Compare 2005 with 2010.

[larus]

2005
Labour         356  9,566,618 35.3 
Conservative   198  8,785,941 32.3
Lib Dem         62  5,985,414 22.1

2010
Conservative   306 10,706,647 36.1
Labour         258  8,604,358 29.0
Lib Dem         57  6,827,938 23.0

So, Labour had a mandate to govern with a large majority of 60 with 3% more than the Conservatives. This time round, the Tories were 7% in front of Labour, yet are a minority. Yet so many go on about the Tories don't have a madate.

 

[User removed 4]

2005
Labour 356 9,566,618 35.3
Conservative 198 8,785,941 32.3
Lib Dem 62 5,985,414 22.1

2010
Conservative 306 10,706,647 36.1
Labour 258 8,604,358 29.0
Lib Dem 57 6,827,938 23.0


So, Labour had a mandate to govern with a large majority of 60 with 3% more than the Conservatives. This time round, the Tories were 7% in front of Labour, yet are a minority. Yet so many go on about the Tories don't have a madate.

I see none of the ' mandate ' quoting labour/lib dem suporters are in a hurry to cross swords on this post !

 

[withdeanwombat]

Interesting how the anti-Tory vote has held up,though.

 

[User removed 4]

Interesting how the anti-Tory vote has held up,though.

Yeah, riveting.

 

[Simster]

Labour had a mandate last time because they won enough seats to form a majority; something the Tories or any other party failed to do last week.

Ideally, you'd want a ConDem nation, but if they can't agree then someone has to govern.

 

[User removed 4]

Labour had a mandate last time because they won enough seats to form a majority; something the Tories or any other party failed to do last week.

Ideally, you'd want a ConDem nation, but if they can't agree then someone has to govern.

I think we both know you're avoiding the point larus was making.

 

[Simster]

I think we both know you're avoiding the point larus was making.

I don't know what point he is making.

IMO, no party has a mandate, but the Tories are entitled to have first dibs at forming a government with a coalition partner.

 

[matt]

Interesting how the anti-Tory vote has held up,though.

I must have missed the 'anti-Tory' box on my ballot paper...

Using your *logic* the following also applies:

Anti-Labour vote - up from 14.77m to 17.53m
Anti-LibDem vote - up from 18.35m to 19.31m

The anti-Tory vote seems to have dropped from 15.55m to 15.43m, but don't let that stop you from believing that 'anti' votes only apply to the Tories...

 

[larus]

My point is that Labour supporters feel as though they had a strong mandate from the British public in 2005, but that the Tories don't now.

Forget about the number of seats, but look at the percentages and the votes. This is the point. Labour suppoters keep harping on about democracy/percentages etc, yet are quiet when comparing the VOTES for the parties when comparing 2005 and 2010.

You can't say that Labour had a clear mandate in 2005 when 64.7% didn't vote for them (that's based upon theose who voted and not on those who were entitled to vote).

 

[Simster]

My point is that Labour supporters feel as though they had a strong mandate from the British public in 2005, but that the Tories don't now.

You're right in the sense that the Labour share of the vote in 2005 was worse than the Tory share in 2010. However, the strength of mandate in 2005 is entirely irrelevant because Labour won an overall majority of seats back then. It's only in the case of a hung parliament that we even bother to look at share of the vote as a strength of mandate.

 

[The Large One]

You can't say that Labour had a clear mandate in 2005 when 64.7% didn't vote for them (that's based upon theose who voted and not on those who were entitled to vote).

Well, by that standard, no UK government has ever had a mandate since before the war (and I'm only saying that because I don't have the figures for before 1945).

 

[Acker79]

Forget about the number of seats, but look at the percentages and the votes. This is the point. Labour suppoters keep harping on about democracy/percentages etc, yet are quiet when comparing the VOTES for the parties when comparing 2005 and 2010.

You can't say that Labour had a clear mandate in 2005 when 64.7% didn't vote for them (that's based upon theose who voted and not on those who were entitled to vote).

But isn't a mandate decided by the number of seats, not votes or percentages? If we're talking about mandates, we can't "forget the number of seats but look at percentages and votes".

Or am I misunderstanding what a mandate is?

 

[larus]

The point I'm trying to make is that a lot of Labour supporters keep on about the anti-tory vote (and blindly assume that LibDem voters would all vote Labour rather then Tory), the percentage of the Vote etc, etc, but don't accept the point that the last Labour administration was voted in with LESS Votes and LESS percentage.

This is because in a lot of Labour 'seats', the size of the constituency (in terms of voters), is less than that in Tory seats, so Labour with the same number of votes will always get more seats until the boundaries get changed to reflect a fairer balance.

But, as with most things Labour, you will twist the figures and try to make out that the last Labour administration was a more popular choice with the electorate, than the Tories are after this election, which is clearly BULLSHIT.

 

[User removed 4]

The point I'm trying to make is that a lot of Labour supporters keep on about the anti-tory vote (and blindly assume that LibDem voters would all vote Labour rather then Tory), the percentage of the Vote etc, etc, but don't accept the point that the last Labour administration was voted in with LESS Votes and LESS percentage.

This is because in a lot of Labour 'seats', the size of the constituency (in terms of voters), is less than that in Tory seats, so Labour with the same number of votes will always get more seats until the boundaries get changed to reflect a fairer balance.

