General election results 2015

[MrGongGong]

One thing that seems to have been given very little attention relates to the SNP landslide. "The Scottish people" gave a thumbs down to "independence" onl a few months ago, yet all but three Scottish seats have gone to SNP and, as none of the other three have gone to the same party, on other party holds more than a single seat in Scotland. Why is this? Is it because
..

I think many people in Scotland voted "against" Alex Salmond rather than against independence.

I suspect your (c) is also most plausible

What is very clear is that the government the UK now has, has no mandate in many parts of the UK.

[french frank]

(a) a large swathe of the Scottish electorate have somehow been persuaded to change their minds on "independence" since last September's referendum?

But that is comparing two different things. The referendum was a straight Yes or No. The General Election was a First Past the Post vote from which the SNP has clearly benefited in a spectacular way. Did they really get 95% of the popular vote?

[Richard Tarleton]

It's interesting that Plaid Cymru has done nothing to improve or reduce their hold in Wales yet SNP has almost wiped the board in Scotland. Had the Welsh in England and Scotland been able to vote Plaid Cymru I somehow doubt that it would have made much difference to that party's success; Had the Scots in England and Wales been able to vote SNP, the outcome might even have been the closure of no. 10 and Westmonster, a relocation of the seat of government to Holyrood and possibly even a subsequent referendum on English/Welsh "independence"...

The two are in no way comparable, beyond superficially being "nationalist" parties. SNP has traction across the board in Scotland, as you say. Plaid Cymru is a largely rural, cultural phenomenon, confined to the Welsh-speaking heartlands. It is obsessed with cultural and language issues which are irrelevant to the large majority of voters, the language being not so much a means of communication as a means of reinforcing the otherness of Wales and excluding non-Welsh speakers. The percentage of Welsh speakers is I believe now falling, around the 20% mark. I know they tried to reinvent themselves by appointing a non-Welsh speaker (well, a learner) from the Rhondda as their leader, but I don't think a republican socialist is going to have any more traction across Wales than elsewhere. Her interventions on the economy during the campaign did not inspire confidence. The result, with Conservatives taking 11 seats, speaks for itself.

[french frank]

I don't know much about this site, but I like their analysis:

I think the bit about the 'corpse of the Conservative Party' needs some explanation: they were already the largest party and were poised to take over when the smaller partner in the coalition routinely 'was smashed' (to quote: 'always blamed for the bad things, not given credit for the good things'). I'm not sure the analysis needs more detail to support it?

[ahinton]

The two are in no way comparable, beyond superficially being "nationalist" parties. SNP has traction across the board in Scotland, as you say. Plaid Cymru is a largely rural, cultural phenomenon, confined to the Welsh-speaking heartlands. It is obsessed with cultural and language issues which are irrelevant to the large majority of voters, the language being not so much a means of communication as a means of reinforcing the otherness of Wales and excluding non-Welsh speakers. The percentage of Welsh speakers is I believe now falling, around the 20% mark. I know they tried to reinvent themselves by appointing a non-Welsh speaker (well, a learner) from the Rhondda as their leader, but I don't think a republican socialist is going to have any more traction across Wales than elsewhere. Her interventions on the economy during the campaign did not inspire confidence. The result, with Conservatives taking 11 seats, speaks for itself.

I agree, broadly speaking, with your analysis here; my question is why there's such a difference between PC and SNP and, given the latter's recent success, one might wonder whether PC's already considering the possibility of following the SNP example and reinventing itelf more alpong its lines.

[ahinton]

But that is comparing two different things. The referendum was a straight Yes or No. The General Election was a First Past the Post vote from which the SNP has clearly benefited in a spectacular way. Did they really get 95% of the popular vote?

Here are some statistics:

https://ianpace.wordpress.com/2015/05/09/how-well-or-badly-did-the-parties-really-do-in-terms-of-votes-in-the-2015-general-election/

https://ianpace.wordpress.com/2015/05/09/the-rises-and-falls-of-the-centre-parties-in-the-uk-since-1918/

In answer to your question (which is, of course, no!), these figures provide some clue:
SNP: 491,386, 1.7% in 2010; 1,454,436, 4.7% in 2015
The percentages being for the entire UK, of course, not just for Scotland; what is clear (and I don't have the percentages for the Scottisdh electorate) is that almost three times as many voters chose SNP this time than did last time and that difference is not far short of a million additional SNP voters.

[french frank]

almost three times as many voters chose SNP this time than did last time and that difference is not far short of a million additional SNP voters.

