• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UK General Election

MikeG said:
Strawman alert.....



Yep, there they are. Not one, but 4 of them. Congratulations.

Let me help you a little. "Following a campaign" and "reading the manifestos" are not the same thing.
Click to expand...


Sarcasm? :D

I'm going to back slowly away, this is never going to be productive for either of us.
 
I feel like there's something of a Mark Twain moment going on - I especially like the Telegraph suggestion that the SNP have "lost their hold on Scotland" - and hence invested a few minutes looking at historic election results.

During the mid 20th century, Scotland was split along traditional lines between the Labour and Tory parties, with the latter often securing in excess of 40% of the votes cast.

Dramatic changes occurred from 1970s onwards with the SNP polling 21.9% (1974), 30.4% (1974 again), 17.3% (1979), 11.8% (1983), 14.1% (1987), 21.5% (1992), 22.1% (1997), 20.1% (2001), 17.7% (2005), 19.9% (2010), and 50% (2015).

Putting this in context, the Tory votes for the 2005-2015 period were 15.8%, 16.7%, and 14.9%. Labour during the same period were 39.5%, 42%, and 24.3%.

What therefore happened, during that period, was that the Labour vote collapsed - dramatically - and the SNP reaped the benefit.

Now it looks like the current results are:

SNP 36.9% (-13.15)
Tory 28.6% (+13.7%)
Labour 27.1% (+2.8%)

Now at the same time, we have the 2016 Holyrood elections whereby (taking the first preference share):

SNP 46.5% (+1.1%)
Tory 22.0% (+8.1%)
Labour 22.6% (-9.2%)

I observe in the passing that this brough the SNP their historic third consectuive term at Holyrood, although some media sources and politicians would have had you believe that the ball was on the slates.

More recently, the local government elections (first preference):

SNP 32.3% (-)
Tory 25.3% (+12%)
Labour 20.2% (-11.4%)

So what conclusions can we draw from this?

First and foremost, it's clear that the 56 out of 59 Westiminster seats in 2015 was massively over historic polling levels and more recent trends. Excluding that result, the SNP remain above their historic levels. Put another way, and slightly tongue in cheek, just because 2009 Right Bank Bordeaux was a spectaculary good vintage does not therefore make the successor vintages rubbish by default.

Likewise the 2015 result was not necessarily reflected in the much more closely fought Holyrood and local council elections in the subsequent years. Notwithstanding that 3 horse race at Holyrood level, the SNP continue to secure the largest number of votes and govern there.

What we therefore have is a shift away from the SNP of a substantial, but not total, part of the electorate that moved towards them in 2015 back towards the two Unionist parties - notably the Tories, who have the least uninspiring and most media-friendly persona of the Scottish opposition parties at present.

Whether this shift is based upon those unhappy with SNP governance at Holyrood, those who oppose independence, or even pro-Brexit voters will doubtless be pored over in the press over the next 24 hours. Perhaps some support the social democrat policies at home nation level - free prescriptions, no student fees, and so on - inasmuch as none of the other parties hitherto seemed willing to deliver such things, but don't see them as players on a UK stage to the same extent? Perhaps it's just "soft" Unionists tactically voting?

What is clear, however, is that in the case of the media we're seeing a lot of hyperbole suggesting the end is nigh rather than a return to business as normal. The Conservatives have clawed their way back to 1995 voting levels, but no more, whilst Labour languish in what was once one of their heartlands. The one thing that the pundits probably have correct is that it knocks IndyRef2 into the long grass for an extra year or two, but we shall see.
 
Last edited:
3point14 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I actually heard a Tory MP stressing that the important thing was their share of the vote - made me laugh out loud considering their rabid devotion to FPTP and hatred of any sort of proportional representation.

Really pleased that young people got out to vote. It was my second daughter's first election and we tried to give her unbiased advice about the generalities of each party and pointed her at a few websites where you answer questions about what you think of various things and it then tells you which party you're most aligned with. She did her research and made up her own mind. Tidy!
 
Corbyn is absolutely delighted that he only lost badly and not catastrophically. It shows what an abysmal leader he is when he and his cronies are satisfied with overcoming such a low bar. In any sensible world Labour's performance would be seen for what it is, a decisive and incontrovertible loss.

May is an idiot. Not for calling the election, but for putting out a manifesto that targeted her core voter base with massive cuts and a 100% asset task should they fall ill later in life. It's difficult to put into words what a lunatic move that was and that was the sole reason she failed to gain a majority.

Waiting for for Sturgeon to show up and pretend she still has a mandate for Indy Ref 2. Obviously she can't claim it comes from the electorate so maybe she'll announce it came to her in a dream, or was presented to her on a scroll by the ghost of William Wallace.
 
Darat said:
How will the Queen decide between the two minority offers?
Click to expand...

I expect the Tories will have a majority with Ian Paisley's mob. They'll be the more obsequious lickspittles as well so it is no contest compared with IRA-supporting Corbyn, and secessionist Sturgeon, and their pet Lib Dems.
 
Politics inevitably attract strong views, however the mark of these is not how forcefully or often they are repeated but rather the substance to the analysis underpinning the author's position.

To suggest that a party, having significantly improved its poling results within a two year period, should be anything other than pleased demonstrates a lack of such analysis. One might more productively suggest that, given the errors made by May in handling of Brexit, that greater capital (pun intended) would have been a more tenable position.

