I made the same point time and again elsewhere with people saying they were going to vote SNP. Voting for a party that can only win 50 odd seats is a pointless exercise in a UK-wide election.

Most of the reaction I got was along the lines of "Scotland's voice has to be heard" or "The Unionists said Scotland was important to the UK" (as if that meant they could vote SNP and a UK government would take them seriously). It was pure fantasy.

They clearly banked on a hung parliament as that was the only way their MP's could have any influence.

What they didn't count on was this potential for influence probably cost Labour a shed load of votes in England so not only did their success hurt Labour in Scotland it hurt it in England as well robbing them (the SNP) of the goal they were after.

They have been politically naive in that regard and when the dust settles I do wonder what those ex-Labour voters who voted SNP will think as the Tories get to work. Will they accept they helped deliver a Tory govt or will they stick their heads in the sand and deny the potential success of the SNP had no bearing elsewhere?

It wouldn't surprise me if they blame English voters saying fear of SNP influence means the English voters don't want Scotland to have [iany[/i say at all regardless of supposedly wanting Scotland in the Union and regardless of how the vote went.



Quite right. They kept him well out of the way.

History is repeating itself.

The vote in Scotland for the SNP mirrors the IRISH vote in 1918 for Sinn Fein, and in many ways is more overwhelming.

Previously Ireland had been ruled by the Irish Parliamentary party, but in 1918 this all changed as the nationalists swept to power, winning all but a few seats in the North of Ireland.

There followed a long civil war of which the end result was the Irish Republic.

So far the revolution in Scotland has thankfully been a "velvet" one.

However the London political establishment must learn from the mistakes of the past, and not try to impose their will on the Scottish people.
Any attempt by the Tories to invoke austerity measures up there, or impose Trident on the Scots, will likely be met with resistance that made the poll tax riots seem like a minor disagreement.

Cameron will need to tread very carefully to avoid major civil unrest, his only answer will be to devolve more powers to Scotland, whether his party will accept that is another thing though. Irish home rule was knocked back for many years by Tory grandees in the Lords, alongside Imperial distractions in Europe. Could we see something similar occurring for Scotland?

With regard to the rest of the UK. England and Wales may live to regret what they have voted for.
The Tories policies are to make massive cuts to social and Welfare spending. This will create a society more divided than ever.
I noted with interest how Labour grew its support in many London Boroughs, at the same time some areas of recently gentrified London saw large swings to the Tories. This points to a London that is becoming more divided and ghettoised. With increases in social and wealth divisions I foresee the potential for riots in London, the like of which have never been seen before in the UK.

I think the Labour party is effectively finished as a unified entity.
There will be massive pressure from Scotland and traditional labour elements to move the party back to the left were it once stood proud. At the same time the Blairites who have changed the whole complexion of the party in recent years, will be demanding it needs to move further to the right, and become effectively a party of Tory Wets. Labour will be stuck between a rock and a hard place, as a move in either direction will potentially cost them votes. Hence I suspect a split will occur, perhaps on national grounds, though maybe along the lines of the SDP, Labour split in the 1980's

UKIP as Mugwump has stated were nothing more than the establishment playing its game of chess. Their mythical rise to power based on nothing more than media created hyperbole, has succeeded mainly in taking votes from the more ignorant Labour voters who lap up the mantra of the Sun and Mail, that its all Jonny Foreigners fault, and vote for anyone but the Conservatives. Tory voters with their naturally conservative ways were always likely to take the safe conservative option, and vote for what they felt safe with when push came to shove.

The Liberals. They were seen as a more centrist and inclusive party at the last election, so people voted for them to see if it would shake things up a bit. When they jumped in bed with the tories and showed themselves as nothing but Conservatives in Yellow ties, their days were numbered. Why after all vote for a party that walks like a tory, talks like a tory and works with a tory; but isn't a tory, when you can vote for the real thing instead.
Similarly there were many who felt betrayed at the Liberals revealing their true blue colours. As a result they jumped ship to Labour and the Greens.

There's an unwritten rule in politics which goes back to the beginnings of recorded history and is just as valid today:

Appeal to the working class, plebian ... call it what you will, vote at your peril. It sometimes comes under what's known as the principle of collegiality. One of the major reasons for the collapse of the Roman republic was the politically explosive actions of military tribunes such as Julius Caesar, Gaius Marius etc. who instead of conducting politics through the notoriously conservative Roman Patrician and Optimate classes (of which both were members) chose instead to bypass the Establishment completely and appeal to the mob. There were some good reasons for doing so as the Roman oligarchical system stifled all attempts at even the most minor reforms. But the dangers of upsetting tradition and business elites were invariably lethal.

Both became victims in a gradual slide into civil war with the populist leaders (or Popularii) on one side and the establishment (represented by names such as Cato and Pompeii) on the other. Eventually the Republic could stand no more and Augustus' Imperial "Principate" came into being.

From the days of Rome this political truth has been affirmed on countless occasions across all manner of cultures. This is the reason the differences between political entities have been far less noteworthy than the similarities. You just don't do it.

Of course, things become complicated during times of civil strife. Whilst the dangers are no less lethal - the opportunities (certainly for reform) are far greater. A good example would be Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration elected into office during the worst of the Great Depression. Like Julius Caesar, Roosevelt was also of the Patrician class. But he was far more shrewd at judging precisely what he could and could not get away with without crossing the invisible line and being killed off. Indeed, there was at least one serious plot to overthrow Roosevelt and install a fascist government which was broken up when the man the plotters (the Du Pont and Ford families - amongst others) chose to lead the putsch, two-time Congressional Medal of Honour winner, General Smedley Darlington Butler, blew the whistle. The plot was hastily suppressed and those involved never faced charges. But had Roosevelt pushed his luck just that bit further by hiking taxes on American industry ... who knows?

This is why I believe Alex Salmond miscalculated monumentally in pushing for a referendum. It was too far and too fast for the conservative English establishment. And he never had a strong enough hand to force it through anyhow. There was no way that vote was ever going to be carried. To push it again would be suicidal. In any case, the SNP is now a target. Like the Communist Party during the 30s and early 40s it will undoubtedly be attracting the attention of domestic intelligence services. Phones will be bugged. Calls will be monitored. Senior officials will be monitored and their meetings scrutinised.

You can bet all manner of what Richard Nixon used to term "political dirty tricks" will be employed to neutralise their influence and call into question their competence. Newspapers will dig into their private lives uncovering every little embarrassing affair. The tax system will suddenly become interested in every last invoice and receipt. Blackmail. Bribery. Perhaps worse. Politics is a dirty, squalid business. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

Well major cities, including London are largely Labour. In these places the effects of "austerity" are hardest felt. Londoners, for example, are creaking at the seams, despite it being at the heart of the country's prosperity. There are now at least nations - Scotland, urban rest of UK and rural + suburban rest of UK. All three have widely differing needs and one has to wonder whether a public school dominated Tory party will understand the needs of urban Britain (they may well spend time on Scotland because it is obvious something needs doing), which may get pushed to breaking point (especially as the economy may well drop back).

The other possibility is that they will evolve financial responsibility to big cities / areas (like as with Manchester). Then they'll leave the Labour areas to rot to show how bad Labour are at controlling budgets (which will be starved). We could have the spectre of a few Detroits up North!

.....not to mention ending up being over 100 seats behind, and having their lowest share of the votes since 1918.

People need to remember - one of the primary drivers of so-called "devolution" is the corporate sector.

If there's one opponent trans-national capital fears it is big state government with strong legislative systems and deep pockets. Up until the "Reagan Revolution" and a succession of "business friendly" American administrations the major corporations could never achieve absolute ascendency. From the break-up of Standard Oil, the Howard Hughes empire etc. right up to today's EU rulings against Google & Microsoft - big business has repeatedly been given a mauling by well-funded, well-resourced governments or groups of governments.

But the election of Reagan (and the George H.W. Bush) saw a sea-change in the balance of power. It started with the codification of new laws which bumped major lawsuits against corporations down from the federal courts into those of the individual states. To enforce these changes "pro-business" lackeys of both administrations were elected to the US Supreme Court.

So whereas, say, a major patent violation was once prosecuted by the seemingly infinite resources of the US government, now it's the corporations who hold the whip hand going into trial against state attorneys who very often are working on a shoe-string budget. And since they are working at a lower court - any potential penalties are invariably that much lower too. For the individual it's even worse. Unless you can somehow band together to fight what is known as a "class action lawsuit" you're effectively on your own at the COUNTY court level.

It's no co-incidence this policy of devolution is being acted out not just in Britain but across the world.

This really has been a emphatic victory not only for the Tories but for David Cameron personally and without doubt his authority in the Conservative party will have dramatically increased which in turn will strengthen his position as he seeks to win those EU reforms.

Not only has he defeated the Labour party (with 99 more seats than Labour) but he has seen off his 3 main political opponents too. Bye bye to Labour leader Milli Ed, shadow chancellor Ed Ballsup and Nigel Farage (allbeit in his case until the autumn). The Lib-Dems were totally routed and it must have given him great satisfaction to have seen off their Leader (& disloyal Deputy PM) and totally out of touch "Big Fat Fib" Clegg and the grumpy Vince Cable too

The Tory tactics in their campaign proved to be successful including the PM's decision to avoid the waste of time TV debates, to concentrate on the economy and to point out the real risks of a Labour/SNP pact. They were right to concentrate their attack on Lib-Dem held seats and to trust that the English voters would reward them for their economic record in the end.

When I saw the exit poll (316), I thought that number of seats would be a good result for Cameron. The fact he has ended up with 331 is, firstly, amazing. Secondly, it is huge testament to just how much people did not want to see Milliband backed by the SNP.

That aside, the constituency boundaries need re-drawing for the purpose of fairness.

Regardless of which party you support, I am sure we can all agree that it is perverse UKIP can get roughly twice as many votes as the SNP, yet only 1 MP compared to their 55 (or so).

It is widely thought that 'fair' constituency boundaries will favour the Tories to the tune of 20 seats. So expect it to be one of the first things on Cameron's agenda. And I don't think anyone can realistically make a good argument against it.

This, combined with the Bo-Jo bounce (he will be Tory leader going into the next election,) will make it incredibly difficult for Labour. Assuming they do not make a complete and hash of the economy between now and then, I expect the Tories to be in Government for at least the next 10 years.

As others have said, for all the noise they will make, the SNP are largely irrelevant when faced with a well-disciplined majority government.

And finally, I am particularly interested in the fact that Cameron has pledged to raise the 40% tax bracket to £50,000. Which means someone earning £50,000 a year is probably going to be £180 a month better off, give or take a few quid. Real help for the 'squeezed middle', particularly in London, where £50,000 is about the minimum you need to achieve any reasonable quality of life.

I am very excited about the Human Rights Act being repealed! No more pandering to terrorists who cannot be deported because of tenuous links to the country.

So many other policies to be excited about - finally a say on the EU!

Ukip may only have one seat at Westminster but like it or not they are now the third largest party in the popular vote, so dismiss them at your peril.

Don't kid yourself that Labour saw this coming or that Ed Balls is happy about being thrown out. They have presided over a steady decline in influence north of the border for many years now and were complacent and failed to spot the dangers. Unless they swing back to the middle ground they will fall further behind the Tories in England too as Cameron & Osborne continue with their strong economic plans.

The SNP were comprehensively defeated in the independence referendum and I do not believe that their success in this election is due to a a change of heart regarding independence. IMO what has happened is that Labour has lost the plot with regard to policy and the swing to the SNP is due to so many people believing the SNP will better represent Scotland than Labour or the other "Westminster" parties on this occasion. Nicola Sturgeon fought a good campaign and in fairness made Milliband look an amateur in the debates and she offered a greater appeal than the bully boy Salmond. Now that the Tories have an overall majority the SNP influence has been neutralised and they will be made irrelevant at Westminster if the new government pass their promised bill making only English MPs able to vote on English matters.

Agree totally. I hate UKIP and I think anyone who votes for them are simplistic idiots who can't be bothered to actually think for longer than 10 seconds.

But they deserve representation in the same way as everyone else. However changing constituency boundaries won't do anything to alter that. The only thing that will is doing away with First Past The Post and introducing another system. The fairest being PR. In which case everybody's vote will count.

Neither of the two parties have got to grips with the changing demographics and nature of the country, although the Conservatives have done rather better. They have completely reinvented themselves over the years. Labour on the other hand has not coped with the loss of a mass blue collar working class. It tries to chase the middle of the road voter but cannot reconcile that in policy terms with its traditional voters (who are insufficient in number under the first past the post system to permit them a majority). Blair did succeed in his early days but drifted away from the traditional voters and the Iraq war buried him.

So, will they be able to reinvent themselves in an appealing way where they represent anyone? I think their best hope is PR. Their second best hope is if the Tories make the mistakes of their relatively recent past and become too arrogant and corrupt. I think with Osborne pulling the strings they will not fall into that trap for some time.

PR was rejected early in the last parliament.

I appreciate that but if we have a protracted period of no serious opposition to the Tories (entirely possible) the "establishment" may go that way in the interests of "democracy".

After running from any scrutiny during the election campaign, inluding dodging a hustings in his own constituency, it hasn't taken IDS to carry on where he left off.



My disappointment with the result has been somewhat tempered by the £420 I picked up after predicting that UKIP would only return Carswell to parliament and also the fact that Richard Desmond managed to spunk £1.3m against the wall and the total result was a halving of UKIP's parliamentary representation