Talking to Labour friends, there seems to be a feeling abroad that Labour is destined to recover ground at the next election.
This is not the case.
I shall now adopt the mantle of Prophet of Doom.
In our history, a majority Labour government has left office as a result of an election defeat four times – in 1951, 1970 and 1979 – and 2010.
In two of the next three elections – in 1955 and 1983 - we lost significant ground. Only in 1974 did we win back seats.
Looking at the Tories, we see a similar picture. Since Attlee’s landslide, a Tory government has lost office three times – in 1964, in Feb 1974, and in 1997. In each case they did no better, or significantly worse, in the next election – in 1966, in Oct 74 and in 2001*.
Looking at the record coolly, it is more likely than not that Labour will lose ground at the next election.
A few factors suggest this could be the case.
First, our 2010 election result was very effective in terms of seats for vote share. We got 257 seats for 29.7% of the vote. In 1997 John Major got 165 seats for a percentage point more.
As various leadership contenders have said, this wasn’t Labour’s 1997.
It was worse.
In 2010 we benefitted from voters distrust of the Conservatives. Can we rely on that next time?
It’s also quite possible that redrawn boundaries, political funding changes, and voter registration systems might hurt Labour more than the coalition. After all, we’ll be the only ones without a say in the system.
On voter registration, it is a good thing, and Labour should support our own proposals to cut fraud. That said, we know from America that voter registration rates are a political weapon. If individual voter ID registration results in a drop in electoral rolls, it is more likely to be poorer voters who drop off the list.
Next, a loss of ground in Scotland and pro-coalition tactical voting could cost us seats. We got a fantastic result in Scotland this time, which seems to be attributable to Labour recovery since losing power in Scotland, a lower support for the SNP, little tory headway and stronger support for Gordon Brown than in England. Not all these factors will be present next time.
As for tactical voting, why don’t we assume that the 60% or so of voters who currently support the Government now represent the coalition’s maximum tactical voter pool. There will be attrition, of course, but some can be afforded.
If I were running a Tory marginal campaign, I’d be be trying to identify those voters who like what they’re seeing so far, and reminding them that the best way to support the coalition would be to back the Tories.
Finally, next time we might get a significant increase in wasted votes. Take Richmond, or Yeovil, or Dorset West. Unhappy Lib dems might come to Labour, but it won’t do us much good. Billy Bragg might not vote Lib Dem next time, but it won’t matter much to the coalition.
Nor should we rely on AV to help us. If the coalition is regarded as successful by current supporters, we could find ourselves on the wrong end of a 55-45 drubbing in marginal seats. There are seats where this will benefit us(Withington, Brent) but they are outnumbered by seats like Gedling, Wirral South, Hammersmith and Fulham and so on where it could hurt us.
Why am I being so depressing?
Because if we are to win the next election we need to confront the fact that it will be a hard and difficult slog.
It’s not just the playing field that could be against us – the politics could be tough too. Even if unemployment remains high, there will be a lot of people who either don’t notice or don’t mind this. The Tories have won elections with high unemployment before.
On public services as the long term investment benefits of the last four years will still be in the system for the next two or three. The new schools and hospitals we built won’t stop looking impressive just because no more are being built.
On the economy, there will be many who sympathise with the Government’s agenda of cutting back, even (perhaps especially!) if it results in a double dip recession.
There is no guarantee of a bounce back in opposition. We have to work for it, and much of the work will be against the prevailing political tide.
Whatever leadership candidate you support, this is no time for the Labour party to believe that differentiating ourselves from both New Labour and the coalition will be enough to recover. It won’t be.
Merely changing, or listening, or being different will not win us the election.
The hard work of developing a new set of policies is only just beginning. Here’s an uncomfortable thought: It won’t be the nice stuff that make us feel good like increasing minimum wages, overseas aid, or volunteering that decides the next election.**
It will be the grit of policies on transport, industry, jobs, tax and crime. We can’t afford to ignore those issues, and neither can those who would suffer from two terms of a Labour (Ooops! – ta Bert!) Tory government.
Our leadership candidates shouldn’t either. Even if it’s easier to talk about minimum wages or greedy bankers.
Leading isn’t compiling a list of adjectives that describe a popular party.
It’s confronting the issues that stand in the way of building one.
* Ah, you might say – but that was before fixed term parliaments. Well, we don’t know yet if the Coalition might decide an election is in the urgent national interest at an electorally conveieient time. Such things have been known.
** Nor will it be “nasty” stuff like immigration – where politicians face awkward limit that there’s not much more they can do. Points vs cap is a marginal argument in current immigration, in truth. The idea that Blair and Brown were “soft” on immigration, post about 2000, is ludicrous.
“We can’t afford to ignore those issues, and neither can those who would suffer from two terms of a Labour government.”
You read it here first – a Labour blogger admitting his party would be a disaster!!
LOL – the perils of a lack of editing!
Thanks.
I remember when Blair won his landslide in ’97, and a whole host of commentators then said the Tories would be back in a jiffy – because Labour would do what they always do – crash the economy. Well, they did just that, but it took 13 long years before the penny dropped.
I agree with you about AV – the lazy assumption that lib dem/lab votes are interchangeable is folly. Didn’t Newmania say that 35% of Labour voters’ second preference would be the BNP? If AV goes through, Brown’s calculation that it would help Labour could turn out to be the exact opposite.
“Leading isn’t compiling a list of adjectives that describe a popular party.”
This is so true – but it’s a trap Labour will still fall into.
One thing you haven’t touched on – Labour’s dire lack of talent. I’m not saying the coalition is packed with talent either – but Labour is even worse.
The lack of an outstanding leadership candidate is Labour’s greatest short to medium term problem. If you can’t get heard above the noise via an effective leader, it doesn’t matter what you say – and the ‘irrelevance’ label sticks. Just ask the Tories.
I share your analysis but not your pessimism. No guarantee the coalition will fail and we should not be deluded into thinking a change in our electoral system will save us. Odds are even on the coalition strengthening or weakening the right. Good possibility liberal-conservative alliance will become hegemonic and electorally successful. Equally good possibility that Tory ideological rigidity and heaviness of Lib Dem lumber will discredit government.
We should take nothing for granted but we can be pleased that we have had 13 years of excellent Labour government. We offer the promise of a return to the good old days with the added bonus of improvements based on lessons learned. It will, and should be, a struggle to regain electoral popularity but it is a reasonable expectation that our campaigning efforts will bring good rates of return.
We need to make sure people know that the Labour alternative offers prosperity, fairness and security. We are ready to govern.
Matthew –
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not a pessimist about Labour’s chances! Actually, I think being optimistic or pessimistic is misguided: we will get the result we deserve.
There’s no reason why we _can’t_ win the next election – it’s just that any feeling that the electoral tide will be flowing our way is misguided.
Your last sentence is essential – and to get to the place where voters agree with us on that is the challenge of the next two to five years.
Several points of disagreement, Hopi.
1. Very limited dataset in terms of extrapolating likely outcomes. You could equally look at governments that have made swingeing cuts in public spending and seeing what happened to them at the following elections.
2. Labour got a lot of seats for the number of votes that it received – yes, Labour have a very good ground game. I see no reason why this should stop being the case over the next 5 years. Indeed, if 2010 represents the peak of the Tory’s ground game, Labour have nothing whatsoever to worry about.
3. Distrust of the Conservatives – this was partly based on not knowing what nasty things the Tories would do in government. Now, not only will votes see what policies Tories follow, they will also see the Lib Dems backing them up. Shurely this increases the Labour vote at the expense of the other two parties?
I agree on your other points, but I strongly see them being overwhelmed by the anti-Conservative and Lib Dem wave that is going to result from the policies that the Government is going to have to enact. I see this as the case almost irrespective of the Labour leader that is elected in September (certainly either Ed or Milliband would be able to mount an effective-enough opposition, though I accept that other options are more likely than MSM commentators have speculated).
Will, Hopi’s piece was about guarding against the complacency you have just demonstrated in spades.
Will-
“1. Very limited dataset in terms of extrapolating likely outcomes.”
Totally agree. But it does show there are no guanrantees.
“2. Labour got a lot of seats for the number of votes that it received – yes, Labour have a very good ground game. I see no reason why this should stop being the case over the next 5 years.”
Except it wasn’t all ground game – anti-Tory tactical voting was strong, Scotland and NE were v solid, urban seats & London did v well.
The ground game was stunning in seats like Edgbaston, Tynemouth, Gedling, broxtowe, but a brilliant ground game is like having a cliff the tide batters against. If the tide is strong enough.
Also, as I say, tories and LDs will do their level best to cut away at that cliff – money, boundaires, registration, structures.
“3. Distrust of the Conservatives… Now, not only will votes see what policies Tories follow, they will also see the Lib Dems backing them up. Shurely this increases the Labour vote at the expense of the other two parties?”
Could be – but could be not. If Coalition is seen as making needed tough decisions but generally otherwise moderate on cuts, it could well work amongst key voters. Again, this greatly depends v much on the alternative we offer. remember though that if we go up to 34/35 and opponents go down that might not be enough – if Tories and LDs vote tactically against us.
“I agree on your other points, but I strongly see them being overwhelmed by the anti-Conservative and Lib Dem wave that is going to result from the policies that the Government is going to have to enact.”
There I disagree. There is no such inevitability. If we get the blame for waste, if the cuts are regarded as needed, if we don’t have compelling reson for higher spending in face of deficit…
“I see this as the case almost irrespective of the Labour leader that is elected in September (certainly either Ed or Milliband would be able to mount an effective-enough opposition, though I accept that other options are more likely than MSM commentators have speculated).”
At the moment I agree – though this is because I don’t think any of the candidates have distinguished themselves yet…
Labour don’t have to make the case that the cuts aren’t necessary: those who are affected by cuts can and will always make the case the cuts could better be made elsewhere. Unemployed teachers, nurses, soldiers, etc, can easily cry “what about all the benefit fraudsters?! And the immigrants?!!” and the government will never be able to easily make the case that there aren’t savings to be made there.
It seems clear that any and all cuts will be blamed on the situation the current government inherited from Labour and the public will probably agree with this unless Labour can argue effectively against it. How do you think Labour can do this?
Well, if I was certain of the answer to that question, I’d be running for leader, not writing a blog!
But if I had to advise, I’d suggest making Jobs central. higher employment means higher ta revenue, lower state costs, lower social costs etc etc.
Two problems – growth won’t come from public sector, which means that groth must come from private sector – tools to encourage privat sector job creation are traditionally regarded as “right wing”, though often wrongly.
Second, someone like me finds it easy to slip into a lazy industrial corporatism, and that won’t work (well, not in the way we want). We need to be developing fiscal tools that encourage private sector to make good decisions, not trying to take those decisions for them.
Think of it as difference between mandating electric cars and encouraging lots of solutions to low carbon transport from various sources.
So far I am not not convinced that lacking the answers to questions like these is a bar to becoming Labour leader…
I agree that jobs are very important and an area where Labour did have a good track record but David Cameron has been saying that Labour have no plan to cut the deficit and so far I have not seen much of a response.
Assuming that there is a plan to cut the deficit that would have been implemented had Labour been re-elected then the Labour leadership will need to say what it is along with a plan for growing the economy (and I totally agree that this needs to be private sector growth).
I don’t think this can wait until a new leader is elected and it probably needs to be announced just before the Emergency Budget so that it is clear that a plan had already been made but there isn’t enough time for the coalition to react to it.
Bert, 2 points (well, maybe 3):
1. Its only complacency to say what I did if you’re a Labour voter. I very rarely am.
2. Its also complacency to think that Labour has nothing to do on the policy front. It is very complacent, in my view, to say as a Labour supporter, “the Labour alternative offers prosperity, fairness and security. We are ready to govern.” I appreciate, bert, that you didn’t say this.
Whilst Tony Blair’s government introduced a series of very progressive measures that clearly improved British society in ways over 60% of the country would not want to see reversed, the same is not true of Brown’s government. If IDS’s initiatives ever get off the ground (Wisconsin data suggests that anything remotely imaginative / thorough-going in this field costs more than it saves for at least the first decade) in a meaningful way, they would make it difficult for Labour to make the case that they are the only progressive party, or indeed the party that is best at implementing progressive policies. Or, indeed, bringing prosperity or security, neither of which poll right now as being Labour’s strengths.
Fair enough, Will.
It just reads to me as a set of assumptions – most of them based on wishful thinking – about how the Tories will inevitably collapse, and how Labour will be the inevitable benefactors.
We shall see, as they say – but I still stick to what I said about an effective leader being more important than all the other stuff put together. The front man is the key to winning elections – I point you to Mr Blair and Mr Brown to make the obvious conclusions between the electable and the unelectable.
Anyway, without arguing for increased spending and state expansion, what else is the Labour party for? I can’t think of anything. And neither will the electorate.
Will M:
“Indeed, if 2010 represents the peak of the Tory’s ground game, Labour have nothing whatsoever to worry about.”
