Overblog
Follow this blog Administration + Create my blog
August 9 2013 5 09 /08 /August /2013 07:12

What constitutes a safe seat? Let me throw the following suggestion out there. First of all, it is not sufficient to state that a seat is safe if the elected Member of Parliament possesses more than half of the vote. At Bristol North East in 1970, Robert Adley accumulated more than fifty per cent of the votes cast, but his majority was a measly 462. This may be an extreme example, but it does illustrate that just because Candidate A has more votes than all the other candidates added together, this does not automatically render he or she the custodian of a safe seat.

 

I would argue that a seat is safe (indeed ultra-safe) if the MP’s majority is greater than the total votes polled by the other candidates. I am guessing that one will struggle to find too many occasions when this safe seat scenario has not been valid. One occasion when such a safe seat is indeed unsafe is at a by-election. Glasgow East in 2008 illustrates this exception.

 

Anyhow, now that the Boundary Commission’s most recent recommendations have regrettably been mothballed, I have taken the liberty of pouring over all the 650 constituency results from the most recent British general election charade in May 2010. Applying my criteria, I was surprised to find only 25 seats which fall into my safe seat category. I think that we can safely say that there are a great many more constituencies where the current incumbent can sleep safely in their bed in advance of their next beauty contest in 2015. Therefore, it might be more prudent to define my findings as ultra-safe seats, in other words, the kind of constituency contests which are basically non-contests, the political equivalent of a five furlong horse race involving a champion sprinter competing against three or four donkeys. The listed constituencies consequently can be described as Britain’s safest 25 seats, where to coin a phrase, the incumbent MP ‘only has to turn up to win’. You won’t find too may high profile politicians and front-bench spokespersons campaigning in such constituencies, because their result will be deemed a foregone conclusion. Instead, those persons living within the confines of a key marginal will instead have the joy or pain of a multitude of heavyweight politicos tramping up and down their shopping precincts and beyond, ensuring that every possible vote can be squeezed out of such target seats at the next national poll.

 

Meanwhile, here are the 25 seats that appear to be ‘safe as houses’, five of which are in the current possession of the Conservative Party while the Labour Party currently lays claim to seventeen such Westminster strongholds. In the list underneath, the MPs are Conservative, unless otherwise stated. Only thirteen are located in England’s green and pleasant land, while there are none in Wales. Northern Ireland boasts two such ultra-safe seats whilst north of the border, there are no fewer than ten mega-safe seats. The MPs of such fiefdoms will not thank me for publishing these findings as perversely there is nothing that galvanises people more than the thought that they and their vote are taken for granted. Could a surprise therefore be on the cards? I doubt this somehow!   

 

[compiled by Gary Watton; author of The Celtic Fringe (GW Publications, 2012) under the anagram pseudonym of 'Grant Toway'

 

Beaconsfield

Belfast West [Sinn Fein]

Birkenhead [Labour]

Bootle  [Labour]

Chelsea and Fulham

Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill [Labour]

Down North [Independent Unionist]

Dunbartonshire West [Labour]

Easington  [Labour]

East Ham [Labour]

Glasgow North East  [Labour]

Glasgow South West  [Labour]

Glenrothes  [Labour]

Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath  [Labour]

Knowsley  [Labour]

Maldon

Motherwell and Wishaw  [Labour]

Orkney and Shetland [Liberal Democrat]

Paisley and Renfrewshire South  [Labour]

Rayleigh and Wickford

Richmond (Yorkshire)

Rutherglen and Hamilton West  [Labour]

South Holland and The Deepings  [Labour]

Tottenham  [Labour]

West Ham  [Labour]

Share this post
Repost0
July 18 2013 4 18 /07 /July /2013 06:49

Modern Britain is a fascist democracy. A what? I hear you say. Seriously, folks. Our parents, grandparents, and assorted ancestors went to war in the early 1940s seemingly to defeat the disease of fascism, or more particularly Nazism. However, fascism is still alive and thriving today in Britain and the western world, many decades after the heroic sacrifices of our predecessors. Permit me to explain.

 

Well, first of all, let us briefly tackle the myth that Britain fought and conquered fascism in the early 1940s. The reality is that the Nazi brand of fascism drew its racist inspiration from an Englishman by the name of Chamberlain: Houston Stewart Chamberlain [who married into the Wagner family]. Nazism was based upon totally misguided racial theories. The Japanese harboured similar racialist tosh during their barbaric flexing of muscles for a decade up to the necessary dropping of the atom bombs. Fascism was not defeated in 1945. It is prevalent in Britain and the First World. It is no longer a racist ideology of gobbledygook, but instead has become a lot more subtle.

 

Instead, I would argue that fascism is derived primarily from the Nietzschean concept of the Supermen - individuals who by dint of their skills and talent are supposedly superior to other lesser mortals whom he termed Untermenschen. Well, speaking as a self-respecting Untermensch, I live in a society where celebrities, sporting superstars, business leaders, politicians, and the royal scroungers all earn amounts of money which far exceed the income and 'wealth' of the great unwashed. How can it be permissible if fat cat bankers and MPs are not willing to get out of bed for less than about sixty thousand pounds per annum whilst they exhort many millions of the populace to make do with the minimum wage? Why are some people much more handsomely rewarded than others? Is this merely a manifestation of a meritocracy where the high-flying achievers acquire much more wealth and rewards than the under-achievers? Why do the middle-class professionals get exorcised when their retirement funds or pensions are jeopardised and are strangely silent about the have-nots in our selfish society? Could it be that many folk feel that their university education has earned them the right to become a two or three-car family with a holiday home or regular holidays abroad whilst the uneducated should content themselves with much less? Is this not fascism: the belief that some people are more superior than others and deserve much more? This is fascism in its purest, impure concept.

 

I would venture to state that it is a case of meritocracy gone mad and is instead in keeping with Nietszchean fascism, the notion that certain people are more superior than others and that these Ubermensch deserve more wealth than the Untermensch. The government policy as practised by administration after administration, regardlesss of their apparent political label, is one of containment of the grievances of the underdogs and doing the bare minimum to redistribute income and wealth. No government has the moral courage to confront the great taboo of British politics and society which is to demand that the Head of State and her vast entourage pay their fair share and make a suitable contribution to the economy. It seems that our political leaders are terrified of questioning the royal scrooges in case they take umbrage and refuse to confer knighthoods and such awards. Clearly, patronage is very much part and parcel of the British Establishment. It simpy won't do to offend the monarch whilst the greed of the monarchy is itself offensive to any sensible observer.  Perhaps John Lydon, vocalising in 1977, was correct after all when he stated "God save the Queen, the fascist regime."

