Labour\’s three consecutive election victories have been based on a bedrock of English votes.

The bedrock is the Celts: the English votes are the swing ones, surely?

5 thoughts on “Eh?”

  1. Depends on how you look at it: to the extent that anyone who wishes to form a government in the UK will need to win a majority of the parliamentary seats in England, you could class England as a bedrock too…

  2. “anyone who wishes to form a government in the UK will need to win a majority of the parliamentary seats in England”: what on earth makes you think so, john b?

  3. Last election the Conservatives got more votes in England than Labour but thanks to Labour skewing the placement of constituency borders in their own favour Labour actually won more MPs in England.

    Am I the only one that thinks to himself how fucked we are when commentators on the TV say stuff like;

    ‘well the tories are 10 points ahead in the polls but that would lead to a hung parliament’

    ‘the tories are 5 points ahead in the polls but that would mean a Labour majority’

    Labour have skewed the democratic system in this country so that the opposition has to get like 20% more votes than the govt to even get a majority.

    Kinda says it all really. It’s time for a fucking revolution. If all of us Tory voters in England were to descent upon parliament and just set fire to the fucking place with Gordon and his cronies in it, who the fuck would stop us?

    Z.

  4. “anyone who wishes to form a government in the UK will need to win a majority of the parliamentary seats in England”: what on earth makes you think so, john b?

    a) nobody has ever done the former without the latter,

    b) when clever political scientists with clever vote models run possible scenarios based on how votes tend to swing, they have not yet found anything based even vaguely on how voters actually behave where a party could lose England but command an absolute majority in the Commons.

    I suppose I should have said “who wishes to form an absolute majority government”, though: it is quite possible that a party could be the lead in a coalition government despite not having a majority in England.

    thanks to Labour skewing the placement of constituency borders in their own favour Labour actually won more MPs in England.

    No, you’ve fallen for a popular urban myth here.

    The main reason why the Tories need more votes nationwide is simply that the turnout is smaller in Labour seats [because Dave Chav is less likely to bother voting than Sir Gerald Country O’Squire], but that seat boundaries are allocated on population not on people who actually vote.

    There was an additional impact in 2005 from demographic change (Tory suburbs have been getting more populated, while Labour inner-cities less so) – however, the new boundaries largely negate that.

    The “need 10% to win” adjustments that you generally see also reflect tactical voting of Lib Dems for Labour and vice versa, because in elections up to 2005 there was a broad tendency for those two parties’ supporters to vote for the Non-Tory. If NuLab is now as hated as you reckon, then this should unwind in the 2010 polls…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *