back on the agenda. As the left appears split across the spectrum.

Generali

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Tony tried valiantly and ultimately failed.

Suspect that PPR may come back on the agenda. As the left appears split across the spectrum.

I do wonder about the 'left vote'.

You don't vote Green or SNP or PC with the expectation of forming Government. Nobody ever expected the Lib Dems to gain power and when they did their vote collapsed.

TBH I don't think it mattered whether the Lib Dems got into bed with Lab or Cons. That they failed to get in a cab alone after a peck on the cheek meant they lost most of their voting base for now.

Generali

For those interested (michaels) in how changes in methodology are changing the polls:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9444

**Spoiler Alert**

Hardly at all.

Interesting to note that 'don't know' is smashing the race for next Labour leader. It's hardly surprising: three bland career politicians and a left wing lunatic. I hope Corbyn wins, just for a laugh. He might win a few seats back in Scotland where they seem to like Socialism.

Rinoa

Generali wrote: »

Interesting to note that 'don't know' is smashing the race for next Labour leader. It's hardly surprising: three bland career politicians and a left wing lunatic. I hope Corbyn wins, just for a laugh. He might win a few seats back in Scotland where they seem to like Socialism.

I wonder how many conservatives have taken up the idea of paying £3 to join the Labour party and voting for Corbyn.

Generali

Rinoa wrote: »

I wonder how many conservatives have taken up the idea of paying £3 to join the Labour party and voting for Corbyn.

Please let him win. He'd win even fewer votes than Foot.

Imagine Theresa May as leader tearing into him. She'd turn him to mincemeat.

Jason74

Generali wrote: »

Please let him win. He'd win even fewer votes than Foot.

Imagine Theresa May as leader tearing into him. She'd turn him to mincemeat.

The problem with that, is that even if you'd never want to see a Labour government, democracy needs them to provide a credible opposition both to provide a credible alternative government and to keep the government honest. A Corbyn led Labour party would ensure that Labour couldn't provide that, and that's bad news for everyone regardless of their political views.

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

For those interested (michaels) in how changes in methodology are changing the polls:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9444

**Spoiler Alert**

Hardly at all.

Interesting to note that 'don't know' is smashing the race for next Labour leader. It's hardly surprising: three bland career politicians and a left wing lunatic. I hope Corbyn wins, just for a laugh. He might win a few seats back in Scotland where they seem to like Socialism.

I admit I raised an eyebrow when I saw that Corbyn had been nominated by Frank Field, until I realised that he was just trying to widen the debate. Ironically, the best chance of Labour to win the next election would be for Frank Field to become leader, he is principled and popular with his constituents. Not much chance of that though, the Labour Mps voted for a Tory to be speaker rather than him :eek: This bunch of candidates just shows how much Labour has fallen, surely there must be someone lurking in the Labour ranks better than that lot?

Generali

StevieJ wrote: »

I admit I raised an eyebrow when I saw that Corbyn had been nominated by Frank Field, until I realised that he was just trying to widen the debate. Ironically, the best chance of Labour to win the next election would be for Frank Field to become leader, he is principled and popular with his constituents. Not much chance of that though, the Labour Mps voted for a Tory to be speaker rather than him :eek: This bunch of candidates just shows how much Labour has fallen, surely there must be someone lurking in the Labour ranks better than that lot?

Yeah, there is: Frank Field. Harperson, much as I despise her, would probably make a decent leader. And then there's that Umunna; at least he's had a proper job before becoming a pollie.

I can't see any of the current lot standing winning an election unless the Tories contrive to lose it.

princeofpounds

Personally I find the Corbyn thing a bit of a distraction.


For me, the real disappointment is that the leading candidates are just more party drones with no real life experience.


As Guido has pointed out about Burnham:

Quick career recap:

• Cambridge University.
• Tessa Jowell SpAd.
• Chris Smith SpAd.
• Elected to Parliament in stitch up.
• David Blunkett bagcarrier.
• DCMS Minister.
• Chief Secretary to Treasury (pre-crash).
• Health Secretary.
• Failed leadership contender.
• Shadow Health Secretary.

I always think politicians who have never done a real job are scary.


To a certain extent I don't care if they have been postmen or CFOs. I just want them to have some experience in the real world, to understand that policy papers have real implications.