Southern independence

[Nationalist Northumbria]

While the independence of other component parts of Britain has been discussed to death, one intriguing possibility that has so far gone undiscussed on this forum is Southern independence. The South of England, undoubtedly England's spiritual heartland,

I'm moderately amused that someone who's pro-independence for the north of England would write the underlined sentence given that the 8th-century author of The Ecclesiastical History of the English People - the founding document of English national identity - spent almost his entire life in Jarrow, and is buried in Durham.

Northumbria north of the Tees (parts of Durham excepted) is really an honorary part of the South when you think about it.

[Vassenor]

I mean your entire argument seems to be that "The South had to put up with a Labour government for 12 years therefore independence now" which is quite frankly hilariously bad.

Especially when you assert that nobody wanted it then provide polling numbers that show a reasonably even split.

Well, OK, at least you're not disputing it anymore.

Also that's not my entire argument, if you think it is you should reread the OP, but here's how those "polling numbers that show a reasonably even split" compare to the national numbers.

The South at every general election since 1997, including London, against UK-wide numbers:

1997 general election
CON — 37.6% (+6.9)
LAB — 35.7% (-7.5)
LDM — 21.5% (+4.7)

2001 general election
CON — 38.7% (+7.0)
LAB — 34.7% (-6.0)
LDM — 22.4% (+4.1)

2005 general election
CON — 40.1% (+7.7)
LAB — 28.8% (-6.4)
LDM — 25.3% (+3.3)

2010 general election
CON — 43.9% (+7.
LDM — 26.5% (+3.5)
LAB — 22.0% (-7.0)

2015 general election
CON — 45.5% (+8.7)
LAB — 25.5% (-4.9)
UKIP — 13.1% (+0.5)
LDM — 9.9% (+2.0)
GRN — 5.0% (+1.2)

2017 general election
CON — 48.4% (+6.0)
LAB — 36.5% (-3.5)
LDM — 10.4% (+3.0)

2019 general election
CON — 48.7% (+5.1)
LAB — 29.6% (-2.5)
LDM — 16.3% (+4.7)

So in 1997 and 2001, when Labour won landslide victories and more than 400 seats, the South even including London still voted Conservative. The fact remains, despite your attempt to dismiss 13 years of socialist government as a mere 12, that Southern England was governed by a socialist government it did not vote for and had its wealth unfairly redistributed to left-wing programmes like 'Sure Start'. Even now, with a government the South has voted for, its wealth is being redistributed to ageing Northern towns that will never have any future prospects no matter how much money the government throws into that black hole.

It's not necessarily independence that is needed, if the continued existence of England is a deal breaker for some, but devolution and full fiscal autonomy (akin to that demanded by Scotland) so that the South will no longer have its money sent North.

So basically because of 13 years of a democratically elected Labour government that gave a shit about the whole country and not just certain bits of it the South should take its ball and go home.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

Well, OK, at least you're not disputing it anymore.

Also that's not my entire argument, if you think it is you should reread the OP, but here's how those "polling numbers that show a reasonably even split" compare to the national numbers.

The South at every general election since 1997, including London, against UK-wide numbers:

1997 general election
CON — 37.6% (+6.9)
LAB — 35.7% (-7.5)
LDM — 21.5% (+4.7)

2001 general election
CON — 38.7% (+7.0)
LAB — 34.7% (-6.0)
LDM — 22.4% (+4.1)

2005 general election
CON — 40.1% (+7.7)
LAB — 28.8% (-6.4)
LDM — 25.3% (+3.3)

2010 general election
CON — 43.9% (+7.
LDM — 26.5% (+3.5)
LAB — 22.0% (-7.0)

2015 general election
CON — 45.5% (+8.7)
LAB — 25.5% (-4.9)
UKIP — 13.1% (+0.5)
LDM — 9.9% (+2.0)
GRN — 5.0% (+1.2)

2017 general election
CON — 48.4% (+6.0)
LAB — 36.5% (-3.5)
LDM — 10.4% (+3.0)

2019 general election
CON — 48.7% (+5.1)
LAB — 29.6% (-2.5)
LDM — 16.3% (+4.7)

So in 1997 and 2001, when Labour won landslide victories and more than 400 seats, the South even including London still voted Conservative. The fact remains, despite your attempt to dismiss 13 years of socialist government as a mere 12, that Southern England was governed by a socialist government it did not vote for and had its wealth unfairly redistributed to left-wing programmes like 'Sure Start'. Even now, with a government the South has voted for, its wealth is being redistributed to ageing Northern towns that will never have any future prospects no matter how much money the government throws into that black hole.

It's not necessarily independence that is needed, if the continued existence of England is a deal breaker for some, but devolution and full fiscal autonomy (akin to that demanded by Scotland) so that the South will no longer have its money sent North.

So basically because of 13 years of a democratically elected Labour government that gave a shit about the whole country and not just certain bits of it the South should take its ball and go home.

Well, Labour has never 'given a shit' about the South, so your assertion that it 'gave a shit about the whole country' is wrong.

[Vassenor]

So basically because of 13 years of a democratically elected Labour government that gave a shit about the whole country and not just certain bits of it the South should take its ball and go home.

Well, Labour has never 'given a shit' about the South, so your assertion that it 'gave a shit about the whole country' is wrong.

Maybe you should back up that "never 'given a shit' about the South" with some actual facts.

[Perikuresu]

Well, Labour has never 'given a shit' about the South, so your assertion that it 'gave a shit about the whole country' is wrong.

Maybe you should back up that "never 'given a shit' about the South" with some actual facts.

but Vassenor, you have already mentioned the word facts

[Herador]

Well, Labour has never 'given a shit' about the South, so your assertion that it 'gave a shit about the whole country' is wrong.

Maybe you should back up that "never 'given a shit' about the South" with some actual facts.

Source: Just Trust Me Bro

[Nationalist Northumbria]

Well, Labour has never 'given a shit' about the South, so your assertion that it 'gave a shit about the whole country' is wrong.

Maybe you should back up that "never 'given a shit' about the South" with some actual facts.

Only four MPs from Southern England served in Blair's first cabinet, all but one from London. The same number served in his second cabinet, two sitting for London seats and two for seats outside London. Three in his third cabinet, two London MPs and one non-London MP. Only under Brown did this change, with eight Southern MPs in his cabinet during his time in power, four London and four non-London.

This was despite the fact the party had:

• in 1992, 45 MPs in the South
• in 1997, 116 MPs in the South
• in 2001, 113 MPs in the South
• in 2005, 89 MPs in the South

Miliband had eight Southern MPs in his Shadow Cabinet; all but one of them were London MPs.

[Vassenor]

Maybe you should back up that "never 'given a shit' about the South" with some actual facts.

Only four MPs from Southern England served in Blair's first cabinet, all but one from London. The same number served in his second cabinet, two sitting for London seats and two for seats outside London. Three in his third cabinet, two London MPs and one non-London MP. Only under Brown did this change, with eight Southern MPs in his cabinet during his time in power, four London and four non-London.

This was despite the fact the party had:

• in 1992, 45 MPs in the South
• in 1997, 116 MPs in the South
• in 2001, 113 MPs in the South
• in 2005, 89 MPs in the South

Miliband had eight Southern MPs in his Shadow Cabinet; all but one of them were London MPs.

See normally when we talk about whether a party "gives a shit" about a given area we look at funding, support and projects, not which MPs get the nod for high level jobs.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

Only four MPs from Southern England served in Blair's first cabinet, all but one from London. The same number served in his second cabinet, two sitting for London seats and two for seats outside London. Three in his third cabinet, two London MPs and one non-London MP. Only under Brown did this change, with eight Southern MPs in his cabinet during his time in power, four London and four non-London.

This was despite the fact the party had:

• in 1992, 45 MPs in the South
• in 1997, 116 MPs in the South
• in 2001, 113 MPs in the South
• in 2005, 89 MPs in the South

Miliband had eight Southern MPs in his Shadow Cabinet; all but one of them were London MPs.

See normally when we talk about whether a party "gives a shit" about a given area we look at funding, support and projects, not which MPs get the nod for high level jobs.

What funding, support and projects did Labour give the South, then?

[Vassenor]

See normally when we talk about whether a party "gives a shit" about a given area we look at funding, support and projects, not which MPs get the nod for high level jobs.

What funding, support and projects did Labour give the South, then?

You're making the argument that they didn't care. Why don't you start by establishing the desparity between the north and south that justifies southern independence.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

What funding, support and projects did Labour give the South, then?

You're making the argument that they didn't care. Why don't you start by establishing the desparity between the north and south that justifies southern independence.

I did, in the OP.

[New Eestiball]

I mean your entire argument seems to be that "The South had to put up with a Labour government for 12 years therefore independence now" which is quite frankly hilariously bad.

Especially when you assert that nobody wanted it then provide polling numbers that show a reasonably even split.

Well, OK, at least you're not disputing it anymore.

Also that's not my entire argument, if you think it is you should reread the OP, but here's how those "polling numbers that show a reasonably even split" compare to the national numbers.

The South at every general election since 1997, including London, against UK-wide numbers:

1997 general election
CON — 37.6% (+6.9)
LAB — 35.7% (-7.5)
LDM — 21.5% (+4.7)

2001 general election
CON — 38.7% (+7.0)
LAB — 34.7% (-6.0)
LDM — 22.4% (+4.1)

2005 general election
CON — 40.1% (+7.7)
LAB — 28.8% (-6.4)
LDM — 25.3% (+3.3)

2010 general election
CON — 43.9% (+7.
LDM — 26.5% (+3.5)
LAB — 22.0% (-7.0)

2015 general election
CON — 45.5% (+8.7)
LAB — 25.5% (-4.9)
UKIP — 13.1% (+0.5)
LDM — 9.9% (+2.0)
GRN — 5.0% (+1.2)

2017 general election
CON — 48.4% (+6.0)
LAB — 36.5% (-3.5)
LDM — 10.4% (+3.0)

2019 general election
CON — 48.7% (+5.1)
LAB — 29.6% (-2.5)
LDM — 16.3% (+4.7)

So in 1997 and 2001, when Labour won landslide victories and more than 400 seats, the South even including London still voted Conservative. The fact remains, despite your attempt to dismiss 13 years of socialist government as a mere 12, that Southern England was governed by a socialist government it did not vote for and had its wealth unfairly redistributed to left-wing programmes like 'Sure Start'. Even now, with a government the South has voted for, its wealth is being redistributed to ageing Northern towns that will never have any future prospects no matter how much money the government throws into that black hole.

It's not necessarily independence that is needed, if the continued existence of England is a deal breaker for some, but devolution and full fiscal autonomy (akin to that demanded by Scotland) so that the South will no longer have its money sent North.

Either your amount of change is wrong, or your numbers are wrong. I’m not stating my opinion, this is just not mathematically correct.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

Well, OK, at least you're not disputing it anymore.

Also that's not my entire argument, if you think it is you should reread the OP, but here's how those "polling numbers that show a reasonably even split" compare to the national numbers.

The South at every general election since 1997, including London, against UK-wide numbers:

1997 general election
CON — 37.6% (+6.9)
LAB — 35.7% (-7.5)
LDM — 21.5% (+4.7)

2001 general election
CON — 38.7% (+7.0)
LAB — 34.7% (-6.0)
LDM — 22.4% (+4.1)

2005 general election
CON — 40.1% (+7.7)
LAB — 28.8% (-6.4)
LDM — 25.3% (+3.3)

2010 general election
CON — 43.9% (+7.
LDM — 26.5% (+3.5)
LAB — 22.0% (-7.0)

2015 general election
CON — 45.5% (+8.7)
LAB — 25.5% (-4.9)
UKIP — 13.1% (+0.5)
LDM — 9.9% (+2.0)
GRN — 5.0% (+1.2)

2017 general election
CON — 48.4% (+6.0)
LAB — 36.5% (-3.5)
LDM — 10.4% (+3.0)

2019 general election
CON — 48.7% (+5.1)
LAB — 29.6% (-2.5)
LDM — 16.3% (+4.7)

So in 1997 and 2001, when Labour won landslide victories and more than 400 seats, the South even including London still voted Conservative. The fact remains, despite your attempt to dismiss 13 years of socialist government as a mere 12, that Southern England was governed by a socialist government it did not vote for and had its wealth unfairly redistributed to left-wing programmes like 'Sure Start'. Even now, with a government the South has voted for, its wealth is being redistributed to ageing Northern towns that will never have any future prospects no matter how much money the government throws into that black hole.

It's not necessarily independence that is needed, if the continued existence of England is a deal breaker for some, but devolution and full fiscal autonomy (akin to that demanded by Scotland) so that the South will no longer have its money sent North.

Either your amount of change is wrong, or your numbers are wrong. I’m not stating my opinion, this is just not mathematically correct.

The -/+ is against the national numbers, not against the previous election.

[Westmonkwick]

Either your amount of change is wrong, or your numbers are wrong. I’m not stating my opinion, this is just not mathematically correct.

The -/+ is against the national numbers, not against the previous election.

What do you mean by the national numbers, do you mean votes in the whole country as opposed to constituencies?

[Nationalist Northumbria]

The -/+ is against the national numbers, not against the previous election.

What do you mean by the national numbers, do you mean votes in the whole country as opposed to constituencies?

Yes

[Herador]

You're making the argument that they didn't care. Why don't you start by establishing the desparity between the north and south that justifies southern independence.

I did, in the OP.

You did a shit job then, wanna give it another go?

[Nationalist Northumbria]

And some more political numbers for those interested:

1997 general election
CON — 4,002,755 — 39.8% (+9.1)
LAB — 3,136,776 — 31.2% (-12.0)
LDM — 2,386,320 — 23.7% (+6.9)

2001 general election
CON — 3,590,000 — 41.3% (+9.6)
LAB — 2,662,000 — 30.6% (-10.1)
LDM — 2,058,000 — 24.0% (+5.7)

2005 general election
CON — 3,886,773 — 42.7% (+10.3)
LDM — 2,400,355 — 26.4% (+4.4)
LAB — 2,324,217 — 25.5% (-9.7)

2010 general election
CON — 4,685,271 — 47.1% (+11.0)
LDM — 1,689,058 — 28.0% (+5.0)
LAB — 2,780,672 — 17.0% (-12.0)

2015 general election
CON — 5,000,300 — 49.1% (+12.3)
LAB — 1,955,779 — 19.2% (-11.2)
UKIP — 1,510,022 — 14.8% (+2.2)
LDM — 1,085,704 — 10.7% (+2.8)
GRN — 512,312 — 5.0% (+1.2)

2017 general election
CON — 5,760,005 — 53.9% (+11.5)
LAB — 3,209,199 — 30.0% (-10.0)
LDM — 1,177,488 — 11.0% (+3.6)

2019 general election
CON — 5,879,111 — 54.6% (+11.0)
LAB — 2,493,128 — 23.2% (-8.9)
LDM — 1,809,187 — 16.8% (+5.2)

1997 CON lead over LAB, nationally: -12.5
1997 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +8.6 (+21.1)

2001 CON lead over LAB, nationally: -9.0
2001 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +10.7 (+19.7)

2005 CON lead over LAB, nationally: -2.8
2005 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +17.2 (+20.0)

2010 CON lead over LAB, nationally: +7.1
2010 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +30.1 (+23.0)

2015 CON lead over LAB, nationally: +6.4
2015 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +29.9 (+23.5)

2017 CON lead over LAB, nationally: +2.4
2017 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +23.9 (+21.5)

2019 CON lead over LAB, nationally: +11.5
2019 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +31.4 (+19.9)

1997 CON lead over LAB, nationally: -12.5
1997 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +1.9 (+14.4)

2001 CON lead over LAB, nationally: -9.0
2001 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +4.0 (+13.0)

2005 CON lead over LAB, nationally: -2.8
2005 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +11.3 (+14.1)

2010 CON lead over LAB, nationally: +7.1
2010 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +21.9 (+14.8)

2015 CON lead over LAB, nationally: +6.4
2015 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +20.0 (+13.6)

2017 CON lead over LAB, nationally: +2.4
2017 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +11.9 (+9.5)

2019 CON lead over LAB, nationally: +11.5
2019 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +19.1 (+7.6)

[Nationalist Northumbria]

I did, in the OP.