But, as with most things Labour, you will twist the figures and try to make out that the last Labour administration was a more popular choice with the electorate, than the Tories are after this election, which is clearly BULLSHIT.

absolutely correct.

 

[Finchley Seagull]

The point I'm trying to make is that a lot of Labour supporters keep on about the anti-tory vote (and blindly assume that LibDem voters would all vote Labour rather then Tory), the percentage of the Vote etc, etc, but don't accept the point that the last Labour administration was voted in with LESS Votes and LESS percentage.

This is because in a lot of Labour 'seats', the size of the constituency (in terms of voters), is less than that in Tory seats, so Labour with the same number of votes will always get more seats until the boundaries get changed to reflect a fairer balance.

But, as with most things Labour, you will twist the figures and try to make out that the last Labour administration was a more popular choice with the electorate, than the Tories are after this election, which is clearly BULLSHIT.

So why not change the electoral system then? The main thing the Lib Dems would want from a coalition is electoral reform so why not give it to them rather than saying some rubbish about setting up a committee. If the Tories are so hard done by in this election, change the system.

As for a mandate, I think it is miraculous that Labour have got within 7% of the Tories. The Tories had three times more money to spend on their campaign, pretty much the whole press on their side slagging off Labour and Gordon Brown with vitriolic comments and everybody supposedly regarded Gordon Brown as a terrible Prime Minister. David Cameron, with all this on his side, could still not get a majority in Parliament which is hardly a great mandate for change, is it?

 

[Simster]

Indeed. Lets have PR and be done with it. Surely that is the fairest way?

 

[larus]

So why not change the electoral system then? The main thing the Lib Dems would want from a coalition is electoral reform so why not give it to them rather than saying some rubbish about setting up a committee. If the Tories are so hard done by in this election, change the system.

As for a mandate, I think it is miraculous that Labour have got within 7% of the Tories. The Tories had three times more money to spend on their campaign, pretty much the whole press on their side slagging off Labour and Gordon Brown with vitriolic comments and everybody supposedly regarded Gordon Brown as a terrible Prime Minister. David Cameron, with all this on his side, could still not get a majority in Parliament which is hardly a great mandate for change, is it?

I prefer the FPTP system (even if this means that Labour get in with a majority on a minority of the votes). What is patently wrong is for constituency sizes to be wildly unbalanced to favour one party.

Tell you what; let's halve the number of MP's from Scotland and Wales, and also change the boundaries so that the Tories get a huge majority with only 1-2% more than Labour; then see if it feels 'fair'.

 

[simmo]

So why not change the electoral system then? The main thing the Lib Dems would want from a coalition is electoral reform so why not give it to them rather than saying some rubbish about setting up a committee. If the Tories are so hard done by in this election, change the system.

As for a mandate, I think it is miraculous that Labour have got within 7% of the Tories. The Tories had three times more money to spend on their campaign, pretty much the whole press on their side slagging off Labour and Gordon Brown with vitriolic comments and everybody supposedly regarded Gordon Brown as a terrible Prime Minister. David Cameron, with all this on his side, could still not get a majority in Parliament which is hardly a great mandate for change, is it?

The Tories do have quite a bit to gain by change the electoral system but the problem is there is more than one way to change the electoral system (AV, AV+, changing the boundary sizes so they are all equal, reducing the number of MP's), an independent electoral reform person on the radio yesterday said it was the Tories whom had the most to gain. The party whom should most worry about electoral reform is definitely the Labour Party as they have by far the most to lose you can see in this result in the election they are over 2M votes behind the Tories yet may still somehow cling onto power (and it is why I believe Blunkett and Reid are warning against Labour doing a deal with the Lib Dems over electoral reform).

Also as well as has been pointed out to a lot of politicians on the doorstep I am sure, electoral reform is not high on (most of) the people of this country's agenda, the economy is, getting down the deficit, jobs, immigration etc. are. Why should the Lib Dems whom by every indications came third in the election be able to dictate the agenda in the next parliament because it would be primarirly beneficial to them.

You can answer your own question, it would seem obvious to me you didn't vote Tory, why didn't you?

 

[The Large One]

I prefer the FPTP system (even if this means that Labour get in with a majority on a minority of the votes). What is patently wrong is for constituency sizes to be wildly unbalanced to favour one party.

Are they?

Are you accusing the Electoral Commission of being co-erced by the Labour Party to indulge in some gerrymandering?

 

[Yoda]

The point I'm trying to make is that a lot of Labour supporters keep on about the anti-tory vote (and blindly assume that LibDem voters would all vote Labour rather then Tory), the percentage of the Vote etc, etc, but don't accept the point that the last Labour administration was voted in with LESS Votes and LESS percentage.

This is because in a lot of Labour 'seats', the size of the constituency (in terms of voters), is less than that in Tory seats, so Labour with the same number of votes will always get more seats until the boundaries get changed to reflect a fairer balance.

But, as with most things Labour, you will twist the figures and try to make out that the last Labour administration was a more popular choice with the electorate, than the Tories are after this election, which is clearly BULLSHIT.

Do you know how the electoral system works?

There are currently 650 parliamentary seats, one for each local constituency.
We vote for who we want as our MP for our local constituency.
If one party wins 326 seat they have a majority and therefore a mandate to form a government.