It's good, I guess. In my view, to achieve this, Labour has had to compromise themselves so deeply that they aren't especially substantively different from the Tories anymore. I think there's a...
It's good, I guess. In my view, to achieve this, Labour has had to compromise themselves so deeply that they aren't especially substantively different from the Tories anymore. I think there's a small consolation that, repugnant as the government will remain, they will at least be slightly less incompetent? Scarily, I think that it's actually too late to arrest the death spiral in a meaningful way, at this point.
Also not to keep harping on about it, but in any case both Labour and the Tories explicitly agree 'fuck trans people,' so for me it's hard to feel excited or happy about any of it. I voted Green and then saw literally hours later a quote from the co-leader praising the Cass review, its opinions, recommendations. The Greens! Just can't fucking win.
It's actually seriously depressing how reactionary people are about trans people. Like, it's not your business to decide who people are! Just shut your fucking mouth and listen. It's not your...
It's actually seriously depressing how reactionary people are about trans people. Like, it's not your business to decide who people are! Just shut your fucking mouth and listen. It's not your business to decide for someone else.
My understanding is that they didn't really even have to sell out to achieve these results! They just wanted to! Labour's share of the vote is lower than it was under Corbyn, and its total vote...
In my view, to achieve this, Labour has had to compromise themselves so deeply that they aren't especially substantively different from the Tories anymore.
My understanding is that they didn't really even have to sell out to achieve these results! They just wanted to! