[the truth]

[QUOTE=joeysteele;7658854]I disagree with just about all that,plenty unemployed were created and lives wasted for decades from the Conservative govts of 1983 onwards.

Labour if it had such votes as you say, it didn't do them any good in the 1983,1987 and 1992 elections.-
neil kinnock never had a chance , theyd bankrupted the nation the unions out of control again, he was also considered too bald too ginger and too welsh

I also think you may actually be surprised at the number of people you call on benefits,who acually don't vote Labour at all.
-pls provide evidence of this? it contradicts all my findings
AS for boundary changes, they rarely benefit Labour anyway.
Labour's 65+ overall majority in 2005, would have been reduced to around 55 after the boundary changes done in that parliament.
Also had the Lib Dems not blocked the boundary changes laid out in this parliament, that would have reduced the seats Labour had again as prospective holds.

Boundary changes as I said, rarely,if ever are to Labour's benefit at all

that's simply untrue

from the 2005 general election, when Tony Blair’s Labour won 35.2 per cent of the popular vote, compared to 32.4 per cent for the Conservatives.

Despite the fact that the difference between the total votes cast for both parties were very small, Labour ended up with 355 seats and the Tories got just 198. That’s 55 per cent compared to 30 per cent.