BBC BLOGS - Nick Robinson's Newslog
« Previous | Main | Next »

At last... off air

Post categories:

Nick Robinson | 06:20 UK time, Friday, 4 May 2007

I can't give a final verdict as the result in Scotland and Wales is still unclear and the local elections are only half counted.

So far, though, my view is:

• A bad night for Labour but they'll be relieved it's not been worse UNLESS they go on and lose in Scotland later.
• A good night for the Tories but they'll be disappointed they didn't do better in key northern targets such as Bury and Crewe, and didn't come second in Wales.
• A disappointing night for the Lib Dems, but some council gains in key battlegrounds will lessen their gloom.

The worst night was for democracy. Different voting systems and confusing ballot papers robbed tens of thousands of people of their chance to vote.

Comments

  • 1.
  • At 06:54 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • PeeVeeAh wrote:

Good heavens, Nick! You can stop downing the 'uppers', now, OM! :-)

Sorry, the 'landscape' didn't move for me.....

A few different hues in the skyline colour gamut, but certainly no aurora, south of the Borders!

From your multiple blog entries overnight, it seems that only the Scottish affairs were tremulous.

I understand your vested interest in the hype, but forgive me if I decline to be enthused!

  • 2.
  • At 07:06 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • David Hamilton wrote:

And when exactly has an election in this country ever been a good night for democracy?
With our antiquated fpp system we rarely get any decent representation. I personally have never been represented by anyone I have voted for in 24 years of participating in 'democracy'.

"At last... off air"
We expect you back 9:00 on the dot with boots polised.
Seriously, thank you for keeping us informed all through the night.

  • 4.
  • At 07:37 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • Mandy H wrote:

Be interesting to see what the results / turnout will be up here in the North East will be. The biggest failure of democracy imho is not to enthuse the vote, to convince the voter that their vote / opinion really counts.

Off to my count in an hour or so.

  • 5.
  • At 07:40 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • iain smith wrote:

Nick the SNP have effectively won in Scotland-even if they end up with one or 2 seats less than Labour they clearly have won the moral right to form a government and the Lib Dems would be wise not to try and prop up a rejected Labour government who can only become less and less popular over the next 4 years.I predict that they will do a deal with Alex Salmond in the days ahead even if Labour is the largest party.The people of Scotland have clearly voted for change.It looks like a new dawn has broken,has it not?

I am not entirely convinced 'confusing ballots' are only to blame here.

I deliberately spoiled my ballot as a show of disgust against all of the options shown to me.

Copping out by not voting is too easy (and too many people do it and are ignored), so spoiling your ballot is the only way to register a true vote of displeasure.

Seeing this last option always ruled out as mere error due to complicated ballots is an oversimplistic view.

You'd think we'd have learned from Florida and the 'hanging chads" saga just how dangerous it is to ignore wobbly voting systems...

  • 8.
  • At 07:51 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • David Alston wrote:

Someone needs shaking up! When the honest vote of the honest man and woman comes to nothing due to bureaucratic cock-ups, it's the limit!

How on earth do people get away with untried methods? At least some back-up system should be in place so that where there is doubt voters can try again.

The tendency to say "to hell with bothering to vote" is bad enough, but when this happens, more people than ever will join this way of thinking.


  • 9.
  • At 07:58 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • Chris Wills wrote:

Reference Hazel Bleary's comment about Labour being on 47% prior to 1997 therefore the Tories are in a bad position; what rot. Labour won a massive majority in 1997; nobody in the Tories expects such a big win all they need is a win and I believe 41% is probably enough - it's a lot more than Labour got in the last General Election.
Why can't Labour show some humility? Perhaps their arrogance is one of their problems.

Nick, why did you rudely interrupt John Reid at the beginning of the night?

Don't you understand when someone is talking, you allow them to speak?

*Sigh* Again, your only line of approach, indeed the one you seem to base your entire career on, is to criticize rather than give a balanced opinion, as journalists are supposed to do.

  • 11.
  • At 08:28 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • roger wrote:

Surely it is time to reveal the actual extent, and process, of contact between bbc staff and government spinners ?
The slant to minimise the scale of labours losses and play down the extent of Tory gains , is worse than disgraceful, it is actualy criminal.

  • 12.
  • At 08:33 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • Graeme Finch wrote:

Thanks for staying, up, I had an early night, in the knowledge that I could find out all about it today.

