If anyone had told you during the Thatcher-Kinnock years that that this would be the position in 2005 you'd have said they were pulling your pisser. If I were a Labour bigwig I'd be on a real high today. 16 years of continuous power is looking likely.
As for Labour's share of the vote, it's no great shame. Unlike the old days, people are most sophisticated and choosy and are less blinkered in party loyalty. Thus we have loads mroe parties now. Most people have 3 or 4 'big' ones to choose from and 2 or 3 'protest' ones, depending where they live. Under these circumstances, 36% is not a bad chunk of the vote for one party to win.
Of course, it is a bit unfair that the party in question can achieve a working majority with this share, but the alternative is a European-style coalitions, where you could have two of the smaller parties forming a government while the party with the largest share is left out of power, and where you often have small parties like nationalists in positions of power far in excess of their share of the vote (just look at the power the Ulster Unionists had under the 92-97 John Major administration - and that wasn't even a proper coalition!). And in general, coalition governments are not a great way of getting things done unless the country is united in its goals, such as during World War II, as politicians' egos get in the way even more than normal.Statistics: Posted by Muir — Fri May 06, 2005 4:46 pm
]]>