the uk general election 2010 in depth

7/31/2019 The Uk General Election 2010 in Depth

1/65

House of Commons

The UK GeneralElection 2010In-depth6 May 2010

ReportandAnalysis


2/65


3/65

The UK GeneralElection 2010In-depth6 Ma 2010

Reportand

Analysis


4/65

Foreword

This report has been produced b the

Electoral Reorm Societ and deals with

the acts, gures and trends o the BritishGeneral Election o Ma 2010. Its primar

author is Lewis Baston, research consultant

to the Electoral Reorm Societ, but these

works are never a one-person job. ERS

sta And White and Alice Delamere have

both contributed signicantl to the reports

preparation and writing, and Ashle D has

overseen its production with Eleni Simeou,

consultant to ERS*.

Lewis Baston is also indebted to the work o

Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher (several

times over, or the notional results on new

boundaries, and or British Electoral Facts),

Ron Johnson, and those who produced the

election results and preliminar analsis or the

BBC, Press Association and the House

o Commons Librar.

* Magnus Smidakhas contributed tothe editing o thereport and togetherwith other colleaguesalso worked on thedata collection.


5/65

Contents

04 An unusual election

06 The election results

13 The 2010 election in the nations othe UK

19 A national election?

22 Local representation27 Constituenc results

34 Wasted votes in 2010

36 Gender and ethnic representation

42 The marginal seats47 Electoral sstem bias

54 Alternative electoral sstems

63 Conclusion


6/65

4 Introduction The UK General Election6 May 2010

An unusual election

The 2010 election saw a number o unique

and interesting eatures o the campaign and

the result.

Leader debates

The 2010 campaign was the rst to eature

direct, head-to-head televised debates

between the leaders o the three largest UK

parties. These debates changed the nature o

the campaign and inspired considerable public

interest in the campaign.

A hung parliamentThe 2010 election was the rst since Februar

1974 to produce no overall majorit or an

part (although there were hung parliaments

in 1976-79 and intermittentl in 1994-97 as

government majorities were whittled awa).

House o Commons majorities have become

the norm and indeed this pattern is used as

an argument in avour o the FPTP electoralsstem.

However, the lack o an overall majorit or an

part among the people who voted is nothing

new there has not been a majorit mandate

or an part since 1935, with the arguable

exception o 1955.

A transer o power

The election was also relativel unusual in

producing a transer o power. The previous

occasion was o course Labours win in 1997;

but apart rom the turbulent 1970s, which

produced three switches o power, there have

onl been two other occasions since the end

o the war 1951 and 1964. Even then, 2010

came tantalisingl close to an outcome where

Transfers of power in British government

Outgoing government Incoming government

1905* Conservative Working majorit Liberal Minorit

1915* Liberal Minorit Lib-Con-Lab Coalition

1922* Nat-Lib-Con Coalition Conservative Working majorit

1924* Conservative Minorit Labour Minorit

1924 Labour Minorit Conservative Working majorit

1929 Conservative Working majorit Labour Minorit

1931* Labour Minorit Con-Lib-Nat Lab Coalition

1940* Conservative Working majorit Con-Lab-Lib Coalition

1945 Coalition/ caretaker Coalition Labour Working majorit

1951 Labour Inadequate majorit Conservative Working majorit

1964 Conservative Working majorit Labour Inadequate majorit

1970 Labour Working majorit Conservative Working majorit1974 Conservative Working majorit Labour Minorit

1979 Labour Minorit Conservative Working majorit

1997 Conservative Minorit Labour Working majorit

2010 Labour Working majorit Con-LD Coalition

* Transer o powertook place withoutan election. Electionsollowed shortlaterwards in 1905-06, 1922 and 1931,which ratied the new

governments. Therst transer in 1924ollowed a little ateran election; arguabl1974 and 2010,when incumbentgovernments staedon or a ew das, arecomparable.


7/65

5IntroductionAn unusual election The UK General Election6 May 2010

a reconguration o the government as a

Labour-led coalition, rather than a ull transer

o power, might have been possible: Labourell a ew seats short o this possibilit.

While causing a power shit, the 2010 election

conrmed another surprising act about British

government that the classical picture o

a majorit government o one part cleanl

replacing a majorit o the other main part

(the basis o the argument that FPTP enables

voters to kick out a government) is a rare

event. Since the mass ranchise in 1885, there

has onl been one such occasion Edward

Heaths singular victor in 1970. All others,

without exception, have involved coalitions,

minorit government or parliaments with too

narrow a majorit to allow government or a

ull term.

Coalition government

The general election o 6 Ma 2010 was a

remarkable enough campaign and result, even

without the dramatic political developments o

the ollowing week in which the Conservative-

Lib Dem coalition was agreed Britains rstcoalition ormed outside wartime or emergenc

since 1918, or arguabl even 1895. B

comparison with other nations, even those

quite experienced in coalition government,

the inter-part discussions were orderl and

took place relativel rapidl, enabling the

agreement o a coalition programme and

ormation o a government the week ater the

general election. There was no nancial crisis

(even given the unstable conditions in world

markets) and ew in either coalition part eel

that the have traded awa their maniestocommitments in the proverbial (and largel

mthical) smoke-lled room most o the

policies o the government refect those o

the larger part in the coalition, namel the

Conservatives. Man o the spectres conjured

up about hung parliaments and coalitions

have turned out to be entirel illusor; Britainspolitical leaders proved capable o dealing with

the new situation.

The possibilit

o reorm

The 2010 election also involved the serious

prospect o a change to the electoral sstem

or the House o Commons. The outgoing

Labour governments maniesto promised a

reerendum on the Alternative Vote (AV). The

two incoming coalition parties had dierent

policies (the Lib Dems or proportional

representation, the Conservatives or FPTP)

but compromised on a reerendum on AV

as well.


8/65

6 Chapter 2 The UK General Election6 May 2010

The election results

In contrast to 2005, the electoral sstem did

not produce a House o Commons majorit

or a part whose support la in the mid-30per cent range; the Conservatives ell short in

2010 while Labour, with a slightl lower share

o the UK vote, managed to win a comortable

majorit in 2005. However, the share o seats

or both the Conservatives and Labour was

markedl higher than the parties share o

the popular vote 57 per cent o the vote

between them produced 89 per cent o the

seats. As in election ater election, the Liberal

Democrats share o seats was much lower

than their share o the vote, and in 2010 the

suered a perverse result o their national

share o the vote going up a bit and their

number o seats going down. Among the

smaller parties, UKIP was easil the largest,

with nearl a million votes, but it did not even

come close to gaining representation in the

House o Commons. In contrast, smaller

parties with concentrated support such as

the Democratic Unionist Part, Sinn Fein and

Plaid Cmru managed to get similar shares o

seats to votes, and the Greens broke through

b exploiting the abilit o FPTP to reward

targeted campaigning and concentrated votesand win in Brighton Pavilion.

Looking at the longer-term trends, it is clear

that in terms o the popular votes cast, the

2010 election resembles 2005 more closel

than either election resembles anthing

previousl. There was a strongl rooted

two part sstem rom 1945 (actuall back

to 1931) to 1974, in which Conservative

and Labour could command solid blocs o

support in the electorate, but since 1974 no

part has managed more than the 43.9 per

cent support won b the Conservatives in

1979. First Labour, then the Conservatives,

and now Labour again, have plunged

to historicall low levels o support in

general elections (and suered even wilder

fuctuations in mid-term elections). Support

or the Liberals and Liberal Democrats has

tended to rise, although the pattern seems to

be or it to come in sharp jumps (1964, 1974,

United Kingdom

Votes Votes Change on Seats Seats Change on% 2005 % % 2005

Conservative 10,698,394 36.0 +3.8 306 47.1 +97

Labour 8,609,527 29.0 -6.2 258 39.7 -91

Lib Dem 6,836,824 23.0 +1.0 57 8.8 -5

UKIP 919,546 3.1 +0.9 0 0 0

BNP 564,331 1.9 +1.2 0 0 0

SNP 491,386 1.7 +0.1 6 0.9 0

Green 285,616 1.0 -0.1 1 0.2 +1

Sinn Fein 171,942 0.6 -0.1 5 0.8 0

DUP 168,216 0.6 -0.3 8 1.2 -1

Plaid Cmru 165,394 0.6 -0.1 3 0.5 +1SDLP 110,970 0.4 -0.1 3 0.5 0

UCUNF 102,361 0.3 -0.1 0 0 -1

APNI 42,762 0.1 0 1 0.2 +1

Turnout 65.1 +3.7

(Seat comparison iswith notional 2005results adjusted ornew boundaries).

Parties with either aseat or more than100,000 votes arelisted. Candidatesnot aliated toparties were electedin Buckingham (TheSpeaker SeekingRe-Election) andNorth Down (LadSlvia Hermon,Independent ormerl

Ulster UnionistPart). Respectand IndependentKidderminsterHospital and HealthConcern both had anMP in the 2005-10parliament but did notwin a seat in 2010.


9/65

7Chapter 2The election results The UK General Election6 May 2010

1983) ollowed b gradual declines. For a

time during the campaign, 2010 looked as i

it would see a ourth sharp spike in Lib Demsupport, up to 30 per cent or thereabouts,

but it was not to be.

In terms o seats, the composition o the

House o Commons refected (i rather

exaggerated) the two-part voting patterns o

Britain rom 1945 until 1974, but since then

the rise in representation or third and ourth

parties has not kept pace with the rise in their

support among the electorate. It took until

1997 or the proportion o MPs unaliated to

the Conservatives or Labour to climb above10 per cent (or the rst time since 1929) and

there has been no great breakthrough despite

the ver low shares won b Conservative and

Labour in 2005 and 2010.

100

0

200

300

400

500

600

700

Seats won in UK Parliamentary

elections, 1974-2010

pOtherpNIpNatpLib DempLabour pConservative

1974

1974

1979

1983

1987

1992

1997

2001

2005

2010

10

0

1945

1950

1951

1555

1959

1964

1966

1970

1974

1974

1979

1983

1987

1992

1997

2001

2005

2010

20

30

40

50

60

Percentage vote in UK elections

1945-2010pUKIPpSNP/PCpLib DempLabourpConservative


10/65

8 Chapter 2The election results The UK General Election6 May 2010

participation that used to be regarded as

normal in no previous election since 1918

had turnout allen below 70 per cent.

Over the long term, there are several well-established actors that infuence turnout. One

is administrative how accurate the register

ma be, and the number o people who are

on the register despite having moved awa

or died. The ke political variables are how

competitive the voters perceive an election to

be, and how important the eel the dierence

between the parties to be. Turnout in elections

like 2001, when the result is perceived as a

oregone conclusion and the dierences as

not ver important, is low, while it is high in

elections like 1992 when the election is seenas close and the result as being important.

The context in 2010 seemed more uncertain

than in most elections (since 1979, onl

1992 has been comparable), and passions

Votes per MP, 2010

An eas wa o demonstrating uneven results

or the parties in the election is to divide each

parts total vote b the number o MPs itobtained.

Three parties with signicant levels o support

ailed to obtain an seats or their votes,

namel UKIP, BNP and UCUNF.

Turnout

Turnout in the 2010 general election was 65.1

per cent.

This was a modest increase on the ver low-

level turnout reached in the two previous

elections, when it was onl around 60 per

cent. It was still well below the electoral

20000

0

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

Votes per MP in 2010

(main parties)

pLib DempLabour pConservative

VOTES PER MP

50000

0

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

Votes per MP in 2010

(all parties)

CONSERVATIVE

LABOUR

LIBDEM

DUP

SNP

SINNFEIN

SDLP

PLAIDCyMRU

ALLIANCE

GREEN


11/65


12/65


13/65

11Chapter 2The election results The UK General Election6 May 2010

(CV: compulsorvoting; STV+: STVwith national seatadjustment; MMP:Mixed MemberProportional; MMM:Mixed MemberMajoritarian)

Turnout in recent general elections in EU and other states

Rank Country Last Turnout Electoral

(EU) election % system

1 Malta Mar-08 93.3 STV+

2 Belgium Jun-07 91.1 (CV) Semi open list

3 Luxembourg Jun-09 90.9 (CV) Open list

4 Cprus Ma-06 89.0 Semi open list

5 Denmark Nov-07 86.6 Tiered open list

6 Sweden Sep-06 82.0 Semi open list

7 Austria Oct-08 81.7 Semi open list

8 Ital Apr-08 80.4 Majoritarian closed

list

New Zealand Nov-08 79.5 MMP

South Arica Apr-09 77.3 Closed list

Norwa Sep-09 76.4 Semi open list

9 Spain Mar-08 76.0 Closed local list

10 Netherlands Jun-10 75.4 Semi open list

11 Greece Oct-09 70.9 Majoritarian open list

12 German Sep-09 70.8 MMP

Japan Aug-09 69.3 MMM

13 Ireland Ma-07 67.0 STV

Israel Feb-09 65.2 Closed national list

14 United Kingdom May-10 65.1 FPTP

15 Finland Mar-07 65.0 Open list

16 Hungar Apr-10 64.4 Tiered lists/two-round

17 Slovenia Sep-08 63.1 Semi open list

18 Czech Republic Ma-10 62.6 Semi open list

Iraq Mar-10 62.5 Open list

19 Estonia Mar-07 61.9 Semi open list

20 Latvia Oct-06 61.0 Semi open list

21 Bulgaria Jul-09 60.9 MMP

Jamaica Sep-07 60.4 FPTP

22 France Jun-07 60.0 Two-round

23 Portugal Oct-09 59.7 Closed list

India Apr/Ma 09 59.7 FPTP

Canada Oct-08 58.8 FPTP24 Slovakia Jun-06 54.7 Semi open list

25 Poland Oct-07 53.9 Closed local list

26 Lithuania Oct-08 48.6 MMM

27 Romania Nov-08 39.2 MMP


14/65

12 Chapter 2The election results The UK General Election6 May 2010

and higher than that in marginals, and the

100 saest Labour seats, where turnout is

particularl low, suggests that the eect odemographics is much stronger than that o

marginalit.

B international comparison, Britains

electoral participation in 2010 was airl low.

The table on Page 11 shows turnout in the

latest election in the 27 European Union

countries, plus a ew others with

parliamentar sstems.

Most o the EU states with turnout lower than

Britain are ormer communist states in eastern

and central Europe, where civic participation

is low in general. In general, countries with

proportional voting sstems have higher

turnout than those with single seat majoritarian

sstems.

Britains lack o democratic enthusiasm

remains a problem; the act that ewer than

two electors in three cast votes in the most

competitive election since 1992 indicates

that alienation rom the electoral process has

certainl not gone awa.


15/65

England

In one sense, the Conservatives won the

election decisivel in England, with a vote

share more than 11 points ahead o Labour

and a clear majorit o parliamentar seats.

This contrasted with the anomalous result in

England in 2005, when the Conservatives had

a ver narrow lead in vote share but Labour

won an overall majorit o seats. However,

even in 2010 the Conservative vote share was

still under 40 per cent, well below what it was

in the 1979-97 period and comparable to their

losing perormances in 1974.

For Labour, there was not a great deal to

celebrate in the English results; the part polled

its lowest vote share since 1918, with the

exception o 1983. At least the part did not

come as close as it did in 1983 to coming third

in votes in England. It was the second-best

Liberal ear in England since 1923 (ater, again,

1983) in terms o share o the vote, although

the haul in seats disappointed the part.

It is worth noting that while Scottish and

Welsh politics were revolutionised b the

rise o nationalism in the 1970s, there was

no comparable change in England where a

three part sstem remained rml established

through to the last decade. The UKIP vote in

2010 showed that there is a base o support

13Chapter 3 The UK General Election6 May 2010

The 2010 electionin the nations othe UK

Votes and seats in England, 2010

Votes Votes Change on Seats Seats Change

% 2005 % % on 2005

Conservative 9,908,169 39.6 +3.9 297 56.1 +91

Labour 7,042,398 28.1 -7.4 191 36.1 -87

Lib Dem 6,076,189 24.2 +1.3 43 8.1 -4

UKIP 866,633 3.5 +0.9 0 - -

BNP 532,333 2.1 +1.3 0 - -

Green 258,954 1.0 -0.1 1 0.2 +1Speaker 22,860 0.1 +0.1 1 0.2 +1

Respect 33,251 0.1 -0.1 0 - -1

Ind KHHC 16,150 0.1 0 0 - -1

Turnout 65.5 +4.5

Seat comparison iswith notional 2005results adjusted ornew boundaries.

10

5

15

0

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Votes and seats in England, 2010

pUKIP/RepLib DempLabourpConservative

1974

1974

1979

1983

1987

1992

1997

2001

2005

2010


16/65

14 Chapter 3The 2010 election in the nations o the UK The UK General Election6 May 2010

Scotland

The 2010 election in Scotland was notable

in its complete detachment rom the trends

in England and Wales. The Scottish Labour

Part did not just keep the national swing

down, but actuall increased its share o the

vote. This refects the traditional commitment

o Scotland to centre-let government (and the

return o man Labour voters who had withheld

their support in 2005), but was also in 2010 a

avourite son vote or Gordon Brown. The onl

seats to change hands were a technical transer

o Glasgow North East rom Speaker to Labour

(which took place at a b-election in 2009) and

Labours recover o two b-election losses,

Dunermline & West Fie (2006, Lib Dem) and

Glasgow East (2008, SNP).

The Scottish Conservatives were the principal

losers rom the electoral sstem, with one vote

in six or the part translating into one seat out

o 59 (David Mundells hold in Dumriesshire,

Cldesdale & Tweeddale). Labours represen-

tation beneted rom a swing in the parts

avour and also being b ar the leading political

part in Scotland, over 20 points ahead o itsnearest rival among Scottish voters, the SNP,

and consolidated its position o dominance in

Scotlands representation at Westminster which

it has enjoed since at least 1987.