One couldn't help noticing the BNP and Labour canvassers outside Tilbury town station late yesterday trying to win last ditch support. I would be interested to know how the BNP did (overall) after all the Beebs HYS commentors threatening to vote BNP if the government doesn't deal with rife immigration.

  • 13.
  • At 08:35 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • Peter, Auckland wrote:

Nick you must remember it was this Government that set up the electorial system for Scotland and Wales and introduced the dubious postal voting system which Labour duely exploited at the last election. Bad day for democracy?...where were you then?

  • 14.
  • At 08:43 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • Tony, London wrote:

And all the more depressing for those of us natural conservative voters who see no person or party fit to govern and witheld our vote. It is high time there was a 'Non of the above' option on the ballot paper along with compulsory voting.

Come on Cameron; convince us you are going to reverse the tax rises on the few of us who actually do some work; make so called civil servants work till 65 (and I mean WORK. Not the pathetic clock in/out culture in today's local govt) and stop the spend spend spend habits of ALL local councillors, both Tory and New Sleaze. The Tories are worse than Labour at it since they don't teally know how to do it.

Otherwise it's a cross in the BNP box at the next election.

  • 15.
  • At 08:53 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • Liam Baldwin wrote:

The new ballot paper didn't rob "tens of thousands of people of their chance to vote". They voted but were too stupid or clumsy to follow a set of very simple instructions. The ballot papers were not confusing. Opening a tin of beans is more complex.

  • 16.
  • At 09:06 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • Anthony Jaynes wrote:

As a consrvative I must say I'm most disappointed with the results so far. Considering the state the government is in, the bad press its been having, we should have seen a substantial increase, not just 1%, in our vote and a collapse in the Labour vote, yet it actually increased also by 1%.

So when analyising the results, the first question Mr Cameron and the leadership should ask is, with the government and the Labour party so unpopular how come they increased their share of the vote?

  • 17.
  • At 09:09 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • Anon wrote:

How are confusing ballot papers a problem for democracy? If the stupid try to vote and fail:
(i) they still think they have voted, so are less likely to complain or riot (which, after all, was the point of the great changes in the Representation of the People Acts);
(ii) it means that intelligent people have proportionately greater weight, which is a good thing.

Then of course there is the fact that perhaps people spoil papers because they do not approve of the different voting systems, or of the candidates, or of the policies on offer (in this country, the final is always qualified by: "such as they are").

  • 18.
  • At 09:19 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • Martin Johnston wrote:

The so-called swing to the SNP is somewhat illusory.

Labour's vote has held up fairly well across Scotland - in some cases losing Labour candidates have increased their votes but not by as much as the winning candidate.

The reason?

The fact that the trotskyite Scottish Socialist Party did not field candidates. It is not surprising that the malcontents and the "something for nothing" brigade have gone to the SNP.

All they have done is switched from one wish list party to another.

  • 19.
  • At 09:31 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • Alex wrote:

My first thought when I heard about the spoilt ballot papers in Scotland was that it was deliberate, and that many Scottish voters

(i) found Labour unpalatable
(ii) didn't want to see SNP break up the union.

Are we sure it was just because they were confusing? Did we see a higher proportion of spoilt ballots amongst postal votes than amongst votes in person?

Oh, and I was amused to see you criticised by posters above both for exaggerating Labour's losses, and playing them down (the same for the Tories).

  • 20.
  • At 09:42 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • Kate wrote:

The Conservatives have to look at these results without the rose tinted specs and realise that Cameron is not the reason the Torys are doing better it's just people are sick of Labour sleaze and incompetence. The Torys need another Maggie not a boy scout.

  • 21.
  • At 09:47 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • David Kockelbergh wrote:

Bad night for labour, but it could get worse. Dissapointing for LD and Tories. Bad for Democracy.

To get losers there's got to be a winner? Surely? Or am I being idealistic again?

  • 22.
  • At 09:48 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • Kate wrote:

To Peter Cooper, comment 7,

I am only 17, and therefore can't vote yet, but even if I could I wouldn't have wasted it by 'spoling' my ballot paper. This isn't a clever or articulate way of registering a vote of digust. The only people that see the actual ballot papers are those that count them.

Do you really think that they will pay any attention to childish behavior such as this. Why not just not vote?

