Monday, June 14, 2010

A Nice Big Election Map For Your Wall


Click on image to enlarge

Total Politics, in association with Weber Shandwick, have produced a nice big poster showing the affiliation of each constituency after the election. It is A1 size i.e. massive, and arrived ar our offices from the printers on Friday. You can order online HERE. It costs £9.99 plus £2 p&p.

All orders received before now will be despatched this week.

27 comments:

IvorBiggun said...

£10 plus £2 for post and packaging - I can see why you didn't mention the price in your post Iain!

RJF said...

For all you anoraks out there. While stocks last.

Get yours before the next election paints the map an even deeper hue of blue...

Dick Puddlecote said...

How much!?!? ;-)

Paddy Briggs said...

No thanks - the blue would clash with my colour scheme...

nulli secundus said...

Do we have to colour Thirsk in ourselves?

Englishman said...

Take the non-English Regions out of the equation and England would never have to put up with McLabour ever again.

Old Holborn said...

You can get a free map of the unemployed and those on benefits here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/4140756/Unemployment-map-of-the-UK-showing-up-to-date-information-on-the-jobless-in-Britain.html

Pretty much the same thing

David Anthony said...

what about Norfolk?

Edward said...

must try superimposing that on a map of population density, as there is superficially a strong correlation between red areas and conurbations.

And of course on a map of median household incomes.

Patrick said...

Only good for 6 months!!!

Is it guaranteed not to split in half like the coalition government?

Unsworth said...

A1 is substantial. Probably best pinned to the wall in the bunker, I think.

TrueBrit said...

'Englishman' is of course as wrong as he is short-sighted - in 1997, 2001 and 2005 Labour had a majority of MPs elected in England alone - so the last Labour government, now thankfully gone, was quite legitimately the government of England as well as the UK (sadly for us).

One caveat to these facts is that in 2005, the Conservatives got 60,000 more votes in England than Labour, but Labour still had a large majority of English seats - those who try to make something of the 60,000 votes (in the wrong places) conveniently ignore the fact that the PR that would have had these votes count for anything would also have denied the Conservatives a majority.

TrueBrit said...

P.S. I wonder if it has ever occurred to cretins such as 'Englishman' that their years of pathetic jibes about McLabour etc. more than certainly contribute towards Scotland's antipathy to the Conservatives?

no longer anonymous said...

Why not wait until the Thirsk result?

Iain Dale said...

Er, that's exactly what we are doing. Did you not see the delivery date?

wild said...

"One caveat to these facts is that in 2005 [when the Labour Party got a substantial parlimentary majority at the General Election], the Conservatives got 60,000 more votes in England than Labour"

Just reflect upon that "caveat" for a few moments, and it is possible (although not likely) that some light may penetrate into the darkness of YOUR bigotry.

"[Y]ears of pathetic jibes about McLabour...certainly contribute towards Scotland's antipathy to the Conservatives"

As opposed to years of "pathetic jibes" by Scots about not wanting to be ruled by "Tory England"?

If you do not understand how the "over-representation" of Scottish Labour voters in the House of Commons prompts anger amongst "Tory" voters in England (especially since many of those voters fund the Scottish client State upon which McLabour relies for its votes) then I suggest that it YOU who is being the "cretin".

The King of Wrong said...

So, Iain, given that it's shipping after the Thirsk result, that'll be coloured in blue (presumably) rather than grey as in the flyer?

My walls are tragically bare, so I'm very tempted to order one... or maybe the one of the tennis girl scratching her bum...

John MacLeod said...

Might you reassure potential Scottish customers that the map will include Na h-Eileanan An Iar and the Shetland Isles, Iain? They're both missing from the version on your graphic.

Englishman said...

Re: At May 17, 2010 7:21 PM , OpenID TrueBrit said...

P.S. I wonder if it has ever occurred to cretins such as 'Englishman' that their years of pathetic jibes about McLabour etc. more than certainly contribute towards Scotland's antipathy to the Conservatives?

*Nah the Scots don't vote for Conservative because they see the Conservatives as an "English" Party and they HATE the English, has that sunk in for you yet "Truebrit", or would it take the another General election campaign by the Conservatives, going up to the Scottish Region, kissing their arses and pandering to them, wasting time, effort and money, all to no avail.....because the Scots see them as an ENGLISH Party.

Only one thing worse than a cretin and that's a blind cretin.

TrueBrit said...

Wild: "Just reflect upon that "caveat" for a few moments, and it is possible (although not likely) that some light may penetrate into the darkness of YOUR bigotry."

In what way is pointing out undisputed facts a show of bigotry?

Wild: "As opposed to years of "pathetic jibes" by Scots about not wanting to be ruled by "Tory England"?"

Do two wrongs make a right? More to the point, Scotland, population 10% that of England, has been ruled by successive governments elected elsewhere. In contrast, England, at least between 1997 to the present, has ONLY been ruled by parliaments that command a majority in England.

Wild: "If you do not understand how the "over-representation" of Scottish Labour voters in the House of Commons prompts anger amongst "Tory" voters in England..."

Well, presumably it angers you because you are ignorant enough to think that Scottish constituencies are smaller than those in England. This ceased to be the case many years back, so there is no over-representation.

Of the thousands of votes in Parliament there were four regrettable occasions when Scottish MPs tipped the balance in Parliamentary votes on ostensibly English matters, though 4 votes over 13 years is not in the same league as every vote over Scottish legislation over 18 years.

To reiterate, for those of similarly slow uptake to yourself, the last three Labour governments, from 1997 to 2010, had large Labour majorities in England alone, regardless of how the rest of the UK voted, so if you have a bee in your bonnet about how that came about, look to your fellow English voters first before you go casting aspersions elsewhere. Simples.

James Kelly said...

The Foyle constituency is in the wrong colour - it should be light green for the SDLP.

wild said...

True Brit,

You claim that the "Tory England" "Labour Scotland" argument is "of course wrong" and "short sighted".

You know full well however (but your bigotry prevents you from acknowledging it) that there is a problem.

If, for example, more voters in England vote for a Conservative government than vote for a Labour government but, because of Scottish votes, the UK gets a Labour government, there is a problem.

The same (of course) applies the other way round. If Scotland votes for a Labour government but, because of English voters, Scotland gets a Conservative government, this is also be a problem.

You may argue that given the asymetrical population relationship the solution is the creation of a Scottish parliament. But this simply moves the bump in the carpet - south of the border! It creates the "West Lothian problem" i.e. Scottish M.P.'s having a say in English affairs while English M.P.s are prevented from having a say in Scottish affairs.

Suppose a political party in England, call it the Labour Party, gets votes in Scotland by promising largesse from English taxpayers. Suppose that Party does not get enough English votes to have a majority in a Westminister parliament, but with Scottish voters is able to form a majority. Is it "of course wrong" and "short sighted" to acknowledge that this creates a problem for English tax payers who have to fund this arrangement even though a majority of them did not vote for it?

You respond that the Labour Party has been able to form a majority government in England without the need for any Scottish M.P.'s (even when more people voted for the Conservative Party than the Labour Party!) implying that this somehow solves the problem! You point out that it is not the case that England would always have Conservative governments if Scotland contributed no M.P's to Westminister i.e. became independent.

You know full well however that both these responses are (although not inaccurate) are irrelevant, because the above problems remain intact. It is (of course) an arrangement which suits the Labour Party very well, but to deny that there is a problem of asymmetry is just a delusion.

I grant you one point however.

The greater number of M.P.'s from Scotland relative to population is far less than it used to be, and so this is much less of a problem than it was (given that this greater number was part of a desire - in the absence of a Scottish Parliament - to give Scotland a stronger voice than it would otherwise have given the asymmetric population relationship) and therefore you are right to point out that I was ignorant of the fact that efforts have been made to address this problem.

I confess that since this arrangement benefited the Labour Party I assumed that no change would have been made.

The problems arising from a "Tory England" and "Labour Scotland" neverthless do remain. I do not suggest that these problems render any union untenable. If (maybe?) England had its own parliament, and Scotland became more prosperous and more Conservative (or England less prosperous and more Labour) these issues would become less and less of an issue, and English and Scottish voters would have to decide on other grounds if (as a consequence of living on the same island and having what - to outsiders - would seem to be inconsequential differences) whether they would want to maintain the Union.

Like most people I can identify a number of examples where the arrangement can be demonstrated to be mutually beneficial, but to assert that a "Tory England" and a "Labour Scotland" is not a problem is "of course wrong" and "short sighted".

For what it is worth I have not the slightest animosity towards Scotland (although I get the impression there is quite a bit of animosity towards the English in Scotland) my animosity is towards Socialists not Scots!

Billy Blofeld said...

Compare and contrast that map with the map of unexploded 2nd World War bomb locations.


Labour = Danger.....

Shane Greer said...

Foyle is in the SDLP green

Hughes. said...

For a long time, during the heydays of the de-evolution of Britain, I never understood why Prescott was so fervently and actively campaigning for "Regional Assemblies" for England.

Now it all seems so obvious. The largest and most populaced nation utterly rejecting the Government that ruled them by patronage of over-represented and over-funded England haters in Wales and Scotland would have been a painful reality-check for the mandate of both of our recently departed Scottish-born Prime Ministers.

Storm Basiat said...

Really like the post just not sure where it would fit in.

Would look much better if the map was just blue.


~Storm Basiat

Jimmy said...

Do you have it in any other colours?