Why the Tories Won

michaels

zagfles wrote: »

I don't want to start any conspiracy theories, but it seems the Betfair markets knew better than the pollsters....

http://betting.betfair.com/politics/general-election-2015-betting/general-election-2015-the-market-assumes-a-late-tory-swing-but-will-it-materialise-040515-171.html

I was tempted to put a tenner on Labour most seats at 4.8 on polling day as based on the polls it seemed like a value bet. The general consensus is that (betting) markets always perform best because people are risking money and with lots of participants the wisdom of crowds should get the best possible prediction (not necessarily the right answer of course).

gadgetmind

spirit wrote: »

universities and colleges can no longer block register students living in halls of residences to vote, which Miliband calls a “democratic scandal”.

I'd call registering someone else to vote an offence that should result in a prison sentence.

zagfles

spirit wrote: »

don't forget the effect of the electoral reforms.

"One of the key components of the reforms is that universities and colleges can no longer block register students living in halls of residences to vote, which Miliband calls a “democratic scandal”.

They might already be registered at their home address. Students only spend about half the year at uni, when I was at uni I was registered to vote at my parents' address.

My DiL works at a university who were trying to get students to register to vote. Not sure how successful they were.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/16/britains-1m-missing-voters

The students who did vote probably were not about to forgive Clegg re the university fees.

Maybe they need educating about Labour's similar lie about tuition fees (top-up fees). They introduced them in 2004 having specifically promised not to in their 2001 manifesto. And they didn't have the excuse of being in a coalition.

There was backbench rebellion and Labour had to rely on votes from Scottish Labour MPs, even though it didn't affect Scotland! That more like a “democratic scandal”

zagfles

michaels wrote: »

I was tempted to put a tenner on Labour most seats at 4.8 on polling day as based on the polls it seemed like a value bet. The general consensus is that (betting) markets always perform best because people are risking money and with lots of participants the wisdom of crowds should get the best possible prediction (not necessarily the right answer of course).

Yes the betting markets were way more Tory than the polls, although even they didn't predict the majority.

stator

They won because for the last 5 years they have persued policies that they knew would upset Lib Dem voters and cause them to implode. Also because Ed Milliband is 'a bit weird' and a poor leader. Also because the economy happened to start recovering a few years after they took office.

chewmylegoff

I think the single biggest factor was that when people came to mark their X on the ballot paper they just couldn't stomach the prospect of the wrong Milliband in charge of the country.

All this stuff about the Lib Dems is obviously a key factor but Evan taking that into account, had there been a swing from Tory to Labour then the Tories would have lost a lot of seats. The Trades Union that placed Milliband at the head of Labour Party must be wishing they could turn back the clock - the next choice of labour leader is vital if they don't want to get left in the wilderness. I think Chukka Umana will have a similar impact to Ed Milliband at the ballot box and would be a disastrous choice. Andy Burnham seems a far more sensible figurehead.

Even if they manage to pick a leader who isn't manifestly unelectable they are going to face difficulties from inevitable boundary reviews and probable federalisation of the UK before the next election.

Thrugelmir

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I think Chukka Umana will have a similar impact to Ed Milliband at the ballot box and would be a disastrous choice.

Far too inexperienced and prone to making gaffs. Which as shadow business secretary is a concern. A portfolio he should never been given.

BobQ

antrobus wrote: »

.

Predicting human behaviour is not an exact science.

I agree. It really depends what you call a late swing. Committed voters would probably not have changed sides in those numbers on the last day but undecided voters might have done so, if there were enough of them who were genuinely uncertain.

ComRes determined that at the start of the campaign 40% of voters were undecided. The day before the election 35% of the 40% had decided. So about 25% of electors were still uncertain to some extent on the day and 5% had no idea how they were going to vote.

http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/good-morning-britain-undecided-voters-poll-3/

CLAPTON

zagfles wrote: »

They might already be registered at their home address. Students only spend about half the year at uni, when I was at uni I was registered to vote at my parents' address. Maybe they need educating about Labour's similar lie about tuition fees (top-up fees). They introduced them in 2004 having specifically promised not to in their 2001 manifesto. And they didn't have the excuse of being in a coalition.

There was backbench rebellion and Labour had to rely on votes from Scottish Labour MPs, even though it didn't affect Scotland! That more like a “democratic scandal”

uni students can register to vote at both their uni and their own home

they can vote in local elections at both places
but only vote in national election at one location

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Seems reality is starting to sink in over at Labour HQ.....


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/09/alan-johnson-labour-aspirational-voters-tony-blair

I wonder if it is sinking in or if that's a bunch of Blairites saying, 'We need to be more Blairite'.