Turning to the incumbent party, one might equally suggest that it simply reflects the limited abilities of the lead contendors that a party who have traditionally presented themselves as strong on law and order, and appealed to the UKIP base, could not capitalise on recent events together with very combatative language from Europe. Only In Scotland, where they have returned to 1990s voting levels (whooppppeeee) was there a glimmer of light.

As for the SNP, one would have to consider their performance against historical voting levels and their third term at Holyrood together with the strong local government results. Ghosts don't really come into any balanced analysis.
 
Architect said:
I feel like there's something of a Mark Twain moment going on - I especially like the Telegraph suggestion that the SNP have "lost their hold on Scotland" - and hence invested a few minutes looking at historic election results.

During the mid 20th century, Scotland was split along traditional lines between the Labour and Tory parties, with the latter often securing in excess of 40% of the votes cast.

Dramatic changes occurred from 1970s onwards with the SNP polling 21.9% (1974), 30.4% (1974 again), 17.3% (1979), 11.8% (1983), 14.1% (1987), 21.5% (1992), 22.1% (1997), 20.1% (2001), 17.7% (2005), 19.9% (2010), and 50% (2015).

Putting this in context, the Tory votes for the 2005-2015 period were 15.8%, 16.7%, and 14.9%. Labour during the same period were 39.5%, 42%, and 24.3%.

What therefore happened, during that period, was that the Labour vote collapsed - dramatically - and the SNP reaped the benefit.

Now it looks like the current results are:

SNP 36.9% (-13.15)
Tory 28.6% (+13.7%)
Labour 27.1% (+2.8%)

Now at the same time, we have the 2016 Holyrood elections whereby (taking the first preference share):

SNP 46.5% (+1.1%)
Tory 22.0% (+8.1%)
Labour 22.6% (-9.2%)

I observe in the passing that this brough the SNP their historic third consectuive term at Holyrood, although some media sources and politicians would have had you believe that the ball was on the slates.

More recently, the local government elections (first preference):

SNP 32.3% (-)
Tory 25.3% (+12%)
Labour 20.2% (-11.4%)

So what conclusions can we draw from this?

First and foremost, it's clear that the 56 out of 59 Westiminster seats in 2015 was massively over historic polling levels and more recent trends. Excluding that result, the SNP remain above their historic levels. Put another way, and slightly tongue in cheek, just because 2009 Right Bank Bordeaux was a spectaculary good vintage does not therefore make the successor vintages rubbish by default.

Likewise the 2015 result was not necessarily reflected in the much more closely fought Holyrood and local council elections in the subsequent years. Notwithstanding that 3 horse race at Holyrood level, the SNP continue to secure the largest number of votes and govern there.

What we therefore have is a shift away from the SNP of a substantial, but not total, part of the electorate that moved towards them in 2015 back towards the two Unionist parties - notably the Tories, who have the least uninspiring and most media-friendly persona of the Scottish opposition parties at present.

Whether this shift is based upon those unhappy with SNP governance at Holyrood, those who oppose independence, or even pro-Brexit voters will doubtless be pored over in the press over the next 24 hours. Perhaps some support the social democrat policies at home nation level - free prescriptions, no student fees, and so on - inasmuch as none of the other parties hitherto seemed willing to deliver such things, but don't see them as players on a UK stage to the same extent? Perhaps it's just "soft" Unionists tactically voting?

What is clear, however, is that in the case of the media we're seeing a lot of hyperbole suggesting the end is nigh rather than a return to business as normal. The Conservatives have clawed their way back to 1995 voting levels, but no more, whilst Labour languish in what was once one of their heartlands. The one thing that the pundits probably have correct is that it knocks IndyRef2 into the long grass for an extra year or two, but we shall see.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the SNP played a particularly good game this election by making it not about independence - which is their raison d'etre. Lots of the debate seemed to end up being about devolved powers and Scottish Government politics rather than Westminster politics and even I at times wondered exactly what a vote for an SNP MP in a Westminster parliament is going to achieve in the event of a decent Tory majority.

Last night things moved back from 1 party politics to 3 or 4 party politics in Scotland thanks to the Corbyn effect. I think in a UK election the UK parties are always going to have an edge especially in what became an almost presidential election between May and Corbyn.

Of course the funny thing is the SNP have fewer seats but potentially more influence because of the make-up of the Parliament.
 
I know a chap socially who is at the absolutist rather than the gradualist end of the party; he voted No-Yes in the devolution referendum, and considers Sturgeon to be some sort of national traitor for being willing to play ball at Westminster.

The problem for the party is that they have to play to both groupings, which is difficult. My personal view is that the absolutists are a relative but vocal minority, and that the party's best chance is winning over the wider electrorate.
 
8f631400cb45417aa60f5046b83e047d.jpg


Hi, Americans. Do you understand this photo?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
That's unfair, the Yanks are used to seeing a right clown on the electoral stage.
 
Darat said:
How will the Queen decide between the two minority offers?
Click to expand...

She doesn't. May, as the leader of the largest party, gets a first go at running the show. If she fails to get her Queen's speech through, (which she won't), then Corbyn get's the next go.
 
baron said:
Corbyn is absolutely delighted that he only lost badly and not catastrophically. It shows what an abysmal leader he is when he and his cronies are satisfied with overcoming such a low bar. In any sensible world Labour's performance would be seen for what it is, a decisive and incontrovertible loss.

May is an idiot. Not for calling the election, but for putting out a manifesto that targeted her core voter base with massive cuts and a 100% asset task should they fall ill later in life. It's difficult to put into words what a lunatic move that was and that was the sole reason she failed to gain a majority.

.
Click to expand...



Labour did hugely better in pop vote though didn't they?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom