What will be the outcome of the General Election

[Ulysses]

It's not just that the electoral system is a closed shop: it's that it's fundamentally and shamefully biased towards Labour.

 

First of all it isn't a closed shop. If any party gets enough votes they'll also get the seats. During the campaign, I made the point that a lot of nonsense was being talked about vote and seat shares because of the silly assumption that any swing would be uniform across the country. But this didn't happen. To illustrate the point, prior to the election a uniform national swing where the Conservatives scored 36.1, Labour 29.0 and the Liberal Democrats 23.0 would have pointed to seat totals of CON 283, LAB 273 and LD 62. The actual result (including the one seat left to vote) will be CON 307, LAB 255, LD 57. In other words, because enough people voted for the Conservatives, and because they did so in the right places, they outperformed expectations by 24 seats. Regardless of what a "swingometer" might say, the fact is that if the Liberal Democrats scored 36% and came first in the popular vote they would end up with more seats than the other parties.

 

Secondly, it isn't the electoral system that is biased towards Labour - it's the political culture of areas in Britain that are and regard themselves as being on the periphery of political influence. I haven't yet looked at the position after the 2010 election, but if you look at the results in 2005, there were 127 constituencies where Labour scored more than 45% and had a lead of more than 25 percentage points. Here's a regional breakdown also showing the total number of seats in the region:

 

East Midlands: 5/46

Eastern England: 0/40

London: 16/73

North-East: 18/29

North-West: 25/75

Scotland: 22/59

South-East: 0/102

South-West: 1/55

Wales: 11/40

West Midlands: 10/59

Yorkshire and Humberside: 19/54

 

You do the percentages yourself, but it's nil or next to nothing in the south and east of England, as opposed to a third in the North-West, 35% in Scotland and over 60% in the North-East.

 

Whether you like it or not, the inbuilt bias towards Labour is not caused by the electoral system, but by the belief ingrained into the political culture that Labour (even on its bad days) is less likely to exclude certain parts of the country than other parties are. The electoral system amplifies the effects of that cultural bias, but it doesn't cause them.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

in percentage terms of GDP the national debt was on a downward trend from when Labour took power. it is only the last 2 years that it has rocketed up again.

 

 

 

 

But the problem is that the loss in GDP will be structural, not cyclical. The pillars of growth of the UK economy were banking, housing (leading to construction) and government spending using those tax revenues and borrowing more. Another asset price bubble in these kind of areas will just lead to blow-outs in commodity prices, for example, as they are inflationary and investors will hedge against inflation.

 

The reality is that cheap energy is over and that puts the brakes on economic growth. That's why standards of living WILL fall, no matter what happens.

[Ulysses]

There's actually a centre-left majority in Britain; and the Tories are quite naturally terrified by it.

 

No there isn't.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

No there isn't.

 

 

Agreed. It's a big assumption to assume all Lib Dem voters are centre-left.

[shaun.lawson]

So what makes these rural voters favour the Lib Dems over the Conservatives, that they previously voted for?

 

Is it a resentment of Labour, or common ground such as tax?

 

I pulled up the detailed view of Edinburgh West, my constituency. It's quite noticeable in that sea of red along the central belt. It was a 50% vote for Lib Dems in 2005, but that's been reduced to 35.9%. With an 11.4% swing to Labour.

 

I don't really know much about the history of the seat, I think it was held by the Conservatives before I was born.

 

Do we count these seats as anomalies? Because that swing clearly wasn't seen nationwide. This constituency is far more balanced than the average of all the seats.

 

I would suspect that much of that 11.4% is explained by Labour voters who stayed at home or voted Lib Dem in 2005 because of Iraq turning out this time: because Iraq has faded in the memory, of panic at the prospect of the Tories winning (in 2005, there was no chance of it happening), and because Labour did a fantastic job mobilising their core support over the last week of the campaign. Clegg's monumental blunder in ruling out a coalition with Brown also pushed people back towards Labour.

 

In SW England, there are plenty of liberal, One Nation Tories who've felt unable to vote for a horribly right wing Conservative Party for much of the last 13 years. Naturally, Cameron is starting to win some of them back. And because he is, the Lib Dem vote in Lab-LD marginals fell: Tories failing to vote tactically for the Lib Dems, but voting Tory when it was pointless instead. Clegg's claims that the Lib Dems were the new progressive force in politics, and apparent desire to usurp Labour will have played a large part in this, sadly.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

So what makes these rural voters favour the Lib Dems over the Conservatives, that they previously voted for?

 

Is it a resentment of Labour, or common ground such as tax?

 

Rural voters have traditionally seen Labour, for want of a better phrase, as "pro city, anti country". Also, there are strong Liberal traditions in the Highlands of Scotland and South West England

 

I pulled up the detailed view of Edinburgh West, my constituency. It's quite noticeable in that sea of red along the central belt. It was a 50% vote for Lib Dems in 2005, but that's been reduced to 35.9%. With an 11.4% swing to Labour.

 

I don't really know much about the history of the seat, I think it was held by the Conservatives before I was born.

 

Do we count these seats as anomalies? Because that swing clearly wasn't seen nationwide. This constituency is far more balanced than the average of all the seats.

