Winky and Bliar not invited to wedding. Thatcher and Major are.

[MX7]

JonRB said:

And also the Gerrymandering that Labour did on the Electoral boundaries.

Indeed.

2010: 10,703,754(C)
2005: 9,552,436(L)
2001: 10,724,953(L)

[Countdown]

Aren't boundaries redrawn by the electoral commission which is independent? Are there any figures to show that Labour benefitted more than the other two parties?

[turbobloke]

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/electoral-bias/
"It is far easier for Labour to secure a majority in the House of Commons than it is for the Conservatives. If Labour lead in the vote they will secure an overall majority, if the parties are neck and neck then Labour will be by far the largest party. In contrast, depending on how well the Liberal Democrats do, the Conservatives need to be in the region of 9 or 10 percent ahead in the polls to secure an overall majorty."

[turbobloke]

And for the future:

http://www.tribunemagazine.co.uk/2010/09/labour-an...

"The Government’s plan to redraw constituencies and cut the number of MPs will disproportionately hit Labour and the Liberal Democrats – and could halve the number of Lib Dem seats at the next election, according to internal Labour research.

Shadow Justice Secretary Jack Straw told MPs that the constituency changes were intended to harm Labour."

Hopefully.

[MX7]

Countdown said:

Aren't boundaries redrawn by the electoral commission which is independent? Are there any figures to show that Labour benefitted more than the other two parties?

Votes per Seat.

2010: 10,703,754/306 = 34,980 (C)
2005: 9,552,436/355 = 26,908 (L)
2001: 10,724,953/413 = 25,968 (L)
1997: 13,518,167/418 = 32,340 (L)
1992: 14,093,007/336 = 41,943 (C)
1987: 13,760,935/376 = 36,598 (C)

The Boundaries Commission leave room for improvement.

[Countdown]

MX7 said:

Votes per Seat.

2010: 10,703,754/306 = 34,980 (C)
2005: 9,552,436/355 = 26,908 (L)
2001: 10,724,953/413 = 25,968 (L)
1997: 13,518,167/418 = 32,340 (L)
1992: 14,093,007/336 = 41,943 (C)
1987: 13,760,935/376 = 36,598 (C)

The Boundaries Commission leave room for improvement.

Maybe I'm missing something but I fail to see how those figures tie back to Boundary changes. It maybe they reflect the fact that Labour seats have a lower majority than Conservative seats but that's a far cry from saying Labour's victories in 97, 2001, and 2005 were assisted by boundary changes.

Anyway, from turbobloke suggests, it looks like neither Party is exempt from gerrymandering when it can

[Countdown]

MX7 said:

The Boundaries Commission leave room for improvement.

In what way ?

[ralphrj]

Countdown said:

Aren't boundaries redrawn by the electoral commission which is independent? Are there any figures to show that Labour benefitted more than the other two parties?

The boundaries are controlled by the boundary commissions (one each for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) so in theory they are independent of government. They submit propsals to the appropriate Secretary of State. The secretary of state has the right to overrule or modify their proposals before putting them to Parliament. Parliament then votes to accept or reject the proposal.

The implication is that although the commission appear to be independent the government has too much influence over their work by:

1. controlling who chairs the commission,
2. having the power to amend their proposals,
3. having the power to vote down their proposals.

Therefore, to avoid confrontation/humiliation/dismissal a boundary commission will only submit boundary changes that they feel will win the approval of the party in power which leads to favourable electoral boundaries.


In terms of Labour advantage, most of that comes from the restrictions over the number of MPs and the distribution between the countries of the United Kingdom. There can be a maximum of 650 MPs but there are special rules that set a minimum level for MPs in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This has resulted in over representation in Scotland and Wales (traditionally strong Labour support) and under representation in England (traditionally strong Tory support). In the most extreme example the largest constituency is the Isle of Wight (electorate 111,000) and the smallest is Na h-Eileanan an Iar (elecorate 25,000).

[ClintonB]

Countdown said:

ClintonB said:

Whereas TB could easily go down as possibly the most evil. Winky was disastrous but that was easily explained by personal incompetence, whereas Lynton could probably give Beezlebub a genuine understanding of jealousy.
Then there's Cherry - Posh Twig without even a hint of reasonable attractiveness (with sufficient direction, of course). Camilla Rum must have been gutted upon reading the guest list.

And yet, even after 13 years of "evilness" and "incompetence" the Tories still couldn't achieve an electoral majority.

You are aware that fairly large swathes of the populace are somewhat less bright than a 5w bulb and will also do what they're supposed to, regardless of logic, sensibility and the like. Then again, maybe you aren't.
In my own locale, you could 'almost' put up a self-confessed nonce as the Labour candidate and they'd still most likely get in. A monkey would get in and anyone who can form a couple of vaguely coherent sentences, regardless of actual content, is a total shoe-in. The local electorate have no concept of the damage these people cause (would blame the Tories anyway) or even what the policies are. They vote Labour because that's what you do (and not to do so is far worse than admitting you like your own sex and that Hitler bloke was just misunderstood) and the Conservatives are the party of the rich, toffs and the devil.

'Tis almost a shame that Labour didn't get in for a fourth term. I guess I could have emigrated in order to avoid the consequences and the general populace might have had the wake up they probably need. Not every Labour policy is wrong but a large proportion are simply staggeringly ill-informed.