The strong results or Labour incumbents in

several marginal seats means that Labours

position is perhaps even more ormidable

than it looks, because ew o the parts

MPs are vulnerable to anthing except a

ver large swing. The Conservatives target

seats o East Renrewshire and Stirlingreceded even urther, the SNP are urther

behind in Ochil & South Perthshire, and

Labours line held in seats threatened b

the Lib Dems in Aberdeen and Edinburgh. It

(small, as et, in general elections) or the

part. It polled a higher share in 2010 than the

combined share o UKIP and the ReerendumPart in 1997, when the political context was

more avourable (Europe high on the public

agenda, man Conservatives dissatised

with a tired government, and Sir James

Goldsmiths millions spent on the campaign).

The low-end results or both Labour and

Conservative, and the emergence o signicant

ourth parties (UKIP in votes, the Greens in

winning a seat), suggest that the long-term

uture is or multi-part politics beond the big

three in England as well.

In terms o seats, both the Conservatives and

Labour won much larger shares than the did

in votes, with the Conservatives translating

40 per cent o the vote into 56 per cent o

the seats. The Liberal Democrats were the

principal losers in terms o seats, with a little

less than a quarter o the vote producing a

twelth o the seats available.

100

0

200

300

400

500

600

700

Seats won by party in

England 1974-2010

pOtherpLib DempLabour pConservative

1974

1974

1979

1983

1987

1992

1997

2001

2005

2010


17/65

15Chapter 3The 2010 election in the nations o the UK The UK General Election6 May 2010

Even had the Conservatives won a

slightl larger swing and ormed a majorit

government, the ell so short in Scotland

that the would still have onl had one MP

north o the border, who would have ended

up Scottish Secretar. Such a position would

have been awkward to sa the least. However,

thanks to the Liberal Democrats gaining more

or less their proportional share o seats, the

governing UK coalition does have some depth

o representation in Scotland.

would onl take relativel small urther swings

to Labour or several more seats to all to

the part, including East Dunbartonshire,

Edinburgh West and Argll & Bute (all rom

the Liberal Democrats), Dumriesshire (rom

the Conservatives) and Dundee East (rom

the SNP). Under the FPTP electoral sstem

there seems little prospect o Labours grip on

Scottish representation at Westminster being

broken even i its vote alls considerabl rom

its relativel high level in 2010.

10

0

20

30

40

50

60

70

Seats won in Scotland by party

1974-2010

pOtherpSNPpLib DempLabourpConservative

1974

1974

1979

1983

1987

1992

1997

2001

2005

2010

Votes and seats in Scotland, 2010

Votes Votes Change on Seats Seats Change on% 2005 % % 2005

Labour 1,035,528 42.0 +3.1 41 69.5 +1

SNP 491,386 19.9 +2.3 6 10.2 -

Lib Dem 465,471 18.9 -3.7 11 18.6 -

Conservative 412,855 16.7 +0.9 1 1.7 -

UKIP 17,223 0.7 +0.3

Green 16,827 0.7 -0.3

(Speaker) -1

Turnout 63.8 +3.0

Share of vote % by party in

Scotland 1974-2010

10

5

15

0

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

pSNPpLib DempLabourpConservative

1974

1974

1979

1983

1987

1992

1997

2001

2005

2010


18/65


19/65

17Chapter 3The 2010 election in the nations o the UK The UK General Election6 May 2010

turnover o seats. In 2001, while turnout

slumped and there were ew changes in

Britain, it was a dramatic election in NorthernIreland. In 2010, however, there was a quieter

election than the last couple in the province

and turnout ell sharpl.

The result, though, was notable in some

was. It was the rst Westminster election

in Northern Ireland in which Sinn Fein was

the largest single part (the part also placed

rst in the European election in 2009). The

two main nationalist parties outpolled the

combined showing o the two main unionist

parties or the rst time (42.0 per cent to 40.2

per cent, although Unionist independents and

Traditional Unionist Voice polled another 9.9

per cent, taking the combined unionist vote to

just over 50 per cent).

Two seats changed hands in Northern Ireland.

In one o the most surprising results o the

whole night, the Alliance Part candidate,

Naomi Long, won Belast East on a huge

swing, unseating the DUP First Minister Peter

Robinson. It was the rst seat the Alliance

had won in a Westminster election, although

it had the adherence o an ex-Conservativein the 1970-74 Parliament and polled well

on a couple o previous occasions in Belast

Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland elections are sometimesmirror images o the contest in Great Britain

in terms o the level o public interest and

Votes and seats in Northern Ireland, 2010

Votes Votes Change on Seats Seats Change on

% 2005 % % 2005

Sinn Fein 171,942 25.5 +1.2 5 27.8

DUP 168,216 25.0 -8.7 8 44.4 -1

SDLP 110,970 16.5 -1.0 3 16.7

UCUNF 102,361 15.2 -2.6 0 0 -1

Alliance 42,762 6.4 +2.5 1 5.6 +1Ind U 42,481 6.3 1 5.6 +1

TUV 26,300 3.6 0 0

Green 3,542 0.5 0 0

Turnout 57.6 -7.8

5

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

1974

1974

1979

1983

1987

1992

1997

2001

2005

2010

pOtherpPlaid CmrupLib DempLabour pConservative

Seats won by party in

Wales 1974-2010


20/65

18 Chapter 3The 2010 election in the nations o the UK The UK General Election6 May 2010

East. The other change was a more technical

one. Lad Slvia Hermon had been the Ulster

Unionist Parts sole representative in theprevious Parliament, but ought in 2010 as an

Independent rather than under the UUPs joint

banner with the Conservatives. She held her

North Down seat with a huge majorit.

Rather b accident, the proportions o MPs

elected rom each communit were ver much

in proportion with the votes cast. The Unionist

parties, plus the Unionist Independents in

Fermanagh & South Trone and North Down,

won 50.4 per cent o the vote and hal the

seats; Nationalists won 42.0 per cent o the

vote and 44.4 per cent o the seats, and there

was one Alliance seat (5.6 per cent o the

total) or the 7.6 per cent o those voting or

other candidates.

Within the Nationalist communit there was

also an uncannil proportional result, with the

SDLP winning 39 per cent o Nationalist votes

and 3 out o 8 seats (37.5 per cent) and Sinn

Fein the remainder.

The Unionist MPs, however, are

unrepresentative o the votes cast. Theconsist o 8 DUP MPs and one Independent,

while the Ulster Unionist Part/ Conservative

alliance had 30 per cent o the Unionist vote

but no MPs to show or it.

100

0

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Seats won in Northern

Ireland by party 1974-2010

pOtherspSF/Rep pSLDPpUUP pDUP

1974

1974

1979

1983

1987

1992

1997

2001

2005

2010

Vote share % by party in

Northern Ireland 1974-2010

10

5

15

0

20

25

30

35

40

45

pAlliancepSF/ReppSLDPpUUP pDUP

1974

1974

1979

1983

1987

1992

1997

2001

2005

2010


21/65

Although there were wide variations in swing at

the level o individual constituencies, the broad

pattern o electoral change in the dierentparts o Britain was surprisingl uniorm, with

a ew ver marked exceptions. There was a

national swing o 5 per cent rom Labour to

Conservative (prett comparable with past

Conservative returns to power in 1970 and

1979), but this consisted o a swing in most

o the countr o a bit over 6 per cent, rom

which several areas opted out. Scotland went

its own wa b swinging in Labours avour,

Merseside had no signicant swing (which

dragged the North West to its below-average

4.3 per cent swing), and London moved b

much less than average. The dierences

between swing in other regions were smaller,

although there was a general tendenc orthe Eastern regions apparentl regardless o

class composition and political traditions to

swing a bit more enthusiasticall to the Tories.

Taking a longer-term perspective, looking back

to the election o 1992 when the gap in vote

share between Conservative and Labour was

similar to what it was in 2010, gives a clearer

picture o the cumulative eect o regional

swings. Wales emerges rom this analsis as

Labours worst region (the parts vote share

has allen b 13.3 percentage points; the

19Chapter 4 The UK General Election6 May 2010

A national election?

Swing (%) from Labour to

Conservative by region, 2005-2010

1086420-2

NORTH EAST

yORKSHIRE

NORTH WEST

EAST MIDLANDS

WEST MIDLANDS

LONDON

EASTERN

ENGLAND

SOUTH EAST

WALES

SOUTH WEST

SCOTLAND

GREAT BRITAIN

Swing (%) from Labour to

Conservative by region, 1992-2010

NORTH EAST

yORKSHIRE

NORTH WEST

EAST MIDLANDS

WEST MIDLANDS

LONDON

EASTERN

ENGLAND

SOUTH EAST

WALES

SOUTH WEST

SCOTLAND

GREAT BRITAIN

1050-5

-10

6.8 1.4

2.4

-5.2

5.4

-5.9

-0.9

1.1

1.4

0.7

-1.5

-0.4

-0.3

6.6

4.3

6.7

6.3

2.5

7.0

6.5

5.8

5.6

5.6

5.0

-.8

0


22/65

20 Chapter 4A national eection? The UK General Election6 May 2010

One o the most surprising eatures about the

relationship between votes and seats in 2010

is that nearl one Labour vote in ve (19.6 percent) was cast in the three southern English

regions (Eastern, South East, South West)

more than in Scotland and Wales combined.

