Why has the Labour Party struggled so much in recent UK elections?

[Benzin]

What utter drivel, educated people are vastly more likely to vote Tory than Labour.
Uneducated people are by and large the poorest people in society so will always vote Labour, these are the votes that the Labour party take for granted.

Hartlepool in the North East of England is an area widely known for being full of rich toffs after all.

 

[shakey]

Hartlepool in the North East of England is an area widely known for being full of rich toffs after all.

I think the last few years, voting along class lines has become much less common.

Brexit has partly been responsible for that.

As for the tory party telling lies, they don't have a monopoly on that and the party in power is always going to be economic with the truth if its not good.

Remember WMD's

Personally I have an interest in politics but don't really support any particular party, so I don't vote. I may do one day if I think there's a party worth voting for.

Sent from my ELS-NX9 using Tapatalk

 

[BigT]

Hartlepool in the North East of England is an area widely known for being full of rich toffs after all.

No it has like most other towns in England around 50% of people that now consider themselves as middle class, working households where both partners are earning around or slightly above average salary.
These are exactly the type of people who will at the moment vote Tory, exactly the same people that would of been turned off by Labours socialist policies.

Also some of the thickest people I’ve met have degrees so that is hardly a good judge of how well educated someone is, education is not just about formal exams, life experience also plays a huge part of someones education.
A high amount of people with degrees will also be under 30 due to the proliferation of polytechnics becoming universities and the lack of manufacturing apprenticeships and trades available to learn in the last 20 years.
In my experience when most people start paying income tax and earning a good salary they suddenly start supporting the Tory party unless they work for the public sector and then they tend to be unionised so support Labour.

 

[D4n]

No it has like most other towns in England around 50% of people that now consider themselves as middle class, working households where both partners are earning around or slightly above average salary.
These are exactly the type of people who will at the moment vote Tory, exactly the same people that would of been turned off by Labours socialist policies.

In most towns, in over 50% of households, both partners earn average or above salary?

How on earth does that work?

 

[WillPS]

I did the count on Friday in Chesterfield and they had a police crime commissioner election for Derbyshire.

It was a 2 vote system where you had 2 columns for your 1st and 2nd choices.

The number of plonkers that put 2 votes in the 1st column and none in the second (therefore voiding their vote) was astounding.

It was also a pain to count.

Crazy system really. If one candidate doesn't get over 50% of the 1st choice then it goes to the 2nd choice, which is exactly what happened.

So you are then left in a situation which either confirms the win for the candidate that got the most votes in the 1st place. (a bit pointless). Or you overturn the 1st choice and the candidate that didn't get the most vote then wins. (which is ludicrous).

Not sure who won in the end to be honest, as I was losing the will to live by that point.

I disagree strongly. The system ensures that whoever wins has the consent of the majority of those who voted. It's more or less the same as they do in French presidential elections, except it's done at a local level and all at once rather than in 2 separate ballots. Without that system, it's entirely likely that France National would win - and because of it that is impossible without a majority of the electorate voting for them.

Better still would be to abandon the '1 elected person per arbitrary geographical area' nonsense altogether and instead ask the electorate to choose a party and divvy up the votes for an entire region to an allocation of members; similar to what we did for MEPs.

Either way complexity of counting shouldn't be a factor when it comes to deciding the fairest way to ensure the will of the electorate is followed in democratic elections.

Tony Blair's biggest mistake was in not replacing FPTP as he had previously committed to.

 

[rob666]

...which proves that the leaders of both "main" parties are against any form of PR as it would cost them seats, and both party leaders are happy to tell fat fibs to avoid electoral reform.

 

[tayspru]

I disagree strongly. The system ensures that whoever wins has the consent of the majority of those who voted. It's more or less the same as they do in French presidential elections, except it's done at a local level and all at once rather than in 2 separate ballots. Without that system, it's entirely likely that France National would win - and because of it that is impossible without a majority of the electorate voting for them.

Better still would be to abandon the '1 elected person per arbitrary geographical area' nonsense altogether and instead ask the electorate to choose a party and divvy up the votes for an entire region to an allocation of members; similar to what we did for MEPs.

Either way complexity of counting shouldn't be a factor when it comes to deciding the fairest way to ensure the will of the electorate is followed in democratic elections.

Tony Blair's biggest mistake was in not replacing FPTP as he had previously committed to.