You did a shit job then, wanna give it another go?

I did a great job, IMO. What are your issues with it?

[Herador]

And some more political numbers for those interested:

1997 general election
CON — 4,002,755 — 39.8% (+9.1)
LAB — 3,136,776 — 31.2% (-12.0)
LDM — 2,386,320 — 23.7% (+6.9)

2001 general election
CON — 3,590,000 — 41.3% (+9.6)
LAB — 2,662,000 — 30.6% (-10.1)
LDM — 2,058,000 — 24.0% (+5.7)

2005 general election
CON — 3,886,773 — 42.7% (+10.3)
LDM — 2,400,355 — 26.4% (+4.4)
LAB — 2,324,217 — 25.5% (-9.7)

2010 general election
CON — 4,685,271 — 47.1% (+11.0)
LDM — 1,689,058 — 28.0% (+5.0)
LAB — 2,780,672 — 17.0% (-12.0)

2015 general election
CON — 5,000,300 — 49.1% (+12.3)
LAB — 1,955,779 — 19.2% (-11.2)
UKIP — 1,510,022 — 14.8% (+2.2)
LDM — 1,085,704 — 10.7% (+2.
GRN — 512,312 — 5.0% (+1.2)

2017 general election
CON — 5,760,005 — 53.9% (+11.5)
LAB — 3,209,199 — 30.0% (-10.0)
LDM — 1,177,488 — 11.0% (+3.6)

2019 general election
CON — 5,879,111 — 54.6% (+11.0)
LAB — 2,493,128 — 23.2% (-8.9)
LDM — 1,809,187 — 16.8% (+5.2)

1997 CON lead over LAB, nationally: -12.5
1997 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +8.6 (+21.1)

2001 CON lead over LAB, nationally: -9.0
2001 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +10.7 (+19.7)

2005 CON lead over LAB, nationally: -2.8
2005 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +17.2 (+20.0)

2010 CON lead over LAB, nationally: +7.1
2010 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +30.1 (+23.0)

2015 CON lead over LAB, nationally: +6.4
2015 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +29.9 (+23.5)

2017 CON lead over LAB, nationally: +2.4
2017 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +23.9 (+21.5)

2019 CON lead over LAB, nationally: +11.5
2019 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +31.4 (+19.9)

1997 CON lead over LAB, nationally: -12.5
1997 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +1.9 (+14.4)

2001 CON lead over LAB, nationally: -9.0
2001 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +4.0 (+13.0)

2005 CON lead over LAB, nationally: -2.8
2005 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +11.3 (+14.1)

2010 CON lead over LAB, nationally: +7.1
2010 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +21.9 (+14.

2015 CON lead over LAB, nationally: +6.4
2015 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +20.0 (+13.6)

2017 CON lead over LAB, nationally: +2.4
2017 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +11.9 (+9.5)

2019 CON lead over LAB, nationally: +11.5
2019 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +19.1 (+7.6)

Neat, still not answering how Conservatives do more for the people than labor.

[Harjanika]

I'm sorry, SOUTHERN INDEPENDENCE?! I think we should level up too, however if the south is gain independence then the north will definitely gain independence.

[Vassenor]

You're making the argument that they didn't care. Why don't you start by establishing the desparity between the north and south that justifies southern independence.

I did, in the OP.

While the independence of other component parts of Britain has been discussed to death, one intriguing possibility that has so far gone undiscussed on this forum is Southern independence. The South of England, undoubtedly England's spiritual heartland, has also undoubtedly been its economic heartland since the decline of the North. Yet, with the exception of London, public spending per capita is the lowest in Britain. Put simply, Southerners aren't getting back what they contribute.

While the government in Westminster talks of 'levelling up' in the North to pander to voters there, there are plenty of towns in the South that are simply neglected. The Medway towns, for instance, are getting next to nothing while wealthy Northern towns such as Richmond (in Chancellor Rishi Sunak's constituency) are given the highest priority. This is clearly unfair.

In 1966, when Labour won a landslide, all of southern England except London voted against socialism. This was repeated in 1997 (when the party won a mere 59 of the 190 southern English seats outside London), 2001 (58), and 2005 (45), when the South had to endure 13 years of Labour government it rejected. This is not merely a matter of demographics: during the 1980s, Southern working-class voters supported Thatcher (even improving from 1983 to 1987) while their Northern counterparts backed Labour. There is a real cultural and political disconnect between the Northern and Southern halves of England that goes beyond class distribution.

Perhaps a model for a 'Southern English nationalism' would be akin to Lega Nord before its hijacking, with a principled man such as John Redwood stepping up to the plate. Perhaps instead of independence a deal for full devolution could be reached, preventing governments from opportunistically stripping it of wealth with the belief that the region is either safe for them (Conservatives) or will never vote for them (Labour). What do you think, NSG? It may surprise you to hear that I, personally, am in favour of fiscal autonomy for the South.

I'm not seeing it. Just assertions without bothering to provide citation.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

I did, in the OP.

While the independence of other component parts of Britain has been discussed to death, one intriguing possibility that has so far gone undiscussed on this forum is Southern independence. The South of England, undoubtedly England's spiritual heartland, has also undoubtedly been its economic heartland since the decline of the North. Yet, with the exception of London, public spending per capita is the lowest in Britain. Put simply, Southerners aren't getting back what they contribute.

While the government in Westminster talks of 'levelling up' in the North to pander to voters there, there are plenty of towns in the South that are simply neglected. The Medway towns, for instance, are getting next to nothing while wealthy Northern towns such as Richmond (in Chancellor Rishi Sunak's constituency) are given the highest priority. This is clearly unfair.

In 1966, when Labour won a landslide, all of southern England except London voted against socialism. This was repeated in 1997 (when the party won a mere 59 of the 190 southern English seats outside London), 2001 (58), and 2005 (45), when the South had to endure 13 years of Labour government it rejected. This is not merely a matter of demographics: during the 1980s, Southern working-class voters supported Thatcher (even improving from 1983 to 1987) while their Northern counterparts backed Labour. There is a real cultural and political disconnect between the Northern and Southern halves of England that goes beyond class distribution.

Perhaps a model for a 'Southern English nationalism' would be akin to Lega Nord before its hijacking, with a principled man such as John Redwood stepping up to the plate. Perhaps instead of independence a deal for full devolution could be reached, preventing governments from opportunistically stripping it of wealth with the belief that the region is either safe for them (Conservatives) or will never vote for them (Labour). What do you think, NSG? It may surprise you to hear that I, personally, am in favour of fiscal autonomy for the South.

I'm not seeing it. Just assertions without bothering to provide citation.

If you want endless footnotes, read Wikipedia, not one of my posts in NSG.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

And some more political numbers for those interested:

1997 general election
CON — 4,002,755 — 39.8% (+9.1)
LAB — 3,136,776 — 31.2% (-12.0)
LDM — 2,386,320 — 23.7% (+6.9)

2001 general election
CON — 3,590,000 — 41.3% (+9.6)
LAB — 2,662,000 — 30.6% (-10.1)
LDM — 2,058,000 — 24.0% (+5.7)

2005 general election
CON — 3,886,773 — 42.7% (+10.3)
LDM — 2,400,355 — 26.4% (+4.4)
LAB — 2,324,217 — 25.5% (-9.7)

2010 general election
CON — 4,685,271 — 47.1% (+11.0)
LDM — 1,689,058 — 28.0% (+5.0)
LAB — 2,780,672 — 17.0% (-12.0)

2015 general election
CON — 5,000,300 — 49.1% (+12.3)
LAB — 1,955,779 — 19.2% (-11.2)
UKIP — 1,510,022 — 14.8% (+2.2)
LDM — 1,085,704 — 10.7% (+2.
GRN — 512,312 — 5.0% (+1.2)

2017 general election
CON — 5,760,005 — 53.9% (+11.5)
LAB — 3,209,199 — 30.0% (-10.0)
LDM — 1,177,488 — 11.0% (+3.6)

2019 general election
CON — 5,879,111 — 54.6% (+11.0)
LAB — 2,493,128 — 23.2% (-8.9)
LDM — 1,809,187 — 16.8% (+5.2)

1997 CON lead over LAB, nationally: -12.5
1997 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +8.6 (+21.1)

2001 CON lead over LAB, nationally: -9.0
2001 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +10.7 (+19.7)

2005 CON lead over LAB, nationally: -2.8
2005 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +17.2 (+20.0)

2010 CON lead over LAB, nationally: +7.1
2010 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +30.1 (+23.0)

2015 CON lead over LAB, nationally: +6.4
2015 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +29.9 (+23.5)

2017 CON lead over LAB, nationally: +2.4
2017 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +23.9 (+21.5)

2019 CON lead over LAB, nationally: +11.5
2019 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +31.4 (+19.9)

1997 CON lead over LAB, nationally: -12.5
1997 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +1.9 (+14.4)

2001 CON lead over LAB, nationally: -9.0
2001 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +4.0 (+13.0)

2005 CON lead over LAB, nationally: -2.8
2005 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +11.3 (+14.1)

2010 CON lead over LAB, nationally: +7.1
2010 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +21.9 (+14.

2015 CON lead over LAB, nationally: +6.4
2015 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +20.0 (+13.6)

2017 CON lead over LAB, nationally: +2.4
2017 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +11.9 (+9.5)

2019 CON lead over LAB, nationally: +11.5
2019 CON lead over LAB, Southern: +19.1 (+7.6)

Neat, still not answering how Conservatives do more for the people than labor.

It's 'Labour' in this country. Also, it's undeniable that Margaret Thatcher and Thatcherism created the environment in which the Southern economy could flourish. The Conservatives today, however, have become little more than an elderly owner-occupier interests party. Under New Labour though they stood against the policies of high taxation and redistribution-into-a-black-hole they have now embraced.

[Vassenor]

I'm not seeing it. Just assertions without bothering to provide citation.

If you want endless footnotes, read Wikipedia, not one of my posts in NSG.

I mean if you're not going to back up your arguments with evidence then we don't need evidence to dismiss them as crackpottery.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

And, purely for comparison with the Southern numbers, here's how the North voted:

1997 general election
LAB — 4,143,316 — 54.9%
CON — 1,987,621 — 26.3%
LDM — 1,105,663 — 14.6%

2001 general election
LAB — 3,158,600 — 51.5%
CON — 1,727,500 — 28.2%
LDM — 1,033,800 — 16.9%

2005 general election
LAB — 2,866,128 — 45.9%
CON — 1,700,138 — 27.2%
LDM — 1,340,250 — 21.5%

2010 general election
LAB — 2,632,607 — 38.5%
CON — 2,091,209 — 30.6%
LDM — 1,531,922 — 22.4%

2015 general election
LAB — 3,015,984 — 43.1%
CON — 2,147,829 — 30.7%
UKIP — 1,049,817 — 15.0%
LDM — 471,162 — 6.7%

2017 general election
LAB — 3,958,320 — 53.1%
CON — 2,796,274 — 37.5%
LDM — 381,243 — 5.1%

2019 general election
LAB — 3,160,167 — 43.2%
CON — 2,896,774 — 39.6%
LDM — 567,673 — 7.8%
BRX — 385,736 — 5.3%

If you want endless footnotes, read Wikipedia, not one of my posts in NSG.

I mean if you're not going to back up your arguments with evidence then we don't need evidence to dismiss them as crackpottery.

You do, actually, because I'm not going to play the "source?? SOURCE???" game.