Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Have The Main Parties Forgotten Who They Need To Attract?
17 Answers
From both parties we seem to be seeing policies that favour the rank and file.
Such things as from the Tories, Tax cuts for business and Milliband wanting a Jane Bond.
Why? They have their votes, surely they should be perusing 'Mondeo Man' as it is well known that Middle England giveth and Middle England taketh.
Blair, for all is faults recognized this and won 3 victories, so why are Dave and Ed so blind to this?
Such things as from the Tories, Tax cuts for business and Milliband wanting a Jane Bond.
Why? They have their votes, surely they should be perusing 'Mondeo Man' as it is well known that Middle England giveth and Middle England taketh.
Blair, for all is faults recognized this and won 3 victories, so why are Dave and Ed so blind to this?
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There is still perhaps a bit of the way to go until this is entirely true, but nevertheless the winning margin of votes in elections has been steadily decreasing meaning that the votes the Tories/ Labour "need to attract" are very nearly just their core voters. Hang the rest, who can fight it out amongst themselves as to which party they choose to waste their vote on, be it the Greens or LibDems or UKIP -- the vast majority of seats will still be won by one or the other of the two main parties.
The exception is Scotland, where an alternative party has enough local support to challenge and perhaps even humiliate the main lot. But elsewhere, the fall-out of the Lib Dem's choice to go into a coalition has been that they become almost an irrelevance, leaving no serious challenges to the two main parties in England(short of a miraculous set of results from UKIP, of course).
I've droned on about this plenty before but this gives me the opportunity to make a new point. In First Past the Post, the more parties there are the lower the winning post tends to become. The net effect is that the parties out in the lead have to work less and less hard to attract support of voters outside their core support. The result of that is that in effect the leading parties can feel free to ignore huge areas of the country and still be confident of -- well, if not victory, then certainly a seat share near 50%.
The exception is Scotland, where an alternative party has enough local support to challenge and perhaps even humiliate the main lot. But elsewhere, the fall-out of the Lib Dem's choice to go into a coalition has been that they become almost an irrelevance, leaving no serious challenges to the two main parties in England(short of a miraculous set of results from UKIP, of course).
I've droned on about this plenty before but this gives me the opportunity to make a new point. In First Past the Post, the more parties there are the lower the winning post tends to become. The net effect is that the parties out in the lead have to work less and less hard to attract support of voters outside their core support. The result of that is that in effect the leading parties can feel free to ignore huge areas of the country and still be confident of -- well, if not victory, then certainly a seat share near 50%.
Middle England ? Is that the same as Middle Britain ? Do Ford Mondeos only get to be driven by English people then ?
Just because the Scots are refusing to support the Tories, we are suddenly having a problem ?
dave has the problem here, and it isn't going to go away. He has been behind Labour in the Polls since soon after the 2010 Election. The only reason that he is in Number Ten now, is because he persuaded a minor Party to swallow their pride and support him.
All well and good....that is how it works in Britain, with our First Past the Post system. Its looking increasingly likely that whoever gets the most votes in a few weeks time, will have to go begging to other Parties for their support. But if dave had been able to get the Scots to support his Party over the last few years, he wouldn't be this quandary in the first place. In the 18 years since 1997, he has only gained one seat north of the Border...a very poor record indeed.
The Tories are now being increasingly seen as the Party of England, and the well-to-do part of it at that.
Just because the Scots are refusing to support the Tories, we are suddenly having a problem ?
dave has the problem here, and it isn't going to go away. He has been behind Labour in the Polls since soon after the 2010 Election. The only reason that he is in Number Ten now, is because he persuaded a minor Party to swallow their pride and support him.
All well and good....that is how it works in Britain, with our First Past the Post system. Its looking increasingly likely that whoever gets the most votes in a few weeks time, will have to go begging to other Parties for their support. But if dave had been able to get the Scots to support his Party over the last few years, he wouldn't be this quandary in the first place. In the 18 years since 1997, he has only gained one seat north of the Border...a very poor record indeed.
The Tories are now being increasingly seen as the Party of England, and the well-to-do part of it at that.