If. But isn’t it at least as likely that the Tories are aware that their ground game in 2010 was weak in some key seats, and that they will seek to improve it? I’d expect all the main parties to get better and better at this. Also, our ground game was awful in lots of places, and theirs was good in many seats they won.
I think the crunch point will come after the harsh cuts of next year and beyond. Will the public associate them as a result of bringing the deficit under control, will it be regarded as necessary, or will they stick their heads in the sand and suggest deferring the payment to our children and grand children?
I think Labour have a great chance, but unfortunately it will be based on the spin of the past and conveniently forget Alastair Darling’s honest portrayal of how serious the situation is.
Didn’t Mervyn King apparently suggest before the election that whoever won would be unelectable for a generation thereafter because of the economic pain involved?
A reality check is important, yes. While there are plenty of reasons to assume that this government will be unpopular midterm, there’s no reason to assume that it won’t be able to do what the Tories did in the 50s and 80s and be popular (or at least more popular than us) when it matters. Labour ought to assume that the next election will be tough, even if it turns out not to be. What worries me is quite how badly beaten we were in the South outside London; there was at least one seat won in 2005 that we lost by 25pts.
Though you’re wrong to argue that this election was ‘worse’ for us than 1997 was for the Tories; not only do seats matter more than votes, but more choice (in more ways than one) for the electorate means lower polls for major parties.
On the 1997 point – indeed you can argue it both ways – whe 70 or 80 MPs we saved represent a vital resource of intelligence, talent and campaigning skills, that will make us stronger.
On the other hand, we could lose a lot of seats on a different vote distribution – say if we picked up votes where we didn’t need them and got more tactical votes against us where things were close
The idea that Blair and Brown were “soft” on immigration, post about 2000, is ludicrous.
Oh you are a card ! Even if I agree that immigration is ultimately less important than people say it is, salvation through wonkery is transparent wish fulfilment.
David Milliband addressing the Party showed he is the only candidate with a clue or ,any balls ( ironically ). Labour, he said, hold 12 seats in the South outside London .Four in the South East , he might have gone on to say , where they are deader than the Conservatives in Scotland . It is no comfort that it was slightly worse during the Foot period .In fact that aptly describes how out of touch Labour are. You are in the Foot –hills …(if you will)
Southern /self employed/ home owning /skilled /working class voters deserted Labour . The declining council house/ subsidised industry /public sector Northern working class/ less so. The public Sector professional ( ie salaried vote ) held up ( well it would ). They will be less numerous, all of them ,and in any case we know the country cannot afford so many cuckoos in the nest.
Labour can pop the remaining leeches in the bag , immigrants of course , and count on the regional strong holds This will not win ,and as you rightly say it is recipe for retreat as the electoral system is de contaminated of bias .
Furthermore , precisely what the declining core vote want to hear will turn off n the new votes .That one to two million sounds do –able but the numbers do not describe the distance
Let me give an idea of the journey you have before you . Try writing this
My name is Hopi Sen and there have been occassions , many of them , when Newmania has been right and I have been wrong .
Sweet truth and reason.
You know this is why you don’t get ahead in politics?
What do you mean, I’m not ahead in politics?
I’m Labour’s second or third most well known blogger!
Oh, now I see what you mean…
*sobs quietly*
You should write a book, it doesn’t matter what about, just make sure it has a snappy title.
It seems American bloggers make the leap to ‘big time pundits’ (TM) that way.
I agree with Nick. I mean Alun.
There will be a tendency on both sides to focus only on the hundred closest marginals, but there are too many places where Labour has no meaningful presence at all.
It will be important to make Cameron and Clegg fight on a broad front. `Failing’ branches need to be given a big kick up the arse.
The number of LibDems changing sides to Labour is not as small as everyone is describing it as, for example, 38,000 dissastisfied LibDems joined Labour in the past few weeks and opinion polls are showing the Labour figures up three, at the expense of the Lib Dems. Also the coalition infighting that will soon come and the scandals about the Lib Dems, David Laws, Danny Alexander and the more the Telegraph will propbably find, as I imagine they are searching through every single cabinet minister’s expenses with a fine tooth comb, will probably have some sort of effect. Also David Cameron is going to have to pull off some sort of miracle for his share of the vote to go up, strikes and cuts and unemployment are all fairly unpopular. Labour needs to get a new leader, one of the Millibands or their election campaign is dead before its started, and be an effective opposition becaused no one is going to suddenly change to Labour if they do not say or do anything. AV would benefit Labour, from second preference votes, because in the London Mayoral elections in 2008, Labour gained the most 2nd prefernence votes, this will help to bolster Labour’s share of the vote. Labour’s share of councils and council seats increased by quite a bit in the last election, Labour gaining more councils will be a headache for the Conservatives. Yes the next election might be won by the Tories, that is why we have to fight harder and actually fight every single seat, because in the last election, Labour put very little effort into some of the seats, for example, my constituency, Reading East, is a marginal, in 2005, the Tories won it by 400 votes, but Labour did not make a big an effort as it should have done, going into third place.
