openDemocracyUK

UK Election: Facts and figures on the fragmentation of the UK

The general election revealed widening fissures in the UK's multi-national state that lie behind the hanging of parliament
Gerry Hassan
10 May 2010

A vast amount of energy has already been expended on the 2010 UK General Election, but one vital, complex and revealing aspect of it has remained resolutely ignored until now: the ‘four nations’ politics of this election – with very different election results in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland.
 
The Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish all now have national political spaces. The politics in each are pulling away from each other. This can now be seen in the Westminster elections, as well, of course, as the devolved ones. The 2010 election results show that it is possible to begin to imagine a very different, distinct English political landscape emerging as well. This election could well mark the end of British politics as we have known it.
 
Scotland
In Scotland, Labour’s vote (42.0%) actually rose by an impressive 2.5% - the only part of the UK it did so, giving a swing from Conservatives to Labour of 0.9%: the only part of the UK which went in the opposite direction. There was the lowest Conservative vote of anywhere (16.7%), along with the lowest increase of anywhere (0.9%) – barring the special case of Northern Ireland.
 
The SNP performance was very poor (19.9%) even though they ended up in second place in votes – with less than half the support of Scottish Labour who were 22.1% ahead of them. The Lib Dems support with 18.9% saw their vote fall 3.7% - their worst result in any of the nations and regions of the UK.
 
The key fact is that while England and, in its own way Wales, moved towards the Conservative Party, Scotland moved the other way.
 
Wales

Wales saw Welsh Labour record its lowest vote for generations (36.2%) – which was marginally worse than the annus horribilis of 1983 when they won 37.5% - achieving the party’s lowest vote since 1918.
 
The Welsh Tory vote showed some resilience – rising 4.7% - its second highest anywhere in the UK – to 26.1% and winning five seats – taking its representation from three to eight. The Tories have recovered from their derisory votes at the end of the Thatcher-Major era – unlike the Scots Tories – but in 1979 they won 32.2% and 1983 31.5% - when they were only 6.5% behind Labour; last Thursday they were a mere 10.1% behind Labour which when put in perspective with some of their results in 1997 (35.1% behind) and since is respectable and competitive.
 
The Lib Dems polled respectably while losing one seat (Lembit Opik) and Plaid Cymru showed how poorly they often perform in Westminster elections.
 
England

The Conservatives won England with 39.6% to Labour’s 28.1% and the Lib Dems 24.2% - a Tory lead of 11.5% - landslide territory – on a respectable swing of 5.6% from Labour to Conservative. This is not quite the humiliation of Labour in England which occurred in 1983 when the party just avoided finishing third: the Tories winning 46.0% to Labour’s 27.0% and Lib/SDP Alliance’s 26.4%.
 
In 2005 England voted Conservative 35.7% to Labour 35.5%. The actual plurality was about 50,000 more Tory votes. But this nonetheless resulted in 286 Labour to 194 Tory. This time the Conservatives won an overall English majority in parliamentary terms as well – with 297 seats to Labour’s 191 and Lib Dems 43 – a Tory lead of 106 over Labour and overall English majority of 61 seats. It has not escaped the attention of some Tory commentators that without Scotland they would not have needed to enter into discussions with Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats.
 
English Regions
Results within England showed fascinating variations. In London there was the smallest swing to the Conservatives anywhere apart from Scotland (and Northern Ireland). Labour’s vote (36.6%) fell by a mere 2.3%, while the Conservatives (34.5%) rose by 2.6% - their worst anywhere apart from Scotland (and Northern Ireland).
 
In the other English regions, the South East showed the highest Tory vote (49.9%) and the highest increase (4.9%). The highest Lib Dem vote was not surprisingly in the South West (34.7%), where the party put on 2.2%, but still saw a 1.0% swing to the Tories.
 
The Eastern region saw the Labour vote fall by its highest anywhere (10.2%), whereas its vote in the North East (43.2%) was the highest vote anywhere – even higher than in Scotland – although in the North East Labour wins its vote in a three party system, while its Scottish vote of 1.2% lower is achieved in a four party system.
 
Northern Ireland
In Northern Ireland behind the headlines of Peter Robinson’s defeat, Sinn Fein increased their vote if not their representation and with 25.5% of the vote became Northern Ireland’s leading party compared to the Democratic Unionists 25.0%. The SDLP achieved 16.5% while the other story was the complete failure of the  ‘Ulster Conservatives and Unionists: New Force’ who won 15.2% - losing 2.6% support compared to the Ulster Unionists and their one seat.
 
