General election results 2015

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But as I said above the SNP campaign played into Tory hands. There is evidence that the 'fear' of the SNP led some English voters to abandon Labour & vote either UKIP or Tory.

But even if that is true, that is not what Barbi was saying - he was suggesting that by not voting Labour, the Scots had put the Tories into power:

So the foolish Scottish left voting for the SNP with their illiberal Blairite policies and fake promises on fixing austerity have delivered a Tory government .

What you say supports my own assertion that it is "English voters" who have given the Tories their overall majority.

And who has "abandoned" Labour, by the way? They got 800,000 more votes in this election than they did in the last, and only only 220,000 fewer than in the 2005 election which they won.

Edit: Flossie - Please see post #388

[Richard Barrett]

Remember early in the election campaign Nicola Sturgeon was put on the spot about allegedly claiming that a Tory government would suit the SNP's strategy better... she denied it of course but I found it thought-provoking at the time and I'm sure there was some truth in it. While I can quite understand Scottish voters taking the opportunity to vote for a party that seemed to offer a slightly more progressive alternative to the Tory-lite policies on offer from Labour, they were in the end also voting for a party which was calculating on doing well out of the onslaught on the poor and vulnerable the Tories are now about to unleash on the rest of the UK.

No, people didn't "abandon" Labour, but the Tories were clearly much more cunning with their tactic of concentrating on the constituencies which won them the election, rather than on raising their overall percentage of the vote. The most cynically manipulative party wins, as often is the case.

[jean]

One of the points that I would argue, from local experience (it may be different elsewhere) is - and Jean won't like this, I'm afraid - the insignificance of the Green rise. Here in Bristol they have been making inroads on the council. But they've done this by taking Liberal Democrat-held seats. These seats had been won over 30 years of community campaigning

Don't all seats won have to be gained at the expense of whoever held them before? It doesn't matter how much 'community campaigning' you've done, if the voters aren't happy with what you're doing now they can choose not to reelect you.

When they've all been won by the Greens (or whoever), what then?

Some truly radical politics!

The problem of course is that local government is constrained at all levels by policies set at Westminster over which it has no control. I do know that the Greens have had particular problems in Brighton, not least because there were those in the party who pressed for the Greens to set an illegal budget. If these people had had longer memories, they'd have thought back to Militant in Liverpool - an illegal budget is an open invitation for central government to come in and take over your administration entirely. (You can avoid the headlines and read Brighton & Hove's end-of-term report here.)

Liverpool council, I take it, was eventually lost by the Lib Dems because they were unpopular? I forget the circs - a whiff of scandal?

The LibDems gained control of Liverpool Council in the first place because the antics of Militant had made Labour unelectable. You might be surprised how many LibDem councillors here were sudden converts from Labour - some were even ex-Tories. Of course they lost support when the national party began to collapse, but they also had a record here of negative campaigning against us, often outright lies. Horrible stuff, you'd hardly believe it. There was scandal, too - the man who'd been leader of the council expelled because he'd forged his son's name on nomination papers, and a few other incidents. When they saw which way the wind was blowing, a number of LibDem councillors jumped ship to Labour.

I can understand why you might feel that the Greens are merely occupying a LibDem-shaped hole., but it's not so much that I don't like it; I don't think it's correct.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I think it's a great pity that nowadays, party leaders are hounded out (normally by the self-obsessed media) simply because they lose an election. They didn't do that to Disraeli, Gladstone, or Harold Wilson, all of whom went on to succeed in subsequent elections.

[Richard Barrett]

I can understand why you might feel that the Greens are merely occupying a LibDem-shaped hole., but it's not so much that I don't like it; I don't think it's correct.

I don't think it is either. I can see how numbers of LibDem supporters might be drawn to the Greens but I would think their programme would be at least as attractive to Labour supporters who feel (as I do, though I wouldn't describe myself as a Labour supporter) that Labour has been completely spineless about opposing the austerity consensus, among other things. Personally I don't see the Greens as the answer. What I can imagine happening is that Labour continues its decline from this point as what Tariq Ali calls its "Pasokification" continues, so that it becomes basically irrelevant, having abandoned its commitment to the trade union movement and anything resembling socialism, replacing this with a half-baked identity which the Tories were able to portray (not entirely undeservedly) as an incompetent version of themselves. At some point the constituency to Labour's left will have grown to the point that it will give rise to a political grouping with more plausibility than the sporadic efforts made in that direction so far.

[MrGongGong]

I think it's a great pity that nowadays, party leaders are hounded out (normally by the self-obsessed media) simply because they lose an election. They didn't do that to Disraeli, Gladstone, or Harold Wilson, all of whom went on to succeed in subsequent elections.

Indeed

So this time the leader who increased their votes from 10703654 to 11334520 (630866 votes) gets to be in charge and is hailed as a great hero
and the one who increased the vote from 8606517 to9347326 (740809 votes) is a terrible looser and looses his job

Seems sensible to me ? :erm:

(I'm not suggesting EITHER of them should be in charge of anything more challenging than the stapler)

[Beef Oven!]