But the composition o Labours Parliamentar

part is ver dierent ewer than one Labour

MP in twent represents a seat in southern

England outside London. In these regions

there are ten Labour MPs (Plmouth Moor

View, Exeter, Bristol South, Bristol East,

Oxord East, Slough, Southampton Itchen,

Southampton Test, Luton North and Luton

South) while with ewer actual Labour

voters Scotland and Wales send 67 Labour

representatives. While in elections Labour

wins and it does gain representation in the

south, these are marginal and vulnerable to

setbacks. That Labours parliamentar part

is so lopsidedl northern, Welsh and Scottish

will aect its political approach and polic

making, and internal processes like leadership

elections.

Conservatives drop was rather low, 2.5 per

cent). Scotland is at the other end o the scale,

with Labour actuall increasing its support

since 1992 and the Conservatives dropping

sharpl. The other region that has seen a

signicant shit since 1992 is London, where

the Conservative share has dropped most

(down 10.8 per cent) and Labours support

held stead (down onl 0.4 per cent). Theother regions o England var less, although

there is a distinct east-west pattern to swing,

with the eastern side o England (plus the

Midlands) trending Conservative and the

west (except the West Midlands) to Labour.

Perhaps surprisingl, the South East has seen

a relative Labour improvement since 1992.

This analsis has concerned the votes cast b

the electors, and underpins the general theme

o the gradual regional polarisation o politics

over the long term which in turn ma belinked to the workings o the electoral sstem

in refecting the regional dierences in an

exaggerated orm in parliament.

10

0

SOUTHERN

ENGLAND

20

30

40

50

Distribution of Labour votes and seats

(%) by region, 2010

pVotes%pSeats%

LONDON

MIDLANDS

WALES

NORTHERN

ENGLAND

SCOTLAND

10

0

20

30

40

50

SOUTHERN

ENGLAND

Distribution of Conservative votes

and seats (%) by region, 2010(%)

by region, 2010

pVotes%pSeats%

LONDON

MIDLANDS

WALES

NORTHERN

ENGLAND

SCOTLAND


23/65


24/65

22

One o the eatures o the combination o

FPTP elections and Britains social and political

geograph is that some areas end up beingdominated b a single part despite that part

having the support o hal, or ewer, o those

voting. Conversel, it is possible or parties

to win signicant shares o the vote without

winning parliamentar seats the prize (i not

an MP) in 2010 went to the Surre Lib Dems

whose 28.5 per cent o the vote (much more

the parts national share) went unrepresented.

This produces the phenomena o the electoral

desert and what one might call the one part

state (although the overtone o dictatorship to

this term does not appl).

Some o these deserts and strongholds

are persistent and appl to elections with

widel dierent national outcomes (such as

the Conservatives in Surre with the sole

exception o 2001, or Labour in Glasgow)

and some are more transient or variable. In

some counties such as Hertordshire and

Kent, Labour can win considerable numbers

o seats in a good ear or the part, but these

are all marginals, which are lost when the tide

turns (as the were in 2010). In others, such

as West yorkshire, a good Labour ear willwipe out all the Conservatives. A parts seats

in a generall hostile region will oten tend to

be marginal and vulnerable to swings and to

boundar changes.

English regions and

counties

A striking act about the 2010 election in

England was that nearl one voter in our (25.0

per cent) not onl did not succeed in electing

an MP o their choice in their constituenc,

but also did not see an MP o their part

elected in their broader localit either. There

is a sense that an MP can put their parts

case and represent its voters point o view

in that general area; or instance, having an

MP or Withington enables Liberal Democrats

in the rest o Manchester to eel somewhat

represented in Parliament (and likewise or

Labour in Oxordshire thanks to their hold on

Oxord East). However, voters or all three

main English parties in man areas do not

have that consolation and neither does an

voter or other candidates, except or Greens

in East Sussex and John Bercows supporters

in Buckingham.

Chapter 5 The UK General Election

6 May 2010

Local representation

Electoral deserts in England, 2010

Vote % Votes PR seats

Surre Liberal Democrat 28.5 166,667 3

Greater Manchester SE Conservative 28.0 120,544 3

Oxordshire Liberal Democrat 28.0 92,999 2

North yorkshire Liberal Democrat 27.9 111,283 2

Warwickshire Labour 27.6 79,428 2

West Sussex Liberal Democrat 27.4 114,014 2Northamptonshire Labour 25.7 88,535 2

Hereord & Worcester Liberal Democrat 25.3 100,433 2

Berkshire Liberal Democrat 25.2 104,133 2

Suolk Liberal Democrat 24.1 87,695 2


25/65


26/65

24 Chapter 5Local representation The UK General Election6 May 2010

The Conservatives gained seats in several areas

where the had been unrepresented in 2005

(Cornwall, Cleveland, Merseside) but were still

unrepresented in South yorkshire, Durham and

Tne & Wear, despite respectable shares o the

vote. The also picked up a ew seats in areas

where the had previousl been extremel

under-represented, such as West yorkshire

and the Black Countr, but remained short o

representation in the metropolitan counties and

great cities o England. Man o the seats the

do hold in these areas are marginal and could

disappear through boundar changes or be lost

on an adverse swing.

Conversel, there are several areas that are

completel dominated b one part in terms

There were eight English counties (plus a

subsection o Greater Manchester) where a

part with more than a quarter o the vote

ended up unrepresented in that area. The

Liberal Democrats were particularl prone

to this eect because their vote was evenl

distributed, especiall in southern England.

Labours largest unrepresented shares o the

vote were in areas where the part had held

marginals in 2005 but lost them in 2010. In

East Sussex, a particularl striking example,

Labour went rom holding hal the seats in the

count in 2005 on 25.4 per cent, to nothing

in 2010 despite winning 20.1 per cent. Both

results demonstrate the lack o relationship

between vote share and seats won under

FPTP.

Conservative votes and seats in Metropolitan England, 2010

Votes % Seats Seats %Greater Manchester 27.3 2 7.4

Merseside 21.1 1 6.7

South yorkshire 20.6 0 0

Tne & Wear 21.4 0 0

West Midlands 33.5 7 25.0

West yorkshire 32.9 7 31.8

One party counties in England, 2010

Vote % SeatsSurre Conservative 55.2 11

West Sussex Conservative 51.8 8

Kent Conservative 50.5 17

Hertordshire Conservative 50.4 11

Lincolnshire Conservative 49.8 7

Tne & Wear Labour 48.7 12

Northamptonshire Conservative 47.4 7Suolk Conservative 46.2 7

Hereord & Worcester Conservative 45.9 8

Warwickshire Conservative 45.7 6

Durham Labour 45.3 7


27/65

25Chapter 5Local representation The UK General Election6 May 2010

probabl suered worst rom regional

disparities. All six o its MPs were elected

rom northern Scotland, with all but Dundee

East being either rural or having a large

rural component. However, the three

northern regions rom which MPs were

elected account or ewer than hal o the

SNPs actual voters; the part piled up

nearl as man votes in the Central region

as in North East but won no MPs rom the

industrial heartland o urban Scotland. SNP

representation in the Scottish Parliament hasalwas had a much larger urban component

because o the proportional electoral sstem

used to elect MSPs.

Labours strength in the urban centres was

exaggerated b the electoral sstem, but

despite its landslide win across Scotland the

part did not win an seats in the Highlands

& Islands region, even though it won over 20

per cent.

o parliamentar representation, even though

there are substantial votes or other parties. In

the circumstances o 2010, several o these

were traditionall Conservative counties where

Labour toeholds had been knocked o, but

the results indicate the volatilit o some areas

such as Northamptonshire the Conservatives

won all six seats in 1992, a solitar seat in

1997 and 2001, three in 2005, and again

everthing rom the counts allocation o

seven in 2010. The Conservatives vote o

course did not change nearl as much as thecounts parliamentar representation in this

time.

The regions o

Scotland

While the Conservatives were most under-

represented across Scotland, the SNP

One party regions in Scotland, 2010

Vote %

Central Labour 55.5 9

Glasgow Labour 56.2 7

Electoral deserts in Scotland, 2010

Vote % Votes PR seatsCentral SNP 22.2 88,881 2

North East Conservative 21.4 70,286 2

Highlands & Islands Labour 20.3 46,933 1

Glasgow SNP 17.3 39,702 1

Mid & Fie Conservative 17.3 55,485 1

Lothians SNP 17.0 61,305 1

Highlands & Islands Conservative 16.7 38,505 1

Lothians Conservative 16.2 58,647 1

South SNP 15.8 52,349 1

West Conservative 15.7 41,102 1

West SNP 15.3 40,214 1

(Westminsterconstituencies areallocated to theParliament regionin which the bulk othe constituenc islocated)


28/65

26 Chapter 5Local representation The UK General Election6 May 2010

In contrast to England, the Liberal Democrats

did relativel well in winning at least a seat

across most regions o Scotland, with rural,urban and suburban areas returning Lib Dem

MPs.

Although Labour dominated across Scotland,

most regions did have at least one non-Labour

MP.

The regions o Wales

As in England, the Liberal Democrats polled

well in several regions o Wales without

winning seats, although in general the pattern

o representation was a bit more pluralistic

(with the exception o the all-Labour region o

South Wales West). Plaid Cmrus vote in the

South Wales regions was small but this ma

refect tactical voting rather than the true level

o the parts support it certainl polls much

better in these regions in Welsh Assembl

elections.

Electoral deserts in Wales, 2010

Vote % Votes PR seats

South Wales West Conservative 20.7 51,887 1

South Wales West Liberal Democrat 20.0 50,246 1

South Wales East Liberal Democrat 18.7 55,492 2

North Wales Liberal Democrat 16.1 49,840 1

South Wales Central Plaid Cmru 7.8 24,587 0

South Wales East Plaid Cmru 6.4 19,056 0

South Wales West Plaid Cmru 8.6 21,568 0

One party region in Wales, 2010

Vote %

South Wales West Labour 44.2 7


29/65

27

At a constituenc level, the 2010 election

produced a post-war record number and

proportion o MPs elected b a minorit otheir own voters 433 out o 650 (66.6 per

cent). This was slightl up on the previous

record number o minorit winners, 426 in

the 2005 election. One MP, Labours Dennis

Skinner in Bolsover, had precisel 50 per cent

o the votes cast; the other 216 had over hal

the votes cast.

The chart below shows the transormation

rom the period rom 1950 to 2001, in which

most MPs had over 50 per cent in most

elections, to the current position where

the support o a majorit o those voting is

unusual. The ailure o the 2010 election to

produce more majorit winners shows that

the ragmented electoral pattern o 2005 was

not an aberration (to some extent the results

in 1974 were a deviation rom the normalpattern). This has added strength to the

argument or the Alternative Vote, which would

enable all MPs to have a majorit (albeit on

a qualied basis because not all would have

a majorit o the valid rst preerences in the

constituenc).

As well as a large number o minorit winners,

there were also increasing numbers o MPs

elected with relativel small amounts o

support rom their constituents. While it is

arguable that in multi-part politics a candidate

with 48 per cent ma represent near enough

to a majorit (or at least that a majorit cannot

be assembled or a rival candidate) this


6 May 2010

Constituencresults

10

0

20

30

40

70

50

80

60

90

100

Majority and minority winners, 1950-2010 pMinoritpMajorit

1950

1974

1951

1974

1955

1979

1959

1983

1964

1987

1966

1992

1970

1997

2001

2005

2010

Figures are takenback as ar as 1950because o theexistence beore theno multi-memberseats, where thecalculation becomesa bit more dicult.

The elections o 1922and 1923, and to alesser extent 1929,also produced largenumbers o seatswhere the winnerdid not have majoritsupport rom theirvoters.


30/65

28 Chapter 6Constituenc results The UK General Election6 May 2010

Winners on less than 40 per cent

(by nation) 2010

Number %

England 80 15.0

Wales 13 32.5

Scotland 14 23.7

Northern Ireland 4 22.2

UK 111 17.1

The general upward trend in the number o

MPs with sub-40 per cent vote shares is

apparent in the table above, as is the sharp

upward movement in 2010. Three actors

seem to govern the prevalence o such small

minorit winners. One is that it is arithmeticall

impossible to win with less than 50 per cent in

a two-wa contest, and the last such contests

were in 1979 (and the became rare in 1974).

is much more dubious when the winners

support is below 40 per cent. There are 111

MPs in the 2010 parliament with less than 40per cent support rom their own voters. This

was a sharp increase on 2005, when 55 MPs

had this status, and rom 2001 when it was a

rare event 26 slipped through then on such

a low share (the number was 20 in 1992 and

9 in 1970).

O the 111 MPs with less than 40 per cent

support in 2010, 56 are Labour (up 29 on

2005), 34 Conservative (up 26, all but one o

whom are gains since 2005), 10 Lib Dems

(up 3) and 11 Others (up 11: 4 SNP, 3 DUP,

2 Plaid, 1 Green, 1 APNI). This pattern was

particularl prevalent in Wales, with nearl one

seat in three being decided on less than 40

per cent o the vote.

Winning share of the vote in constituency contests, 1950-2010

Below 40% 40-50% Above 50% Above 50%

(2 candidates) (3+ candidates)

1950 8 179 115* 3231951 0 39 499* 87

1955 1 36 489 104

1959 0 80 373 177

1964 7 225 194 204

1966 5 180 234 211

1970 9 115 185 321

1974 Feb 40 368 38 189

1974 Oct 31 349 0 255

1979 13 193 3 426

1983 70 266 0 314

1987 25 258 0 367

1992 20 240 0 3911997 49 264 0 336

2001 26 307 0 326

2005 55 371 0 220

2010 111 322 0 217

* Includes 2unopposed returns in1950 and 4 in 1951.


31/65

29Chapter 6Constituenc results The UK General Election6 May 2010

Aberdeen South being repeatedl won with

less than 40 per cent). The 2010 election

saw winners with less than 40 per cent on an

unprecedented scale in England.

Seats won on low

shares o the vote

in 2010

Simon Wright, the Lib Dem winner in Norwich

South, has the wooden spoon or the lowest

share o the vote o an MP in Westminster,

at 29.4 per cent. This was lower than an MPrecorded in 2005, although still more than the

recent record holder Sir Russell Johnston, who

held Inverness or the Lib Dems in 1992 with

26.0 per cent.

Further, the other candidates need to get at

least 20 per cent o the vote (meaning that

two part politics needs to have weakened).

Another is that boundar changes, b creatingnew seats where the tactical position is unclear,

make or more 30-something (or 20-something)

winners, which usuall resolves itsel in the next

election through tactical voting and incumbenc

(as in 1983-87 and 1997-2001); another is

a strong national movement o votes that

encourages people to support their part even

when it does not help much in the constituenc.

The persistence o Liberalism in rural Wales

and Scotland through the parts UK

nadir, and the rise o Scottish and Welshnationalism, meant that 30-something winners

were ormerl to be ound mostl outside

England (with some constituencies such

as Meirionndd, Ceredigion, Caithness and

Title?

England Wales Scotland NorthernIreland

Number % Number % Number % Number %

1950 3 0.6 3 8.3 2 2.8 0 0

1951 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1955 0 0 1 2.9 0 0 0 0

1959 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1964 3 0.6 2 5.6 2 2.8 0 0

1966 1 0.2 2 5.6 2 2.8 0 0

1970 1 0.2 4 11.1 4 5.6 0 0

1974 Feb 28 5.4 3 8.3 8 11.3 1 8.3

1974 Oct 10 1.9 2 5.6 19 26.8 0 0

1979 1 0.2 3 8.3 6 8.5 3 25.0

1983 35 6.7 10 26.3 20 27.8 5 29.4

1987 5 1.0 7 18.4 12 16.7 1 5.9

1992 4 0.8 5 13.2 11 15.3 0 0

1997 34 6.4 3 7.5 7 9.7 5 27.8

2001 7 1.3 5 12.5 8 11.1 6 33.3

2005 30 5.7 7 17.5 13 22.0 5 27.8

2010 80 15.0 13 32.5 14 23.7 4 22.2


32/65


the vote in 2005, so the 2010 election saw a

signicant increase in the number o MPs with

onl a small share o constituenc support.

As one might expect, the 21 seats where

the winner had 35 per cent or under were

mostl three wa marginals. There were 9

seats decided on less than 35 per cent o

Norwich South election result 2010

Party Vote Vote %Wright, Simon Liberal Democrat 13,960 29.4

Clarke, Charles Labour 13,650 28.7

Little, Anton Conservative 10,902 22.9

Ramsa, Adrian Green 7,095 14.9

Emmens, Steve UKIP 1,145 2.4

Heather, Leonard BNP 697 1.5

Polle, Gabriel Workers Rev Part 102 0.2

MPs with 35 per cent or less of the constituency vote, 2010

MP Constituency Party Vote %

Simon Wright Norwich South Liberal Democrat 29.4

Caroline Lucas Brighton Pavilion Green 31.3

Alan Reid Argll & Bute Liberal Democrat 31.6

Phil Woolas Oldham East & Saddleworth Labour 31.9

Austin Mitchell Great Grimsb Labour 32.7

Glenda Jackson Hampstead & Kilburn Labour 32.8Roger Godsi Birmingham Hall Green Labour 32.9

Chris Williamson Derb North Labour 33.0

Albert Owen yns Mon Labour 33.4

David Ward Bradord East Liberal Democrat 33.7

Gloria de Piero Asheld Labour 33.7

David Simpson Upper Bann DUP 33.8

William McCrea Antrim South DUP 33.9

Michael Ellis Northampton North Conservative 34.1

Oliver Colvile Plmouth Sutton & Devonport Conservative 34.3

Gregor Campbell Londonderr East DUP 34.6

Ian Murra Edinburgh South Labour 34.7

Geraint Davies Swansea West Labour 34.7Gavin Shuker Luton South Labour 34.9

Richard Harrington Watord Conservative 34.9

Simon Reevell Dewsbur Conservative 35.0


33/65

31Chapter 6Constituenc results The UK General Election6 May 2010

The preponderance o the ver saest seats

is or Labour, with Merseside and urban

Scotland providing man o the most rock-

solid constituencies.

