UK Politics

[kaosmark2]

6 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

 

A fair weighted analysis.
 

I dont think they will but if Labour have any sense at all then they’ll back electoral reform, maybe as you say in the 2029 manifesto. To only increase uk vote share thanks to SNP collapse, no increase in England, down in wales - fewer overall votes than Corbyn in 2019 - despite a friendly media, tactical voting, #getthetoriesout - they have to see this as what it is - mainly a product of a mad system that yes this time gives you an enormous majority on 34%, but can also give one the other way on 32%.

 

A PR system gives a lib lab green snp coalition (assuming they would work together) a majority in basically every election since ww2

 

I mean, the British public are very very wary of PR, particularly party list systems that enforce candidates without an easy/direct way to get rid of specific individuals. I don't think we'll see full PR, but I'm hoping this will generate public support for STV or similar.

 

Lib/Lab/Green/SNP have very distinct supporters and I think it's a mistake to think that permanent coalitions of the same parties would actually be a good thing.

 

Most parties, and all larger parties, are coalitions within themselves. If the voting system changes, then at some point, Tories and Labour will both fragment into 2 or 3 parties each. Not immediately obviously, as the party machine brings a lot of ground work with it. That said, we've seen with Faiza Shaheen and Leanne Mohammed's near misses, and Corbyn and the 3 other independent's victories, if a candidate can bring a lot of the campaigning staff with them, they can make electoral waves. 

[efcfanwirral]

2 hours ago, lazyred said:

Thats true of any govt with a majority

Indeed, it does concern me whoever is in charge.  The larger the majority the worse it is. I voted Labour but am putting a huge amount of trust in a system that I don't trust at all. We need them to be their own opposition, and for there to be a degree of freedom of debate within the party. he said "country before party" and we have to take him at his word until proven otherwise. 

 

I just want a boring term, no drama, no wars, no mad policies, no PM resignations. Just normal running of the country. I don't believe that'll be possible due to external factors that are nothing to do with the government or really this country at all, but that's the dream

 

2 hours ago, Neil said:

Sour grapes that green policies are too stupid to be supported.

Ha I'm certainly no Green voter, my views on the green party pretty much align with yours! 

[lazyred]

6 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Sure but i mean most of the time voters just get what they’re given under fptp too and vote for the party. Independents and mavericks are still vanishingly rare in fptp and never have any actual power.

True.  I'd be happy with the Scottish system perhaps with a recall mechanism to get rid of regional MPs. Either that or ranking individuals in a single seat

[kaosmark2]

3 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

Indeed, it does concern me whoever is in charge.  The larger the majority the worse it is. I voted Labour but am putting a huge amount of trust in a system that I don't trust at all. We need them to be their own opposition, and for there to be a degree of freedom of debate within the party. he said "country before party" and we have to take him at his word until proven otherwise. 

 

I just want a boring term, no drama, no wars, no mad policies, no PM resignations. Just normal running of the country. I don't believe that'll be possible due to external factors that are nothing to do with the government or really this country at all, but that's the dream

 

So I'm generally not a fan of big majorities, but I would say, ~120 out of the 170 majority are held by 3000 votes or less. With the tiny vote share and a lot of narrow victories, to all directions, should make them pretty scared of pushing through notably unpopular policies. They can lose seats to votes in all directions, so they're forced to govern from the centre, and largely forced to govern for virtually everyone.

 

My big fear is that they'll pander somewhat excessively to Reform, but actually, if they improve public services, housing, jobs, and cost of living, then its harder for them to point at "look at how miserable those immigrants are making your life". I'm probably being overly optimistic here, but Starmer's rhetoric about the small boats crossing and processing asylum claims in the debates was one of the few things in the last few months where he improved my opinion of him. Processing claims quicker and creating safe routes will also do a lot to stop the small boat crossings, and it is possible to manage the country in a positive way that will appease many Reform voters (not the nutjob racists and the leaders, but their voters). I don't really think they're going to get kinder on their rhetoric, but it is plausible.

[mattiloy]

5 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

1.6% more votes than last time.

Share yes, but over half a million fewer votes in quantity. Which is astonishing really. What a mad system, the much maligned 2019 Corbyn, patron saint of losers, persuaded more individual voters to take their arse to the voting booth and cross an X than the all conquering Starmer.

[kaosmark2]

28 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

We more or less (normally) have generic party lists as those they want are  simply put in the safest seats.

A poll done a coupke of weeks ago showed 62% in favour of PR

We do have ways to kick out unpopular but loyal candidates though.

 

I'm not defending FPTP btw, I just want to emphasise how it's a tough sell and that I think a compromise system is possibly better for the UK as well as an easier sell.

[PDAD]

Let's use a FPTP referendum to determine whether we introduce PR. 326 yes' = PR. Compromise. 😂

[steviewevie]

In deepest darkest Plaid Cymru country. Scared.

[steviewevie]

Everyone is talking about PR when it f**ks the right.

[pink_triangle]

I don’t really understand the comparison between different year’s elections. We don’t have a system which works on total votes. Each election has its own individual circumstances, different reasons for voting smaller parties and tactical voting. Labour was piling up votes in London in 2019 but at the expense of more marginal areas.

[pink_triangle]

Tom Tugendaht would probably be my choice for conservative leader of the contenders. That is clearly the kiss of death as i suspect my choice has never been chosen!

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

 

[lazyred]

29 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

He has the moral victory, loved by the far left because they don't have to follow up with the hard stuff like win and govern. 

[steviewevie]

 

[LJS]

3 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

I don’t really understand the comparison between different year’s elections. We don’t have a system which works on total votes. Each election has its own individual circumstances, different reasons for voting smaller parties and tactical voting. Labour was piling up votes in London in 2019 but at the expense of more marginal areas.

 

I think when people are talking about Starmer as the Knight in shining armour who saved Labour from the unelectable Corbyn, It is reasonable to compare his performance with Jezza.

Labour undoubtedly saw a huge improvement in Scotland. However i think that it is pretty clear that that is more down to the woes of the SNP rather than anything Labour did.

 

But let's look at England. (all the figures below exclude Scotland & Wales)

 

Starmer's Labour managed to persuade just under 8.4million folk to vote Labour  which was 34.4% of the total vote.

 

That was a whopping increase 0.4% on the percentage Labour won in England in 2019 under the unelectable Corbyn although about 700,000 more people voted for Corbyn's Labour that Starmer's.

 

(in 2017 nearly 11.4million conquered their Corbyophobia to vote Labour  - e percentage of 41.5% over 7% higher than Starmer's Labour got yesterday)

 

So congratulate Starmer on his win by all means, just don't pretend he has made Labour wildly more electable. 

 

You can thank Liz Truss & Nigel Farage for that.

[kaosmark2]

47 minutes ago, LJS said:

 

I think when people are talking about Starmer as the Knight in shining armour who saved Labour from the unelectable Corbyn, It is reasonable to compare his performance with Jezza.

Labour undoubtedly saw a huge improvement in Scotland. However i think that it is pretty clear that that is more down to the woes of the SNP rather than anything Labour did.

 

But let's look at England. (all the figures below exclude Scotland & Wales)

 

Starmer's Labour managed to persuade just under 8.4million folk to vote Labour  which was 34.4% of the total vote.

 

That was a whopping increase 0.4% on the percentage Labour won in England in 2019 under the unelectable Corbyn although about 700,000 more people voted for Corbyn's Labour that Starmer's.

 

(in 2017 nearly 11.4million conquered their Corbyophobia to vote Labour  - e percentage of 41.5% over 7% higher than Starmer's Labour got yesterday)

 

So congratulate Starmer on his win by all means, just don't pretend he has made Labour wildly more electable. 

 

You can thank Liz Truss & Nigel Farage for that.

 

I mean, there is an argument that Starmer made Labour more electable in seats they needed to win, and because of our silly electoral system, that's very important. 

 

But this isn't a "in power for a generation" landslide, mainly because of the fragility of so many seats. Labour have to govern very very well to have a significant majority after the next election.

[LJS]

6 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

 

I mean, there is an argument that Starmer made Labour more electable in seats they needed to win, and because of our silly electoral system, that's very important. 

 

But this isn't a "in power for a generation" landslide, mainly because of the fragility of so many seats. Labour have to govern very very well to have a significant majority after the next election.

There was a real sense of enthusiasm & even excitement in the country when Blair won in 1997 and all he had to do to win successive elections was to keep hold of that, which he broadly did (until Iraq)

 

I don't sense much of that that enthusiasm (& absolutely no excitement) about  Starmer's win - he has to try and generate that whilst trying to sort out the mess he has been left. If the Tories carry on squabbling & Reform continue taking a significant share of the right wing vote - that might be enough to get him a second term.

However if the Tories sort themselves out & appear to be a credible alternative government & reform fade away then Starmer will really have to deliver noticeable improvement  which will be tough considering the constraints he has imposed on himself.

Believe it or note, I genuinely hope he succeeds as a half decent Labour government is always better than any Tory government (& that still appears to be the  choice under the crazy voting system we insist on retaining.)

[kaosmark2]

14 minutes ago, LJS said:

There was a real sense of enthusiasm & even excitement in the country when Blair won in 1997 and all he had to do to win successive elections was to keep hold of that, which he broadly did (until Iraq)

 

I don't sense much of that that enthusiasm (& absolutely no excitement) about  Starmer's win - he has to try and generate that whilst trying to sort out the mess he has been left. If the Tories carry on squabbling & Reform continue taking a significant share of the right wing vote - that might be enough to get him a second term.

However if the Tories sort themselves out & appear to be a credible alternative government & reform fade away then Starmer will really have to deliver noticeable improvement  which will be tough considering the constraints he has imposed on himself.

Believe it or note, I genuinely hope he succeeds as a half decent Labour government is always better than any Tory government (& that still appears to be the  choice under the crazy voting system we insist on retaining.)

 

I fully agree here. My main thing about ignoring the "share of the vote" comparisons to Corbyn, is that I dislike the "right side of history" stuff talked about from his ardent supporters. I don't think "winning the argument" matters as much as putting meals in the mouths of impoverished children. Labour gets to do that from power, and I do think that Rayner, Reeves, and Phillipson have the combination of talent and empathy to deliver that.

 

I do have questions over what else they'll get done, good and bad. I don't trust Streeting as far as my skinny arms could throw him, and the various things he's said about wanting more private investment in the NHS and that PIF deals didn't go far enough have scared me, even aside from his transphobia and general obnoxiousness. Him aside, I think the cabinet is pretty talented, and will generally be good at the briefs and jobs they've been given. I fear what they'll do on the culture war stuff, and I fear what Starmer's authoritarian bent will lead to, on human rights both here and abroad, on immigration, on protests, and on desperately needed reform of our police.

 

The main thing though, is that I've credited both Lib Dems and Greens with a very well-run tactical campaign to extract seats and relevance against a biased media under our backwards electoral system. I feel like it'd be quite hypocritical to ignore that Starmer has succeeded in turning a low vote share into a huge majority. I'll credit him and Labour for the tactics in utilising the system effectively, and now I want to see that turned into a positive impact on society - including a proposal for electoral reform in the 2029 manifesto.

Edited July 6, 2024 by kaosmark2

[steviewevie]

Starmer's lot (McSweeney) won it by the fact they understood how to win an election in this country with the system we have and the coalition of people they needed to appeal to. Boris Johnson and Cummings got this too. Corbyn didn't and couldn't.

Labour also won because they were so much more popular than Tories.

Back in 2019 everyone was going on about Johnson's appeal and how they would be in power for ages...now labour do something not too dissimilar and everyone is going on about how it isn't fair and Starmer is sh*t and this won't last.

I actually think labour will be in power for at least two terms, because Starmer isn't stupid and lazy like Johnson, there are no maniacs waiting in the wings like Truss, and because the right is split and i don't think that is getting fixed anytime soon.

[lazyred]

56 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

Having looked deeper I have found between 50 and 74 seats that Labour won by small margins where the Tory vote fell and Reforms grew substantially. Without Reform, unless the voters stayed at home, then Labour would not have won these seats.

Looks like the campaign 'vote Reform, get Labour' was spot on.

The tory split with reform created the huge majority. The sane as the Labour split in the 80s gave the tories a big majority. 

But if those 74 seats stayed tory then labour still win or lead a hung parliament. 

I agree there is little enthusiasm for labour but they deserve credit for winning. They can only use the system as it is and they did it.