Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BBKing
Nurse! The screens!
Hardly decisive when you're outvoted by people who couldn't be bothered to vote, really. Hardly magnificent when your share of the vote is less than 2% above where it was in the magnificent victory of 1992, when the turnout was far higher*.
Moving on, the number of rebels (58 who opposed the last government in at least two of the four key rebellions**) is big enough that only about half have to rebel to defeat the government (assuming all opposition parties oppose). Add in the disquiet expressed by many elected Labour MPs after actually talking to people for once and it's going to be a bit more tricky to push through the public service privatisation and civil liberties demolition (sorry, 'progressive New Labour programme').
* 1992 34.4% of 77.7% turnout, 11,560,484 votes
2005 36.3% of 60.2% turnout, 9,486,104 votes
Difference of over 2 million votes, although not all results are in yet. Pointless fact - although the Tories have about 6.5m fewer people voting for them, the Lib Dems have the same number, about 6m.
** Tuition fees, foundation hospitals, Iraq and 2005 anti-terror bill.
|
Something tells me there'll be more chance of "old labour" rearing it's ugly head in the next few years
Course looking at the political map, if England had it's own parliment and the results were the same as the general election, we'd be under the tories now