  • 23.
  • At 09:49 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • Mark Lyndon wrote:

Nick, apart from the hazards of a complex and Byzantine voting system, apathy and alienation are real dangers. The French have recently set us a valuable example in turning out in high numbers. Two cheers for democracy!

  • 24.
  • At 09:59 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • John wrote:

I must say that I, also, felt that the BBC was allowing Labour Party members to spin their way through the night. All you have to do is look at the map of England - other than in the North East and Liverpool/ Manchester - virtually the whole of the country is blue. There are 133 councils declared as I write this - how many are labour? 18. How many councillors has Labour lost - more than one in 6. How many councillors have the conservatives gained? Nearly 25% And I understand that political analysis is that the Councils declaring overnight will show better for Labour than the ones declaring today.

  • 25.
  • At 10:08 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • Michael wrote:

Nick

Why are the turnout figures not issued with the results of elections?
It is wrong that a "candidate" with a third of the votes from two-fifths (or even four fifths) of the registered voters claims the right to order the rest of us about.

Our unjust system would be remedied if a referendum on policy issues was normal; enforced by a popular initiative demand from 5% of the potential voters on any issue. With a restriction that financial proposals need 75% support to pass, the rest simple majorities. (So as to be at least three-quarters sure before spending our money, no?)

LibDems Campbell refused to join SNP unless it drops a referendum proposal! how arrogant these anti-national minority-supported swindlers have become. Too often incompetent and corrupt, they even dare to insult the majority who avoid voting for them in disgust!

  • 26.
  • At 10:09 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • Scott Latham wrote:

More a bad night for ballot paper designers than a bad night for democracy!

What is bad for democracy though is a resounding lack of choice.

If you had taken the party names off our area's Conservative and Lib Dem leaflets you couldn't have picked which was which just by looking at the policies.

We voted for the one who knocked on our door for a chat. If he hadn't it would have been a coin toss.

  • 27.
  • At 10:11 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • simon bowyer wrote:

I have to say that I agree with Roger about the disgraceful spin on these elections. Why were the tories being castigated for only getting 41% of the vote? Why was 27% for Labour being spun as "not as bad as it could have been"? Why is there not outrage at the level of fraud and disruption being introduced into our electoral system by the Labour party, when as far as I am aware, our old system worked perfectly well? Come on BBC do your job properly - there are many people across the country who are disgusted with the hijacking of our political process - please cover this issue.

  • 28.
  • At 10:33 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • griff wrote:

I'm not a tory voter, but I cant agree more about the 'spin' comments. I listened to 5-live for an our between 6&7 this am. Lots of talk about scotland and spoiled ballots, a bit about wales, a piece about the dangers of head-ache tablets, a truly terrifying expose on the dangers of cyclists on canal tow-paths and the piece about climate change. The losses suffered by labour in the english local elections were dismissed in one sentence as "nothng dramatic"

I appreciate that the scottish events may have far-reaching effects on a Brown premiership. But a voting pattern across england that would possibly lose labour the next election is surely more news-worthy than "nothing dramatic"

  • 29.
  • At 10:38 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • Katie Weston wrote:

I know a lot of people that have either not voted or spoiled their balot paper in disgust at the apathy of the candidates. I have had no leaflets through my door, no visits by candidates. How am I meant to decide who to vote for if they can't even be bothered to tell me what they stand for.
I voted via the internet, and it was ridiculously easy.

  • 30.
  • At 10:40 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • Steve Jones wrote:

I'm supposed to get a ballot paper, make a cross on it next to the person I want, and put it in a box.

Yet I got two papers and I had to put one OR two crosses on one paper and one cross on the other.

But why vote for more than one person? What does it mean? How can they count my votes when there are several of them? Why is there one vote on one paper and two on the other? What is all this about?

Nick, who is dreaming these things up? Surely there must be a way to catch the culprits and have them punished for the confusion they have caused? It’d vote to bring back the birch for this offence.

  • 31.
  • At 10:43 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • John Jones wrote:

Of course it is a bad night for labour. It is a continued erosion of their power, and less foot soldiers to press the flesh at the next election.

  • 32.
  • At 10:50 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

A tory won in my area with only four hundred votes to his name and now has the legitimate right to dictate to thousands, despite having the backing of perhaps 5% of the local population.

Isn't democracy great!

  • 33.
  • At 10:53 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • Michael Parsons wrote:

NOT NECESSARILY FOR PUBLICATION

You mentioned on a number of occasions last night that the Conservatives should hold councils like Bury and Crewe as they returned Conservative MPs in the 80s. Surely Gwyneth Dunwoody has held Crewe (with or without Nantwich) continuously since 1974? and have the Conservatives ever held Crewe council?

Otherwise, congratulations on getting through a long night!

  • 34.
  • At 10:59 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • michael berry wrote:

hi nick how do you manage to keep awake all night and most of the day. i did it last night even tho i wasn;t voting here in dagenham this time i sat up all night and watched the election night entertainment unfold it.

i agree with your throughts on tories did well, could have done better. but i was suprised at the lib dems loosing that must go down as a bad night, labour didn;t know as bad as the poll said. so they got it wrong a bit this year

i will leave you with this prediction that next year there will be a a full election and david cameron will be prime minster by majority 0f 10. seriously i think the presure will build over the coming months

  • 35.
  • At 11:03 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • MC wrote:

I was a Labour activist through the dark days of the 80s and early 90s. I remember so well the false dawns of good local election results. Sorry Mr Cameron, on the basis of these results you'll still be leader of the opposition after the next general election.

  • 36.
  • At 11:04 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • Carlos Cortiglia wrote:

The voting systems are letting us down and I do not see how we can go on campaigning and trying to motivate people to vote when voting systems are not up to scratch. Add fraud to technical failures and confusion and we have a very sad cocktail of dishonesty and incompetence. Next year we have a whole series of elections, including the London Assembly election, and they say that in 2010 we could have a General Election. We need to stop experimenting and we need to stick to the proven systems that truly reflect the will of the electorate. If somebody is an able bodied person and can carry himself or herselt all the way to the polling station and does not want to do it, so be it. Postal votes and electronic votes are a dangerous failure and should be abandoned. When there is an election, I get up early in the morning, go to the polling station, vote, and go back home and await the results of the election and this is how it should be without any gimmicks like postal votes and electronic votes. Thanks to the modernisers we have total chaos and unnecessary arguments and delays, and most importantly we have violated the democratic rights of thousands upon thousands of British citizens.

  • 37.
  • At 11:19 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • David Langford wrote:

As we in this country always go to the African countries to oversee that their elections are carried out fairly and with

'The worst night was for democracy. Different voting systems and confusing ballot papers robbed tens of thousands of people of their chance to vote.'

Where were the other countries overseeing that our elections were being carried out fairly!!!!!!

I reckon we should get our own house in order before we interfere in other nations' affairs.

  • 38.
  • At 11:23 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • Barry Bathurst wrote:

This system is great for democracy. The procedure for voting is not complex. If people are too stupid that they cannot follow a simple set of instructions it is just as well their votes do not count.

I'm a web developer and news I could vote online didn't even reach me until I read Katies above comment...

My old Politics teacher will be mortified by my considered decision not to make the 3 minute walk to vote; but I don't think he'd be surprised given the choice of candidates.

  • 40.
  • At 11:40 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • Jean Brodie wrote:

In Scotland there clearly has been many wasted papers. Those foolish enough not to understand how to complete the forms and those foolish enough to vote for Labour.

And what kind of democracy prevents anyone from standing for election if they don’t have the ENTRY FEE - freedom at a price ?

This is not true democracy ! ! ! !

  • 41.
  • At 11:43 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • Helen Rudolf wrote:

Interesting that the problems with the voting system are being brought to the fore now. Exactly the same thing happened in the first GLA elections in 2000 when the ballot paper was really difficult to follow and the automated counting system didn't work.

In the GLA seat of Barnet and Camden Labour lost by 550 votes but I am still sure that this result was questionable given these problems.

  • 42.
  • At 11:43 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • Richard FitzGeradl wrote:

I cannot help but think that Mr Jaynes is in fact a closet labour supporter given his earlier comments!

Still I cannot understand how Hazel Blears can say that the tories have not done well and that they have not broke into northern towns. Does she not realise, that trafford council (conservative) is in greater manchester? Never mind.

  • 43.
  • At 11:46 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • Mario wrote:

To say that 'voters have been robed of their chance to vote' it is not true.
Like most of politicians you journalist you are now manipulating the facts.
Yes was a shamble and people have been robed of the chance that their vote to be counted.
Yes there should be an enquiry and heds should roll!
But they DID Vote!
It is pathetic that the politicians are spinning for you journalists to stard doing the same.

