Watch this video
and ask yourself why? The answer is simple Scotland returned 72 MP's to Westminster, way out of proportion to their population, this will be reduced to 59 seats at the next General Election and they used to mainly return Labour MPs.
UPDATE: I stand corrected, I though the reduction to 59 MPs would come in the next election when in fact it started in the 2005 election. THe point about over representation by population in Scotland is therefore no longer as true.
However the Labour party is excessively favoured by the electoral system and here are some figures to explain this - In the 2005 election across the whole UK Labour received 36.2% of the vote but 56.5% of the seats, by way of comparison the Conservatives received 33.2% of the vote and 31.5% of the seats, the Lib Dems figures were 22.7% and 9.9%. In English seats the Conservatives won 35.7% of the vote compared to Labour's 35.5, yet Labour won 286 seats to the Conservatives 194. Fair? Labour's majority in the 2005 election on a reduced vote (compared with 2001) was achieved despite receiving the lowest share of the vote for a "winning" party since 1832. Fair?
Sopel Tweets Ten Times Since X Departure
4 hours ago
2 comments:
You're wrong. Scotland currently has 59 MPs, in equal proportion to the 529 MPs in England (not "way out of proportion" as you claim).
There are differences in spending per head across the UK. Have you looked up spending per head in London for instance? It's as high, if not higher than average spending per head in Scotland. How about kicking London out of the Union too...
As to your question of 'Why' - that's easy - it's the policy of the Labour government - the Labour government that was mostly elected in England (529 MPs out of around 650 in total):
MPs elected in England, 2005:
286 Labour
194 Conservative
47 LibDem and
2 independents
...giving Labour a clear majority in England of 43 MPs (in contrast to Scotland's 59 MPs in total).
Some people point out that the Conservatives got 60,000 more votes in total than Labour in England, but that is completely irrelevant under our electoral system - we don't have proportional representation, and if we did, the Conservatives would have had even fewer MPs (and no chance of swinging the balance their way in the future) and the LibDims many more.
The anti-Scots focus that some in the blogosphere are promoting, including, sadly, yourself it seems, is unfair and uninformed. There are certainly constitutional issues and differences that need to be sorted out - but the way to fight them is by attacking the government - not by suggesting that it's Scotland's fault.
The bottom line is that England has a Labour government because England voted for it. When the people of England want a change of gorvenrment all they need to do is elect a different government using their 529 MPs out of 650 to achieve it.
I stand corrected, I though the reduction to 59 MPs would come in the next election when in fact it started in the 2005 election. THe point about over representation by population in Scotland is therefore no longer as true.
However the Labour party is excessively favoured by the electoral system and here are some figures to explain this - In the 2005 election across the whole UK Labour received 36.2% of the vote but 56.5% of the seats, by way of comparison the Conservatives received 33.2% of the vote and 31.5% of the seats, the Lib Dems figures were 22.7% and 9.9%. In English seats the Conservatives won 35.7% of the vote compared to Labour's 35.5, yet Labour won 286 seats to the Conservatives 194. Fair? Labour's majority in the 2005 election on a reduced vote (compared with 2001) was achieved despite receiving the lowest share of the vote for a "winning" party since 1832. Fair?
Post a Comment