I think the fact that huge numbers of voters couldn’t even do their poll card correctly after being told exactly how to (my mum worked at her local polling station this year) is also indicative of the average intelligence of the electorate ...

 

[Tibble]

I won't lie I haven't read the thread, but I wanted to give my opinions on it.

I think Ed Miliband was the last of the 'Blair-ites'. Whilst he was a good candidate, He seemed weak and unlikely to perform well in a tense situation, Once he went to the back benches he showed the presence and voice he needed as a lead of the opposition. In return Cameron seemed like a more powerful voice and I think he turned more labour heads.

Corbyn was so far left it was a complete move from centre-left and it scared a lot of the older voters. Instead of fighting against Brexit and saying Labour was the party of anti-brexit, he wasn't really outspoken and let others do the talking. Meanwhile the leave campaign shouted louder. If he had joined Cameron, Stergeon and other political leaders and said 'We are all against Brexit, here's why' and been louder about it, I think we would still be in the EU. But he was too interested in pushing a hard left agenda.

Then in the general elections, they pushed what seemed like unrealistic policies and still didn't really push a stance on Brexit and a second referendum. People got bored and got bored of Brexit talk, so voted tory to finish Brexit. All while the party are in-fighting anti-Semitic claims.

Starmer came in and took the party in a different direction. I agree as the leader of the opposition he should congratulate the government when they have done things right. But I couldn't tell you any of labours policies and stances at the moment. They have flatlined a little bit and lost in council elections because people are the same, they aren't sure on what Labour stands for currently and it doesn't help labour that the vaccination program has gone well, because it puts a better light on the conservatives.

But how do they get back to their winning ways?
- Pick a lane and push their policies.
- Hold the govt to account about covid and the deaths
- Show the govt weaknesses and push hard on them
- Return to the party of the working class

 

[shakey]

I disagree strongly. The system ensures that whoever wins has the consent of the majority of those who voted. It's more or less the same as they do in French presidential elections, except it's done at a local level and all at once rather than in 2 separate ballots. Without that system, it's entirely likely that France National would win - and because of it that is impossible without a majority of the electorate voting for them.

Better still would be to abandon the '1 elected person per arbitrary geographical area' nonsense altogether and instead ask the electorate to choose a party and divvy up the votes for an entire region to an allocation of members; similar to what we did for MEPs.

Either way complexity of counting shouldn't be a factor when it comes to deciding the fairest way to ensure the will of the electorate is followed in democratic elections.

Tony Blair's biggest mistake was in not replacing FPTP as he had previously committed to.

In the case of the crime commisioner election they were still electing one candidate.

There were 4 in total and as one candidate didn't get 50% they eliminated the bottom 2 candidates but then used the 2nd vote of those candidates to add to the votes of the 2 remaining candidates. However, they did not use the 2nd vote of the remaining candidates even if it was for the other remaining one - not sure why?

What purpose did this serve? You are still going to elect one candidate and it is either the person with the most votes in the first place (as in main votes - the one that really matters), or the result is overturned by the person that just happened to pick up the most 2nd choice votes. Most people don't care about a 2nd vote - they will only have 1 candidate in mind so their 2nd vote is really just an afterthought and something they just do because they think they have to.

Some didn't vote for a 2nd candidate - and that was within the rules, but some voted for the same candidate twice which just voided the 2nd vote anyway.

It's a stupid system and I suspect the original result will be rarely overturned, but I would be slightly peeved if I was a candidate that had won the most original votes and not elected.

 

[jon81uk]

I did the count on Friday in Chesterfield and they had a police crime commissioner election for Derbyshire.

It was a 2 vote system where you had 2 columns for your 1st and 2nd choices.

The number of plonkers that put 2 votes in the 1st column and none in the second (therefore voiding their vote) was astounding.

It was also a pain to count.

Crazy system really. If one candidate doesn't get over 50% of the 1st choice then it goes to the 2nd choice, which is exactly what happened.

So you are then left in a situation which either confirms the win for the candidate that got the most votes in the 1st place. (a bit pointless). Or you overturn the 1st choice and the candidate that didn't get the most vote then wins. (which is ludicrous).

Not sure who won in the end to be honest, as I was losing the will to live by that point.



Sent from my ELS-NX9 using Tapatalk

I get that its going to be a pain to count but the supplementary transferable vote system makes sense in terms of the person who gets the most first preference votes might not win when the second choices are counted.

