-
ℹ️ Heads up...
This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.
UK Politics General Discussion
- Thread starter Matt.GC
- Start date
Burbs
TS Team
- Favourite Ride
- Voltron Nevera
I have just had to remove a number of off topic and rude posts towards other members. This is a place for civil discussion (which up to this point I've enjoyed reading very much) and it would be great if we could keep at it please.
If you wish to discuss other specific issues such as gender identity as has been aforementioned, please use their dedicated topics.
If you wish to discuss other specific issues such as gender identity as has been aforementioned, please use their dedicated topics.
Yes, the Tories did so well to support Labour by consistently providing incompetent leadership for a decade or so.I think this highlights that the tories lost this election not Labour won it, Starmer managed to get 1m less total votes than Labour’s worst election result ever.
Results of the 2019 General Election
Up to the minute results of the 2019 General Election from BBC Newswww.bbc.co.uk
UK election results 2024 | Constituency map
Get the latest news and election results in the 2024 General election from BBC Newswww.bbc.co.uk
You seem concerned with the new Prime Ministers lies, yet "World King" Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnston was the world king of absolute pathological liars, without a shadow of doubt.
Keep on supping the sour grapes, the fun will continue no doubt.
One million less votes than Labours worst election results ever???
Party...even bigger party.
Just shows what a complete shitshow the Tories have become.
Last edited:
Slugjc
TS Member
As it was told after Brexit by many a brexiteer.
You lost. Get over it.
Let's take this opportunity to change. We've all seen the decline that is happening in this country.
Starmer is not perfect and the cabinet ministers may be not up to the job. But it's fine. Just for now we can have, even if it's small in some cases, a tiny bit of hope that our country can be led by a party who wants to do good for us and not themselves. It could be time to repair the damage of our reputation abroad and amongst ourselves. Who have taken so much in last 9 years.
To nick a phrase from James O'Brian, the footballfacation of politics and the nick a second phrase from @rob666 the sour grapes, really are not helping you or anyone at this moment. Jumping up and down because a new busy PM has lied about getting something ticked off his to do list. Please.
Take some time off people for a bit Focus on how the dungeons will look in couple months. You will feel better for it.
You lost. Get over it.
Let's take this opportunity to change. We've all seen the decline that is happening in this country.
Starmer is not perfect and the cabinet ministers may be not up to the job. But it's fine. Just for now we can have, even if it's small in some cases, a tiny bit of hope that our country can be led by a party who wants to do good for us and not themselves. It could be time to repair the damage of our reputation abroad and amongst ourselves. Who have taken so much in last 9 years.
To nick a phrase from James O'Brian, the footballfacation of politics and the nick a second phrase from @rob666 the sour grapes, really are not helping you or anyone at this moment. Jumping up and down because a new busy PM has lied about getting something ticked off his to do list. Please.
Take some time off people for a bit Focus on how the dungeons will look in couple months. You will feel better for it.
I don’t disagree about the shitshow, they couldn’t even run a decent election campaign, I’m sure Sunak called it a day because he wanted a decent summer holiday.
For the first time in my lifetime FPTP has failed to deliver a satisfactory result, you might call that sour grapes but I call it democracy, the only party it benefited are Labour, ironically the Lib Dem’s can’t complain for once as it gave them about the same results in terms of seats, the other parties can rightfully feel cheated.
It can’t be right a party with 1/3 of the cast votes ends up with 2/3 of the seats.
But I don't see Starmer rushing to change a system that delivered him such a skewed result, behind this result though as I pointed out there is trouble ahead for him.
This election was about punishing the tories and they wont do as badly next time, even a slight swing back will deliver them over 100 seats,
The fact still remains that this result in terms of votes cast was even worse than what Labour achieved in 2019 which was their worst result ever, even in percentage terms it was only 1 percent better than last time, so even with the most unpopular government ever they still didn’t increase the votes or vote share.
We need to look past the headline figures here to see trouble ahead for Starmer, it could be the shortest honeymoon period ever.
As for giving it a rest, that’s easy to say when you are not about to get taxed until you have nothing left to give.
Benzin
TS Member
Lol Cost of Living Crisis says hi.
But oh no the private schools are gonna get taxed and kids might have to go to... state schools.
Cost of living crisis would have happened anyway, Covid and Ukraine would have seen to that.
Truss got the blame for the interest rate rise but actually it was the Bank of England that was too slow to react to the increases in inflation caused by coming out of Covid , they would have gone up anyway as they did in US and the EU.
VAT on school fees luckily won’t affect me as I only have one year left and have paid in full but my tax bill last year was still north of £50k, is that fair for just a normal working guy?
Mr Starmer has gone on record as saying anyone who works hard and has a plus amount in their bank account as having too much money and should be taxed more. Really?
tayspru
TS Member
It’s not “normal” to be earning enough to be taxed over £50k, in fact that puts you well above the 90% percentile for income for the U.K.
The government has a duty to help as many as posisble, not the top 10%. A priority now is making sure that people have access to food and basics, eradicating poverty, and having everyone pay their fair share
Craig
TS Administrator
I think we've discussed private school tax to death in recent months, and people have aired their varying views. I don't think we really need to be going round in circles on it yet again when there's a lot more going on in the country.
In terms of vote share, yes it's low. That's thanks to a combination of factors:
To give them their dues, the Tory 'supermajority' campaign clearly cut through to an extent and went some way to saving a number of Tory seats. The Reform racism investigations also likely had an effect with some people too who ended up going for someone else or not voting at all.
There's a lot of very specific circumstances in this election which meant the campaigns ran by each party were very different to the norm. I'd agree with views that it serves as more of a reset of what politics should be. But given different circumstances with an incumbent government that's not hellbent on arguing amongst themselves over actually running the country, those campaigns and subsequent results could be very different. I don't think it's as simple as just combining vote shares of right and left leaning parties to determine the possibility of a different result.
Labour now need to show voters a normal way of governing, and that come next election they can demonstrate that positive changes are being made.
So far I'm very impressed with some of the appointments they've made. An attorney general who's very highly thought of in the legal field, along with James Timpson as minister for Prisons. A man who has championed rehabilitation for offenders and worked incredibly hard to reduce the stigma attached to those who have spent time in prison. It's nice to see people with extensive knowledge being put into positions, rather than throwing the job to someone you want to keep on side.
In terms of vote share, yes it's low. That's thanks to a combination of factors:
- The first time a mass tactical voting campaign has been successful on a wide scale, with people actively lending their vote to who is most likely to get the Tories out
- Voters being apathetic to voting in general thanks to the constant drama over the last decade contributing to the low turnout
- Voters being apathetic to established parties and voting for Reform in protest.
- Labour having an active strategy to 'play the game' within the FPTP system and ensure their votes are much more efficient in gaining seats
- The early polls giving Labour such a huge lead meant people were choosing to vote for the likes of the Greens to make a point, rather than vote say, Labour because they aligned to more of their views and stood the most realistic chance of election.
To give them their dues, the Tory 'supermajority' campaign clearly cut through to an extent and went some way to saving a number of Tory seats. The Reform racism investigations also likely had an effect with some people too who ended up going for someone else or not voting at all.
There's a lot of very specific circumstances in this election which meant the campaigns ran by each party were very different to the norm. I'd agree with views that it serves as more of a reset of what politics should be. But given different circumstances with an incumbent government that's not hellbent on arguing amongst themselves over actually running the country, those campaigns and subsequent results could be very different. I don't think it's as simple as just combining vote shares of right and left leaning parties to determine the possibility of a different result.
Labour now need to show voters a normal way of governing, and that come next election they can demonstrate that positive changes are being made.
So far I'm very impressed with some of the appointments they've made. An attorney general who's very highly thought of in the legal field, along with James Timpson as minister for Prisons. A man who has championed rehabilitation for offenders and worked incredibly hard to reduce the stigma attached to those who have spent time in prison. It's nice to see people with extensive knowledge being put into positions, rather than throwing the job to someone you want to keep on side.
Ryan
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Hex
You're claiming that Keir Starmer has gone on record to say anyone out of their overdraft has too much money? Or are you claiming something else there? What do you mean by "plus amount"?
Do you have any kind of source for this? A Labour leader, saying that wealth is directly linked to hard work?
Matt.GC
TS Member
It was interesting hearing what Starmer said yesterday, and it rings true with my predictions as to what I thought he would be like. There's 2 overall themes.
The first is the number one reason he's been elected and the reason the Tories have been stuffed. That's stable government and a return to boring politics, which I think the country is looking for. The markets have reacted well, love or hate Labour, I think there's a lot of people across the country sighing with relief.
However, his second theme is getting on with the radical changes this country needs, which I'm concerned is so essential and time sensitive, that it is potentially at considerable odds with the first theme. Cabinet being sorted immediately and first meeting on a Saturday. Streeting getting stuck right in with health and Junior Doctors negotiations in the diary for next week. Some bold moves such as Timpson as prison minister. Rwanda binned off.
I think there's very low expectations for this incoming government. That's a good thing and Farage will likely be recalibrating the cannons hoping that they just spend the next 5 years tinkering and delivering very little else. But with such power, Starmer needs to use this first year laying the foundations and getting the sledgehammer out. If he misses that opportunity now, it'll make it much harder later.
I don't think the electorate is as stupid as is made out. He'll know he hasn't been elected on a positive policy platform, but on a competency ticket. If people's lives are genuinely better in 2029, he should easily see off the right and populism through the term. If he just steadies the ship, it won't go away.
As for first past the post, that's the system we've always had. Labour made tactically efficient use of their vote. If Farage and any Tories have a problem with it, then they should have done the same but they decided not to. Those are the rules. Almost half the nation didn't bother to vote, how much reaching out to them did the opposition do? How many focus groups did they hold to ensure their policies reached out to a broader base? Anyone who has a problem with not getting the result they wanted, blame the ones that lost not the one that won. The winning party won the popular vote, no one else came close. I don't see the problem?
The first is the number one reason he's been elected and the reason the Tories have been stuffed. That's stable government and a return to boring politics, which I think the country is looking for. The markets have reacted well, love or hate Labour, I think there's a lot of people across the country sighing with relief.
However, his second theme is getting on with the radical changes this country needs, which I'm concerned is so essential and time sensitive, that it is potentially at considerable odds with the first theme. Cabinet being sorted immediately and first meeting on a Saturday. Streeting getting stuck right in with health and Junior Doctors negotiations in the diary for next week. Some bold moves such as Timpson as prison minister. Rwanda binned off.
I think there's very low expectations for this incoming government. That's a good thing and Farage will likely be recalibrating the cannons hoping that they just spend the next 5 years tinkering and delivering very little else. But with such power, Starmer needs to use this first year laying the foundations and getting the sledgehammer out. If he misses that opportunity now, it'll make it much harder later.
I don't think the electorate is as stupid as is made out. He'll know he hasn't been elected on a positive policy platform, but on a competency ticket. If people's lives are genuinely better in 2029, he should easily see off the right and populism through the term. If he just steadies the ship, it won't go away.
As for first past the post, that's the system we've always had. Labour made tactically efficient use of their vote. If Farage and any Tories have a problem with it, then they should have done the same but they decided not to. Those are the rules. Almost half the nation didn't bother to vote, how much reaching out to them did the opposition do? How many focus groups did they hold to ensure their policies reached out to a broader base? Anyone who has a problem with not getting the result they wanted, blame the ones that lost not the one that won. The winning party won the popular vote, no one else came close. I don't see the problem?
Tom
TS Member
What is your threshold for acceptability?
Was it unfair when Blair won a Majority of 35% vote share in 2005?
Starmer mobilised 20% of people to go out and vote for Labour. Johnson about 25%. These are very minor shades of difference. Seems to be a link of Labour getting in that makes you dislike it.
The system is the same for everyone. No one elected by it would ever change it either, despite what they say.
Matt N
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Mako (SeaWorld Orlando)
Was FPTP “satisfactory” in 2017, when Theresa May had a vote share only around 2% higher than that of Jeremy Corbyn but had over 50 more seats? Or in 2005, when Tony Blair got 150 seats more than Michael Howard despite only having a vote share around 3% higher?
FPTP is always going to generate a skewed result where the winning party gets a considerably greater share of the seats than their share of the vote. Admittedly, this skew was particularly significant this time, but it’s always happened to a degree and likely always will. I don’t see why this time is any different or any worse, particularly seeing as Labour had quite a decisive lead in terms of vote share (at least 10%), which hasn’t always been the case with winning governments in the past. In the aforementioned examples of Theresa May 2017 and Tony Blair 2005, I can see why people might find their vastly greater numbers of seats than their opponent unfair given the relatively small difference in vote share.
But this time around, Labour got vastly more of the popular vote than any other party; their vote share was at least 10% more than that of the Tories, and in terms of physical votes, they got around 50% more than the Tories. That’s a decisive victory for Labour over the Tories, in my opinion.
I’m not 100% sure I’d support the introduction of proportional representation. I think it’s a good idea in theory, and I’ll admit that it would make things a fairer reflection of the actual tastes of the British electorate and prevent the need for tactical voting. But I’m unsure that the grass is necessarily greener on the other side.
Proportional representation would most likely mean us never having a majority government again, seeing as no party since the 1930s has ever managed to get 50% of the popular vote. This would always lead to a minority government, or a coalition that might potentially encapsulate many different ideological factions. A coalition government encapsulating multiple different ideologies is all well and good when they cooperate, but when they don’t, it makes things messy. Warring factions can make things descend into chaos even with a majority government led by one party (as the dying days of the recent Tory government arguably proved), so goodness knows what this could be like under multi-party coalitions.
FPTP is always going to generate a skewed result where the winning party gets a considerably greater share of the seats than their share of the vote. Admittedly, this skew was particularly significant this time, but it’s always happened to a degree and likely always will. I don’t see why this time is any different or any worse, particularly seeing as Labour had quite a decisive lead in terms of vote share (at least 10%), which hasn’t always been the case with winning governments in the past. In the aforementioned examples of Theresa May 2017 and Tony Blair 2005, I can see why people might find their vastly greater numbers of seats than their opponent unfair given the relatively small difference in vote share.
But this time around, Labour got vastly more of the popular vote than any other party; their vote share was at least 10% more than that of the Tories, and in terms of physical votes, they got around 50% more than the Tories. That’s a decisive victory for Labour over the Tories, in my opinion.
I’m not 100% sure I’d support the introduction of proportional representation. I think it’s a good idea in theory, and I’ll admit that it would make things a fairer reflection of the actual tastes of the British electorate and prevent the need for tactical voting. But I’m unsure that the grass is necessarily greener on the other side.
Proportional representation would most likely mean us never having a majority government again, seeing as no party since the 1930s has ever managed to get 50% of the popular vote. This would always lead to a minority government, or a coalition that might potentially encapsulate many different ideological factions. A coalition government encapsulating multiple different ideologies is all well and good when they cooperate, but when they don’t, it makes things messy. Warring factions can make things descend into chaos even with a majority government led by one party (as the dying days of the recent Tory government arguably proved), so goodness knows what this could be like under multi-party coalitions.
Ryan
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Hex
That happens all the time with FPTP, it's unsatisfactory to you this time around because you're not the one benefiting from it's awful, skewed nature.
"Chaos" is, really, what should be happening every time you try and negotiate a path forward that benefits the many. You can put into place structures and policies and conventions that smooth the path - our current system not having them isn't an argument against creating them. Our current system is about winning, never compromising, rarely working together. It's winner takes all, both in elections and in practice in both houses.
Other, more representative democracies have already done the hard work, and manage to take into account the views of huge proportions of the populace when running their countries, we just need to follow their lead.
Or, stick to 30-40% of voters deciding the future of 100% of the country, but we swap which 30-40% around now and again.
GooseOnTheLoose
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Ug Bugs
I've got my beady eye on this one, especially as he was once rather embarrassed during an inspirational talk he was giving to some residents in a custodial setting about employment options at his firm upon release.
Mr "we employ ex-offenders, but not sex offenders" Timpson was seemingly unaware that he was visiting, and speaking at, an establishment which only held people convicted of sexual offences. I'm reliably informed that it did not go down well.
I find it incredibly funny that 95% of people on this forum has argued for PR for the last god knows how many years and now one skewed result where the left wing party “won” 2/3 seats when less than 20% of the country voted for them and now FPTP is the greatest system ever.
I’ve never been a supporter of PR before and still think it has it’s disadvantages like you don’t get a local representatives in parliament all of the time and the smaller party’s are the ones making deals to gain their support, but at least you can say it’s a fair representation of the country at large.
I actually think this makes for fair reading:
We would have probably still ended up with Starmer as PM but he would have to have worked together with the LD and the Greens, not unreasonable but policy would have to be toned down.
Of course we would need a new type of politician, ones that could actually behave like a grown up for it to work.
I’ve never been a supporter of PR before and still think it has it’s disadvantages like you don’t get a local representatives in parliament all of the time and the smaller party’s are the ones making deals to gain their support, but at least you can say it’s a fair representation of the country at large.
I actually think this makes for fair reading:
We would have probably still ended up with Starmer as PM but he would have to have worked together with the LD and the Greens, not unreasonable but policy would have to be toned down.
Of course we would need a new type of politician, ones that could actually behave like a grown up for it to work.
DiogoJ42
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- The Metropolitan Line
Today's Diamond Geezer has a very interesting set of graphs on vote share vs seats won over the decades. (Sadly not just a single image I can post here).
diamondgeezer.blogspot.com
diamond geezer
D4n
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Zadra
I agree that PR would be beneficial for the country .
I also think that Keir Starmer, although I’m not a huge fan, is exactly the kind of “grown up” politician that would be a successful leader of a coalition government. Unlike Boris Johnson.
A Labour / LibDem / Green coalition would be a really exciting prospect in my view.
It’s a shame that the winner of elections is never interested in electoral reform. I guarantee, ironically enough, that this will also be the case for the Reform party if they ever get a whiff of power.
The system works for the winner.
Always
I also disagree with you including those that chose not to vote in your figures. They forfeited their right to complain about any government .