 

The Lib Dems claimed Edinburgh West in 1997 from the Tories. It had always been a Tory-Lib marginal with Lord James Douglas Hamilton keeping out Donald Gorrie for years. Gorrie benefitted from tactical voting in 1997 from Labour and SNP supporters. I actually think that result was one of the most surprising on election night. I know places like Craigleith moved into Edinburgh North but a pro-Labour swing in Edinburgh West was a real surprise. It also shows how shambolic Tory organisation is in Scotland, because Edinburgh West could and should have been a seat that shifted to them.

[shaun.lawson]

You seem to be overstating the case as an excuse for Clegg.

If he's a man of honour and the Lib Dems are true to their principles, PR will be a non-negotiable condition and if things go askew because of no agreement that will be Cameron's fault. It is being reported that there a poll out showing 5:1 in favour of PR but I don't where that was taken (definitely not in Tory HQ).

 

I've just criticised a number of very big mistakes Clegg made (albeit mistakes I reckon I'd have made, probably to a much greater degree, myself: Uly would concur, I suspect). But I wouldn't want to be in his shoes tonight. I think his position is impossible - and barring the highly unlikely scenario of a Con/LD coalition government proving popular, effective, reforming and dealing fully with the economic problems, he'll probably end up in history as the man in charge when the third party once again ceased to be any kind of force in British politics.

 

Do I think his mistakes merit that? No, I certainly don't: goodness knows, Brown, Cameron, even Charlie Kennedy have made far more.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I've just criticised a number of very big mistakes Clegg made (albeit mistakes I reckon I'd have made, probably to a much greater degree, myself: Uly would concur, I suspect). But I wouldn't want to be in his shoes tonight. I think his position is impossible - and barring the highly unlikely scenario of a Con/LD coalition government proving popular, effective, reforming and dealing fully with the economic problems, he'll probably end up in history as the man in charge when the third party once again ceased to be any kind of force in British politics.

 

Do I think his mistakes merit that? No, I certainly don't: goodness knows, Brown, Cameron, even Charlie Kennedy have made far more.

 

Agree with that.

 

It's the ultimate example of being careful what you wish for!

[Ulysses]

Do I think his mistakes merit that? No, I certainly don't: goodness knows, Brown, Cameron, even Charlie Kennedy have made far more.

 

I'd agree with that as well. But I think the best way he can play the hand he's been dealt is to seek a full-on coalition on the basis I set out earlier in this thread. If the Conservatives are willing to deal, well and good. If they aren't, the Liberal Democrat leaders should have the guts to walk away and tell the public why they've done so.

[P-Dizzle]

Rural voters have traditionally seen Labour, for want of a better phrase, as "pro city, anti country". Also, there are strong Liberal traditions in the Highlands of Scotland and South West England

 

Wife swapping?

 

The Lib Dems claimed Edinburgh West in 1997 from the Tories. It had always been a Tory-Lib marginal with Lord James Douglas Hamilton keeping out Donald Gorrie for years. Gorrie benefitted from tactical voting in 1997 from Labour and SNP supporters. I actually think that result was one of the most surprising on election night. I know places like Craigleith moved into Edinburgh North but a pro-Labour swing in Edinburgh West was a real surprise. It also shows how shambolic Tory organisation is in Scotland, because Edinburgh West could and should have been a seat that shifted to them.

 

The Tories were the only party to send me a letter, or even post a leaflet through my door. It struck me as lazy, but far less complacent than the Lib Dems who did nothing, the same goes for Labour.

 

So if that's been the voting patern in Edin West. It's gone from a Tory seat, to a Tory-Lib Dem marginal, to a safe Lib Dem seat, with Tories 30% off the pace. And now we've seen Lib Dems retain this seat, with an increased Labour support.

 

That would suggest that people have moved between all three parties over the last 20 years in fairly large numbers.

 

Is this just because this area is quite diverse in terms of economic class and traditional political leanings? Or a huge amount of tatical voting in the past? If it's just tatical, why didn't Labour try harder to win a seat in a region they dominate?

[Glamorgan Jambo]

So what makes these rural voters favour the Lib Dems over the Conservatives, that they previously voted for?

Is it a resentment of Labour, or common ground such as tax?

 

I pulled up the detailed view of Edinburgh West, my constituency. It's quite noticeable in that sea of red along the central belt. It was a 50% vote for Lib Dems in 2005, but that's been reduced to 35.9%. With an 11.4% swing to Labour.

 

I don't really know much about the history of the seat, I think it was held by the Conservatives before I was born.

 

Do we count these seats as anomalies? Because that swing clearly wasn't seen nationwide. This constituency is far more balanced than the average of all the seats.

 

TBH I don't know why they moved Con to Lib Dem but can hazard a pretty good guess why they don't vote labour. I live in a semi rural area and the voters place great weight on the local knowledge and the background of the candidates and certainly don't take kindly to candidates who are parachuted in, are overtly metropolitan and insensitive to rural issues, or who attract notoriety (e.g. Lembit Opik).

 

Edinburgh West is my 'home seat' and the MP for years and years was Lord James Douglas Hamilton, who in all honesty was one of the nicest guys I've ever met and was a very hard working local MP. He lost out (in 92 I think) to Donald Gorrie who was also an extremely well known and well respected local politician who'd been a local councillor for years and years. I don't know who the conservatives have put up as a candidate there in recent years but I've been quite unimpressed with the calibre of some of the Scottish conservative spokespersons I've seen during the election and as I mentioned earlier a lot of the more competent Scots Tories (Fox, Rifkind, Cruikshank etc) actually are MPs down south.

