Jump to content

UK Politics Unexpected Election edition


Maltaran

Recommended Posts

On 24/04/2017 at 10:25 PM, mormont said:

You're making the assumption of a uniform swing, which under the circumstances is highly tempting but may be very wrong. If in fact that Conservative rise is down to other Unionist party voters switching for tactical reasons, for example, that may play out very differently in the constituencies than direct gains from SNP voters. Take Perthshire, for example: there just aren't enough Labour and Lib Dem voters to flip that constituency. If the gains are concentrated in constituencies where the Tories are way behind, it might not help them in the end.

In the 2015 election, was there any measurable quantity of pro-Union people voting for the SNP as a protest against all of the Unionist parties?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Zoë Sumra said:

In the 2015 election, was there any measurable quantity of pro-Union people voting for the SNP as a protest against all of the Unionist parties?

I don't have any research off-hand, but it's fair to assume there must have been some, as the SNP got around 50% of the vote, which is obviously higher than the independence vote in the referendum a year before (and in turn, that 'Yes' vote in the referendum would have included people who voted for other parties in 2015).

So the difference must be down to either people who thought the SNP would do a better job, or voters who came out to vote 'No' in the referendum but stayed home in 2015, and the former seems to me likely to account for quite a lot of the variance.

Where do those voters go this time? Hard to say. Probably not Labour, though, judging by the polls. Some might go Tory. A few even Lib Dem. But most will probably stick with the SNP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Scottish turnout in 2010 was 63%, in 2015 it was 71%. So someone was clearly turning up who hadn't at the previous election, they would appear to be Yes voters.

Labours vote share dropped by 17%, the Lib Dems by 11% the Tories by only 1% (they actually won more votes.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/region/7.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results/scotland

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Zoë Sumra said:

In the 2015 election, was there any measurable quantity of pro-Union people voting for the SNP as a protest against all of the Unionist parties?

Don't have any numbers but I was one of those people.

Fed up with years of crappy nonsense from the two main parties and with the Lib Dems out of the question the SNP seemed a viable alternative. They were a third option that at the time had a reasonably amount of good domestic policies.

And I know a lot of people in my boat as well. Despite being pro-union we were all fed up with Labour and Conservative rule and their failing so felt an alternative was the only option. I think also that a fair few (myself included) believed that as the independence referendum had passed then that sort of thing would be off the table for a decade or so, leaving a chance to really sort out the country.

Sadly the referendum is on the table again and so who knows where all those extra SNP voters might go. Will we all go back to the old parties, or will we be spread out among other minor parties like Lib Dems, Greens, UKIP (shudder).
A lot of the areas that went SNP in '15 are still pro-union now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, The BlackBear said:

The Scottish turnout in 2010 was 63%, in 2015 it was 71%. So someone was clearly turning up who hadn't at the previous election, they would appear to be Yes voters.

Yeah, and of course famously the turnout in the referendum was almost 85%. So if that additional 22% split into energised Yes voters who came out to vote in 2015 and 'job-done' No voters who didn't, that might help to explain the SNP's larger share of the vote compared to the Yes vote in the referendum. But I don't think it can cover all of it, if only because (as I noted) a portion of Yes voters must have gone on to vote Labour/Lib Dem/Green in 2015.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mormont said:

Yeah, and of course famously the turnout in the referendum was almost 85%. So if that additional 22% split into energised Yes voters who came out to vote in 2015 and 'job-done' No voters who didn't, that might help to explain the SNP's larger share of the vote compared to the Yes vote in the referendum. But I don't think it can cover all of it, if only because (as I noted) a portion of Yes voters must have gone on to vote Labour/Lib Dem/Green in 2015.

Remember that the voting age changed for the referendum though, and stayed that way after it also. That's a lot of extra voters who appeared out of the blue there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Lordsteve666 said:

Remember that the voting age changed for the referendum though, and stayed that way after it also. That's a lot of extra voters who appeared out of the blue there.

Sure, but that could only have increased turnout overall if 16-17 year olds voted in huge numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The BlackBear said:

The turnout is a percentage of the electorate, so it takes into account the younger votes.