Many people would really like a Green Party or Liberal Democrat Mayor. But they also accept its less likely to happen and they would be happier with a Labour Mayor compared to a Conservative Mayor. With first past the post (like the general election) you would vote Labour (even though you really want Green) to keep the Tories out. With supplementary transferable votes, you can vote Green as your first preference and Labour as your bank up. The result then shows how many people would actually prefer a Green Party Mayor, you can vote for the candidate you really want and not have to worry about the party you don't want getting in. I don't think of it as "overturning" the first preference votes, as if you only could vote once it would probably look very different anyway.

 

[jon81uk]

What purpose did this serve? You are still going to elect one candidate and it is either the person with the most votes in the first place (as in main votes - the one that really matters), or the result is overturned by the person that just happened to pick up the most 2nd choice votes. Most people don't care about a 2nd vote - they will only have 1 candidate in mind so their 2nd vote is really just an afterthought and something they just do because they think they have to.

I'd already written one post without checking further replies, but I've basically explained it above.

The purpose is to allow you to vote for the candidate you really want but to have a back up as you know they are unlikely to win. Otherwise you might as well just have Labour and Conservative only anyway.

 

[shakey]

I'd already written one post without checking further replies, but I've basically explained it above.

The purpose is to allow you to vote for the candidate you really want but to have a back up as you know they are unlikely to win. Otherwise you might as well just have Labour and Conservative only anyway.

One person one vote is the simplest and most effective way of doing things. Vote for the party you prefer, as most people do. If you want to vote tactically then fine, but a 2 vote system just creates even more tactical voting and solves absolutely nothing in my opinion.

You are not suddenly going to see smaller parties winning anything unless you go for Proportional Representation which I used to be a fan of but this would lead to other problems.

FPTP has many flaws and smaller parties suffer, but it does produce strong governments. It may not produce the strong government you like but the alternative of PR will lead to weak governments unable to get anything through parliament, leading to multiple elections in a short space of time. Just more tax payers money wasted.

 

[D4n]

One person one vote is the simplest and most effective way of doing things. Vote for the party you prefer, as most people do. If you want to vote tactically then fine, but a 2 vote system just creates even more tactical voting and solves absolutely nothing in my opinion.

STV actually totally eliminates tactical voting, as there would be no point in not voting for candidates in order of preference.

That's probably one of the biggest upsides of such a system.

 

[jon81uk]

One person one vote is the simplest and most effective way of doing things. Vote for the party you prefer, as most people do. If you want to vote tactically then fine, but a 2 vote system just creates even more tactical voting and solves absolutely nothing in my opinion.

But for something like a Mayoral (or a PCC) election you aren't voting a government, it is just for one person. The supplementary vote system allows for a broader range of candidates and their policies, you can make it known that you think the LibDem candidate has the best policies but at the same time can accept the Labour candidate is still one you would accept.
For most of the Mayoral elections you might as well only have two candidates if the voting system went to just a simple majority.

 

[shakey]

STV actually totally eliminates tactical voting, as there would be no point in not voting for candidates in order of preference.

That's probably one of the biggest upsides of such a system.

It solves nothing. Results are highly unlikely to be overturned from the 1st vote result, and if you are tempted to vote for the "Bring Back The Wild Mouse" party because you still have a 2nd vote, you are more likely to let the party you don't want in because the party you don't mind so much has now lost your 1st vote that it would have got otherwise.

But for something like a Mayoral (or a PCC) election you aren't voting a government, it is just for one person.

People will almost always vote on party lines, no matter what the election is for. If the PCC election didn't show a candidates party then nobody would have had a scooby doo who to vote for. I am not sure why we are voting for a police crime commissioner anyway, and in years where its not combined with county elections, hardly anyone bothers to vote in it.

 

[jon81uk]

It solves nothing. Results are highly unlikely to be overturned, and if you are tempted to vote for the "Bring Back The Wild Mouse" party because you still have a 2nd vote, you are more likely to let the party you don't want in because the party you don't mind so much has now lost your 1st vote that it would have got otherwise.

It sort of solves something, it lets people know you want to bring back the wild mouse.
If there was four parties, "bring back the mouse", "demolish the big dipper", "we love the big one" and "lets got to alton towers instead". You might give first preference to bring back the mouse and second preference to we love the big one, to avoid the big dipper demolishers.
If the vote is split and the wild mouse party eliminated, then their second preferences count and the we love the big one party gets elected. But they might see there was a decent amount of support for the policies of bring back the mouse an decide to try and keep those voters happy.

