Scottish Conservatives to be granted 'independence' (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 05:15:29 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Scottish Conservatives to be granted 'independence' (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Scottish Conservatives to be granted 'independence'  (Read 2765 times)
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

« on: April 05, 2007, 06:08:31 PM »

Following the Green example, I see. Or just preparing for an SNP - Scottish Conservatives coalition after the 2011 elections?

I think the Greens have always been separate so it's not quite comparable.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2007, 10:34:33 AM »

Well...I was refering more to how they'd be known in parliament, would the scottish tories sit with the "british (well, English plus what, 1 welsh) tories...and the delegation be known as the Conservative and Unionist Party...or what

There's only one Scottish Tory M.P now, so would it really matter? Wink

They'd take the Tory Whip if that's what you mean.

There'll probably be a few more at the next election. The Tories nearly won Perth and North Perthshire, for example.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2007, 11:48:01 AM »
« Edited: April 09, 2007, 11:50:00 AM by Verily »

Well...I was refering more to how they'd be known in parliament, would the scottish tories sit with the "british (well, English plus what, 1 welsh) tories...and the delegation be known as the Conservative and Unionist Party...or what

There's only one Scottish Tory M.P now, so would it really matter? Wink

They'd take the Tory Whip if that's what you mean.

There'll probably be a few more at the next election. The Tories nearly won Perth and North Perthshire, for example.

Exactly, Thatcher fallout was enormous and I can see a splitting of the Party in order to try and regain ANY popularity in Scotland or Wales, but support in the next election could reach 40% ( I expect the LD's so absolutely implode sorry verily) This just seems like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I doubt the Conservative will end up at 40%. At this point, I think it's likely that the Lib Dems will grow sick of Ming Campbell and toss him out much like the Conservatives did to Iain Duncan Smith, possibly as early as June of this year if the locals are disappointing (or perhaps June of next year). Nick Clegg would be the likely replacement (though Sarah Teather is also possible), and either would bring the Lib Dems back to at least close to 2005 levels.

Ultimately, the Conservatives will do extremely well in the South, with Labour wiped out basically everywhere (losing even Brighton Pavilion to the Greens). The Lib Dems will lose a lot to the Conservatives, too. In London, the combined Conservative and Lib Dem strength will drive Labour into third. (North London saw an extremely steep 11% decline in the Labour vote in 2005.)

In the North, Wales and Scotland, the Tories will have more difficulty. They'll gain some ground in some places, but not a lot. The Lib Dems will make more breakthroughs in urban seats against Labour.

The result?

Conservative: 302 (37%) [24 short of majority]
Labour: 251 (31%)
Lib Dem: 64 (22%)

Tactical vote:
Con to Lib: 1
Lab to Lib: 1
Lib to Lab: -2 (tactical unwind)

Boundaries favor Labour, as do the disproportionate Welsh seats.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2007, 04:17:03 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No they don't; the boundary changes (like all boundary changes) favour the Tories.
But methinks that isn't what you're getting at. The reason why Labour needs less votes per constituency than the other parties is because turnout is lower (often a lot lower) in Labour areas than elsewhere. That... and class polarisation. Obviously.

The changes "favor" the Tories, but, yes, that was not what I was getting at. Turnout impacts the difference somewhat, but that aside, the inner-city seats are generally slightly smaller than the rural seats.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol; Labour doesn't benefit from the few extra seats Wales gets (Wales isn't Scotland you know). If you eliminated a few Welsh seats the eliminated seats would not all be Labour; if the boundaries were drawn in the same odd way as they were in Scotland it's actually possible that all the eliminated seats would be held by other parties.
[/quote]

Oh, come on. You know and I know that all of the smallest seats in Wales are in the Valleys where Labour routinely wins 60-80% of the vote. The Lib Dems might lose a rural seat, but everywhere else the lost seats would be Labour when dinky little seats such as Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney or Cynon Valley get abolished.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.03 seconds with 13 queries.