Something else we agree on. This is a pretty spectacular rejection of the notion of a second referendum, and that is a very good thing. Perhaps we'll hear rather less stridency on the subject from the SNP's whiner-in-chief now that she's had such a reversal in fortunes.
UK General Election
- Thread starter Darat
- Start date
Something else we agree on. This is a pretty spectacular rejection of the notion of a second referendum, and that is a very good thing. Perhaps we'll hear rather less stridency on the subject from the SNP's whiner-in-chief now that she's had such a reversal in fortunes.
Well, their share of the vote dropped from 50% to 36.9%, still over 10% higher than the nearest opposition and still the clear majority of Scottish seats. So very disappointing, but not what Andrew Neil has just tried to suggest on the BBC.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
If this was an episode of Yes, Prime Minister:
Sir Humphrey: You're going to have to come up with a new slogan.
Hacker: What?
Sir Humphrey: Well, you can hardly go on describing your government as "strong and stable" now.
Bernard: How about "weak and wobbly"?
Sir Humphrey: You're going to have to come up with a new slogan.
Hacker: What?
Sir Humphrey: Well, you can hardly go on describing your government as "strong and stable" now.
Bernard: How about "weak and wobbly"?
angrysoba
Philosophile
It's not just Labour. The Tories got a whipping in England but were resurgent in Scotland and even Salmond and Robertson lost their seats. That certainly looks like a big loss for SNP and I would agree that Scottish independence is also being rejected in there. It's a good thing really. Scotland got Indy lite and didn't like the taste.
And you can spin things by saying it is the second best showing but really these things are judged from starting positions. In 2015 SNP, UKIP and the Tories were big winners while Labour and Lib Dems were big losers.
In this one, there is a big reversal of that.
That's over a quarter of their vote from last time. That's a spectacular loss.
No they didn't. They got a whipping in London (and Wales, BTW), but the rest of England gave them increased votes compared with last time, and a virtually-zero swing to Labour.
The Lib Dem vote share dropped substantially, even from their disastrous 2015 result. In what way is that a reversal of their fortunes?
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
Yes there is a big reversal of that but a reversal was expected. The scale of the reversal surprised people yes but we had rather unprecedented things like labour telling people to vote tactically for Tory to keep SNP out.
I think Robertson is a big loss to Parliament not just the SNP as he was very good at his job.
The Tory surge is on the back of the unionist vote but more people voted SNP than voted Tory.
angrysoba
Philosophile
As above, this really depends on where you start and what expectations you have. I think that will be reflected in the fates of the leaders of the parties. Theresa May squandered what she believed was a golden opportunity against opposition seen as so weak that the very idea of a Corbyn leadership was a running joke in politics. She will be considered a loser by her own party and Corbyn will be able to strengthen his position as leader.
angrysoba
Philosophile
They have more seats.
Mid
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2005
- Messages
- 1,123
I wouldn't say it dropped substantially. It dropped by 0.5%, it was very low in 2015 and still is in 2017 it didn't do the swan dive of UKIP's though
Last edited:
Mainly by dint of the SNP collapse in Scotland, where their best claim is that they did less badly than the incumbents.
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,089
Can I just ask what you might have considered a good result for Labour and the Libdems?
I only ask because both parties have made gains, in the case of Labour, gains in the face of massive derision in the press and around here of their leader who seemed to utterly trounce May in pretty much every single aspect of the campaign and yet it seems to me that you think both parties have lost.
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,089
They won more seats. The point of the election is not to win more votes, it's to win more seats. They won more seats. They were, by the only measure that counts in Westminster, more successful.
Perhaps they had a more targeted campaign, gave up influence in areas they couldn't win to garner influence in areas they could.
Again, at the risk of repeating myself, they won more seats. Winning seats is the only thing that counts.
From where they started, that was a good result for Labour. The Lib Dems have only increased their seats by a quirk of the other parties' results, and the same vote percentage could easily have seen them down to 2 or 3 MPs on another night. You have to remember that just a few elections ago the Lib Dems were up around 26% of the vote. Any single figure result is spectacularly bad in comparison with that, and in comparison with any trajectory necessary to return to a position of relevance in British national politics. That from a life-long Liberal/ Lib Dem voter, until 2 years ago.
Other than in the result, you mean?
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,089
You seem to be picking starting points for all your comparison that shift depending on the impression you want to give.
You compare the SNP and the Libdems current position to their previous strongest position, having to use 'only the last election results' for the SNP and the results from some time ago for the Libdems. Which one should I be using to counter your arguments to remain consistent?
No, not the election, the campaign. I think he out-campaigned her in every aspect.
Of course, your views may differ.