Tory v Labour swings
There are a number of other narratives about this election which need to be emphasised and put in context. One is the performance of the Cameron Conservatives who have stressed what a big vote and number of seats they gained; the latter (97) is their highest since 1931 but is a product of the low Conservative base they were starting from (210) – a mere one seat more than Michael Foot won in 1983.
 
The swing from Labour to Conservatives was 5.0% - which is a credible, decent showing, but nothing sensational. Thatcher won a higher 5.2% in 1979, and Blair in 1979 a huge 10.2%.
 
What is more revealing is the size of the Tory vote (36.1%) – just ahead of Ted Heath’s vote in his second election defeat in a row in October 1974 (35.8%). The Tory increase in their share of the vote (3.8%) is not that large, and has been outperformed on several occasions –Thatcher achieving an increase of twice this in 1979 (8.1%), while even the much maligned Ted Heath raised the Tory vote by more in 1970 (4.5%) and Churchill achieved the same increase in 1951 (4.5%).
 
Labour’s vote of 29.0% was just above Michael Foot’s in 1983 (27.6%) – but then Labour was a massive 14.8% behind Thatcher’s Conservatives as compared with 7.1% now. The fall in Labour’s vote now was the second highest the party has seen in post-war elections (6.2%) – exceeded only by the disaster of 1983 (9.3%).
 
Shares of the total electorate
An important measure of a society’s political health is turnout in elections. One way of looking at this is by examining total share of the electorate, i.e. of the total who could have voted rather than of those who did (the share of the vote). The decline of the once all powerful two party system can be seen in the Conservative and Labour share of the electorate: winning 23.5% and 18.9% respectively compared to the Lib Dems 15.0%. This gives the ‘Labservatives’ a mere 42.4% of the electorate between them – up from the post-war low of 41.3% in 2005 due to increased turnout. But still well below half.
 
In 1951 when the Labservatives famously won 96.8% of votes cast, they also won 79.9% of the electorate: 40.3% Labour, 39.6% Conservatives. By the time we get to ‘the ungovernability of Britain’ in the 1970s, Labour won a mere 29.0% in February 1974 to the Conservative 29.5%, while Thatcher was elected in 1979 with 33.4%.
 
When Blair’s New Labour swept all before it in 1997 it did so on an unimpressive 30.9% of the electorate compared to the Tories 22.0% - bringing the two parties share down to 52.9% of the electorate. By 2005 when Blair and New Labour won their historic third term they did so with a paltry 21.5% of electors compared to the Tories 19.8% – giving them a mere 41.3% of the electorate (their share having first fallen below half the electors in 2001 with 43.0%).

The End
The familiar templates and landscape of the British political system is cracking and falling apart; the world of Robert McKenzie and a two party adversial system is no longer how our politics are shaped. In the last decade alone, the Conservative/Labour hold on our political system has vastly weakened and retreated, to a degree as yet not understood by the Westminster village.
 
The 2010 election is further evidence of this, even if it is true the Lib Dems did not quite live up to the hype! Then there is also the evidence of the ‘four nations’ of the disunited kingdom, a state in the process of losing its over-arching United Kingdom politics, as we witness the emergence of four, very different party systems across the UK.
 
All 2010 UK election figures are taken from the BBC election website

Stop the secrecy: Publish the NHS COVID data deals


To: Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

We’re calling on you to immediately release details of the secret NHS data deals struck with private companies, to deliver the NHS COVID-19 datastore.

We, the public, deserve to know exactly how our personal information has been traded in this ‘unprecedented’ deal with US tech giants like Google, and firms linked to Donald Trump (Palantir) and Vote Leave (Faculty AI).

The COVID-19 datastore will hold private, personal information about every single one of us who relies on the NHS. We don’t want our personal data falling into the wrong hands.

And we don’t want private companies – many with poor reputations for protecting privacy – using it for their own commercial purposes, or to undermine the NHS.

The datastore could be an important tool in tackling the pandemic. But for it to be a success, the public has to be able to trust it.

Today, we urgently call on you to publish all the data-sharing agreements, data-impact assessments, and details of how the private companies stand to profit from their involvement.

The NHS is a precious public institution. Any involvement from private companies should be open to public scrutiny and debate. We need more transparency during this pandemic – not less.


By adding my name to this campaign, I authorise openDemocracy and Foxglove to keep me updated about their important work.

Who is bankrolling Britain's democracy? Which groups shape the stories we see in the press; which voices are silenced, and why? Sign up here to find out.

Comments

We encourage anyone to comment, please consult the oD commenting guidelines if you have any questions.
Audio available Bookmark Check Language Close Comments Download Facebook Link Email Newsletter Newsletter Play Print Share Twitter Youtube Search Instagram WhatsApp yourData