I am staggered by the admission that cutting electoral fraud will affect the Labour vote the most.
I am staggered by your poor reading comprehension.
Just putting 2+2 together:
“voter registration systems might hurt Labour more than the coalition.”
and
“On voter registration……. to cut fraud.”
btw, oi i never went to no comprehensive!!!
Me too really. Especially when it’s the Tories who keep getting convicted for it.
Depressing but sadly convincing article.
I thought this VoxEU study was interesting too. It suggests that governments which reduce deficits by tax rises and spending cuts are not generally punished by voters:
http://voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/5114
I don’t understand the Vox EU article. It has got a measure called “number of government changes” vs “Number of times no Government changes happen”, so that, for example, between 1993 and 1999 the UK had one government change and one no government change.
Using the same list of examples which they have, it seems that every single time a government begins a fiscal adjustment through cutting expenditure, it either loses the next election (France after 1993, UK after 1993, Sweden after 1993, Austria after 1995, Portugal after 1980, Netherlands after 1990) or loses seats unexpectedly (Ireland after 1987)
It won’t be the nice stuff that make us feel good like increasing minimum wages, overseas aid, or volunteering that decides the next election.
It will be the grit of policies on transport, industry, jobs, tax and crime.
First of all, why the opposition? There’s no rush. We don’t have to concentrate on being on message 24/7 for a while. Not even for the Emergency Budget. I can sympathise with your frustration at not hearing your issues spoken to, but you’re not going to convince people by making a false distinction* between the soft and hard subjects. There’s nowt wrong wi’ gala luncheons.
And second, I think you’re missing the sense of opportunity here. One of the data points you missed out in your introduction is that this is the first time Labour has entered opposition after having been in government so long, long enough to change the political narrative. One of the reasons that people are talking about the soft subjects is because we can, not because, or just because if you prefer, of the luxury of opposition or the ease of retreating towards the comfort zones.
*Minimum wages, for instance, are surely part of the policies of jobs, even if they also make us feel good. Come to think of it, why wouldn’t job creation make us feel good?
I create the opposition (which is indeed false) because it feels like the only thing we’re discussing is the failure of the last government to provide free sky-ponies, and how that must be redressed, and how we must reconnect with those who were upset with our failure to provide free sky-ponies, by listening and learning and reconnecting and being a force for sky-pony campaigning everywhere.
This is a gross exageration, of course. It ignores Iraq and 10p tax and all the rest, of the things that were disappointments for millions.
But apologising for the things people think we got wrong doesn’t give people a reason to vote for us again.
It might remove a barrier, and some repentence and humility will do us good – but it won’t give an incentive. That’s the hard task for our next leader.
(the same goes for my post above about London, btw- the challenge for Ken is to clear the decks so he can provide incentives tovoters to support him again)
Spot on hopi.
The LibCon coalition could be more popular amongst it’s potential coalition than many people think.
And Labour doesn’t have an answer – yet – to the opposition the Tories will pose between big state and their rose-tinted version of the free market.
The answer will be a new political language, and a new way of thinking about governance which connects aspiration (why people want conservatories) to real, tangible forms of community and solidarity – that, in other words, says the market isn’t the answer to people wanting to ‘get on’ in life, but recognises that the big bureaucracy isn’t the answer either.
The fact that i wince whilst writing the word community, and that i can only articulate what’s needed with very poncy academic language shows how far we are from formulating it…
Hopi
We know your tendency to tell it like it is but I do think you overstate the coalition standing. 58% of people are saying ‘give them a chance’ and 30% feel let down. The T word is the most important word ‘Trust’ (not trust fund) and the election whenever it may be will not be in 5 years. They have 22 pieces of legislation of which the ‘constitutional changes’ will be the most complex and most difficult.
When you talk about the North East of which you know well – you will be aware a 0.13% swing to Labour will take back Stockton South and and 0.83% will retake Carlisle.