Indeed

So this time the leader who increased their votes from 10703654 to 11334520 (630866 votes) gets to be in charge and is hailed as a great hero
and the one who increased the vote from 8606517 to9347326 (740809 votes) is a terrible looser and looses his job

Seems sensible to me ? :erm:

And Nigel Farage quadrupled his party's vote from 2010 and steered the UKIP to become the third biggest party in UK politics, gets just one seat. Bring on PR!!

Totally with you on this, MrGG!

[jean]

I...What I can imagine happening is that Labour continues its decline from this point as what Tariq Ali calls its "Pasokification" continues, so that it becomes basically irrelevant, having abandoned its commitment to the trade union movement and anything resembling socialism, replacing this with a half-baked identity which the Tories were able to portray (not entirely undeservedly) as an incompetent version of themselves. At some point...

Aren't we there already?

...the constituency to Labour's left will have grown to the point that it will give rise to a political grouping with more plausibility than the sporadic efforts made in that direction so far.

So why hasn't it happened?

Why (as I asked on another thread, a long time ago) has TUSC done so badly? In what way are they so much less 'plausible' than they need to be?

[MrGongGong]

And Nigel Farage quadrupled his party's vote from 2010 and steered the UKIP to become the third biggest party in UK politics, gets just one seat. Bring on PR!!

Nothing like a change of tune matey :laugh:
I thought it was a party not a one man band, make your mind up!

Wot David Byrne said

[Beef Oven!]

Nothing like a change of tune matey :laugh:
I thought it was a party not a one man band, make your mind up!

Wot David Byrne said

They had to force him to return, he's the Captain Beefheart of UK politics!

[Richard Barrett]

Aren't we there already?

No, the decline has a lot further to go until Labour end up in the kind of situation that the LibDems are in now.

So why hasn't it happened?

I wish I had an answer to this. I think it has something to do with the negative propaganda any avowedly anti-capitalist party is going to get. The Greens sort of get around this with their environmentalist rhetoric, which is easier to digest and to present as self-evident than the economic arguments (as we saw from several of Natalie Bennett's public appearances where her grasp of them seemed rather woeful). You see already that the Daily Mail is screaming that "Anarchist mob plotting a summer of thuggery... Anarchists and Left-wing rabble-rousers plan to disrupt Britain with a 'summer of protests' " etc. etc.

[Richard Barrett]

he's the Captain Beefheart of UK politics!

If only. The Chas & Dave would be more accurate.

[MrGongGong]

They had to force him to return, he's the Captain Beefheart of UK politics!

In Zoot Horn Rollo's account of the time, Beefheart comes off like a cult leader, berating his musicians, provoking them into fights, and enforcing bizarre rules on matters as trivial as how they held their cigarettes.

Sounds familiar ?

[french frank]

Don't all seats won have to be gained at the expense of whoever held them before? It doesn't matter how much 'community campaigning' you've done, if the voters aren't happy with what you're doing now they can choose not to reelect you.

I was speaking about here in my constituency (and Bristol at large). The seats which the Greens won (and had been winning in the last few years) had been held by the Liberal Democrats. They did not make inroads into the Labour or Tory (not that there are many round here). So in that sense they have replaced the Liberal Democrats - that is, how they (the Lib Dems) were about fifteen years ago in terms of seats. It isn't a question of those who voted Lib Dem switching to Green (though some did): it's the movement within 'the electorate' (which you say doesn't exist).

Some truly radical politics!

But it doesn't, does it? Not if all you do is win LibDem seats. You just end up being the third party.

The problem of course is that local government is constrained at all levels by policies set at Westminster over which it has no control.

This is exactly why 'politicians', 'political parties' and 'politics' aren't synonyms. The Brighton Greens said they would resist cuts and gained power. In the end they had to make mammoth cuts - but it doesn't mean they were liars who promised they wouldn't do things and then did: it means political realities often overwhelm individual politicians who are honest and sincere.

The LibDems gained control of Liverpool Council in the first place because the antics of Militant had made Labour unelectable. You might be surprised how many LibDem councillors here were sudden converts from Labour - some were even ex-Tories.

I would not be at all surprised: there were parliamentary carper-baggers from Labour (only one from the Tories) when the SDP was winning by-elections with massive swings. Sitting MPs jumped on the bandwagon and were mainly voted out at the following eletion.

I can understand why you might feel that the Greens are merely occupying a LibDem-shaped hole., but it's not so much that I don't like it; I don't think it's correct.

We have to take our opposing views on that. I'm saying that the Greens have to have the ability to take a larger number of seats from Labour and Tory before there is much hope of radical politics. Looking at the Green election leaflet here, I didn't disagree with any of the major policies: in fact, I liked them. I just didn't think they were achievable in a short or medium-term based on where we are now. Apple-pie and motherhood, from my point of view.

[Beef Oven!]

Sounds familiar ?

In that regard, Nige is totally different. Completely hands-off.

And we all know the Beefheart stories, yawn. The man was a genius, period.