At the time of writing it looks like Labour will be back with a reduced majority. A quick reminder (while people talk about a majority of 60-80 as something of a defeat) that the first Thatcher government was elected with "a workable majority of 43".
For ease of navigation here are links to pre-election endorsements and the thread that contains Wembley's prediction.
10 comments:
Some initial thoughts in reaction:
1) Wembley's prediction was rather good wasn't it: "So. This election. Labour will win. It will be closer than the polls... 36/34/24... and Labour will end up with a majority of around 60, whih will be written up as a relative failure, overlooking the fact that 10 years ago a Labour majority of 60 would have been regarded as wildly optimistic and hightly unlikely." (http://impdec.blogspot.com/2005/05/big-ideas-this-feels-like-local.html)
It is amazing that the top story is 'Blair's bloody nose' rather than Labour win third term for first time. Ever. And Tony Blair becomes third prime minister to win third consecutive term. Ever.
2) The Tories haven't really disappeared. Seems like a lot more people were willing to vote for them then polls suggested. "A lot of people who won't admit to having voted Tory actually have." Ian Hislop, Private Eye editor and broadcaster
(http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=636000)
3) The electoral reform debate should gather momentum. There will be questions of legitimacy when Labour win a majority of 60 seats with such a low percentage of the national vote. (Might be the lowest ever - have a dim memory of someone saying something like that around 3am.) For the record I'm in favour of the alternative vote as used in the London mayoral election. Allowed me to vote Green (first choice) and Livingstone (2nd choice) thus allowing me to express idealism and pragmatism simultaneously.
4) Turnout. 61%. Bit rubbish really. Electoral reform (again) may help. http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4515913
5) lib Dems best showing since Lloyd george in '29. Not really making any point. Just like saying it.
6) Galloway won. Bollocks.
Just spotted this surprising photo on the bbc election blog: BNP leader Nick Griffin wearing an anti racism wristband.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/blog/4519561.stm
Re: electoral reform. I am not in favour of PR for the Commons (Israel, Italy...) though I think it might work for the Lords (maybe we could start a thread about this). But I am intrigued by the fact that the % of the vote you need for a whopping majority seems to have changed, Labour getting 60-odd on a 36% share.
Has anyone seen any analysis of *why* this change has come about?
I agree that PR can be problemmatic. The Alternative Vote (which I support) is not really a PR system. It still produces first past the post type results. From the letters page of the Indy: "Sir: The Alternative Vote should be introduced immediately. That would eliminate any need for tactical voting. Electors could choose whichever candidate they most favoured, safe in the knowledge that, were that candidate eliminated, they would have made their tactical vote as their second choice. The real public preferences would then be revealed, from Monster Raving Loony Party onwards. It is likely that many "smaller" parties would be shown to be unexpectedly popular.
The results of such contests would be real first-past-the-post decisions - the winners would each have over 50 per cent of the votes cast.
One more change should be made - to print at the bottom of each voting paper a line saying "None of the above". It would allow electors to voice their disgust with the quality of candidates; and yet, if they wished, to select, as a second preference, the least bad of those standing." This letter and other views on 'wasted votes' (particularly the frustration of voring in safe seats can be found here:
http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/story.jsp?story=635954
My Galloway thoughts in a separate posting.
http://impdec.blogspot.com/2005/05/who-will-rid-me-of-this-turbulent.html
Wemb says many wise things as ever. However, a couple of points. Wemb says: "But look at the Tory leadership, and contrast with what Labour went through under Neil Kinnock. Can you see a Tory leader facing down conference ripping into the little Englanders, the bigots, the racists, the authoritarians, the Eurosceptics???" Um... maybe they could if they were as easily identified and branded as Militant were.
Also re: vagaries of the voting system Wemb says "A very similar feature saved the Labour party in 1983, when the labour vote was only marginally higher than the SDP-Liberal alliance, but labour's representation in parliament was about 10 times higher." I'm not sure I'm as sanguine about this. I'm not entirely convinced that so many voices going unheard is inherently a good thing.
Wembley's analysis of the Tories political woes was very astute, I felt. I was also interested to read that on a number of points they are shared by two prominent Conservatives:
Here's Michael Portillo's thoughts on the election results http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-1602635,00.html
And Maurice Saatchi's critisms of the Tory campaign. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;sessionid=OPP40H3KE4PKXQFIQMGSM54AVCBQWJVC?xml=/opinion/2005/05/08/do0801.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/05/08/ixportal.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=4667
Good old Portillo. Thought this bit was quite astute:
"Blair, like Margaret Thatcher before him, wins elections not because of his popularity but because he started by destroying the opposition, leaving the electorate with no alternative. Both he and Thatcher demolished the intellectual self-confidence of their opponents, leaving them rudderless and squabbling among themselves about which way to go."
Here's my preferred choice for Tory leader:
http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/story.jsp?story=636831
A rather light hearted piece that looks at leadership through the prism of my favourite show of recent weeks, The Apprentice.
"Did Sugar, like Thatcher when selecting her Cabinet, decide he couldn’t afford to waste time by appointing people who might argue back? Conversely, did he look at Tim and decide that what seemed like a weakness — his bland persona — was actually his biggest asset, because it meant he could be moulded into a good team-player?
The Apprentice raised all these questions, not least because it coincided with an election dominated by leadership issues. Did Blair win so comfortably, in spite of everything, because he showed himself confident enough to anoint publicly his own “Cassius”, Gordon Brown, instead of sidelining the main threat to his own position? And did Howard fail to impress the nation partly because, like a paranoid prima-donna, he allowed no one else in the Tory hierarchy so much as a sniff at the TV cameras?"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1069-1601454,00.html
Just read the Saatchi article that Andy posted a while ago. V. interesting. Strongly recommend it, particularly to Wembley.
here's the link again to save you scrolling back:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;sessionid=OPP40H3KE4PKXQFIQMGSM54AVCBQWJVC?xml=/opinion/2005/05/08/do0801.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/05/08/ixportal.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=4667
Post a Comment