 

[shakey]

It sort of solves something, it lets people know you want to bring back the wild mouse.
If there was four parties, "bring back the mouse", "demolish the big dipper", "we love the big one" and "lets got to alton towers instead". You might give first preference to bring back the mouse and second preference to we love the big one, to avoid the big dipper demolishers.
If the vote is split and the wild mouse party eliminated, then their second preferences count and the we love the big one party gets elected. But they might see there was a decent amount of support for the policies of bring back the mouse an decide to try and keep those voters happy.

That's a fair point, but who in their right mind is going to vote for the "lets go to alton towers instead" party

 

[Alsty]

It probably doesn't help that we've been in a pandemic for 15 of the 17 months since the last general election. There's not been much opportunity for Labour to do anything as Coronavirus has dominated everything the government has done. Labour can't really oppose much of it as it's been done out of necessity rather than policy.

That's not to give Labour a free pass, however. There clearly are deep problems within the party. They need to work out what they represent and become relevant, and do so quickly.

 

[Matt.GC]

A single leader, the SNP, the electorate, the economy, Covid and any other reason we can give for the electoral woes of Labour are all singularly irrelevant. It's Labour as a party themselves that's the problem. Inside the party, they're too busy pointing fingers "you're a Trotskyist", "you're a Red Tory", "you're leader is rubbish", "you're trying to ambush us", "you won't give is a chance" etc etc etc. The infighting is nasty and frankly shambolic. A few years ago, this fighting was mainly happening inside, now it's all over the internet for all to see (and voters outside the party see it regularly).

Meanwhile, after their recent civil war over Brexit (in which they STILL remained in power by the way), Tories on the right wing of the party have happily sat quietly whilst they're party has adopted a reasonably centrist agenda. Why? Because it's getting them results. It's giving them new seats that were unimaginable only a few years ago. With their main opposition becoming more and more irrelevant, the Tories know that by strengthening their power base, they have the opportunity to move the centre ground of national politics the right. The Tories are reasonably united.

The labour party movement runs deep through the blood of many generations of my family. I used to be a member. So if I'm going to the polling booth and putting a cross next their box begrudgingly through gritted teeth then God knows what must being going through the general electorates mind.

It was Labours fault that Cameron and Osbourne's now much discredited economic policies became accepted by much of the electorate at the time.

It was Labours fault they lost in 2015 against an unpopular government.

It was Labours fault they lost against May's very unpopular government shortly afterwards and then, absurdly, celebrated the loss as if it was some kind of historic victory!

It was Labours fault that Corbyn was elected leader whether you like him or not.

It was Labours fault that many left leaning Scots found themselves neglected and migrated towards the open arms of Scottish Nationalists.

It was Labours fault that no one understood their Brexit stance after ardant young Remainers elected a life long Brexiteer as leader who was pretty much paralysed by the issue.

It was Labours fault that they didn't either understand or want to understand the anti EU feelings in their core base in the heartlands.

It was Labours fault they stopped listening to their core base in the heartlands full stop and adopted policies that these people had either gotten out of their system years ago or were just irrelevant to them.

The party is broken from the grass routes right up to the PLP. Not one single event, leader or faction is to blame.

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

 

[Dave]

No it has like most other towns in England around 50% of people that now consider themselves as middle class, working households where both partners are earning around or slightly above average salary.
These are exactly the type of people who will at the moment vote Tory, exactly the same people that would of been turned off by Labours socialist policies.

Also some of the thickest people I’ve met have degrees so that is hardly a good judge of how well educated someone is, education is not just about formal exams, life experience also plays a huge part of someones education.
A high amount of people with degrees will also be under 30 due to the proliferation of polytechnics becoming universities and the lack of manufacturing apprenticeships and trades available to learn in the last 20 years.
In my experience when most people start paying income tax and earning a good salary they suddenly start supporting the Tory party unless they work for the public sector and then they tend to be unionised so support Labour.

1) Thick people don’t get degree’s, clue is in the name really.

2) Public sector workers don’t hate the Tory’s because they are unionised. I can’t remember the last time I saw my union rep or paid any attention to the union (we pay our union fees as they also provide our indemnity insurance which is an essential product when you work in the health sector). We (for the most part) don’t vote Tory because we can see socialised health care works and they hate it.

In the general discussion I can see why Labour didn’t do well but I am truely amazed how blindly people vote for such obviously corrupt politicians as Johnson.