Share o the electorate

In terms o the share o the entire electorate

voting or the successul candidate, no MP

can claim a majorit ater the 2010 election(there were no majorities o electors in 2005 or

2001 either). The general increase in turnout

in 2010 and the increase in the Conservative

share o the vote meant that rather more MPs

had over 40 per cent than in 2005 35 seats

as opposed to 3 in 2005. Man o these were

in rural seats, which are sael Conservative,

although there is a slight tendenc or a

high winning share o the electorate to be

associated with a serious Lib Dem challenge

a ew ears ago but which is now ading

as in Orpington, Maidenhead and SurreSouth West. O the 35 MPs who can claim

the support o 40 per cent or more o the

electorate, three are Lib Dems (Westmorland

& Lonsdale, Norolk North, Bath), one Labour

Majorit winners

Among the total o majorit winners, the

Conservatives are rather over-represented.

The increase in their vote share pushed a

number o seats the had won last time

with shares o the vote in the high 40 per

cent range over into majorit winner status.

Conversel, Labours alling support

particularl in some hitherto sae seats inWales and south yorkshire caused a drop in

the number o Labour majorit winners.

Labours strong result in Scotland increased

the proportion o majorit winners there a little,

while the parts weak showing in the south

Wales valles knocked the number o Welsh

majorit winners back signicantl. O all the

MPs who gained their seat rom another part

in 2010 relative to 2005, onl one Labours

Nick Smith who recaptured Blaenau Gwent

rom Independent polled over 50 per cento the vote (a handul o others reversed

deections or b-elections, or won a seat where

boundar changes had alread changed its

partisan allegiance).

Majority winners (by party) 2010

Number % (of party) % (of majority winners)Conservative 126 41.2 58.1

Labour 76 29.5 35.0

Lib Dem 12 21.1 5.5

Others 3* - -

Majority winners (by nation) 2010

Number %

England 185 34.7

Wales 7 17.5

Scotland 22 37.3

Northern Ireland 3 16.7

*2 Sinn Fein, 1Independent.


34/65


2005, received less than 20 per cent support

rom their electorates.

The all in turnout in Northern Ireland, and

the erosion o the DUPs dominance since

2005, caused several Northern Ireland seats

to appear in this categor, and Labours goodresults in Scotland raised the overall level o

support or its MPs (two o the three winners

with less than 20 per cent o the electorate

in 2005 were in Scottish Labour seats). It

(Gordon Brown in Kirkcald & Cowdenbeath)

and the other 31 are Conservatives (including

David Cameron in Witne).

The 2010 election saw a lot o ver individual

constituenc-level results and the greater

deviation rom average results is apparent inthe act that as well as more MPs receiving

particularl strong support, there was a rise

in the number o MPs with particularl weak

local support. Eight MPs, compared to three in

MPs with over 60 per cent of the vote, 2010

MP Constituency Party Vote %Steve Rotheram Liverpool Walton Labour 72.0

Gerr Adams Belast West Sinn Fein 71.1

George Howarth Knowsle Labour 70.9

Stephen Timms East Ham Labour 70.4

Willie Bain Glasgow North East Labour 68.3

Tom Clarke Coatbridge, Chrston & Bellshill Labour 66.6

Joe Benton Bootle Labour 66.4

Gordon Brown Kirkcald & Cowdenbeath Labour 64.5

Stephen Twigg Liverpool West Derb Labour 64.1

Slvia Hermon North Down Independent 63.3

William Hague Richmond (yorks) Conservative 62.8

Ln Brown West Ham Labour 62.7

Frank Field Birkenhead Labour 62.5

Ian Davidson Glasgow South West Labour 62.5

Lindsa Ro Glenrothes Labour 62.3

Alistair Carmichael Orkne & Shetland Liberal Democrat 62.0

Margaret Curran Glasgow East Labour 61.6

Gemma Dole Dunbartonshire West Labour 61.3

Dominic Grieve Beaconseld Conservative 61.1

Frank Ro Motherwell & Wishaw Labour 61.1

Tom Watson West Bromwich East Labour 61.0

Tom Greatrex Rutherglen & Hamilton West Labour 60.8

Adam Ariie Windsor Conservative 60.8

James Arbuthnot Hampshire North East Conservative 60.6

Greg Hands Chelsea & Fulham Conservative 60.5Cherl Gillan Chesham & Amersham Conservative 60.4

Tim Farron Westmorland & Lonsdale Liberal Democrat 60.0


35/65


36/65

34

In an electoral sstem, there are a certain

number o votes that do not contribute to

electing a member o parliament even inhighl proportional list sstems a ew votes

will be cast or minorit lists that do not gain

an representation. These are wasted in the

sense that the do not aect the outcome in

terms o seats. In nearl ever circumstance

there will also be some votes that are given to

candidates who end up not needing them

that are surplus to the requirement o getting

elected. These votes, too, in a sense, are

wasted b the sstem.

In the 2010 election, over hal o those who

voted ailed to elect their chosen candidate

and their vote thereore did not contribute

to sending anone to Parliament. The FPTP

electoral sstem is based on the principle

o localised winner takes all and there

is no compensation or the voter whose

constituenc vote was not cast or the

successul candidate. In addition, man seats

are sae in the sense that one part or other

has a large and reliable majorit. In these

seats, even those who vote or the winner

ma be dissatised with the power that the

have exercised, because giving someone amajorit o 10,001 rather than 10,000 ma eel

less o a contribution than securing a win in a

closel-contested election. In terms o actuall

aecting who sits in Parliament, thereore,

man votes are wasted.

The notion o a wasted vote is one that

needs some clarication. The term seems to

carr an unortunate, and unintended, negative

connotation about the voters choice, while in

act it is just mechanicall descriptive o the

wa the vote is processed b the electoralsstem.

p No vote is reall wasted i that vote serves

as a statement o what the voter believes her

support or a part, a person, a polic or

just a statement o belonging to a democratic

communit.

p Wasted votes count towards national and

sub-national vote shares. Although these

are not recognised b the electoral sstem,

the pla some part in political discourse. For

instance, a Conservative vote cast in Liverpool

in 2005 was wasted in the normal sense, but

it also contributed to the narrow margin b

which the Conservatives won the most votes

in England and thereore to strengthening the

parts position.

p Votes that are wasted in one election

can be consequential in the next; votes cast

or losing candidates can create momentum

that is refected in the strategic choices o the

parties, the views o voters and the result in

the next election. A Liberal Democrat voter in

Burnle in 2005 did not see his support elect

an MP that time, but that vote helped establish

the part as the clear competitor or the next

election and thereb the environment that

produced a Lib Dem gain in 2010.

p The position is a bit dierent in marginalsand sae seats in a sae seat, the voter can

tell prett well ex ante whether her choice will

be to support a losing candidate or add to a

winning candidates surplus. In marginals, the

vote might turn out to be wasted (or a loser),

to orm a part o a relativel small winners

surplus, or perhaps even to be the decisive

margin o victor. Voting or a potential winner

in a marginal is thereore a bit like buing

insurance it is not wasted, even i the polic

does not pa o on that occasion.

So, with these reservations about the term

wasted vote, how man votes in the

2010 general election were either or losing

candidates (and thereore not translated into


6 May 2010

Wasted votesin 2010


37/65

35Chapter 7Wasted votes in 2010 The UK General Election6 May 2010

seats) or were surplus to those necessar to

ensure a candidate was elected?

The majorit o votes, 52.8 per cent, were

cast or losing candidates and thereore did

not contribute to electing MPs. Taking votes

that ended up being surplus to winners

requirements, the proportion o votes wasted

or partiall wasted b the sstem was 71.1 per

cent.

This share is not unusual or the First Past the

Post sstem as it operates in a multi-part

context. In 2005 the corresponding shares o

the vote were ver similar, with 52.4 per cent

o votes cast or losing candidates, 29.3 per

cent being necessar or winners, and 18.3

per cent orming surpluses or winners.

Votes cast or losing candidates have been

consistentl more or less 50 per cent since

Februar 1974, although the 2010 share is the

highest in recent ears.

The proportion o votes cast or losing

candidates, or being surplus to winners

requirements, is much higher under FPTP than

in most other electoral sstems.

45

44

46

47

48

51

49

52

50

53

54

Share of vote for losing

candidates 1974-2010

Votes in 2010 election

pSurplus or winnerspNecessar or winnerspFor losing candidates

1974

1974

1979

1983

1987

1992

1997

2001

2005

2010

18.3%

28.9%52.8%


38/65

36

Women: House o

CommonsThe overall number o women in the House

o Commons ater the 2010 general election

rose to another historic high o 143 out o

650 seats. Since the election, the result o the

Oldham East & Saddleworth b-election has

nudged the gure up to 144. The proportion o

women in the Commons now stands at 22.0

per cent, compared to 19.5 per cent in 2005.

This has placed the UK slightl higher up the

table o womens representation in parliaments

worldwide 52nd place. However, Britain still

trails ar behind Rwanda, which is in rst place

with womens representation at 56.3 per cent.

Britain also remains behind most Western

European parliaments, which tend to have

proportional electoral sstems. It has been

estimated that at the current rate o change

and under the current sstem it will take a

urther 200 ears beore we reach parit in the

numbers o women and men in parliament.

