UK Politics General Discussion

[rob666]

..., Yaxley-Lennon is terribly unpopular in the UK despite what Twitter suggests...

Citation very much needed.
The racist, corrupt thug, who also has convictions for fraud and violence as well don't forget, is very popular with the unthinking classes.
He has over a million followers, and is a figure worshipped by thugs and racists alike.
I wish he wasn't popular, but to say he isn't is false.
The scum of this nation love him.
Sadly, he is a popular, but divisive figure.

 

[Dave]

Citation very much needed.
The racist, corrupt thug, who also has convictions for fraud and violence as well don't forget, is very popular with the unthinking classes.
He has over a million followers, and is a figure worshipped by thugs and racists alike.
I wish he wasn't popular, but to say he isn't is false.
The scum of this nation love him.
Sadly, he is a popular, but divisive figure.

Tommy Robinson popularity & fame | YouGov

Tommy Robinson is the 2702nd most popular all-time person and the 2070th most popular person. Explore the latest YouGov polling, survey results and articles about Tommy Robinson.

yougov.co.uk

Just because someone has a vocal support base doesn’t make them popular. Farage is trying to pull centre right voters to Reform, he doesn’t want them to be turned off by Yaxley boy.

 

[Benzin]

Can't base stuff like popularity off of amount of followers these days given the high amount of paid-for bots and general other naff accounts that exist these days.

Only 1 million followers out of the entire user base? Rookie numbers.

 

[rob666]

A million more followers than any of us...
2070th most popular person in the world...not popular?
In the top 0.01% "most popular" people in the world by my poor maths when there are eight billion of us.
Popular amongst hard right voters, we have to face that.

 

[tayspru]

Don’t forget bots, sock puppet accounts, paid for followers. The numbers on social media mean next to nothing

 

[Dave]

A million more followers than any of us...
2070th most popular person in the world...not popular?
In the top 0.01% "most popular" people in the world by my poor maths when there are eight billion of us.
Popular amongst hard right voters, we have to face that.

The ranking isn’t popularity as part of that is based on the fame factor.

His “fame” factor shows 75% of respondents know who he is, which is higher than people
ranked similar to him. His disliked v liked is 45% to 21%.

 

[Matt.GC]

Simple answer is, Musk appears to have a Narcissist personality disorder. He's driven by a serious lack of empathy, inflated sense of self, superiority, and is extremely vulnerable to criticism. He reacts with anger and impulsivity to show his disdain, and will hyper focus on achieving or showing his defiance more than anything else. This is why he appears so inconsistent, and with very few actual morals or founded opinions of his own, as that's not his primary objective.

This is all made worse by his situation. His very high cognitive abilities, immoral father, wealth, privilege, access to power, and ownership of his own propaganda platform, are all both products of his narcism, and serve to fuel it more.

Examples:

His high cognitive abilities could be behind his success with Tesla. He displays no signs of actually caring about electric cars or the future of climate change. He has talked about eugenics because it's probably logical in his mind, but there's no human empathy in what he says.

He's had a significant leg up in life, but won't see it this way because it continues to feed his own needs.

He's donated to the Democrats before, and shows no sign of having any actual concrete political beliefs. He's cozied up to fellow successful narcissist Trump to access his power. When either feels threatened, you can mark my words they'll turn on each other (I'd bet my life on it). It's inevitable. Farage was expendable as Musk likely saw him and Reform as little more than tools to access power over the UK. Conflicting with his views on Yaxley-Lennon wasn't part of his plan, so his desperation to show defiance kicked in. Starmer has democratically achieved huge power in the UK without huge amounts of popularity and Musk can't, so this frustes him greatly and his behaviours act up.

He doesn't actually have a desire for free speech, and doesn't care about the truth. Others have opposing views that challenge his lust for superiority, and must be attacked and surpressed at all costs. His ownership of a social media platform with wound back moderation apparatus isn't about morals or individual free speech and truth (neither is it with Trump's, despite it's rediclous name). It's the opposite. A propaganda tool to control discourse, amplify his lies, his message, and those of like minded people that play by his rules. People he'll ditch and turn on all of them when it no long serves the narrative that protects his power and serves to feed his desperate desire for a sense of self worth.