 

I was just glancing at the Daily Mail online and in amongst all the recriminations against Cameron is a fairly damning indictment of the performance of some of the 'A list' candidates that were parachuted into key constituencies (by Cameron and Osborne) in an attempt to make the conservative party appear to be more 'diverse'. As in life in general diversity is great but when its promoted to the detriment of competence then people quickly see through it. In my local seat which swung from Labour to Tory very decisively the Tory candidate was a long standing and well known (still relatively young) local Welsh assembly member and he (and his wife) put in a lot of hours knocking on a lot of doors in a way few candidates seem to do these days.

 

And with than 'bonne nuit a toutes et a tous'

[shaun.lawson]

Agreed. It's a big assumption to assume all Lib Dem voters are centre-left.

 

Mmm. I wonder what the breakdown would be exactly? The weird thing is the membership really are hugely left of centre; but voters less so.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Wife swapping?

 

Sheep shagging might be closer to the truth!

 

 

The Tories were the only party to send me a letter, or even post a leaflet through my door. It struck me as lazy, but far less complacent than the Lib Dems who did nothing, the same goes for Labour.

 

So if that's been the voting patern in Edin West. It's gone from a Tory seat, to a Tory-Lib Dem marginal, to a safe Lib Dem seat, with Tories 30% off the pace. And now we've seen Lib Dems retain this seat, with an increased Labour support.

 

That would suggest that people have moved between all three parties over the last 20 years in fairly large numbers.

 

Is this just because this area is quite diverse in terms of economic class and traditional political leanings? Or a huge amount of tatical voting in the past? If it's just tatical, why didn't Labour try harder to win a seat in a region they dominate?

 

It's a good question. Edinburgh West does have an interesting socio-demographic mix but most seats do. The Lib Dems were squeezed by Labour in Scotland, which to me suggested a hardening of the anti-Tory vote. However, Labour was on the defensive in its Edinburgh seats as all of them were under threat. They probably concentrated their resources in Edinburgh North and Edinburgh South (and even South-West to a degree to help protect Darling).

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Mmm. I wonder what the breakdown would be exactly? The weird thing is the membership really are hugely left of centre; but voters less so.

 

 

I don't think that's weird at all. The 'soft Tory' vote are more likely to be floating voters so why would they actually join the party?

[Danny Wilde]

Agree with that.

 

It's the ultimate example of being careful what you wish for!

 

Indeed.

 

And as Rawnsely indicates in todays Observer, Clegg didn't see it coming. Which rather begs the question of just exactly what was the electoral outcome that Clegg was expecting...

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/08/andrew-rawnsley-liberal-democrasts-coalition

This is not a choice which the Lib Dem leader actually anticipated wrestling with this weekend. When I talked to him at the outset of the election campaign, he thought the "kingmaker" scenario one of the least likely outcomes. He did not expect to be placed in the position where he can choose whether to put the Tories into office or to try to stitch together a deal that would sustain Labour in power. Yet that is precisely where he finds himself after an election result which demonstrated that there is both an anti-Conservative majority and an anti-Labour majority in Britain.

[shaun.lawson]

I'd agree with that as well. But I think the best way he can play the hand he's been dealt is to seek a full-on coalition on the basis I set out earlier in this thread. If the Conservatives are willing to deal, well and good. If they aren't, the Liberal Democrat leaders should have the guts to walk away and tell the public why they've done so.

 

Interesting. As you'll see in this article, many Lib Dems would disagree:

 

http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-postelection-blues-19404.html

 

Incidentally, your post above - Post 651 - was one of the best and most thought provoking I've ever read on here.

[Randle P McMurphy]

Wife swapping?

 

 

 

The Tories were the only party to send me a letter, or even post a leaflet through my door. It struck me as lazy, but far less complacent than the Lib Dems who did nothing, the same goes for Labour.

 

So if that's been the voting patern in Edin West. It's gone from a Tory seat, to a Tory-Lib Dem marginal, to a safe Lib Dem seat, with Tories 30% off the pace. And now we've seen Lib Dems retain this seat, with an increased Labour support.

 

That would suggest that people have moved between all three parties over the last 20 years in fairly large numbers.

 

Is this just because this area is quite diverse in terms of economic class and traditional political leanings? Or a huge amount of tatical voting in the past? If it's just tatical, why didn't Labour try harder to win a seat in a region they dominate?

 

the only ones who wrote to me in Edinburgh north & Leith were Labour. I am assuming they had given up on your constituency and were targeting the more marginal ones.

[shaun.lawson]

I don't think that's weird at all. The 'soft Tory' vote are more likely to be floating voters so why would they actually join the party?

 

Weird in the sense that, well, how many other parties in the Western world have such a disparity between those who join it and those who vote for it? Certainly take your point though. Thinking about it, I wonder how SNP support would break down?

[P-Dizzle]

Could it also be that these Tory-Lib Dem seats never suffered under Thatcher, and sort of bypassed the hardships on the industrial workers? That seems to show there are areas of the country that will vote Labour even if it's "a monkey with a red rosette".