Election year Number of % women

women MPs MPs

1979 19 3.0

1983 23 3.5

1987 41 6.3

1992 60 9.2

1997 120 18.2

2001 118 17.9

2005 128 19.5

2010 143 22.0

In 2005 three quarters o all emale MPs

represented the Labour Part; advancing

observations that the level o womens

representation in the Commons was largel

dependent on Labours majorit. Concerns

were raised that the number o women in

parliament could potentiall decline i anotherpart dominated in uture elections, unless the

proportion o women became more uniorm

across the parties.

Nevertheless, despite Labour losing its majorit

in the 2010 election, the number o women

in parliament has not decreased; although

the composition o the lower chamber has

changed. The House o Commons is now

composed o more Conservative women and

ewer Labour and Liberal Democrat women

than in 2005.

Party Number Increase / Proportion of

of women decrease parliamentary

MPs from 2005 party %

Labour 81 -13 31.4

Conservatives 49 +31 16.0

Liberal

Democrats 7 -2 12.3

Other 6 - -

High numbers o retiring MPs provided the

opportunit or the three main parties to make

real progress on womens representation

in the 2010 election. Both Labour and the

Liberal Democrats have achieved a rate o

50 per cent women as candidates in seats

with retirements. In total 152 male and 28

emale MPs retired and the were replaced as

candidates b their parties with 87 men and

65 women.

The Conservatives have increased their

number o women b thirt, which is a

signicant increase compared to 2005 (a

percentage increase rom 8.6 to 15.7). Both


6 May 2010

Gender and ethnicrepresentation


39/65

37Chapter 8Gender and ethnic representation The UK General Election6 May 2010

number o women MPs and the recent general

election has been no exception to this logic.

In 2001 women made up 19 per cent o thetotal number o candidates; in 2005 this rose

to 20 per cent; and in 2010 this increased

again to 21 per cent, which resulted in the

2010 election producing the highest number o

women MPs in the UK to date.

Party No. of Proportion of Number

women total party of women

candidates candidates % MPs

Labour 190 30.3 81

Conservatives 152 24.1 48

Liberal

Democrats 134 21.3 7

However, there are several explanations

wh the number o women candidates did

not convert into more women MPs. First,

although selection processes aim to increase

the number o emale candidates, in order to

signicantl increase the number o women

in parliament under the First Past the Post

(FPTP) electoral sstem these candidates need

to be placed in winnable seats. For example, iwe take a look at the disproportional number

o Liberal Democrat women MPs compared

to the number o Liberal Democrat women

candidates this indicates that a large number

o these candidates were not placed in

winnable seats. Secondl, in seats that are

contested between emale candidates, this

places signicant limits on the number o

women who can be elected. For example,

Bolton West saw Julie Hilling, Jackie Pearce

and Susan Williams all contesting the same

seat and Brighton Pavilion saw Caroline Lucas,Nanc Platts, Charlotte Vere and Bernadette

Millam all standing. In total there were 11 seats

around the UK where candidates rom the

three main parties were all women, whereas

Labour and the Liberal Democrats have lost

emale MPs rom their ranks thirteen and

two respectivel. However, since the overallnumber o Labour MPs has allen, this means

the proportion o emale Labour MPs has

increased rom 27.5 per cent to 31.4 per cent.

Although Labour has lost thirteen women,

the part remains ar ahead o the other

parties in its proportion o women MPs. On

the other hand, the Liberal Democrats appear

to be going backwards in terms o womens

representation; whereas in 2005 emale

Liberal Democrat MPs made up 16.1 per cent

o the parliamentar part, in 2010 this has

decreased to 12.3 per cent.

Despite an increase in the number o

Conservative women, Labour still managed

to retain the highest number o emale MPs.

There are two main actors behind the high

number o Labour women: the part placed

more women candidates in winnable seats;

and the placed a large number o women

candidates in sae seats where the previous

Labour MPs was standing down.

Six emale MPs were elected rom the smaller

parties 1 or the Green Part; 1 or Sinn Fein;1 or the SNP; 1 or the SDLP; 1 Independent;

and 1 or the Alliance Part.

Women: part

representation

There were 877 women out o a total o 4,134

candidates in the 2010 general election.

Although this gure was higher than in

previous elections, it still onl amounted to 21per cent o the total number o candidates.

It is logical to expect that a higher number o

emale candidates will translate into a higher


40/65

38 Chapter 8Gender and ethnic representation The UK General Election6 May 2010

proessional, et the report noted that it still

remains more dicult or a candidate who

does not t the white, male, middle-classnorm to be selected. Under the FPTP sstem,

sustaining progress and increasing the number

o women in parliament is heavil dependent

on the commitment o the individual parties to

gender equalit.

Women: regional

variations

The number o women elected varied widel

across the English regions. The North East

region has the highest proportion o women

10 out o 29 MPs (34.5%). It can be observed

that the majorit o seats in the North East

were won b Labour, indicating that perhaps

this is an area where the parts polic o all-

women shortlists or sae seats has returned

a higher than average level o women to

Westminster. In comparison, the region with

the lowest proportion o women is the East o

England 9 out o 58 MPs (15.5%). The table

below outlines the ull regional breakdown o

women MPs in each region.

The proportion o women elected in

Scottish constituencies has increased. In

the new parliament, 13 out o 59 Scottish

constituencies are represented b a woman,

a rate o 22 per cent. This is a rise o 6.7

per cent rom 2005, where onl 9 women

were elected out o 59 constituencies in

Scotland. The number o women returned

to Westminster b Scottish voters is in stark

contrast to the representation o women in

the Scottish Parliament, which stands at amuch higher 33.3 per cent, achieved through

a combination o proactive measures b the

parties and a more proportional electoral

sstem.

in 262 seats the candidates rom the main

parties were all men.

The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates)

Act 2002 allowed political parties to use

positive action in the selection o election

candidates, should the wish to do so. This Act

has now been amalgamated into the Equalit

Act 2010, which extends the provision to

exempt political parties rom sex discrimination

law until 2030. For Westminster elections,

Labour is the onl part to use this provision

and the polic o all-women shortlists has

remained important in addressing the gender

imbalance in the Parliamentar Labour Part.

The marked increase in the number o

Conservative women MPs although not

due to the use o all-women shortlists can

be attributed to a determined eort b the

Conservative Central Parliamentar Selection

Board to place more women on their list o

candidates, combined with a national swing

towards the Conservative part.

The Liberal Democrats also do not use all-

women shortlists in their selection process.

However, the Campaign or Gender Balance(ormerl the Gender Balance Task Force)

provides training, mentoring and practical

support to women candidates with the aim o

increasing the number o women candidates

in the part, and the number o those selected

or winnable seats.

The three main parties have adopted dierent

approaches to candidate selection, each

having a dierent impact on the number o

women candidates standing in the 2010

general election. The Speakers Conerenceon Parliamentar Representation (Januar

2010) welcomed the eorts made b the

main parties to ensure that local selection

procedures were more objective and


41/65


the Northern Ireland Assembl has a lower

proportion o women in comparison to the

number o women elected rom the region to

Westminster, the main reason or this result

is the low numbers o emale candidates put

orward b the largest parties. The Democratic

Unionist Part, Sinn Fein, and the Ulster

Unionist Part stood a total o 16 emale

candidates out o 118 in the 2007 Assembl

election. It can be argued that given the low

number o women candidates, the Single

Transerable Vote sstem actuall served toboost the numbers o women elected to the

Assembl.

Black and ethnic

minorit

representation

The 2010 election saw a signicant increase

in the number o Black and Minorit Ethnic(BME) MPs rom 14 to 26, making up 4.0 per

cent o the new Parliament. yet this gure is

not refective o wider societ where people

rom minorit ethnic backgrounds make up

Women were elected in 7 seats out o a total

40 constituencies in Wales. This represents

17.5 per cent o the total number o Welsh

MPs, the same proportion as in 2005. As with

their devolved Scottish counterparts, this gure

is ar behind the representation o women in

the Welsh Assembl (46.7 per cent), which

also elects members via a more proportional

sstem.

Interestingl, the majorit o women elected

in Scotland and Wales were rom the Labourpart 11 and 6 respectivel suggesting that

Labour has done more to increase womens

representation in these areas than an other

part.

Northern Ireland has increased the number

o women elected to Westminster rom three

to our. These our women were all elected

rom dierent parties Sinn Fein, Alliance

Part, SDLP, and one Independent. Out o a

total 18 MPs in Northern Ireland, the election

o these women account or 22.2 per cent.Comparativel, the proportion o women in

the Northern Ireland Assembl, elected under

the single Transerable Vote stands at 15.7

per cent (17 out o 108 seats). Although

Region Total number of seats Number of women MPs % women MPs

East o England 58 9 15.5

East Midlands 46 11 23.9Greater London 73 24 32.9

North East England 29 10 34.5

Northern Ireland 18 4 22.2

North West England 75 16 21.3

Scotland 59 13 22

South East England 84 14 16.7

South West England 55 11 20

Wales 40 7 17.5

West Midlands 59 13 22

yorkshire & Humber 54 10 18.5


42/65

40 Chapter 8Gender and ethnic representation The UK General Election6 May 2010

The election has also produced several historic

rsts in terms o BME representation. The

rst three emale Muslim Labour MPs wereelected Shabana Mahmood in Birmingham

Ladwood; yasmin Qureshi in Bolton South

East; and Rushanara Ali, also the rst MP

rom Bangladeshi origin, in Bethnal Green &

Bow. Priti Patel was elected to the seat o

Witham and became the rst emale Asian

Conservative MP.