Nick, you've got it wrong. The people have got it wrong! When has a member of the public ever turned up to a polling station knowing what to do? They don't read the instructions, they don't ask the presiding officers, then they ruin their papers and undermine their democratic right! I think people could do with being educated on how to vote rather than being bombarded with criticism of a system. For a start, lets follow the rest of Europe and vote on a Sunday!

  • 45.
  • At 11:56 AM on 04 May 2007,
  • Leon G wrote:

Looks to me that something dodgy is going on with the "system". How can it be possible that the SNP was miles away of Labur and suddenly the race is so close?, suddenly is a failure with the "electronic system" and thousands of votes can't be counted.

How can we believe that the government is up to something here? Wouldn't be first and las time the government lied to us. Just remember the "weapons of mass destruction"

SCOTLAND.....KEP YOUR EYES OPEN!!!!

  • 46.
  • At 12:01 PM on 04 May 2007,
  • Stuart wrote:

You got it in one!
Did not realise the different 'x' / No. forms until the last moment - then had to state to partner 'watch out' then another person said 'oops' two spoilt ballot papers in two minutes - I guess people were just not expecting the 'type' of forms!
s

  • 47.
  • At 12:30 PM on 04 May 2007,
  • Ad wrote:

What was the point in these elections? I didn't know who was standing for any of the parties in my area, what their policies are and therefore couldn't vote.

The whole thing is a farce.

  • 48.
  • At 12:47 PM on 04 May 2007,
  • Martin Johnston wrote:

The race was always close in Scotland Leon G - it would take a monumental swing for any party to be miles ahead.

  • 49.
  • At 12:58 PM on 04 May 2007,
  • Neil Small wrote:

I seriously think that the election should be re-run. Speaking to people at work, many ended up spoiling their papers - despite being aware of the correct procedure - because there were so many candiates and being used to a straightforward "x in the box". This system is pathetic. it should b a straight one ballot - one choice - not some listing a "Top 10" politicians.

All this has done is once more made Scottish politics look amateurish in the eyes of the world.

And who exactly came up with this wonderful idea?

Have people who did not vote looked at the ballot. It's far from the complicated form people are making it out to be. See an example here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/6511445.stm

Let's look at the STV Council form - I quote directly from it - this is the very top line under the ward title:

"Instead of using a cross, number the candidates in order of your choice. Put the number 1 next to the name of the candidate who is your first choice, 2 next to your second choice, 3 next to your third choice, 4 next to your fourth choice and so on..."

That is pretty simple. Does anyone truly not understand the idea that you can like one thing more than an other, and order such preferences?

Let's look at the other (MSP) form:

This one is even simpler - in both columns it says "Vote only once (X)" - not exactly a cryptic instruction. Again, how many people honestly would not understand that they should vote once, and do this with an X? This section has a coloured background to separate it from the STV part.

Please don't criticise a system of election that is much fairer - the instructions were very simple, the concept is simple. STV may be mathematically complicated, but that only applies to computing the results - not to voting! All a voter needs to know is that it provides the best way to split the result in the same way the vote is split.

  • 51.
  • At 01:17 PM on 04 May 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

Robbed of the chance to vote? Not really. Robbed of the chance to put a mark on a piece of paper unthinkingly and go back to the brain rot of television, yes. I'm afraid that you DO have to engage your brain before wielding that pencil sometimes...

We've become such a dumbed down society that we seem to think it wrong for people to need to actually READ the instructions on the ballot paper or in the hall. This is a world in which multiple choice questions on quiz shows about pop music are regarded as a stretch and we're not meant to expect much of ourselves.

Actually it is worse than that. There are comments on the BBC news website to the effect that 'I didn't vote because all parties are alike' or 'I didn't vote because nobody told me what the parties stood for'. Heaven help us, the right to vote is a thing people elsewhere in the world have died for: we expect it not to interrupt our consideration of whether a pop star's hair looks better short or long...If you don't know, FIND OUT (party positions, that is, not pop star hairstyles). Then get out and vote!

  • 52.
  • At 01:18 PM on 04 May 2007,
  • Eric the Disillusioned wrote:

Not sure it was a bad night for democracy. Turnout is up and where it was highest is where the real battlefields were. We demonstrable proof that where democracy can make a difference people turn out to vote. The problem we still face is turgid party politics and those who will vote party before policy. Where I live you could pin a red rosette on a dead cat and it would become the Hon Dead Cat, MP for X.

  • 53.
  • At 01:24 PM on 04 May 2007,
  • Kit Mitchell wrote:

"Different voting systems and confusing ballot papers robbed tens of thousands of people of their chance to vote." Surely not! Although the election here in Scotland was complex (two votes for the Parliament, one for the local Council), it was not complicated or difficult: the instructions for voting were clear; every household received a leaflet, every polling card repeated the instructions, they were displayed outside each polling place, and in each polling booth, and there were officials on hand to explain the process. Some people may have disenfranchised themselves, but they certainly weren't robbed.

  • 54.
  • At 01:28 PM on 04 May 2007,
  • James wrote:

I managed to spoil my postal vote. It said 'tear here' so I did, then read the instructions which said DO NOT DETACH about halfway down. How many people are going to make the same mistake. Why write 'tear here' if what you mean is 'do not tear here'!!!! Total rubbish!!

  • 55.
  • At 01:44 PM on 04 May 2007,
  • Patrick Heren wrote:

I think the Tories might have done better if they actually said something. Two words Dave keeps forgetting: "conservative" and "policy".

  • 56.
  • At 01:48 PM on 04 May 2007,
  • Mike Richards wrote:

Has anyone seen a percentage turnout for the elections? That number seems to be conspicuously absent on most stories.

  • 57.
  • At 02:10 PM on 04 May 2007,
  • David Saul wrote:

Nick,

It is always refreshing to hear your clear analysis and dispassionate approach.

As for the politicians, I'm sure we all could have written their responses for them a month ago. They probably did.

  • 58.
  • At 02:16 PM on 04 May 2007,
  • Witty wrote:


Many people have said its a bad night for democracy, fair enough. But has not turnout increased? Surely that is worther commentating rather than focussing on the negative all the time.

  • 59.
  • At 02:20 PM on 04 May 2007,
  • Tony Jarvie wrote:

Re. Steve Jones's posting above, (number 30).

"I got two papers and I had to put one OR two crosses on one paper and one cross on the other"

I'm afraid if that's what you did, then either you or I had a spoilt paper.
My understanding was;
You were supposed to put one cross in each column in the coloured paper form to represent your desired candidate, and a number in the white form where number 1 is your first preference, number 2 is your second preference, etc - NO crosses should be in the white form.
However, I suppose if some-one only put a cross in the white form then it's reasonable to count that as a "1", with no other vote cast for second, etc preference?

Tony.

  • 60.
  • At 02:31 PM on 04 May 2007,
  • Mark knight wrote:

In answer to David Hamilton's comment that any system using fpp is a bad night for democracy is he really saying that a proportional representation system which has led to tens of thousands of spoilt votes is better!!!!

  • 61.
  • At 02:43 PM on 04 May 2007,
  • Jason wrote:

What happened to the 'Boston' election results.

Conservatives, Labour and Libs lost 22 to 'others', leaving them with 6 0 and 0.... am i misreading this?

  • 62.
  • At 02:52 PM on 04 May 2007,
  • Peter Hopkins wrote:

Nick,

A forecast for you;

The next General Election will see a hung parliament resolved by the Lib Dems joining Labour to put Gordon Brown back in Downing St.

The coalition will limp on for a couple of years until some set of cirumstances bring down the government.

The country will by then have tired of Labour Politicians at the head of government, after fifteen years of such arrangements. It will then, probably with little enthusiasm, put David Cameron (by then a battle hardened figure) into office.

I'm still waiting for the results of the English parliament to come in. I've seen the welsh and the scottish ones, but I want to know who will be our first minister, and what party will be governing england.

  • 64.
  • At 03:36 PM on 04 May 2007,
  • uncivilisedservant wrote:

Labour cannot dismiss the results as 'not as bad as some people predicted.' Silly Hazel Blears dismisses the party's rejection by wealthy middle class wards as if they were not the very people who switched to Labour in 1997. If losing nearly 700 seats across the country is to be treated as a 'mid term blip', remember this is actually the end of Blair's 'term'and therefore a very negative verdict on his tenure of office. Under Brown, Labour will fare no better.

This post is closed to new comments.

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.