[Ulysses]

Incidentally, your post above - Post 651 - was one of the best and most thought provoking I've ever read on here.

 

If you liked post 651 so much then you should thank LPjambo91 for writing it.

[P-Dizzle]

the only ones who wrote to me in Edinburgh north & Leith were Labour. I am assuming they had given up on your constituency and were targeting the more marginal ones.

 

Edin South-West have increased their majority by 3% and the Tories by 1%. With 1% swing to Labour. The Lib Dems have fallen away in that area, not that they were close.

 

Edinburgh South was very close between Labour and Lib Dems, I think I'm right in saying it's the only Labour Hold that's decreased it's majority.

 

The Lib Dems fell away 5% in Edinburgh East, with Labour strengthening their majority, the Tories don't even factor in that seat.

 

In your constituency, Labour were actually stronger. So were the Lib Dems, and the Tories fell away.

 

 

 

Edinburgh is clearly a strong Labour city, but I can't understand why they wouldn't try and get my vote in the only other constituency that hadn't been previously held by them. They can't have thought there would be a huge swing to the Tories in these seats, would it have been that hard for them to try and run the Lib Dems close in Edin West? Especially when John Barrett is standing down?

 

I can't understand how Edin West is that different to the rest of the city, or even the rest of the central belt. That they can't beat a failing Lib Dem vote, or a Tory vote thats par with their own in somewhere that seems to be a blip in Labour country.

 

This is the kind of thing I'd loved to have asked a Labour candidate, or any of them actually. I want to know why this seat is so different.

[shaun.lawson]

Edin South-West have increased their majority by 3% and the Tories by 1%. With 1% swing to Labour. The Lib Dems have fallen away in that area, not that they were close.

 

Edinburgh South was very close between Labour and Lib Dems, I think I'm right in saying it's the only Labour Hold that's decreased it's majority.

 

The Lib Dems fell away 5% in Edinburgh East, with Labour strengthening their majority, the Tories don't even factor in that seat.

 

In your constituency, Labour were actually stronger. So were the Lib Dems, and the Tories fell away.

 

 

 

Edinburgh is clearly a strong Labour city, but I can't understand why they wouldn't try and get my vote in the only other constituency that hadn't been previously held by them. They can't have thought there would be a huge swing to the Tories in these seats, would it have been that hard for them to try and run the Lib Dems close in Edin West? Especially when John Barrett is standing down?

 

I can't understand how Edin West is that different to the rest of the city, or even the rest of the central belt. That they can't beat a failing Lib Dem vote, or a Tory vote thats par with their own in somewhere that seems to be a blip in Labour country.

 

This is the kind of thing I'd loved to have asked a Labour candidate, or any of them actually. I want to know why this seat is so different.

 

Well... keep in mind that with the odd exception, the west of almost any city or town is invariably more affluent than the east. That's true globally in terms of West and East too, of course. It's because of climate, sunshine and wind direction (er, I think). So to draw a parallel: in Oxford West, the Lib Dems lost the seat on a huge, unexpected swing to the Tories. In Oxford East, the incumbent Labour MP increased his majority substantially.

 

The more affluent an area is, generally the less likely it is to be Labour-leaning. Not entirely, but generally.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Could it also be that these Tory-Lib Dem seats never suffered under Thatcher, and sort of bypassed the hardships on the industrial workers? That seems to show there are areas of the country that will vote Labour even if it's "a monkey with a red rosette".

 

 

Did Edinburgh suffer under Thatcherism? Tin hat on, but I think Edinburgh benefitted from Thatcherism. The mainstay industries of Edinburgh have been banking, insurance and civil administration. You can argue the rights and wrongs of the 1980's all day (which doesn't achieve anything) but Edinburgh's employment never suffered the hardships of Glasgow, where heavy industry disappeared after years of decline. Outside of Edinburgh itself, the mining industry was affected too, but the city wasn't.

 

My personal view is that Edinburgh, if anything, was a One-Nation Tory city in the late 70s, early 80s. It drifted off towards Labour in rejection of the radical Conservative view that Thatcher espoused because, if anything, the middle class in Edinburgh are far more 'socially conservative' in that regard. Class matters to them - Thatcher didn't espouse class, she espoused individualism.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Well... keep in mind that with the odd exception, the west of almost any city or town is invariably more affluent than the east. That's true globally in terms of West and East too, of course. It's because of climate, sunshine and wind direction (er, I think). So to draw a parallel: in Oxford West, the Lib Dems lost the seat on a huge, unexpected swing to the Tories. In Oxford East, the incumbent Labour MP increased his majority substantially.

 

The more affluent an area is, generally the less likely it is to be Labour-leaning. Not entirely, but generally.

 

 

Those odd exceptions including Belfast and Liverpool!

[P-Dizzle]

So when they redrew the constituency boundaries, they took the more Labour voting area of Edin West and added it to another?

 

To leave this a more Con-Lib marginal, which would keep a seat out of Conservative reach, whilst not wasting the Labour votes in that area and adding them to another marginal where Labour stood more of a chance?

 

Or am I being paranoid?

[P-Dizzle]

Did Edinburgh suffer under Thatcherism? Tin hat on, but I think Edinburgh benefitted from Thatcherism. The mainstay industries of Edinburgh have been banking, insurance and civil administration. You can argue the rights and wrongs of the 1980's all day (which doesn't achieve anything) but Edinburgh's employment never suffered the hardships of Glasgow, where heavy industry disappeared after years of decline. Outside of Edinburgh itself, the mining industry was affected too, but the city wasn't.

 

My personal view is that Edinburgh, if anything, was a One-Nation Tory city in the late 70s, early 80s. It drifted off towards Labour in rejection of the radical Conservative view that Thatcher espoused because, if anything, the middle class in Edinburgh are far more 'socially conservative' in that regard. Class matters to them - Thatcher didn't espouse class, she espoused individualism.

 

 

When I made that post I was referring to the rural seats that seem to be Con-Lib marginals.

 

But I agree 100% with your post. Edinburgh wasn't hurt by Thatcherism. Given that I never studied politics/Modern Studies, or lived through it. I'm only going on acquired knowledge, but yes, this city made it's money through the financial industry. As it does to this day.

 

Are you saying that the Edinburgh middle class, whilst not effected by Thatcher, felt abandoned by her? Then turning their votes to Labour, and largely in my constituency to the Lib Dems?

[Danny Wilde]

I can help with that a little being one of the older geezers on here.

 

Check out the 1979 election results, there were 4 Tory seats out of 7 in Edinburgh. Some well known names amongst Embra MPs at that time.

 

http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge79/i08.htm

 

As a teenager in that decade I recall Robin Cook coming to our door in Moat House flats, he was then the MP for Edinburgh Central.

 

Not having much heavy industry, Edinburgh didn't greatly share the Thatcherite purge of the 1980's. But it did share in the reaction to it, and its still hard to beleive that Edinburgh Tories have all gone to ground some 20 years later. All thats left are adherents like Tharapist, thats how bad it is for them

 

 

Did Edinburgh suffer under Thatcherism? Tin hat on, but I think Edinburgh benefitted from Thatcherism. The mainstay industries of Edinburgh have been banking, insurance and civil administration. You can argue the rights and wrongs of the 1980's all day (which doesn't achieve anything) but Edinburgh's employment never suffered the hardships of Glasgow, where heavy industry disappeared after years of decline. Outside of Edinburgh itself, the mining industry was affected too, but the city wasn't.

 

My personal view is that Edinburgh, if anything, was a One-Nation Tory city in the late 70s, early 80s. It drifted off towards Labour in rejection of the radical Conservative view that Thatcher espoused because, if anything, the middle class in Edinburgh are far more 'socially conservative' in that regard. Class matters to them - Thatcher didn't espouse class, she espoused individualism.

[P-Dizzle]

Not having much heavy industry, Edinburgh didn't greatly share the Thatcherite purge of the 1980's. But it did share in the reaction to it, and its still hard to beleive that Edinburgh Tories have all gone to ground some 20 years later. All thats left are adherents like Tharapist, thats how bad it is for them

 

So would you agree with my statement regarding the Edinburgh middle class and their voting patterns?

 

 

On the subject of Scottish Conservatives. I can't see any common ground I hold with them, but I do think Annabel Goldie is a good politician and I have more time for her than any of the shadow cabinet.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

When I made that post I was referring to the rural seats that seem to be Con-Lib marginals.

 

But I agree 100% with your post. Edinburgh wasn't hurt by Thatcherism. Given that I never studied politics/Modern Studies, or lived through it. I'm only going on acquired knowledge, but yes, this city made it's money through the financial industry. As it does to this day.

 

Are you saying that the Edinburgh middle class, whilst not effected by Thatcher, felt abandoned by her? Then turning their votes to Labour, and largely in my constituency to the Lib Dems?

 

 

Abandoned isn't the word but 'out of step' would be a better way of looking at it.

[Danny Wilde]

So would you agree with my statement regarding the Edinburgh middle class and their voting patterns?

 

On the subject of Scottish Conservatives. I can't see any common ground I hold with them, but I do think Annabel Goldie is a good politician and I have more time for her than any of the shadow cabinet.

 

I don't think the Edinburgh middle class felt abandoned by Thatcher but as a relatively new recruit to the middle classes myself I'm not best placed to comment

 

I can only give you one angle on that, I went to the Royal High in the early 70's, the last all male year that was "selected" before it gave up over 8 centuries of being Edinburghs own meritocratic grammar school. So working class scumbags with half a brain like me were suddenly rubbing shoulders with the prep school boys from the RHS primary. To this day I see my friends from then on a monthly basis. To the point...of all those middle class Edinburgh boys whose parents would have been rock-solid Tories .. being lawyers, dentists, civil servants and the like ... NONE of these lads has ever voted conservative. Partly that was the punk-culture of the mid-70's and the anti-establishment reaction to their parents values. So although they've replaced their parents as rock-solid Edinburgh middle class types, absolutely none of them are Tories. Even although it might be in their own self-interest to be so.

 

I'm not blaming it all on the Sex Pistols ! But there was a already a radicalising cultural shift ongoing through the 60,70's and 80's. Thatcher just set the seal on it for many, which is partly why Tories are virtually unelectable in urban Scotland to this day.

[Commander Harris]

the only ones who wrote to me in Edinburgh north & Leith were Labour. I am assuming they had given up on your constituency and were targeting the more marginal ones.

 

you were lucky! ?I'm in Edinburgh North and Leith and the Lib Dems were absolutely hammering things at me. ?I swear I must have got about 12 leaflets from them, they were dropping through the letter box every day including one on the day of the election telling me that today was the day and I should go out and vote for Kevin Lang. ?

 

 

blooming waste of paper, they weren't going to get the green vote anyway!

 

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I don't think the Edinburgh middle class felt abandoned by Thatcher but as a relatively new recruit to the middle classes myself I'm not best placed to comment

 

I can only give you one angle on that, I went to the Royal High in the early 70's, the last all male year that was "selected" before it gave up over 8 centuries of being Edinburghs own meritocratic grammar school. So working class scumbags with half a brain like me were suddenly rubbing shoulders with the prep school boys from the RHS primary. To this day I see my friends from then on a monthly basis. To the point...of all those middle class Edinburgh boys whose parents would have been rock-solid Tories .. being lawyers, dentists, civil servants and the like ... NONE of these lads has ever voted conservative. Partly that was the punk-culture of the mid-70's and the anti-establishment reaction to their parents values. So although they've replaced their parents as rock-solid Edinburgh middle class types, absolutely none of them are Tories. Even although it might be in their own self-interest to be so.

 

I'm not blaming it all on the Sex Pistols ! But there was a already a radicalising cultural shift ongoing through the 60,70's and 80's. Thatcher just set the seal on it for many, which is partly why Tories are virtually unelectable in urban Scotland to this day.

 

It's an interesting take on things. Would they still never vote Tory if Labour was still espousing the 1983 manifesto?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Here's another interesting take on things from Gerald Warner's polemic in the Smartarse on Sunday

 

Due to the existence of UKIP, it is possible to document the revenge of the Eurosceptics. In at least 20 seats the UKIP vote was larger than the Labour or Liberal Democrat majority over the Tories, thus denying them seats they would otherwise have taken. UKIP prevented the Tories from unseating Ed Balls in Morley and Outwood and John Denham in Southampton Itchen, as well as saving Glenda Jackson in Hampstead and Kilburn. They enabled the Lib Dems to take Wells from the Conservatives. In the Tory target seat of Wirral South the Labour majority was just 531, the UKIP vote 1,274. The other seats where UKIP stopped the Tories were: Dudley North, Bolton West, Telford, Somerton and Frome, Plymouth Moor View, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Great Grimsby, Walsall North, Walsall South, Dorset Mid and Poole North, Solihull, St Austell and Newquay, St Ives, Derby North, and Middlesbrough South and Cleveland East. Since the deferred election at Thirsk will bring the Tories up to 307 seats, those 20 would have given them 327, which would have been an overall majority.

[P-Dizzle]

That cultural shift went on throughout the UK, so how do we see this Conservative vote come from this huge chunk of England? I know "Middle England" changes the way it votes, but it seems to do so in a uniform fashion.

 

Do they not vote in the same way that the people you mentioned?

 

 

I don't really have a grasp of the politics from the last 30 years, but it looks like they've voted in pritty much the same way. If it's New Labour in 97, or a vast return to the Tories this week. It doesn't seem to be as tribal as some of England, and nearly all of Scotland.

 

 

 

My parents never forced their views on me, I was told to form my own opinion when I started asking questions about politics when I was around 10. I remember being a supporter of independence at that age, and for a few years. But I started to pick flaws in my own views around this over the years. One thing has never changed, and that is that I see a vote for the Conservatives as a selfish vote and not in the interests of the country. Only your own bank balance.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

That cultural shift went on throughout the UK, so how do we see this huge Conservative vote come from this huge chunk of England? I know "Middle England" changes the way it votes, but it seems to do so in a uniform fashion.

 

Do they not vote in the same way that the people you mentioned?

 

 

I don't really have a grasp of the politics from the last 30 years, but it looks like they've voted in pritty much the same way. If it's New Labour in 97, or a vast return to the Tories this week. It doesn't seem to be as tribal as some of England, and nearly all of Scotland.

 

 

 

My parents never forced their views on me, I was told to form my own opinion when I started asking questions about politics when I was around 10. I remember being a supporter of independence at that age, and for a few years. But I started to pick flaws in my own views around this over the years. One thing has never changed, and that is that I see a vote for the Conservatives as a selfish vote and not in the interests of the country. Only your own bank balance.

 

That last paragraph is interesting and it shows the cultural obstacle Cameron couldn't (or wouldn't) overcome. Realists in this economic situation know that taxes will go up and spending will be slashed to avoid state bankruptcy. I reckon Cameron could have won votes on honesty if he had opened a flank here but the Tories panicked the minute Osborne mentioned an "age of austerity". Big mistake in my view.

[P-Dizzle]

That last paragraph is interesting and it shows the cultural obstacle Cameron couldn't (or wouldn't) overcome. Realists in this economic situation know that taxes will go up and spending will be slashed to avoid state bankruptcy. I reckon Cameron could have won votes on honesty if he had opened a flank here but the Tories panicked the minute Osborne mentioned an "age of austerity". Big mistake in my view.

 

I think you're right. If he'd come out in no uncertain terms that taxes must go up, because just cutting spending will only cause more problems. But he attacked Labour with his "Jobs Tax" message that he repeated over and over, I think he was totally wrong to do so.