Share this post
Repost0
January 17 2013 4 17 /01 /January /2013 11:11

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls,
Permit me to share the following information with you. I have previously worked for a Belfast taxi firm and as a consequence I had access to literally thousands of taxi bookings. This item refers to bookings that were made in the years immediately preceding August 2009, starting circa the beginning of 2007. Unless I am mistaken, the BBC in every urban centre in the UK in which it has premises and staff, constantly provide taxis for some employees and also for many guests in their studios. Such taxis are euphemistically described as “on account.” This means that such fares are not paid by the actual passenger, but are charged to the BBC. Ultimately, such taxi journeys are being funded by the Licence Fee-payer. On a scale of one to ten, just how acceptable do you think that it is that the hard-pressed Licence Fee-payer is subsidising a multitude of taxi journeys every day in urban centres throughout the Disunited Queendom? A fair fare? Surely not?
However, what lends a degree of farce, not to mention hypocrisy, to the proceedings is that during the very time period when the expenses of politicians were brought into sharp focus by the media, including the BBC, we discover that BBC personnel and their high-profile guests [many of whom are/were wealthy celebrities] were creaming free taxi journeys off the public purse!
It gets worse, or funnier, depending upon your sense of humour. When I liaised with the nice boys and girls at the News Of The World about such shenanigans in August 2009, the BBC in Belfast summoned two ‘investigators’ on the BBC payroll to fly over from the north of England to threaten me with possible charges of harrassment against BBC staff. Frankly speaking, my activities were not quite in the top drawer of espionage or subversive sabotage, which the two gents [former gendarmes] readily conceded. Therefore, no charges were forthcoming in the event, though the NOTW still published details from my findings. What this episode demonstrates is that the BBC and other media vehicles would not flinch at exposing the bonus and expenses culture of others, but God have mercy on anyone who dared to reveal that this same broadcasting giant also has its hands filthy with the same rotten endeavours.
Ask yourselves the following questions:
1. Why should BBC staff be permitted [on occasions] to travel to and from work in an all-expenses paid taxi when the rest of the populace have to pay for their journeys to and from work?
2. Why should guests of the BBC who may have been invited for interviews [frequently wealthy guests into the 'bargain'] be permitted free taxis paid out of the public purse when the rest of us suckers have to pay for travel to job interviews or medical appointments?
3. Gordon Brown and David Cameron ordered their Members of Parliament to repay their extravagant expenses. What do you reckon is the likelihood that the BBC and its personnel will have the integrity to re-pay the vast mountain of free taxis that they have accrued, funded by the Licence Fee-payers?
Okay, without further ado, feel free to browse through the enclosed hall of shame of current and former BBC employees who booked taxis “on account” in Northern Ireland [predominantly but not exclusively in the Greater Belfast area]. As a disclaimer [your Honour], it is only fair to point out that some of the listed people who have taken Joe Public for a ride may have only taken one taxi journey. Therefore, there is much variation in the volume of taxis ordered “on account” by the individuals below. Secondly, as the listed information only covers a period of two and a half years in but one locality in the UK, the mind boggles at the sheer numbers of staff and guests who have taken the Licence Fee-payer for a ride over the last decade and beyond. We are talking about the tip of a gargantuan iceberg here. Personally, I regard it as obscenely scandalous, but hey, you are welcome to your own thoughts.
Oh and penultimately, I have not fabricated any of the information. I am not in the business of constructing fantasy statistics. I also do not have a grudge against the BBC. I merely have a grudge against the agents of hypocrisy. After all, the bonus and perks culture extends way beyond Auntie Beeb or Westminster village. Many banks such as the Ulster Bank, the Bank of Ireland, and First Trust have in the past paid for staff taxis out of bank funds, which were the product of their members’ investments. [That, one might say, is a story for another day]. Mind you, maybe Michael Corleone was correct in ‘The Godfather Part II’ when he stated to the senator that “we are all part of the same hypocrisy.”
Oh and finally, if you delude yourself that this blog piece is a total work of fiction, then take yourself off to the nearest BBC studio or building and ask the passengers who alight from each taxi if they have paid for the fare. Better still, ask the cab driver if he received a cash payment or whether his company is charging the BBC [i.e. the Licence Fee-payer] for the travel costs. Some of the passengers are elected politicians. Do you think that they are suddenly paying their way, like the rest of us? Do you truly think that “we are all in it together?” Oh don’t let me arouse you from your complacent slumber!
At this stage, may I remind you that you are investing £145.50 per year in a TV Licence. Enjoy the view:

*****BBC TAXIS BOOKED FROM FONACAB***** [these figures include a number of BBC accounts, including BBC sport]
2007 – 9,646
JANUARY – 690
FEBRUARY – 754
MARCH – 919
APRIL – 699
MAY – 869
JUNE – 803
JULY – 575
AUGUST – 709
SEPTEMBER – 757
OCTOBER – 983
NOVEMBER – 1,091
DECEMBER – 797
2008 – 8,465
JANUARY – 778
FEBRUARY – 782
MARCH – 663
APRIL – 744
MAY – 732
JUNE – 618
JULY – 581
AUGUST – 516
SEPTEMBER – 763
OCTOBER – 845
NOVEMBER – 819
DECEMBER – 624
2009
JANUARY/FEBRUARY – 1,480
MARCH – 890
1 – 6
2 – 26
3 – 39
4 – 34
5 – 37
6 – 32
7 – 18
8 – 28
9 – 37
10 – 34
11 – 34
12 – 39
13 – 41
14 – 16
15 – 10
16 – 33
17 – 35
18 – 31
19 – 27
20 – 28
21 – 12
22 – 7
23 – 38
24 – 45
25 – 36
26 – 47
27 – 25
28 – 23
29 -17
30 – 29
31 – 26
APRIL – 698
1 – 62
2 – 44
3 – 30
4 – 11
5 – 7
6 – 19
7 – 26
8 – 26
9 – 25
10 – 11
11 – 7
12 – 4
13 – 4
14 – 15
15 – 26
16 – 27
17 – 23
18 – 7
19 – 6
20 – 31
21 – 34
22 – 23
23 – 40
24 – 30
25 – 11
26 – 7
27 – 39
28 – 41
29 – 28
30 – 44
MAY – 824
1 – 26
2 – 10
3 – 6
4 – 11
5 – 33
6 – 57
7 – 59
8 – 43
9 – 22
10 – 5
11 – 30
12 – 35
13 – 53
14 – 34
15 – 44
16 – 10
17 – 9
18 – 35
19 – 39
20 – 34
21 – 46
22 – 30
23 – 9
24 – 3
25 – 13
26 – 23
27 – 39
28 – 29
29 – 20
30 – 10
31 – 7
JUNE -
1 – 29
2 – 22
3 – 30
4 – 25
5 – 28
6 – 12
7 – 10
8 – 34
9 – 35
10 – 29
11 – 31
12 – 30
13 – 8
14 – 10
15 – 30
MARK.ADAIR
RYAN.ADAMS
WILLIAM.ADAMS
BRENDAN.ANDERSON
WENDY.AUSTIN
ELAINE.AYRE
CLARE.BALDING
MICHAEL.BEDWELL
NEIL.S.BELL
LOUISE.BIRT
PHILIP.BLAIR
NIALL.BLANEY
FIONUALA.BOYD
SEAMUS.BOYD
HELEN.BROWN
JAMES.BUCHANAN
CLAIRE.BURGOYNE
OLLIE.BURTON
JOHN.CAMPBELL
EMMA.CANAVAN
UNA.CARLIN
ROSS.CARSON
GLENN.CARTMILL
GARY.CARVILL
MARK.CHESTNUTT
PETE.CLIFTON
MELISSA.COCKRILL
BRYAN.COLL
PETER.COOPER
GEORGIE.CORBETT
NIAMH.COSTIGAN
PATRICIA.COYLE
STEPHEN.CRAIG
WILLIAM.CRAWLEY
GEMMA.CUNNINGHAM
TONY.CURRIE
TONY.CURRY
CECILIA.DALY
SUZANNE.DALY
WARREN.DALZELL
PATRICIA.DAVEY
STEPHEN.DOUDS
LAURIAN.DUFF
ITA.DUNGAN
JENNIFER.DUPREE
RICHARD.EVANS
RICHARD.EVANS.01
BOLA.FATIMILEHIN
LYNETTE.FAY
SHARON.FERGUSON
COLIN.FITTON
JIM.FITZPATRICK
JULIE.FLANAGAN
BOBBY.FRIEDMAN
ANGELINA.FUSCO
NIALL.GALLAGHER
CONOR.GARRETT
CERI.GODDARD
LUCY.GOLLOGLY
LIZ.GREGG
CHIARA.JANE.GRINDLE
TIFFANY.HALL
RYAN.HAND
LISA.HANRATTY
SUZANNE.HARRISON
MICHAEL.HART
JAMES.HAYES
MICHAEL.HIGGINS
PHILIP.HILDITCH
STEVEN.HOBSON
RAY.HUNT
SIMON.HUNTER
GARETH.HYDES
MARIE.IRVINE
MARK.JEFFERS
ROTHA.JOHNSTON
KELVIN.JONES
ANNE.JORDAN
FERGAL.KEANE
MORAG.KEATING
CHRIS.KELLY
JEANNINE.KELLY
IAN.JACK-GW
MELANIE.LAW
EVA.LENNOX
LOUISE.LIDDY
CHRIS.LINDSAY
ALEXANDER.LITTLEWOOD
JOSEPHINE.LONG
SUSAN.LOVELL
ANN.LYNAS
DARRAGH.MACINTYRE
ELAINE.MAGUIRE
CERI.MALLON
KATHRYN.MARTIN2
KATHY.MARTIN
DAVID.MAXWELL
NATALIE.MAYNES
JOHN.MCALISKEY
JOHN.MCCABE
NAOMI.MCCAFFERTY
BARBARA.MCCANN
JACKIE.MCCANN
HARRY.MCLEAN
MARK.MCCLEARY
BRYAN.MCCOLLUM
RORY.MCCONNELL
SHAUNA.MCCONVILLE
SEAMUS.MCCRACKEN
JULIE.MCCULLOUGH
LAURA.MCDAID
FIONA.MCGAUGHEY
CIARA.MCGRILLAN
PAUL.MCGUIGAN
LEO.MCGURNAGHAN
MARGARET.MCKEE
GREG.MCKEVITT
PAUL.MCKILLION
GABRIEL.MCPARLAND
KATHARINE.MCQUADE
MAURICE.MEHAFFEY
PETER.MELLY
ROBBIE.MEREDITH
ANITA.MIAH
MERVYN.MIDDLEBY
PHILIP.MILLER
CAMERON.MITCHELL
JANICE.MONDJACK
CATHY.MOOREHEAD
CATHARINE.MORRISON
JOHNNY.MUIR
MARIE-LOUISE.MUIR
ALASTAIR.NEELY
ADAM.NIXON
MARTIN.OBRIEN
CARA.ODOHERTY
ANTAINE.ODONNAILE
CAROLE.OKANE
JOHN.OKANE
JO.O’LEARY
FIONA.O’NEILL
JOHN.ONEILL
BARRY.ORMAN
AILSA.ORR
JULIA.PAUL
CAROLINE.PEDDLE
ANGIE.PHILLIPS
SIMON.PILBEAM
MICHAEL.PRICE
STUART.PRITCHARD
NIGEL.REES
MELVIN.RICKARBY
CIARA.RIDDELL
ELHAM.RIZI
ZOE.ROBINSON
GERRY.ROGERS
DAVID.ROWNEY
LINDA.RUDDY
RUTH.SANDERSON
NATASHA.SAYEE
EMMA.SCHOLES
MICHAEL.SELBY
YVETTE.SHAPIRO
MARK.SIDEBOTTOM
MICHAEL.SIMON
IAN.SINCLAIR
RUTH.SLOAN
COLLETTA.SMITH
CONOR.SPACKMAN
SARAH.STACK
GRAEME.STEWART
JO.STREET
ELAINE.SUTHERLAND
MARK.TAYLOR.01
HELEN.THOMPSON
KERRY.THOMPSON
HELEN.TOLAND
MARIA.TUMELTY
CATHY.WALKER
MARK.WALKER
ANNEMARIE.WALLACE
ANDREW.WASSALL
STEPHEN.WATSON
IAN.WILLIAMSON
JENNY.WILSON
FIONA.WOODS
KIERAN.YEATES

Share this post
Repost0
January 16 2013 3 16 /01 /January /2013 13:09

No this isn’t a homage to a Roxy Music album from the 1970s, but instead this page is my own vision for the Disunited Queendom. Tony Bennett once sang ‘If I Ruled The World’. Well here is my programme for government if I ruled Little Britain. [The following prescriptions for ailing Britain, our sick society, are in no order of importance.]

 

There should be a referendum on whether or not Britain wishes to remain in the European Union.

 

There should be a referendum in the Falkland Islands on the issue of its sovereignty. Even if the islanders agree to preserve the status quo, there should be a conciliatory gesture of permitting a rolling increase of Argentine involvement in the administration of what they refer to as the Malvinas.

 

There should be a referendum in Northern Ireland to determine its constitutional position for the next ten years.

 

The BBC licence fee should be scrapped. The time is long overdue that the BBC should stand on its own two feet and not rely on a mandatory licence fee imposed on its viewers. No other broadcasting network demands such terms and conditions of its customers. The BBC must operate in the marketplace in much the same way as its competitors, relying either on subscriptions, as Sky does, or upon revenue from advertising, as experienced by the likes of ITV. Given the scandals and its flawed history, not to mention the unmerited high salaries of its chief executives and overpaid presenters, the BBC should not command a compulsory licence fee from its hard-pressed viewers.

 

The next of kin should be fined one thousand pounds if they permit the firing of a volley of shots at the graveside ceremony of their loved one’s funeral.

 

It should be illegal to fly a paramilitary flag from one’s own house. The occupant should be fined one thousand pounds.

 

It should be illegal to burn any national flag, as periodically and provocatively practised in Northern Ireland.

 

The number of MLAs in Northern Ireland needs to be cut from a scandalous six members per constituency to five, even four members per constituency, thus sparing the public purse an obscenely high outlay of funds.

 

The number of MPs at Westminster needs surgery too. A more realistic total of five hundred ought to be aimed at. However, no Member of Parliament should have to represent any more than a maximum of one hundred thousand constituents. Where a constituency exceeds a total electorate of one hundred thousand, then boundary changes are needed to keep every constituency to a maximum of one hundred thousand people. No constituency should have an electorate of less than fifty thousand constituents.

 

There should be an absolute bare minimum tariff of twenty years for all life sentences. To be convicted of murder and then issued with a minimum of seventeen years clearly values the life of the deceased victim at approximately seventeen years, which is preposterous and insulting.

 

The National Minimum Wage should be increased from barely beyond six pounds per hour to a more respectful eight pounds per hour.

 

Businesses will be able to cope with the burden of these increased wages by means of a reduction in Corporation Tax.

In order to offset the national debt, Jobseekers Allowance should be cut from £71 per week to fifty-nine pounds per week. By increasing the margin between one week on Jobseekers Allowance and one week on the National Minimum Wage, the whole concept of work will never seem so attractive and there will be a huge stimulus to find employment. As someone who is currently receiving JSA, I am well-placed to comment on the anomaly of working full-time in a low-paid job when benefits are considerably more rewarding. There are enough benefits claimants shelling out their apparent wealth each day at the bookies or at the pub to suggest that there is something sickeningly amiss with Britain’s benefits culture. Unfortunately, for every genuine hard luck story, there appears to be many others who are benefiting a little too well from the benefits bestowed by the misguided liberals of Britain’s nanny state.

 

Job application forms should be legally restricted to a maximum of ten pages. Anything beyond this total is not user-friendly and is inclined to be padded out with unnecessary and downright intrusive questions.

 

All employers should be legally compelled to email all applicants for a vacancy and inform them of the outcome. It doesn’t take an eternity to contact people via email in contrast to the costly snail mail. Failing to inform all applicants about the outcome of their application is hugely disrespectful and demoralising.

 

In much the same way as there is a national criminal database, people should be able to volunteer information about their qualifications and employment record to a national database. Employers can then consult this database in order to ascertain a candidate’s suitability for an advertised vacancy. Such information would enable a candidate to curtail a lengthy application form by stating that such information is in the public domain and is verifiable.

 

The ‘basic’ salary of Members of Parliament should be reduced from 63k to 60k per annum. This would provide an annual saving of two million pounds for the public purse. Admittedly, this is a mere drop in the ocean, but to quote the Tesco commercial, ‘every little helps’. 

 

There needs to be an end to the golden handshakes culture that afflicts British society. The sacked, soometimes disgraced, sometimes underachieving chief executives and bosses of major organisations or corporations should not be rewarded for their failure. Employment law must be amended to outlaw employment contracts which facilitate huge pay-offs for departing employees. It would be good if the British parliament took a lead in this abominable situation and voted to stop the issuing of a large pension to MPs who lose their seats. Again, this is an example of rewarding failure, and it sets a terrible example.

 

Young persons under the age of eighteen should be legally prohibited from attending public protests. Anyone who breaches this law should be detained at a holding centre until a parent or guardian arrives and pays a spot fine of ten pounds before the underaged protester is released. If there is a repeat offence, the spot fine increases to £100. If there is a third violation, then a fine of £1,000 is issued.

 

All future motoring offences, such as speeding should result in a £100 fine for the perpetrator and a £1,000 for a repeat offence. Such measures would replace the outdated points system. For the first offence, the perpetrator would still have the choice between a fine or compulsory attendance at the drive safety course.

 

Whenever the police are asked to investigate a complaint of excessive noise at someone’s house, arising out of a late night, or early hours party, a spot fine of ten pounds should be issued to the property owner if the police record and/or film the noisy proceedings. Again, a repeat offence should incur a fine of £100, and a third offence should necessitate a £1,000 fine. Unfortunately, nowhere near enough is done to tackle such anti-social behaviour, and again the authorities seem impotent at protecting a person’s right to a quiet, peaceful existence, free from excessive noise in the night or early morning.

 

Young persons under the age of twenty who the police consider to be drunk and disorderly when attending or emerging from a night club or pub should be detained overnight in a holding centre where they can sober up, whilst in this temporary protective custody. The individual would then be released when a parent, partner, or guardian arrives at the holding centre and pays a spot fine of £10 for a first offence, £100 for a repeat offence, and £1,000 for a third such offence.

 

The revenue raised from the imposition of fines for the above offences can be allocated as follows:
1) The building and maintenance and staffing of new detention centres for those guilty of anti-social behaviour such as underage protesters and drunk and disorderly teenagers. Such centres would provide a brief, temporary stint of incarceration whilst arrangements were made for a parent, or guardian, or partner to arrive at the holding centre and settle the appropriate spot fine. Failure to pay the spot fine would automatically result in court proceedings being issued, after which an increased fine or custodial sentence would be bestowed upon any guilty party.
2) Funds from the fines would also be distributed to a central fund that would compensate anyone found innocent after having been remanded in custody. Any such individual who is acquitted after having been placed on remand would be compensated to the tune of £100 per week of their incarceration.

 

A maximum wage needs to be legally enforced to prevent Premiership soccer players grabbing outrageous weekly amounts which far exceed what many people earn over several years.

 

Football clubs should not be permitted to spend money in the transfer market, unless they have paid off their debts. There is something incongruous about a football club which owes money but which simultaneously is purchasing new players.

Share this post
Repost0
January 15 2013 2 15 /01 /January /2013 12:05

The purpose of this blog piece is to highlight the state-sponsored terror that was doled out to the populace during the seemingly eventful decades during which the Tudor family sat on the throne. It is not a mere recital of Foxe’s Book Of Martyrs nor intended as a chronology of Catholic martyrdom. Instead, I feel it necessary to demonstrate just how vengeful and murderous Henry VIII was, whilst also drawing your attention to the misery, pain, torture and worse that was inflicted by Henry’s two daughters upon a whole host of brave souls whose religious convictions were at variance with that of the reigning monarch. Good old Harry of England may have his fan club, but was he far removed from being an early version of Joe Stalin?         

   [Was Henry VIII a great king or just a sixteenth-century Idi Amin?]