The truth is that our friends in the ‘new politics’ are motoring fast but not effectively. As a man grounded in communications, you will have seen the ‘teething problems’ they have faced.
Your electoral mathmatics add a facinating take on this but we are in very early days – the first Law of politics is not to make rash decisions. I’m only unhappy that the leadership contest is going to take so long – once again we are in danger of looking inwards. Glad you mentioned Tynemouth because that shows what can be done with limited resources but a local campaign – Things can get better (in the long run).
It could be that way. I hope it will..
but it could be the other way too.
The road to a Labour majority in Parliament involves winning 68+ seats. No 68 is High Peak, where my family lives. It has elected aLabour MP all of 4 times. Winning has to be primarily in places where the largest proportion of the 94 losses of 2010 were; mostly in small-town England.
‘Next, a loss of ground in Scotland and pro-coalition tactical voting could cost us seats.’
I would expect the 50-100 overall reduction in MP’s,the implementation of Calman plus and the WLQ will lead to a reduction of at least 50% of the current number MP’s in Scotland.
What with a full blown parliament,127 MSP’s,it would be interesting to know how the existing 59 Scottish MP’s fill their time?
All labour has to do is elect a fresh faced electable candidate.
It is not about long struggles, or swings or buggins turn. It is who has the best candidate.
If we have the best election candidate next time we will win.
Stop internal battles and attack the tories.
The parliament must not be reduced in size and it i not fair to reduce the number of scottish mps by 50%. All you have to do is stop scottish mps voting on english issues why do you need to cut the Scottish vote on issues such as EU treaty ratification, or foreign policy issues that has noting to do with the west lothian quiestion.
I think that you are also omitting other vital points, such as, you will no longer have £500 million pounds of taxpayers money to give to Newspapers and TV companies.
You will no longer be able to transfer taxpayers money into the labour party via the union modernisation fund.
You will no longer be able to use taxpayers money to buy votes in marginal seats, as mandelson did thirteen times last year.
Things are a little bit difficult when you do not have taxpayers money to splash about
Can I just say are tory suggsting that Scottish MPS should be cut, is a disgrace.
I am fed up with how sinister the tories are that every single constitutional change is about increase the number of MPs they have.
Nothing else ever.
They also want to both ban scots form voting on English only issues and cut the number of Scottish MPS.
That makes no sense. You either have one or the other. If you stop Scottish MPS voting on English only issues then there is no west lothian question.
How can you justify cutting Scottish mps and ban them from cutting on English only issues at the same time.
Tom Mein – Wrong. The unions give labour money to escape tories rule. They always have done.
So you also seem to think an advertisement about drink driving, or SDT’s, paid for by some government department, is an an advert for the labour party. Will you say about the government spending done under the tories. Somehow I doubt it.
That makes no sense. You either have one or the other. If you stop Scottish MPS voting on English only issues then there is no west lothian question.
That is wrong . Labour lost by 290 to 190 in England ( roughly ) the prospect of Labour England majority is remote so any Labour government will rely on MPs from the devolved Nations . Voting rights are one thing but the right to initiate legislation is quite another. This right is accorded to the Celts of course.
Scots are currenly over-represented in numerical terms anyway.
The current dispensation is indefensible in short
Newmania They are not over represented. They have the same representation. What you are suggesting is indicative of an arrogant nationalistic imperialistic mentality. You are suggesting .that in the United Kingdom parliament it is wrong for Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland to have an affect on who the government is. And that only England should decide. Well it is their parliament too. .It decides foreign policy, military issues nuclear weapons, policy tax rates, much of the spending in the devolved nations, oh and that issue that you find so important normally our relations with the EU, which is not impacted by the Scottish or Welsh devolved institutions at all, normally you claim that is the only issue that matters, except when trying to pretend devolution has an enormous power.
You are just a little Englander.
This is a United Kingdom parliament. it decides who the government is over the whole nation not just England. There should not be one MP cut from the other nations. You have no right to cut the number of mps in the smaller nations, out of some punishment for not voting tory.
Oh and in the USA smaller states actually have more electoral college votes as a rule per person to stop domination by larger states.
Oh an labour won in England in seats and VOTES in 1997, and 2001 so stop this vile moronic myth that labour can never win in England in votes or seats. More little englander bile.
Would an English Parliament accorded equal powers with Scotland solve this disagreement . A majority of Scots English and Welsh would like one ?