 

I also cringed when he compaired the country needing to tighten it's belt to a household, and how you wouldn't spend more if times were getting tough. I do get what he was trying to say, but it's bullshit talk like that, that's seen him fall short.

[Danny Wilde]

It's an interesting take on things. Would they still never vote Tory if Labour was still espousing the 1983 manifesto?

 

Two of them earn someting like 200K+ a year. All their kids went to St Margarets, Edinburgh Academy even Fettes. They make a point of voting Labour almost regardless of what any Labour manifesto says. They're amongst my best friends but their vote is now just as much of a knee-jerk anti-conservative reaction as a bloke on sickness benefit in Wester Hailes...

 

Don't really understand it (being a nationalist myself) myself but thats how they vote, and I think they're representative of a whole generation of the current Edinburgh middle class. They mean well but its pretty unthinking IMO ... they just see it as "the right thing to do"...

[Charlie-Brown]

Regardless if it's Cameron for 6 months or 5 years the economy is ruined and the decision to bail out the banks & everything else is the root cause of the problem - borrowing & printing money we don't have, puting current & future tax-payers under a mountain of debt when household debts are already at their highest ever levels. As if spending money & taking on ever more debt is ever going to solve anything other than keeping the house of cards from collapsing for another 6 months, year or whatever .... The new Governement whatever shape it takes will be forced into a new age of austerity however all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn't put humpty together again.

[Danny Wilde]

That cultural shift went on throughout the UK, so how do we see this Conservative vote come from this huge chunk of England? I know "Middle England" changes the way it votes, but it seems to do so in a uniform fashion.

 

Do they not vote in the same way that the people you mentioned?

 

 

I don't really have a grasp of the politics from the last 30 years, but it looks like they've voted in pritty much the same way. If it's New Labour in 97, or a vast return to the Tories this week. It doesn't seem to be as tribal as some of England, and nearly all of Scotland.

 

My parents never forced their views on me, I was told to form my own opinion when I started asking questions about politics when I was around 10. I remember being a supporter of independence at that age, and for a few years. But I started to pick flaws in my own views around this over the years. One thing has never changed, and that is that I see a vote for the Conservatives as a selfish vote and not in the interests of the country. Only your own bank balance.

 

I don't have the answers mate, the whole things straddles cultural and generational changes that have occurred in my lifetime. And for which Labour can take much credit. A lot of todays middle-class are the sons and daughters of yesterdays working class. People even say they're working class when quite categorically they are not ! Its almost a romanticised attachment ... guilty as charged on that ...growing up in a council flat, my dad working on a building site... until 3 uni degrees and 30 years later, and working in scientific research, I'm yer typical transmogrified bleeding-heart Embra middle-class homeowner

[Danny Wilde]

I think you're right. If he'd come out in no uncertain terms that taxes must go up, because just cutting spending will only cause more problems. But he attacked Labour with his "Jobs Tax" message that he repeated over and over, I think he was totally wrong to do so.

 

I also cringed when he compaired the country needing to tighten it's belt to a household, and how you wouldn't spend more if times were getting tough. I do get what he was trying to say, but it's bullshit talk like that, that's seen him fall short.

 

That is in direct line of descent from the simple domestic economic metaphors that Thatcher used.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

That is in direct line of descent from the simple domestic economic metaphors that Thatcher used.

 

 

And yet there is still a lot of truth in it.

 

The difference, of course, is that governments can carry debt, provided the debtors are assured they will get it back without it being inflated away or defaulted on. At the moment, the level of doubt about those two possibilities is rising.

[Martin_T]

Regardless if it's Cameron for 6 months or 5 years the economy is ruined and the decision to bail out the banks & everything else is the root cause of the problem - borrowing & printing money we don't have, puting current & future tax-payers under a mountain of debt when household debts are already at their highest ever levels. As if spending money & taking on ever more debt is ever going to solve anything other than keeping the house of cards from collapsing for another 6 months, year or whatever .... The new Governement whatever shape it takes will be forced into a new age of austerity however all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn't put humpty together again.

 

Jeezo, are we talking about the UK Government or Heart of Midlothian Football Club!?

[Coco]

Here's another interesting take on things from Gerald Warner's polemic in the Smartarse on Sunday

 

 

Yes, the UKIP voters were self-indulgent and foolish.

 

They cost the Conservatives a majority Government. And the chance to rid the Parliament of the likes of Balls.

[2NaFish]

Sky News' view on democracy. Apparently it starts and ends with ticking a box.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELJh2bTK1ew&feature=player_embedded

 

This abomination is actually a step up for Kay Burley though,

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfS4DsYD6iU&feature=player_embedded

[Cabbie754]

Edin South-West have increased their majority by 3% and the Tories by 1%. With 1% swing to Labour. The Lib Dems have fallen away in that area, not that they were close.

 

Edinburgh South was very close between Labour and Lib Dems, I think I'm right in saying it's the only Labour Hold that's decreased it's majority.

 

The Lib Dems fell away 5% in Edinburgh East, with Labour strengthening their majority, the Tories don't even factor in that seat.

 

In your constituency, Labour were actually stronger. So were the Lib Dems, and the Tories fell away.