          Anyhow I would quickly like to emphasise that the Tudors did not enjoy the monopoly on inflicting suffering upon their naughty subjects. There was widespread barbarity visited upon the peoples of the British Isles long before and indeed long after the last of the Tudor monarchs exited the stage in 1603. Why is it then that I and many others have always been drawn to the soap opera of the sixteenth century? I would venture to suggest that the callous cruelty that we associate particularly with the reigns of Henry VIII and his daughters Mary and Elizabeth owes itself to the religious upheaval that Martin Luther instigated around 1517 when he unwittingly founded the Protestant Reformation, a fact all the more absurd when one considers that this pioneer was himself a Catholic monk. Ever since Luther’s rebellion against Rome, Europe was plunged into turmoil. What renders the situation a matter of life and death is that the two respective camps had a clear sense of black and white on matters spiritual. Anyone who dared to oppose or reform the old religion was an enemy of Rome and had to be literally extinguished. By the same token, once Protestantism took hold, those who steadfastly clung to the old religion were regarded as equally too dangerous to tolerate. The concepts of compromise and tolerance and mutual respect and understanding were anathema to the religious fanatics and devout worshippers of the sixteenth century. In many respects, the so-called Christians of this epoch were fighting their very own Jihad, but against each other. It is against these unfolding circumstances that the Tudor monarchs were confronted with all manner of heretics and perceived traitors. In such unenlightened times, it was reckoned that the only means of killing an idea was to exterminate every last soul who possessed such an idea or faith. The modern-day perpetrators of genocide still entertain the naive notion that a belief can be killed off by removing everyone who holds that belief. Easier said than done. 

          Before we pour over the list of over seven hundred wretched souls who paid the ultimate price during the tumultuous Tudor years, I would like to enlighten you with the following items of trivia, which you may or may not already be familiar with.

          Firstly, did you know that the lucky victims of a beheading who were spared the prolonged agony of a hung, drawn, and quartered ordeal could potentially remain conscious for several seconds after they had been decapitated? This is a medical fact.

          Secondly, it was customary to pay the executioner in a beheading in order to bribe the axeman to complete his gruesome task to the best of his peculiar talent. However, not all victims received value for money. The dastardly ex-Lord Chancellor Thomas Cromwell and Robert Devereux, the Earl of Essex were two such notable persons whose heads refused to exit the rest of their body at the first attempt, leaving them and others in such circumstances in considerable pain for longer than their wages to the executioner had bargained for.

          Thirdly, the executioner was expected to ask the imminent victim for his or her forgiveness ahead of the fatal blow. It is also worth pointing out that if there was an unenviable queue of ‘offenders’ awaiting their fate on the block, they were dealt with in decreasing ‘order of importance’. The individual of highest rank and noble birth was permitted the extra privilege of being decapitated first. So what? Well, if you consider the five unfortunates who were each falsely accused of being in an adulterous relationship with Queen Anne Boleyn, then you can imagine the amount of blood flowing literally on the block and the scaffold by the time that victim number five, the wretched Mark Smeaton was required to die. Going first and getting the ordeal over with was something to wish for!

          Fourthly, although the victim was usually granted an opportunity for a pre-execution oration atop the scaffold, some offenders deemed it prudent not to condemn their accusers for fear of retribution being meted out against their bereaved families.

          Fifthly, the hung, drawn, and quartered punishment is slightly inaccurately named. Initially, the wretch was drawn by horse through the streets to their place of execution, then he would have been half-hanged, but cruelly kept alive, and then the ritual culminated in a disembowelling, before the corpse would be sliced into four and distributed to vantage points in the vicinity as a reminder of what awaited anyone who contemplated a treasonable act. Therefore, strictly speaking, the punishment was actually drawn, partially hung, and quartered.  

          It is also worth pointing out that the victims who were burnt at the stake were being ‘purged’ of their sinful heresy in order to render them worthy of eternal salvation. This peculiar practice was widespread at the time of the Spanish Inquisition. It became commonplace in England in the 1550s on account of the fact that Queen Mary was effectively a Spanish monarch, given that her mother and her new spouse both hailed from Spain. Anyhow, it was deemed to be infinitely more preferable to burn for a few hours on earth than supposedly to burn forever in Hell. Thus the torture of being fried alive in a town or village square was an act of generosity!

 

 [Mary I (reigned from 1553-1558) was a hate-figure among Protestants!]

          Did you also know that the remarkable Anne Askew [see below] is believed to be the only female who was subjected to the gruesome torture of the rack, an interrogation method which became commonplace decades later for Catholic priests during the Elizabethan era when the threat from Spain heightened a sense of anti-papist hysteria. Every individual listed below has a remarkable story to tell beyond the grave. One person who escaped martyrdom was the exceptionally fortunate Robert Benet, a Mayor of Windsor, who was condemned to be burnt at the stake, but who was peculiarly excused by dint of the fact that he was unwell!

          Also of interest, thinks me, is the fact that some individuals who were transported to the Tower of London by barge along the River Thames would have had to wait the turning of the tide before he or she could proceed with their potentially final journey. Never has the ominous phrase ‘the turning of the tide’ seemed quite so poignant. 

          On the subject of the imposing royal fortress in central London, it ought to be pointed out that for all its horrible dungeons, such as the pit and the infamous tiny cell dubbed ‘Little Ease’, the Tower of London was relatively palatial in contrast to almost any other prison or municipal jail up and down the country, in an age when the notion of prison reform was but a foreign language. Special mention also ought to be assigned to the chief tormentor of Catholics in the last two decades of the sixteenth century, Richard Topcliffe. Old Topcliffe thrived on inflicting torture and even installed a customised rack in his own house for those of a papist inclination. To those who still regard Catholicism as a manifestation of the devil, then Topcliffe is presumably a hero. For the rest of humanity, this gent ranks very highly [or lowly] amongst the most sadistic and barbaric of interrogators.

          Did you also know that one of Anne Boleyn’s favourite Bible stories, derived from the middle of the Old Testament, relates to how Queen Esther saved her people and fellow-believers from extermination at the hands of the evil anti-Semitic Haman? However, Thomas Cromwell managed to postpone the same fate as Haman by striking first against Queen Anne Boleyn in the spring of 1536.

          Furthermore, en route to a trial, the accused would be preceded by an individual who carried an axe facing away from he or she. However, when a guilty verdict was conferred on the accused, he or she would leave the court proceedings with an axe pointed towards them to inform bystanders of the death sentence. Such procedure was reportedly enacted upon the likes of Anne Boleyn and Lady Jane Grey.

          Finally, there are a number of myths about Tudor history which I will briefly address here. In the first instance, Henry VIII may be the founder of the Church of England but he remained staunchly Catholic until his dying day in 1547. Also, although Anne Boleyn is heralded as a champion of the English reformation, she too remained a Catholic until she breathed her last in May 1536. It was indeed Edward VI, the ill-fated male heir of Henry VIII who was England’s first Protestant sovereign. It is also worth noting that King Henry’s sixth and final wife, Catherine Parr actually came perilously close to joining two of her predecessors on the scaffold. An ageing Henry was growing tired of Catherine’s reformist tendencies. Fortunately for Mrs Henry VIII, she was tipped off about the sovereign’s concerns and she had the presence of mind to row back from her theological sermonising. It almost certainly spared her, though she did not long survive her ailing husband. Furthermore, although Mary and her estranged younger sister Elizabeth merit much scorn for their own reigns of terror, they did feel varying degrees of regret and sorrow for approving respectively the executions of Lady Jane Grey and Mary Queen of Scots. 

[Elizabeth I was equally 'bloody' towards the Catholic clergy]

       Okay, that’s enough bits and pieces of dead bodies for thee. Let us now solemnly browse through the list of high-profile victims of a Tudor tyranny which perhaps collectively cast the shadow of holocaust over the history of Britain. Pedants will correctly point out that a holocaust constitutes a widespread massacre of a large volume of people. Also, a catalogue of over seven hundred executions, spanning a little over a century scarcely merits the word massacre. However, I did insert a question mark in the title, thereby allowing the reader to decide whether there is a case for arguing that the Tudor terror amounts to a holocaust. Nevertheless, it almost goes without saying, but I shall say it anyhow, but these are effectively the ‘celebrity deaths’. The recorded executions below are but the tip of the Tudor iceberg. Indeed, it has been estimated that perhaps as many as seventy-two thousand souls were on the receiving end of capital punishment during the reign of Henry VIII. Maybe the word holocaust is not entirely misplaced after all.

          The litany of victims below paid with their life in almost every instance for either heresy or treason. In fact, one could argue that heretics were traitors and traitors were heretics. In the days of ‘the divine right of Kings’, defying the monarch was tantamount to defying God, while declining to submit to the church of state was equally akin to refusing allegiance to the sovereign. Oh, and if you were given the choice between being hung, drawn, and quartered, or being burnt at the stake, well it is a tad like being between a rock and a hard place. For me, I would opt for the burning, if only because many of the victims were strangled before the flames took hold. Oh such Christian compassion!

          Many more poor souls were executed during the Tudor era. There is simply not enough space to chronicle all such misfortunes. Oh and I would also like to state that irrespective of one’s religious allegiances [or lack of them], there should not be any hierarchy of victims. The list underneath is by no means exhaustive, but perhaps exhausting!

*****THE LIST CAN BE FOUND AT THE FOLLOWING SITE: http://gw930.blog.com/the-tudor-tyranny/

Share this post
Repost0
January 13 2013 7 13 /01 /January /2013 13:14

          One fine Friday morn in late March whilst delaying my departure from the comfort zone of my bed, I decided to browse through a nearby history book. I randomly picked up ‘Six Wives’ by David Starkey. I chose well. I immediately re-acquainted myself with the demise of tragic, young Catherine Howard, the penultimate wife of the ageing, obese, ugly Henry VIII. After re-familiarising myself with this sad tale, I journeyed a little further back in time [six years to be precise] to the equally memorable downfall of the controversial Anne Boleyn in May 1536.

[artist's depiction of the execution of Catherine Howard; February 1542]
     History has actually been rather kind to Anne Boleyn because while she has come through the mists of time to be viewed sympathetically, she was far from popular with contemporaries. Catholic England was still smarting from the royal eviction of Catherine of Aragon, and Anne Boleyn was portrayed as a scheming, headstrong mistress who was intent on reforming the old religion. In fact, it would be no exaggeration to state that Anne Boleyn would have made exceptionally good tabloid fodder. In the end, the female usurper was herself jettisoned. However, the two executed wives of old Harry of England have been favourably depicted in modern movies as eye-catching young women who paid the ultimate price when they fell foul of their husband, the king. Furthermore, to quote a piece of modern cynicism, perhaps death was ‘a good career move’. There is something ‘cool’ and enigmatic about martyrdom, the sense of a young life taken before its time.
           
   [portrait of Anne Boleyn, the doomed second wife of Henry VIII]
     It may be difficult to fathom for modern-day observers, but in bygone days of yore [at least until the English Civil War and the subsequent Glorious Revolution reared their collective heads], the English monarch operated with carte blanche on the basis of what historians refer to as the ‘divine right of kings’. Believing themselves to be appointed and anointed by God as his representative to officiate over their nation state, various sovereigns saw it as both their duty and their right to govern without any pesky subjects inflicting checks and balances upon their authority. England in the first half of the sixteenth century was not yet a land ripe for constitutional monarchy, and indeed the kingdom had to be dragged kicking and screaming towards such a system of governance well over a century later. It is against this backdrop that the king was not only the head of state but he also had literally licence to kill, a power that he wasn’t shy at utilising. To defy the monarch was tantamount to defying God and defying the very land on which you lived. Such behaviour met literally with zero tolerance, and anyone who undermined the sovereign could expect to pay the full penalty for their apparent treachery. Treason was an offence that led to death, and frequently a protracted and horrible death into the bargain. Of course, if you were of noble birth, you might be spared the ritual of a hung, drawn and quartered spectacle in favour of the apparently lenient punishment of beheading. Meanwhile, a female traitor could ordinarily be expected to burn at the stake. Such were the unenlightened times of Tudor England.
     Cutting a long story short, what struck me with Starkey’s account of the doomed lives of Catherine and Anne was a sense of injustice which hung over their arrest and conviction. Catherine’s crime of having an apparently platonic relationship with a young man is exceptionally small potatoes, especially when one considers that she was a typical immature teenager. Of course, such behaviour was regarded as infidelity, and infidelity towards your husband, the king, God’s right-hand man in England, was totally unacceptable…..Or was it? As for Anne, she was reportedly tried on trumped-up charges which include the rather incredulous accusation of incest with her brother and the equally ludicrous notion of witchcraft. For the scheming Henry to marry his mistress Jane Seymour, his second wife had to be thoroughly demonised. Perhaps Anne’s biggest crime was that she failed to furnish her other half with a male heir. Well, historians and legal experts can argue into the night and well beyond about the justification for what I believe amounts to the judicial murder of these two unfortunate souls.      
     Fast-forwarding two decades, I would also like to throw into the mix, Lady Jane Grey, who unwittingly found herself thrust upon the throne of the kingdom but whose tenure therein was a pitiable nine days. This young lady was a mere fifteen years of age when she was elbowed aside by the Catholics’ choice, Mary, daughter of Henry and Catherine of Aragon. At first, the incoming monarch simply regarded Lady Jane as an inconvenience as opposed to a foe, but the tide well and truly turned against Lady Jane when Wyatt’s abortive Protestant rebellion of 1554 was possibly designed to restore the teenager to the throne. Mary was ‘obliged’ to permanently remove the focal point for all the reformists out there who needed a champion of their cause. Just like any good twentieth century Mafia boss, Queen Mary had to concede that Lady Jane had outlived her usefulness. Thus, young Jane would also join Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard in an elite club which met their untimely deaths within the confines of the Tower of London, on what is now called Tower Green.
                        
  [the execution of Lady Jane Grey in 1554, painted by Paul Delaroche] 
    I must at this point confess to possessing a morbid fascination with such tragic young lives, especially how they were compelled to confront the imminent spectre of death by execution – a truly macabre ordeal. 
     More than anything, what has struck me about these three grim episodes is the sheer injustice of it all. These young women [two of whom were teenagers] were cruelly killed on the basis of a judicial process which certainly would not stand scrutiny in the twenty-first century world. In fact, to quote modern legal parlance, such convictions would be regarded as totally unsafe nowadays. If capital punishment was a trifle melodramatic, not to mention unwarranted, then surely it falls on the collective conscience of subsequent generations to issue such high-profile personages with a pardon for crimes that would be regarded as small fare in our modern permissive, liberal kingdom. Is it not therefore long overdue that a posthumous pardon be conferred on this tragic trio? I think that the case for such an act of generosity and forgiveness is compelling. Of course, perhaps forgiveness is an inappropriate word, because it implies wrong-doing. It is highly contentious to state that either Anne Boleyn or Lady Jane were indeed guily of wrong-doing. Sinners they were; treasonable criminals they were not. Catherine Howard by contrast had been ‘guilty’ of pre-marital sex, admittedly before Henry cast his lecherous eyes on such an ill-suiting bride. Perhaps pardon is the more suitable term. Or perhaps forgiveness is equally apt.
     Quite why such a noble cause has not been long since pursued escapes me. Would it be politically incorrect to correct the legal abuses of the past? Or would it be politically expedient to turn the other cheek and ignore such travesties of justice? Could it be that the venerated Harry of England’s reputation would be besmirched if we were to grant a twenty-first century pardon to his apparently naughty wives? Oh yes, I guess that there is nothing quite like whitewashing the past and maintaining the legend that is the great Henry VIII. Well, I did chance upon a brilliant mural in east Belfast in which the late David Ervine [an Ulster loyalist who was no stranger to crime and punishment] is quoted as wisely stating that those who ignore the past are condemned to repeating it. Therefore, naive fool that I am, I wish to launch a crusade to have the three young ladies awarded a pardon for their nonsense crimes. A failure to wipe the slate clean and forgive them [if forgiveness is necessary] would be itself almost unforgivable. Also, while modern Britain still impersonates rather unconvincingly a Christian nation [albeit a cosmopolitan, heterogeneous one] is it not incumbent upon a nation with Christian values to practise the art of forgiveness?  
     Mercifully, I am not intent on traversing the tiresome route of accumulating a multitude of signatures for a petition or instigating yet another futile Facebook campaign. No, one must direct the need for belated justice directly at the nation’s law-makers [and law-breakers?] in parliament. I regard any movement to restore the good name of the tragic trio as neither a left-wing nor a right-wing cause celebre. Instead, the need to confront the crimes, injustices, and abuses of our past and not bury them under the carpet of time is something which transcends all ideologies and faiths. Of course in the corridors of power, inertia amidst bureaucratic red tape reigns supreme. However, it simply won’t do any more for all and sundry to shrug our shoulders at the injustice of yesteryear and excuse them away with something akin to ‘Oh times were hard in those days, and it was hard cheese if you broke the law’. Sorry, that attitude must not be allowed to prevail. If the Holocaust and the horrors of the early twentieth century justifiably stir us to feel nothing but a deep disapproval of the agents of genocide, then why draw the line at the butchery of a century ago. Where indeed do we draw the line in terms of time elapsed? 
     Britain has always prided herself on being a pioneer of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy and would continue to claim that her human rights record is second to none. Would it not be a further boost to the nation’s ego if the UK was willing to demonstrate to the rest of the world a willingness to confront and correct the mistakes of bygone centuries? In taking such a lead, the UK would be encouraging other nations to examine the distant past and apply a modern judgment upon state crimes and atrocities whilst pronouncing that previous bogeymen and women deserve to have their good name returned to them. Of course, it will be argued that it is simply not enough to dwell on three high-profile ladies who were born into privilege. What about the countless wretched souls who perished in prison and on the gallows and were transported? Shall we forgive them or declare them innocent? Well, clearly, it would be too cumbersome and downright impractical to re-investigate all the crimes of past times, but in the absence of a historical enquiry team, is it beyond the reach of the Prime Minister or the head of state [or the Home Secretary to be precise] to issue the occasional statement which addresses the abuses of previous centuries? I for one would argue in favour of a general posthumous pardon for all the Protestant and Catholic martyrs of the sixteenth and seventeenth century in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland who died holding steadfast to their faith. Their only crime was not to retreat from their religious convictions, which itself led to their convictions, and frequently a horrible death, burned at the stake. Again, posthumous pardons are the very least that we can offer such courageous saints as Thomas More or his polar opposites Ridley and Latimer.
     Pedants will suggest that why stop at the three named sixteenth century femmes fatales? Why not rehabilitate Charles I or Mary Queen of Scots or Walter Raleigh et cetera et cetera? Well folks, don’t let me stop you from pursuing such a campaign, but in the first instance I think that it would be prudent to address the legalised crimes against Anne, Catherine, and Jane [and the persecuted martyrs]. If others wish to take up the baton and focus on other atrocities and legal travesties, be my guest. However, since the miscarriages of justice visited upon Anne, Catherine, and Jane have perhaps captured the world’s imagination more than any other Tower tragedy, then they seem to serve as a logical starting point, or at least a posthumous pardon for them would by implication be an acknowledgment that many less famous souls were also victims of a Tudor terror whose pursuit of justice leaves an awful lot to be desired and frankly pardoned!
     With the Olympics paying a visit to London, there is an opportunity to win a gold medal in demonstrating to the world our generosity of spirit. Furthermore, the Tower of London remains the staple diet of many a tourist’s itinerary. How good would it be if the multitude of visitors could study a plaque at the Tower of London which confirms a posthumous pardon for the famous victims who met their early deaths at Tower Green. Procrastination and indifference is itself criminal. Only immediate posthumous pardons can reinforce modern Britain’s claim to be a shining beacon of justice.
 