Yes, but I was commenting on (and quoted) your suggestion that 'a large swathe of the Scottish electorate have somehow been persuaded to change their minds on "independence" since last September's referendum', not on how many voted SNP at the previous General Election.

[Richard Tarleton]

I agree, broadly speaking, with your analysis here; my question is why there's such a difference between PC and SNP and, given the latter's recent success, one might wonder whether PC's already considering the possibility of following the SNP example and reinventing itelf more alpong its lines.

My query is why, looking at their respective origins, one should expect them to be similar! I agree there might be a case for convergent evolution, but to achieve this PC would, IMV and to pursue the Darwinian analogy, have to shed the peacock's tail of the language policy, which is not only alienating but also hugely wasteful of public money.

[MrGongGong]

Yes, but I was commenting on (and quoted) your suggestion that 'a large swathe of the Scottish electorate have somehow been persuaded to change their minds on "independence" since last September's referendum', not on how many voted SNP at the previous General Election.

He didn't say that

To my mind, (a) seems most unlikely

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The main opposition party Labour had a humiliating night with the results leading to the resignation of leader Ed Miliband. It was undeniably a very bad performance, but again not necessarily for the reasons that the mainstream media has projected. Miliband did not lose the party any votes. In fact, Labour increased its vote share by 1.5 percent, more than the Conservative party managed and it gained almost 800,000 votes. That increase reversed the constant fall in votes that the party had seen since Tony Blair was first elected in 1997, losing five million votes through to 2010 due to its adherence to war, free market economics and illiberal social policies on immigration and civil rights. This reversal, however insufficient, in the number of votes won by Labour is being downplayed by Tony Blair and his loyal disciples who have gone onto the media post-election to urge the Labour Party to adopt even more right-wing policies.[/url]

Thanks for this, jean - fascinating.

[french frank]

He didn't say that

I said 'suggested' not 'said'. That particular 'suggestion' [sic] contains a false comparison between two different voting methods. In 2014, 45% of the Scottish voters voted for independence; in 2015 50% voted for the SNP. Beyond that, one can suppose nothing about a change of view on independence.

If you wish the point to be laboured [sic]: it explained my agreement with ahinton that the proposition was 'most unlikely'.

[jean]

...the language being not so much a means of communication as a means of reinforcing the otherness of Wales and excluding non-Welsh speakers...

...PC would, IMV and to pursue the Darwinian analogy, have to shed the peacock's tail of the language policy, which is not only alienating but also hugely wasteful of public money.

As someone with Welsh-speaking relatives, who speak Welsh simply because it's the language spoken by the majority where they happen to live, I find these comments quite offensive.

[MrGongGong]

I said 'suggested' not 'said'. That particular 'suggestion' [sic] contains a false comparison between two different voting methods. In 2014, 45% of the Scottish voters voted for independence; in 2015 50% voted for the SNP. Beyond that, one can suppose nothing about a change of view on independence.

If you wish the point to be laboured [sic]: it explained my agreement with ahinton that the proposition was 'most unlikely'.

Ok no offence intended

[ahinton]

Yes, but I was commenting on (and quoted) your suggestion that 'a large swathe of the Scottish electorate have somehow been persuaded to change their minds on "independence" since last September's referendum', not on how many voted SNP at the previous General Election.

Yes, but I did not even suggest that I believe this to be the case - and I don't! I merely listed three possible answers to a question and this particular answer seems to me to be the least convincing of these. The point that I sought to make is that it seems likely that a significant number of SNP supporters do not favour "independence", from which apparent fact I also deduce that not all of those who did/do favour it necessarily support SNP.

[ahinton]

My query is why, looking at their respective origins, one should expect them to be similar! I agree there might be a case for convergent evolution, but to achieve this PC would, IMV and to pursue the Darwinian analogy, have to shed the peacock's tail of the language policy, which is not only alienating but also hugely wasteful of public money.

Again, I think that you're right about that. The kind of soul-searching that PC might now consider it appropriate to try to do might be encouraged at least in part by the fact that, unlike almost all other parties, their number of seats remains unchanged and their share of the vote has increased only marginally, which facts suggest a kind of unwelcome and unacceptable stagnation.

As to what's widely publicised as a disaster for Labour, this should be seen in the context that both they and the Conservatives have increased their voter numbers, Labour by rather more than the Conservatives, although the differences in each case are less than a million on the previous election whereas the turnout this time has been a little more than a million higher than it was last time. One could therefore argue that the conflict between numbers of votes cast and numbers of seats won has been unfair to all parties except Plaid Cymru - even the LibDems (although rather less so than to the others).