True, but i'm wondering if adding all those extra young people caused more people overall to turn out? Would a teenager who suddenly gets to vote persuade his/her parents not to sit on their arses and not vote? Could have been a knock-on affect of letting more people vote, peer pressure pushed some people into actually doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theresa May attempting to explain why rape victims will have to fill out a detailed 8-page form about their experience so they can receive support for unintended pregnancies as a result of a violent assault..

That's a very bizarre hill to die on. Or it would be, if Labour capitalised on it. May's appalling voting record on gay rights is also something that should be under scrutiny, but again Labour are giving her have a clear pass on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Werthead said:

Theresa May attempting to explain why rape victims will have to fill out a detailed 8-page form about their experience so they can receive support for unintended pregnancies as a result of a violent assault..

That's a very bizarre hill to die on. Or it would be, if Labour capitalised on it. May's appalling voting record on gay rights is also something that should be under scrutiny, but again Labour are giving her have a clear pass on the matter.

Its clearly part of a push to crack down on benefit fraud, which to the Tories is one of the most important things in the Universe. 

As per your second point, May's 'appalling record'. I'm not sure what it is you are referring to when you say appalling but she has numerous times to allow same sex couples to marry. I'm no fan of May, and she clearly has some traditional christian values I'd disagree with, but I wouldn't paint her as Anti Gay. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

As per your second point, May's 'appalling record'. I'm not sure what it is you are referring to when you say appalling but she has numerous times to allow same sex couples to marry. I'm no fan of May, and she clearly has some traditional christian values I'd disagree with, but I wouldn't paint her as Anti Gay. 

She has moderated and softened some of her positions, but since 1998 she has voted against equality measures several times and was absent for several others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Werthead said:

I read that this exact same list previously. Being absent isn't really indicative of being against something, and she has also voted for a numer of equality measures. It's an unfair caricature of her to label her as anti gay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I read that this exact same list previously. Being absent isn't really indicative of being against something, and she has also voted for a numer of equality measures. It's an unfair caricature of her to label her as anti gay.

She voted against equalising the age of consent, she voted against the bill to let gay couples adopt, voted against IVF treatment for lesbian couples and voted against the requirement for government bodies to reduce inequality.

She did vote for civil partnerships and gay marriage, and more recently said some of the things she voted against in the 1990s and 2000s she'd be in favour of now, but it's also unfair to simply dismiss her voting record as something that is irrelevant (not when it's trendy to drag out something Corbyn said in the 1980s to bash him over the head with it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 30/04/2017 at 10:28 AM, Werthead said:

Meanwhile, also in Tory Britain.

Frankly, the catalogue of errors and mistakes in the DWP, under Ian Duncan Smith and his successors, which has led to misery and even death for hundreds of people should bar this government from even being considered for reelection.

It's almost like this is a government for the few, rather than the many...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, it turns out that Theresa May's initial negotiations with the EU did not go well, at one point being sabotaged by Davis regaling those present with how he defeated her data retention bill in the European Court of Human Rights. Three times.

Apparently the EU have also made it abundantly clear that Britain will not get a free trade deal without paying out extra money. When Davis said no, Juncker said we wouldn't get a trade deal, end of. This is because the bills Britain owes would have to be split between the other 27 countries and they would have to unanimously agree to this and, bizarrely, they seem disinclined to do so. Weirdly, Farage (paying a brief but welcome visit to the real world) addressed this a few weeks ago on the news in something approaching a sane way, pointing out that the EU have suggested we pay £60 billion, but we will owe £30 billion for the period 2017-19 anyway, so we may as well haggle down to that and move on.

Apparently May also said "Let's make Brexit a success" and Juncker replied that, outside of the customs union and single market, "Brexit cannot be a success." That took May aback as she seemed unaware of the complexities involved and did not appear to have been briefed.

The outcome is that the EU now seem to expect the talks to collapse at any given moment and that every single moment of these negotiations is going to be leaked.

Spectacular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...