Share this post
Repost0
January 12 2013 6 12 /01 /January /2013 11:34
I am disgusted that the disgraced former MP Margaret Moran was able to escape prison on Friday the 14th of December when a team of so-called experts [or softies more likely] decreed that Moran was too doo-lally to enter a plea. This is a sickening example of a feeble society where nobody is willing to accept responsibility for anything. When our political superiors lack the integrity to put their hands up and admit their own wrongdoing and have the courage to face the consequences, like the rest of us poor bastards, then this country is finished. No wonder, the yoof go looting, when they see the middle-class law-makers deteriorate into white-collar law-breakers. The trouble with the actress, Margaret Moron, is that having been a legislator [and by implication, a parliamentary law-maker], she knows how the system works, and is therefore ideally placed to work the system in her cowardly favour. She is one of many bourgeois villains who appear to be too ill to stand trial but who were in perfectly rude health to commit crime in the first place. Chirac in France and Mubarak in Egypt are but two recent examples of folk ‘doing a Petain’ and faking ill health in order to achieve leniency. There should be a re-trial. Otherwise British justice is a sick joke. As someone who broke the law many years ago, I had to take my punishment on the chin. It would be good if other high-ranking hypocrites accepted blame too and took responsibility for their actions, like the rest of us plebs. To thwart justice and cling onto their pampered lifestyle sends out a terrible signal to the rest of the society. I believe that the expression that springs to mind is: “one rule for them; one rule for the rest of us”. Well, I am ****ing livid about you Margaret Moron. [No doubt, the defence team will manage to ensure that the convicted detective April Casburn also escapes a prison sentence after she was found guilty arising out of her attempt to sell information to the News Of The World. I find it breathtakingly astonishing that various middle-class women avoid incarceration by bringing on the tears and persuading the judge that they are not fit for jail. If someone like Margaret Moron is deemed as too ill for prison, are the legal authorities not aware that prisons have hospitals? Silly bastards.]
               Sickened,
                Gary Watton; author, commentator, and historian; December 2012
Share this post
Repost0
March 24 2012 6 24 /03 /March /2012 13:08

Cover scan of The Celtic Fringe

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Celtic-Fringe-Westminster-Elections-1970-2010/dp/0956272576

SCOTLAND

Labour’s two ‘gains’ were merely a case of re-capturing two seats that they had lost in recent by-elections to the Liberal Democrats and the SNP. For all their woes south of the border, Labour performed well in Scotland.

The Liberal Democrats had a bizarre election. Nick Clegg won a lot of plaudits, but his party underperformed in Scotland, and yet they were sufficiently successful to enter a coalition government.

The Conservatives improved their vote in Scotland, though this leap of progress didn’t translate into extra seats. The SNP’s vote share was 19.9%.

WALES

This was a record-breaking night for the Welsh Conservatives. Only two candidates in Wales exceeded twenty thousand votes. They were both from the Conservative Party. One of them, David Davies, became the first Conservative MP to win the most votes at a general election in Wales for many decades. On top of that, there was the small matter of a recovery of five seats. Plaid Cymru’s vote share fell to 11.3% while UKIP polled better.



Share this post
Repost0
March 23 2012 5 23 /03 /March /2012 14:24

Cover scan of The Celtic Fringe

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Celtic-Fringe-Westminster-Elections-1970-2010/dp/0956272576
SCOTLAND
Ordinarily, a loss of fifteen parliamentary seats would be perceived as a catastrophe, but Labour’s representation was drastically cut on account of a boundary review which confiscated many former Labour seats. The Labour Party frequently suffered during the boundary modifications as they had a knack of winning the inner-city constituencies, but as there was a migratory shift away from the inner cities, then such Labour constituencies dwindled in population size, rendering them ripe for abolition.

The Labour government had now won its third consecutive national election, but Tony Blair was beginning to outstay his welcome at the top of the party, as Gordon Brown itched for his turn as the Prime Minister.

As for the Conservatives, they were struggling to land a blow on a far from popular Labour government. It soon became apparent that the party that once looked upon itself as the natural party of government would need another changing of the guard at its highest echelon in order to capitalise on a growing weariness of (new) Labour and facilitate a return to power.

The Liberal Democrats again made much progress, but their leader was obliged to stand down several months later. As a consequence, Menzies Campbell succeeded Charles Kennedy in early 2006 as the party supremo. Scotland had been the main supplier of the leaders of Britain’s third party. The hall of fame had included Jo Grimond and David Steel, while Robert Maclennan was the ‘caretaker manager’ when the Liberals and the SDP merged into the Liberal Democrats.

The Scottish Socialists failed to build upon the foundations of their 2001 efforts, while the SNP’s overall vote share slipped to 17.7%, but they were more than mere extras on the Scottish political scene.


WALES
The Welsh constituency contests were probably becoming much more competitive than was the case in the past. Fewer and fewer seats were a one-party state. This is demonstrated by the fact that only six MPs polled more than twenty thousand votes, and even these select few only just exceeded this amount.

It could be argued that a lower turnout was partially a consequence of Wales possessing its own Assembly, thus diminishing the former importance of Westminster elections. Secondly, with the people of Scotland and Wales required to vote in council elections, European elections, and local parliament elections, as well as the national election, then the populace were election-weary. In the context of 2005, a third explanation for low voter turnout and the absence of a huge endorsement for any particular party or candidate is that people were progressively becoming disillusioned with the Labour government, but were equally wary of the Conservative opposition who did not yet present themselves as a credible alternative.

Having said that, the Conservatives had just accumulated three seats in Wales which was three more than in 2001 or 1997, so clearly progress was being made.

By contrast, Plaid Cymru appeared to go into reverse in this election. Their vote share had decreased from 14.3% in 2001 to 12.6% in 2005.

Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats doubled their House of Commons representation in Wales. Gone were the days when Britain’s third largest party were also-rans who sometimes didn’t have the confidence or the resources to contest every constituency election.

Share this post
Repost0
March 22 2012 4 22 /03 /March /2012 11:38

Cover scan of The Celtic Fringe

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Celtic-Fringe-Westminster-Elections-1970-2010/dp/0956272576

 Remarkably, only one constituency changed hands in Scotland, as the Conservatives narrowly secured Galloway & Upper Nithsdale, thereby breathing some semblance of life into Scotland’s Conservative Party, which had borne the brunt of public disaffection with the harsh economic medicine of Mrs Thatcher and Mr Major.

Admittedly starting from a low base, the Liberal Democrats produced the most improved performance, while the Scottish Socialists plucked up the courage (or sheer folly?) to field a candidate in all seventy-two seats. It was clearly felt by the latter that the Labour Party had jettisoned its left-wing roots under Tony Blair’s new Labour project, and therefore the Scottish Socialist Party sought to fill what they perceived as the vacuum left by the Labour Party’s move to the centre ground.

There was a considerable drop in voter turnout. This allied with the relative success of the two afore-mentioned parties suggests that the age-old frontrunners of Labour and the Conservatives had to an extent fallen out of favour with the Scottish electorate. Having said that, in spite of the drop in their vote, fifty-six Labour Members of Parliament was a formidable return for a party that was ‘out of favour’.

The SNP experienced a less than impressive election, polling 20.1%, compared to 22.1% in 1997, but better times lay ahead for a party whose electoral performances represented the proverbial see-saw.

By the time of the next general election, Scotland’s Westminster contingent was reduced to only fifty-nine. With the recent, belated advent of devolution and the creation of a Scottish Parliament, it seemed prudent to trim the number of MPs, now that MSPs were starting to function.

In Wales just two seats changed hands: Carmarthen East & Dinefwr and Ynys Mon.

Share this post
Repost0