The last thing Musk wants is to be ignored. The troll wants you to feed him, he's hungry. He needs power and influence. Even money is just a tool he uses to achieve this. He's on record as saying he doesn't give a damn if advertises desert his propaganda platform. One of the few times I actually believe him. As long as he has influence, I have no doubt that's more important to him than having to propping it up with money. Communications and marketing costs money. I have no doubt he'd stop at virtually nothing to feed his desires. When challenged on burning fuel and poisoning the atmosphere to satisfy his needs for personal gratification with Space X, he responded that he's "done more for climate change than anyone else on the planet" with Tesla. That's likely not true, but he either genuinely believes that, or uses it as a smokescreen to do what he likes. The truth doesn't matter, only his own needs.

I find deciphering lies on social media and print media quite easy. Just start from a place where none of it is true or credible until you decipher otherwise. Outrageous newspaper headlines used to be easy to ignore, just don't look at them. I guess it's easier when you grew up in a different era. Doing a uni assignment at the moment (hence why not around here much) about Social Media marketing. Fascinating stuff as I've had to research a subject matter that I don't understand. Started from a place where I'm puzzled (and still am) about how people can so easily be manipulated. If you came out with social media marketing strategies that suckers fall for these days in the 1990's, you'd be carted off to the funny farm. But here we are in 2025. It's now a reality. Whole swaths of suckers are having their minds and self consciousness controlled by having their natural human instincts manipulated. Fears of missing out and not being accepted are being exploited.

Supposed to be about marketing so need to try and stay on track today. But the search to understand it all (as I just really don't and need to be able to produce something passable by the end of the week) is leading into many texts about sociology and psychology. World really has gone mad.

 

[rob666]

... is leading into many texts about sociology and psychology. World really has gone mad.

You got an ology?
You're a scientist.

Can only agree on the crazy old world.
The next four years are going to be our biggest rollercoaster ever, to use that hated media phrase that always gets my ears twitching.

Now stop prevaricating and get your schoolwork done.

 

[Matt N]

On a side note, I do think that the rise of the populist far-right and increasing disillusionment with the two main parties could make the next UK election very interesting if Farage’s efforts to legitimise Reform and make it a true competitor with the Conservatives and Labour work.

I know the election is 4 years away, but we’ve currently got a very interesting phenomenon in the opinion polls wherein Labour’s polling is in the toilet… but the Conservatives’ polling has not really significantly risen from the July low either. And who is the key profiteer from this situation? Reform. In many polls, all three parties are polling around the 25% mark at the moment; some polls are putting Reform ahead of Labour and/or the Conservatives, whereas others are putting them a little behind, but they are definitely snapping at the heels of the two main parties in terms of polling intention at present.

Normally, you’d expect the opposition’s polling to skyrocket in unison with the government’s polling plummeting, and vice versa. As an example, we saw this with Partygate, Truss and the litany of Tory missteps that followed COVID; as Tory polling plummeted, Labour polling skyrocketed in almost perfect unison. But we’re not seeing this phenomenon play out when Starmer and his new Labour government are making missteps of their own and proving unpopular with the public; that Tory polling remains stubbornly low despite the decline in fortunes of Labour.

This suggests to me that rather than wanting the opposition in power, as has previously been the case, people are fed up with “the system” and turning away from the two main parties. Some recent MRP-style polling suggested that if an election were to be held tomorrow, Labour and the Tories would both hold only around 220 seats, and Reform would hold around 120. If this came to pass, this would be an unprecedented situation, where both main parties are 100 seats away from a majority.

Could the UK’s two party system potentially be dead in the water? If Starmer doesn’t do something to significantly reverse his government’s fortunes in the next 4 years (probably less time than that, in all honesty), I think it could be.

Of course, time will tell whether Starmer’s government is able to reverse its current fortunes and implement some stuff that’s more popular (it is only 6 months after the last election, after all), but if the current unpopularity persists, I think the next election could prove quite seismic. If current trajectories continue, I don’t think the possibility of Reform winning the next election is that inconceivable.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Could the UK’s two party system potentially be dead in the water? If Starmer doesn’t do something to significantly reverse his government’s fortunes in the next 4 years (probably less time than that, in all honesty), I think it could be.

The UK doesn't have a two party system. As recently as 10 years ago we still had a coalition government, where the Liberal Democrats shared power with the Conservatives. As recently as 6 years ago, we had a government which was being supported by the Northern Irish DUP.

To state that the UK only has a two party system is quite English centric and does a disservice to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where parties outside Labour and Conservatives perform well.

The phenomenon of two dominating parties with large majorities in British parliamentary politics is a fairly recent / short lived phenomenon, which is unusual for a first past the post system.