In Maidstone and Weald, Helen Grant became

the rst emale black Conservative MP and Dr

Chinelu Susan Onwurah, in Newcastle upon

Tne Central, was elected as the rst emale

MP o Arican heritage.

Representation in

the cabinet

The new coalit ion government under David

Cameron and Nick Clegg has ailed to place

more women in the cabinet. Out o 23

cabinet members, onl 4 women have been

appointed. These women are: Theresa Ma

Home Secretar and Minister or Women andEqualit; Caroline Spelman Environment,

Food and Rural Aairs; Cherl Gillan Welsh

Secretar; and Baroness Warsi Minister

without Portolio and Conservative part chair.

Baroness Warsi has also made histor b

becoming the rst Muslim woman to serve

in the cabinet. However, none o the Liberal

Democrat appointments to the cabinet are

women.

The UK is behind other European countries

when it comes to womens representation inpolitics, and especiall women in the cabinet.

The table below gives an overall comparison o

womens representation in the lower houses o

European countries.

nearl 10 per cent o the UK population and

thereore the current level o representation is

still inequitable.

Election Number of % of No. of

year BME MPs BME MPs women

BME MPs

1987 4 0.6 1

1992 6 0.9 1

1997 9 1.4 2

2001 12 1.8 2

2005 15 2.2 2

2010 26 4.0 8

Women rom BME backgrounds did

particularl well in the 2010 general election.

There are now 8 emale MPs o black and

ethnic minorit origin. This is a ourold

increase on the 2005 Parliament where there

were onl 2 emale BME MPs. Beore 2010,

onl three BME women had ever sat in the

Commons Diane Abbott (1987- ), Oona

King (1997-2005) and Dawn Butler (2005-

10).

There were over 130 BME candidates in the2010 election, which is the highest number

et to stand in a UK general election. The

Labour part has increased its total number

o ethnic minorit MPs b two to 15 (six

women and eight men) making up 5.8% o the

parliamentar Labour part.

The Conservatives have also boosted their

number o BME MPs in this election; there

are now 11 Conservative MPs rom black

and minorit ethnic backgrounds (two women

and nine men), an increase o 9 rom the lastparliament. The Liberal Democrats whilst

elding a record number o BME candidates

did not achieve success in electing an o

these candidates.


43/65


Party Number of Increase / Proportion of Number of

BME MPs decrease from 2005 parliamentary party % women BME MPs

Lab 15 +2 5.8 6Con 11 +9 3.6 2

Lib Dem 0 No change 0 0

Lower House

Rank Country Last Election % in

1 Sweden Sep-10 45.0%

2 Netherlands Jun-10 40.7%

3 Finland Mar-07 40.0%

4 Belgium Jun-10 39.3%

5 Denmark Nov-07 38.0%

6 Spain Mar-08 36.6%

7 German Sep-09 32.8%

8 Austria Sep-08 27.9%

9 Portugal Sep-09 27.4%

10 Estonia Mar-07 22.8%

11 United Kingdom Ma-10 21.8%

12 Ital Apr-08 21.3%

13 Bulgaria Jul-09 20.8%

14 Luxemburg Jun-09 20.0%

15 Poland Oct-07 20.0%

16 Lithuania Oct-08 19.1%17 Latvia Oct-10 19.0%

18 France Jun-07 18.9%

19 Greece Oct-09 17.3%

20 Czech Republic Ma-10 15.5%

21 Slovakia Jun-10 15.3%

22 Slovenia Sep-08 14.4%

23 Cprus Ma-06 14.2%

24 Ireland Ma-07 13.9%

25 Romania Nov-08 11.4%

26 Hungar Apr-10 9.1%

27 Malta Mar-08 8.7%


44/65


45/65

43Chapter 9The marginal seats The UK General Election6 May 2010

also deserve an honourable mention or alling

onl 42 votes short o gaining the seat rom

third place, despite its lowl 226th place ontheir target list, as do the Lib Dems in Hull

North, where a swing o 12.2 per cent was not

quite enough to overturn Labours majorit in

the Lib Dems 180th target.

Onl three seats in Great Britain that changed

hands required a swing o more than 10 per

cent Cannock Chase, Montgomershire and

Redcar. In Cannock, Harrogate, Winchester

and the special circumstances o Norwich

North, the high swing accompanied the

retirement o an incumbent MP. This suggests

that even in an election such as 2010 where

there was wide variation in the size o the

swing, parties could take the bulk o seats

or granted there are 207 Labour seats

outside the 8 per cent swing range, o which

three were lost, a mortalit o around 1.5 per

cent even in an election when the Labour

vote dropped sharpl. O the 210 notionall

Conservative seats, the mortalit rate was

onl slightl higher, with two genuine losses

to the Lib Dems in seats with small majorities

(Eastbourne and Wells) and one seat that was

voters in marginal seats pla within the British

electoral sstem.

The Conservatives thereore ocused

their strateg on the marginal seats with

a concentration that exceeded previous

targeting eorts. Labour, o course, devoted

a large part o its smaller resources into

deending these seats, and the Liberal

Democrats also ocused on the seats where

the eort could make the dierence between

winning and losing.

The outcome: saeseats were... sae

The marginal seats were once again the

decisive element o the general election. The

result in most sae seats was that which

could be easil predicted rom the size o their

majorities in 2005 and a knowledge o national

trends. There were ver ew exceptions

these are listed in the table below.

The Conservatives in Hampstead & Kilburn

Non-marginal seats changing hands in 2010, in rough order of implausibility

2005 2010 Party target number % majority in 2005

Belast East DUP Alliance - 41.3 (AP third)

Redcar Lab LD 264 31.2

Montgomershire LD Con 210 22.8

Chestereld LD Lab 37 7.5

Cannock Chase Lab Con 198 21.0

Harrogate &

Knaresborough LD Con 156 16.2

Oxord West &Abingdon LD Con 130 13.4

Norwich North* Lab Con 162 16.6

Winchester LD Con 122 12.7

Brent Central* Lab LD 86 19.0


46/65

44 Chapter 9The marginal seats The UK General Election6 May 2010

is that the top 50 seats would all have gone

with a much smaller than average swing, o a

bit over 3 per cent getting a good result herewas superfuous. Where a bigger swing was

needed was in the seats just ater the 100th

target, where it reall would make the dierence

between a parliamentar majorit and a hung

parliament. The swing at this level o marginalit

was actuall lower than average, at 4.8 per

cent. The Conservatives also obtained a high

swing in the seats the alread held in 2005

(6.1 per cent). The pro-Conservative swing

ended up being, rom the point o view o their

hopes o winning a majorit, a bit maldistributed

rather than ecient.

The upshot o this pattern o swing is that

there was ver little change to the extent

o electoral bias in the 2010 election. The

Conservatives are still in need o, i one applies

uniorm swing, something like an 11-point lead

or an overall majorit, just as the did on the

electoral geograph o 2005. Labour could

regain a majorit with a 4.6 per cent swing

rom other parties, i.e. a popular vote lead

o around 2 points, which is a bit more than

won b the Lib Dems in 2005 but had a tin

notional Tor majorit ater boundar changes

(Solihull).

The outcome: targeting

made onl a marginal

dierence

One o the more surprising aspects o the

2010 result is that the much-anticipated

Conservative over-perormance in the marginal

seats ailed to happen, or happened to onl a

tin degree.

The ollowing chart shows the swing rom

Labour to Conservative in dierent categories

o seat, according to their status in 2005.

At rst glance, this seems to show that there

was a substantiall larger swing in the closest

marginals (6.2 per cent compared to 5 per

cent nationall), but this is not the outcome

that was the aim o the strateg. The reason

Swing % 2010

CONSERVATIVE SEATS

LAB/CON MARGINALS 101-150

SAFER LABOUR SEATS



TOP 50 LAB/CON MARGINALS

GREAT BRITAIN

4 6 73 5210


47/65

45Chapter 9The marginal seats The UK General Election6 May 2010

counteract the Conservative strateg.

Anecdotall, ater a collapse in part activism

in 2008 and 2009, morale started to recoverin late 2009 and this ma have been refected

in a greater than expected level o Labour

grassroots activit in the marginals. The

impact o energetic incumbent MPs ma also

have been underestimated, particularl in the

context o the 2009 expenses scandal, and

when it came to the vote, the high qualit o

constituenc service oered b man marginal

MPs was rewarded b their electors.

Abandon indicates marginal seats deended

b Labour where there was no incumbent;

sta and ght are seats that were deended

b incumbents. In seats where Labour

incumbents stood and ought, the swing in

2010 was barel over the national average,

while in those with no incumbent it was

signicantl better than average (2 per cent

over national average, 1.1 per cent over

marginals average). Further testament to the

power o incumbenc was that Conservative

MPs who gained their seats in 2005 beneted

rom a swing that was well over average (3.2

required on 2005s distribution o the vote.

The question o electoral bias is addressed

elsewhere, but t

the uk general election 2010 in depth

Documents