64%

[brionon]

64% voted against the Tories. Well done ?

[AB Editor]

How does that break down?

I wouldn't call a vote for fringe/single issue parties a vote against anything?

What is the combined Labour/Lib-Dem percentage?

Spare Ed

[jake-the-peg]

Lib+Lab = About 52% so far

[kinell]

on that simplistic basis it could be said...

77% voted against labour....

and no sign yet of mc hopeless resigning and this sticking plaster thinks there is still a chance to remain pm if he can cut a deal

take a big hint gordon and 'spend more time with your family'

you can write your memoirs then......we all like books of fiction

[jake-the-peg]

You could

If you deliberately ignored the strong similarities between Liberal and Labour Policies

Over half the votes have been for a left of centre agenda - Seems likely that in return they may get the Eaton Rifles

[AB Editor]

We can safely say 52% Voted against the Tories.

How about number of parties with anti-immigration/eu policies? Could these be counted as people who could have voted Tory?

Spare Ed

[AB Editor]

5.2% voted UKIP/BNP/EnglishDem in total

3.1 UKIP
1.9 BNP
0.2 EngDem

So in some policy areas the Tories would have this extra public support?

(Massive assumptions obviously!)

Spare Ed

[jake-the-peg]

I don't think the Liberals are exactly anti-immigration! so Lib+Lab is still a majority vote

Here are the percentages so far

http://news.bbc.co.uk...election2010/results/

[TTG]

Why did so many people vote Labour.? What have they done over the last 13 years to justify such huge support?

[Quinlad]

It's a staggeringly bad result for the Tories though. Almost as bad as Kinnock in 1992.

Less than a year ago, Cameron had a towering poll lead against a deeply unpopular government and an even more unpopular PM. There was talk of utter oblivion for Labour. It a gimme, the biggest open goal Cameron could have hoped for.

And he still fluffed it. Whoa.

[Gromit]

The Tories had a 17 point lead in the polls at christmas. That was always going to reduce the nearer we got to the election. And the Tories needed the biggest swing since the 1930's and nearly got it, so it wasn't that bad.

But in context of 13 years of Labour rule, and Gordon Brown's dodgy two years, the fact that they still could not get a clear majority is telling.

What happened to the Lib/Dem bounce? Did the voters like Clegg but not his party? Did the two main parties squeeze their vote? I am greatly surprised they did worse than last time. They had 63 and that is down to 52 with some seats to declare.

A bad night for Labour, but it was always going to be so. A quick change of leader, in time for the re-run in October.

[AB Editor]

//What happened to the Lib/Dem bounce? Did the voters like Clegg but not his party? Did the two main parties squeeze their vote? I am greatly surprised they did worse than last time. They had 63 and that is down to 52 with some seats to declare. //

I would say that, in the privacy of the polling booth, a great many people suddenly decided they should vote against something they fear rather than for something they want.

Spare Ed

[anotheoldgit]

I despair, and vow never to vote again, when there are still a huge number that will still vote Labour after all they have done in the past 13 years.

These must be the same people who only a few weeks ago were baying for the blood of all those mainly Labour MPs that had their noses deeply in the trough.

But then throw at these Labour supporters all you can, and they will still come back and vote Labour, for a number of vague reasons.

My dad and his dad before him has always voted Labour.

I am a working man so I must vote Labour.

I am existing nicely on benefits without working thanks to Labour, thank you very much..

I am a immigrant, and Labour will look after me.

Gordon looks so sad, I feel so sorry for him.

Don't Gordon and his wife make a lovely couple, it will be a shame to kick them out of No.10.

If he managers to still to retain some power, just remember you deserve what you have voted for.

[Quinlad]

Avoiding something you fear is what you want.

It's a totally spurious distinction.

[Gromit]

If after 13 years of Blair/Brown, people are still not voting Tory in enough numbers, then clearly their message and policies must be wrong, or at least do not appeal to enough people.

[R1Geezer]

The trouble is that you have to overturn the public sector who mostly vote Labour so their non jobs can be preserved. Add to that all the immigrants, fraudulent block postal voting and the zillions of work shy layabouts and that's the "Paul" that Labour is robbing "Peter" to pay. Very difficult to get them out.

[AB Editor]

I think it is an important distinction Quinlad - do you not think there is a different motivating force behind each?

Spare

[Gromit]

Another vagary of our electoral system.

In 2005 Blair got 35.3% of the votes and got 356 MPs

In 2010 Cameron has 36.2% of the votes for 299 MPs*

* a few seats still to declare.

[Quinlad]

They are different motivating forces, yes. But it says more about the choices than the people choosing them.

If option A is custard creams and option B is genocide, you can't accuse someone of being negative or mean-spirited when they tell you they're voting for A, even though they're not that fussed about custard creams. That strikes me as fair enough.

[tamborine]

the past 13y has seen increased global immigration to UK - there is where the majority Labour vote lies. No more border control but a free for all intake, to support Labour gov.

Methinks Labour (noun) is misused when excusing immigration as a need for more labour (verb).

[Dolly1308]

R I Geezer said it all -Iknow of people who have never worked ,have 3 kids and said they knew they were better off under Labour because will never have to work and the suckers who do work have to pay taxes to keep them, able to afford holidays in Spain and at least one bottle of vodka every day .Good Luck Britain ,you're going to need it !