Vote2010: Election stats
1a) 2010 election: votes cast
| Con 36% | Lab 29% | LD 23% | Oth |
1b) 2010 election: seats won
| Con 306 | Lab 258 | LD 57 | Oth |
2) 2010 government: to be confirmed
| Con 306 [363 | LD 57 | or | Lab 258 [315+ | LD 57 | O |
3a) 2005 election: votes cast
| Lab 35% | Con 32% | LD 22% | Oth |
3b) 2005 election: seats won
| Lab 356 | Con 197 | LD 62 | Oth |
4) Election turnout: average by decade
| 1920s | 74% |
| 1930s | 74% |
| 1940s | 73% |
| 1950s | 80% |
| 1960s | 76% |
| 1970s | 75% |
| 1980s | 74% |
| 1990s | 75% |
| 2000s | 60% |
| 2010 | 65% |
5) 2010 election: national support for each party
| Con 24% | Lab 19% | LD 15% | Oth | did not vote 35% |
The problem with this hung parliament is the 35% of you that did not vote. In less than six month’s time, I predict we’ll have to do it all over again, with or without PR. Your apathy has paralysed this country and you should be ashamed for yourself. I heard from friends about their colleagues who wouldn’t vote because “they didn’t understand the issues” (answer=find out – there are lots of websites, the radio and the TV to explain them to you, although steer clear of the nation’s abysmally biased newspapers) or “they didn’t know what to do when they got there” (answer=the nice ladies will explain it to you). No excuse next time, just vote please.
Voter turnout remains embarrassingly small – it’s almost as if we don’t think this matters. 65% turnout for a supposedly sophisticated democracy is pathetic really, and the relationship
I could not agree more – I was excited buy the protest outside the lib dem meeting though. At least some interest and enthusiasm.