 

 

 

Edinburgh is clearly a strong Labour city, but I can't understand why they wouldn't try and get my vote in the only other constituency that hadn't been previously held by them. They can't have thought there would be a huge swing to the Tories in these seats, would it have been that hard for them to try and run the Lib Dems close in Edin West? Especially when John Barrett is standing down?

 

I can't understand how Edin West is that different to the rest of the city, or even the rest of the central belt. That they can't beat a failing Lib Dem vote, or a Tory vote thats par with their own in somewhere that seems to be a blip in Labour country.

 

This is the kind of thing I'd loved to have asked a Labour candidate, or any of them actually. I want to know why this seat is so different.

 

Edinburgh was a strong Tory city not so long ago. I can remember at least three city seats, Pentlands, West and Central which were Conservative prior to 1997. In fact I rember Robin Cook running off to West Lothian. Livingston to be precise due to boundary changes which meant Edinburgh Central would become a Tory seat which it did till Darling won it for Labour. As part of the Devolution settlement where Scotland have less seats in Westminster this has possably helped Labour. The City Council was Tory for years till Labour eventually took control in the 80's.

 

I live in Edinburgh West and the seat was Tory till the wipe out which meant a Tory free Scotland in 97. As stated by others, the Lib Dems had targeted this seat for years finally getting their tactics right in 1997 by targeting SNP & Labour voters and it worked as I know many SNP & Labour voters who voted Lib Dem to get rid of the Tories. IMHO what happened this time around was that the Lib Dems got their tactics wrong and the anti Tory vote went to Labour, oddly enough the Tory vote went up, so did the SNP, the big loosers were the Lib Dems but as the retiring MP John Barret had built up such a large majority they held onto the seat.

 

As for why Labour didn't try harder in Edinburgh west, the answer is that they were busy in other parts of the city as stated by others. Labour hardly did anything in the seat while the Tories and Lib Dems and even the SNP were active. The fear of Tories winning brought out people to vote Labour.

[The Real Maroonblood]

Yes, the UKIP voters were self-indulgent and foolish.

 

They cost the Conservatives a majority Government. And the chance to rid the Parliament of the likes of Balls.

You could also say that the voters who didn't vote for Labour this time cost them a majority.

[JamboAl]

That last paragraph is interesting and it shows the cultural obstacle Cameron couldn't (or wouldn't) overcome. Realists in this economic situation know that taxes will go up and spending will be slashed to avoid state bankruptcy. I reckon Cameron could have won votes on honesty if he had opened a flank here but the Tories panicked the minute Osborne mentioned an "age of austerity". Big mistake in my view.

 

Well maybe Clegg with his ?10,0000 personal allowance and Dodgy Dave with his Inheritance Tax exemption increase, his ?3 marriage bribe and his dispensation with the 1% NIC increase don't seem to appreciate that.

[Danny Wilde]

Is it any wonder that the Tory and LibDem carve-up ... and the reporting of it ... is going so swimmingly well ?

 

Conservative team:

David Cameron: Eton, Oxford Uni

Ed Llewellyn: Eton, Oxford Uni

Oliver Letwin: Eton, Cambridge Uni

George Osborne: St Paul's School, Oxford Uni

William Hague: Ripon Grammar School, Oxford Uni

 

LibDem team:

Nick Clegg: Westminster School, Cambridge Uni

Chris Huhne: Westminster School, Oxford Uni

David Laws: St Georges School, Cambridge Uni

Danny Alexander: Lochaber High, Oxford Uni

Andrew Stunell: Surbiton County Grammar, Manchester Uni

 

Impartial BBC reporting:

Nick Robinson: Cheadle Hulme School, Oxford Uni

President of the Oxford University Conservative Association,

Former National chairman of the Young Conservatives

[shaun.lawson]

Is it any wonder that the Tory and LibDem carve-up ... and the reporting of it ... is going so swimmingly well ?

 

Conservative team:

David Cameron: Eton, Oxford Uni

Ed Llewellyn: Eton, Oxford Uni

Oliver Letwin: Eton, Cambridge Uni

George Osborne: St Paul's School, Oxford Uni

William Hague: Ripon Grammar School, Oxford Uni

 

LibDem team:

Nick Clegg: Westminster School, Cambridge Uni

Chris Huhne: Westminster School, Oxford Uni

David Laws: St Georges School, Cambridge Uni

Danny Alexander: Lochaber High, Oxford Uni

Andrew Stunell: Surbiton County Grammar, Manchester Uni

 

Impartial BBC reporting:

Nick Robinson: Cheadle Hulme School, Oxford Uni

President of the Oxford University Conservative Association,

Former National chairman of the Young Conservatives

 

Oh please. Heaven only knows how many MPs went to private school - and the most academically gifted pupils tend to end up at either Oxford or Cambridge. There's no doubt that Cameron and Clegg like each other far more than they do Brown, though: Brown is horrendously difficult to work with, and his people skills appear to be sorely lacking.

[Danny Wilde]

Oh please. Heaven only knows how many MPs went to private school - and the most academically gifted pupils tend to end up at either Oxford or Cambridge. There's no doubt that Cameron and Clegg like each other far more than they do Brown, though: Brown is horrendously difficult to work with, and his people skills appear to be sorely lacking.

 

Merely an observation BF

 

Whats the latest from the grass-roots ?

Is electoral reform meaningfully on the table ... or has it slipped down the back of the sofa ?

Your feelings just now ?