Reform with their five MPs haven't broken the mold, especially with the current breakup of our parliament.

Liberal Democrats: 72
Independent MPs: 15
Scottish National Party: 9
DUP: 5
Sinn Fein: 7
Green: 4
Plaid Cymru: 4
SDLP: 2
Alliance: 1
TUV: 1

 

[Matt N]

The UK doesn't have a two party system. As recently as 10 years ago we still had a coalition government, where the Liberal Democrats shared power with the Conservatives. As recently as 6 years ago, we had a government which was being supported by the Northern Irish DUP.

To state that the UK only has a two party system is quite English centric and does a disservice to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where parties outside Labour and Conservatives perform well.

The phenomenon of two dominating parties with large majorities in British parliamentary politics is a fairly recent / short lived phenomenon, which is unusual for a first past the post system.

Reform with their five MPs haven't broken the mold, especially with the current breakup of our parliament.

Liberal Democrats: 72
Independent MPs: 15
Scottish National Party: 9
DUP: 5
Sinn Fein: 7
Green: 4
Plaid Cymru: 4
SDLP: 2
Alliance: 1
TUV: 1

Perhaps two-party system was the wrong phrase (we aren’t completely two-party in the same way as, say, America), but if you look at the UK at a national level, the Conservatives and Labour are overwhelmingly the top two and have been for a long time, and the majority of national governments in recent years have been formed by either the Conservatives or Labour. To my knowledge, every government post-WW2 has been either a Conservative or Labour government, or at very least had one of the two as the larger party. Granted, that is English-centric, but to view the composition of the UK government at a national level, you have to be English-centric to an extent because England is by far the largest constituent country of the United Kingdom in terms of population.

I would also politely disagree with your notion that two dominating parties is a recent and short-lived phenomenon. 2010 and 2017 were notable recent exceptions to a decades-long norm of majority governments; those two elections were the first since 1974 to return a hung parliament, and that election was the first since pre-war years to return a hung parliament, I believe. Until the 2010s, hung parliaments were not at all common, and the result was typically a more clear cut Conservative-Labour face off, with the combined vote share of the two parties typically being at least 70%, often approaching or over 80%. 2017’s vote share for the two main parties was 82%, 2019’s was 76%, and you look back to the latter half of the 20th century, the combined vote share for the two main parties was routinely comfortably over 70%.

Whereas in 2024, it was 57%, which is the lowest combined Conservative/Labour vote share since 1910, and recent polling would hint at a combined vote share of potentially only around 50% or slightly higher in 2029.

For lack of a better term, my question is; could this trajectory be hinting at the end of the decades-long duopoly the Conservatives and Labour have had on forming government in this country? I do feel that the current polling numbers, and the trajectory from the last election, could be hinting towards the impending end of the Conservative/Labour duopoly that has largely endured since WW2.

 

[Dave]

Perhaps two-party system was the wrong phrase (we aren’t completely two-party in the same way as, say, America), but if you look at the UK at a national level, the Conservatives and Labour are overwhelmingly the top two and have been for a long time, and the majority of national governments in recent years have been formed by either the Conservatives or Labour. To my knowledge, every government post-WW2 has been either a Conservative or Labour government, or at very least had one of the two as the larger party. Granted, that is English-centric, but to view the composition of the UK government at a national level, you have to be English-centric to an extent because England is by far the largest constituent country of the United Kingdom in terms of population.

I would also politely disagree with your notion that two dominating parties is a recent and short-lived phenomenon. 2010 and 2017 were notable recent exceptions to a decades-long norm of majority governments; those two elections were the first since 1974 to return a hung parliament, and that election was the first since pre-war years to return a hung parliament, I believe. Until the 2010s, hung parliaments were not at all common, and the result was typically a more clear cut Conservative-Labour face off, with the combined vote share of the two parties typically being at least 70%, often approaching or over 80%. 2017’s vote share for the two main parties was 82%, 2019’s was 76%, and you look back to the latter half of the 20th century, the combined vote share for the two main parties was routinely comfortably over 70%.

Whereas in 2024, it was 57%, which is the lowest combined Conservative/Labour vote share since 1910, and recent polling would hint at a combined vote share of potentially only around 50% or slightly higher in 2029.

For lack of a better term, my question is; could this trajectory be hinting at the end of the decades-long duopoly the Conservatives and Labour have had on forming government in this country? I do feel that the current polling numbers, and the trajectory from the last election, could be hinting towards the impending end of the Conservative/Labour duopoly that has largely endured since WW2.

Not likely under first past the post, the system still benefits the two main parties, you would need PR really.

The only likely way Reform take power is if they subsume the existing Tory party and the right return to only having one party, the issue in UK politics has always been that the right only had one party whereas the left was split across multiple parties.

 

[Benzin]

Also ignores the amount of tactical voting that will take place.

Post election many are just sticking the knife into Labour because of some largely unpopular policies in terms of certain demographics that doesn't affect most of them but are demographics that can be used to garner sympathy from the wider electorate. Oh no those poor millionaire pensioners suddenly not getting £300 to heat their third home.

Also doesn't help that many of those formerly in charge are sniping over stuff their party presided over. And it frustratingly seems to stick more, though again a lot of that comes from a distinct lack of challenge coming from journalists and the like to argue against certain views. BBC has become a joke in recent years due to their impartiality giving air to ridiculous views in the name of "balance". And not helped by the likes of Kussenburg who is weak as hell against anyone with a blue tie. But then again the Director General is a Tory so you know. Can't rock the boat and lose funding.

Anyone expecting a quick fix were idiots to believe. But unfortunately in a democracy you do have to let everyone vote. Even the turkeys or those very sure that the Leopards Eating Faces Party won't eat theirs.

 

[flyingguitar]

His high cognitive abilities could be behind his success with Tesla.

Not really, He for some reason has a reputation of being a genius but he isn't really he acts very much like a con artist pretending to be some mega genius calming that auto pilot will be next year (for like the 10 year in the row) or he will send people to mars next couple years, for the past like decade.

Form an engineering perspective a lot of what he says doesn't make sense, for instance the "hyperloop" was a concept that has existed since the Victorian era being called the vacuum train and has failed because of so many reasons such as the energy required to create the vacuum, risk of the chamber collapsing, a leak causing a massive pressure wall traveling at the speed of sound towards a train causing a disaster and so much more.
tesla auto pilot is another example he insisted that he should remove all sensors apart from cameras becuase Ai cAn Do IT but it is really stupid, AI needs to be trained for everything, imagine if you trained a toddler and trusted them to drive it and told them if they have a doubt, just continue to drive, it may work for a while but eventually it will discover something it hasn't seen before and will make the wrong decision (for instance a turned over truck) this was seen when he removed the ultrasonic parking sensors because CaMerAs can do it but has just started putting them back in because they can't. Sensors such as LIDAR gives definitive data, not an interpolation to the computer allowing it to defiantly see there is something in front of it (but that sensor is too expensive to musk, so enjoy driving next to a tesla which may not know you are there)

Apparently there are teams in space X who are hired to steer him away from the engineers to prevent him from insisting on some stupid decision (also space x aren't the first to land a booster, McDonald Douglass did that in the 90's) he didn't even start tesla, just kicked out the original founders and clamed he started it. his worth is just based on how expensive tesla is (it is insainly overvalued, being worth more than all car companies combined at point)

Twitter proves this more, him doing something stupid then blaming it on someone and arguing or sueing them, (for instance he told the advertisers to "Go F*** yourself" at a new york times talk then sued an advertiser non profit because all the advertisers left)

He isn't that smart, he has just been hyped up and full dunning kruger effect meaning he believes he is the smartest person so gives a ton of confidence into it.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Perhaps two-party system was the wrong phrase (we aren’t completely two-party in the same way as, say, America), but if you look at the UK at a national level, the Conservatives and Labour are overwhelmingly the top two and have been for a long time, and the majority of national governments in recent years have been formed by either the Conservatives or Labour. To my knowledge, every government post-WW2 has been either a Conservative or Labour government, or at very least had one of the two as the larger party. Granted, that is English-centric, but to view the composition of the UK government at a national level, you have to be English-centric to an extent because England is by far the largest constituent country of the United Kingdom in terms of population.

I would also politely disagree with your notion that two dominating parties is a recent and short-lived phenomenon. 2010 and 2017 were notable recent exceptions to a decades-long norm of majority governments; those two elections were the first since 1974 to return a hung parliament, and that election was the first since pre-war years to return a hung parliament, I believe. Until the 2010s, hung parliaments were not at all common, and the result was typically a more clear cut Conservative-Labour face off, with the combined vote share of the two parties typically being at least 70%, often approaching or over 80%. 2017’s vote share for the two main parties was 82%, 2019’s was 76%, and you look back to the latter half of the 20th century, the combined vote share for the two main parties was routinely comfortably over 70%.

Whereas in 2024, it was 57%, which is the lowest combined Conservative/Labour vote share since 1910, and recent polling would hint at a combined vote share of potentially only around 50% or slightly higher in 2029.

For lack of a better term, my question is; could this trajectory be hinting at the end of the decades-long duopoly the Conservatives and Labour have had on forming government in this country? I do feel that the current polling numbers, and the trajectory from the last election, could be hinting towards the impending end of the Conservative/Labour duopoly that has largely endured since WW2.

Voter share isn't a useful metric when analysing a First Past the Post System, as it doesn't directly relate to seats won and thus control, or influence, in Parliament.

You're still being incredibly England focussed though, when looking at the success of other parties in the UK. The devolved nations each have their own government and none of them use the first past the post system. The Conservative Party has only ever formed a government on a UK level. Labour have only formed governments in Wales and on a UK level.

First Past the Post can only ever really deliver outcomes favouring the top two parties in the country. Pre 1924 it was the Whigs and Tories, then it was Labour and the Tories. Other parties have always had an input, a say and an influence though, even if they haven't had direct control. You only have to look at the Conservative party to see that for the past 15 years it's been directed, albeit inadvertently, by the whims of Nigel Farage. The Conservatives aren't, and never have been, worried about whichever party Farage is supporting these days, they don't realistically ever think he'll form a government. They're aware, however, that a vote for Reform splits the vote on the right which goes against their interests in a First Past the Post system.

 

[Tom]

It is effectively a two party system. It is just that periodically in history one of those parties is replaced. The Tories may be on the verge of that, but way too early to tell. Coalitions are relatively rare over a centuries-long view.

There is no way in hell anyone elected under FPTP would get rid of it. Would be hysterical to see Reform, the Liberal Democrats or Green Party go quiet on it if ever elected.

 

[Dave]

It is effectively a two party system. It is just that periodically in history one of those parties is replaced. The Tories may be on the verge of that, but way too early to tell. Coalitions are relatively rare over a centuries-long view.

There is no way in hell anyone elected under FPTP would get rid of it. Would be hysterical to see Reform, the Liberal Democrats or Green Party go quiet on it if ever elected.

There is a possibility, I suspect if things are looking dicey in 2029 Labour might put a referendum on PR in their manifesto as it might tempt reform to not coordinate with the Tories.

 

[Matt N]

@Dave's point about Reform cooperation with the Conservatives is an interesting one. And in what I admit is a bit of a contradiction to the point I made earlier, this could perhaps be the downfall of Reform under FPTP, as from what I ascertain, they might be less than willing to cooperate with the Conservatives due to their surprisingly differing voter coalitions.

I read an interesting opinion piece from one of the newspapers about how the right needs to embrace tactical voting if it wants to beat Labour at the next election, and it actually unearthed some rather interesting stats.

You'd think that the next party of choice for a Conservative voter would be Reform, but a stat given in this opinion piece reckoned that 40% of Tory voters would not choose Reform as their second favourite party after the Conservatives, with many opting for Labour or the Lib Dems as their second choice. Similarly, a surprisingly small share of Reform voters would choose the Conservatives as their second favourite party, with many actually opting for one of the left-wing parties. Despite both being centre-right parties, there's a sizeable chunk of the Tory vote that hates Reform, and a sizeable chunk of the Reform vote that hates the Tories. This is in stark contrast to the left-wing parties, where most left-wing voters tend to generally feel at least somewhat positive about all of the parties. This worked to the left's advantage in 2024; typical voters for all the left-wing parties were pretty united around a common anti-Tory goal, and were happy to vote for their second or third choice in order to deal the lethal blow to the Conservative Party. I'm not sure things will necessarily be that harmonious on the right given the somewhat differing voter coalitions of the Conservatives and Reform, and that a sizeable chunk of the voters for one party hate the other.

That said, I do wonder if voters of other left-wing parties might be less inclined to prop up Labour after they've spent a term in government and they're the ones with the incumbency curse on their shoulders instead of the Tories... it's really interesting to ponder!

I think 2024 did prove the power of tactical voting and was arguably the first time we've seen a mass tactical voting campaign work effectively. I wonder if that will be looked at by the parties and harnessed in future elections?