"Just because the Scots are refusing to support the Tories, we are suddenly having a problem ?" - not at all mikey, The torys know they have no support in Scotland so it's irrelevant - Labour have 41 seats, and they're going to lose most of them, as will the Lib dems lose theirs. to the SNP, this will vastly weaken Labour, remember each lost seat reduces majority by 2. So basically the Scotts will be helping elect Dave. Roll on May, I can't wait!
Yes jim, but it will mean that Labour are unlikely to be the largest party after the election. Dave may get the 326 or close to it which mean he won't need many from a willing partner to form a government, Ed will need to prostitute himself to the SNP an taking he current number of seats even that wont be enough, 258 - losses to SNP + SNP seats stilll does not breach the current Tory total of 300+. Ed's Mrs will never be curtain shopping for no 10.
It may increase the chances of a Tory minority government, certainly.
At any rate, the results of the election are hard to predict with much certainty. It's possible that UKIP will hit the Tory vote hard enough to make what goes on in Scotland an irrelevance; maybe the LibDems will be saved at the ballot box from total humiliation, etc.
At any rate, the results of the election are hard to predict with much certainty. It's possible that UKIP will hit the Tory vote hard enough to make what goes on in Scotland an irrelevance; maybe the LibDems will be saved at the ballot box from total humiliation, etc.
TTT...the big difference between Labour and the Tories in regards to the SNP is it is likely neither Party will get a clear majority. So, whoever wins will have to rely on the kindness of strangers to govern.
And while the SNP have ruled out a formal coalition with Labour, they will be prepared to work with them, issue by issue. But they have ruled out any cooperation with the Tories at all.
My reading of the situation is that Labour will still have the most number of seats, so Betty will have no choice but to ask Ed "if he can form a government" He would be a fool not reply, in that scenario, anything other than "Yes Marm"
But if its dave going to have afternoon tea at Buck House on Friday 8th of May, he will be aware that he has the same number of seats in opposition to him, north of the border then, as he does now. If he loses his only Scottish MP, then he will have one more than he does now. The incumbent in Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale is defending a majority of only 4194.
The sting in the SNP's tail can work both ways !
And while the SNP have ruled out a formal coalition with Labour, they will be prepared to work with them, issue by issue. But they have ruled out any cooperation with the Tories at all.
My reading of the situation is that Labour will still have the most number of seats, so Betty will have no choice but to ask Ed "if he can form a government" He would be a fool not reply, in that scenario, anything other than "Yes Marm"
But if its dave going to have afternoon tea at Buck House on Friday 8th of May, he will be aware that he has the same number of seats in opposition to him, north of the border then, as he does now. If he loses his only Scottish MP, then he will have one more than he does now. The incumbent in Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale is defending a majority of only 4194.
The sting in the SNP's tail can work both ways !
It is doubtful if I would ever be summoned before Betty Naomi, unless the meeting is to take place at the Tower of London ! But I am indebted to your superior grammatical knowledge. I was merely trying to put into print, what I thought the words would sound like.
MARM sounded a lot more obsequious than MAAM somehow.
MARM sounded a lot more obsequious than MAAM somehow.
Mikey, must you keep denegrating her Majesty with your silly subriquets? I accept it with TGL because she was a politician but her Majesty cannot answer back. Now how do you think Ed will end up being the largest party. You will need a swing that isn't there to get Ed 300+ seats. Ed will never be PM, I don't care what EC says. On May the 8th you can dig this up if you like.
TTT...as I have explained before, Betty is used as a term of endearment, or it is to most Elizabeth's I know. I am not a Royalist in any shape or form, but I respect the woman, if not the position. For the record, if she would put herself forward as a possible candidate for the role of President at any time in the future, I would most certainly give her my vote.
But you yourself has used phrases like Mansalmond, Kinnochio, Mrs Harperson, etc, in the last few weeks. Why is it OK for you to use phrases like that but its not OK for me to use Betty ?
We frequently disagree TTT in AB, but rarely fall out....long may that continue.
But you yourself has used phrases like Mansalmond, Kinnochio, Mrs Harperson, etc, in the last few weeks. Why is it OK for you to use phrases like that but its not OK for me to use Betty ?
We frequently disagree TTT in AB, but rarely fall out....long may that continue.
1 to 17 of 17
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Jobs & Education32 mins ago
ChatterBank34 mins ago
Assisted Dying, Here's Where It...
News42 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.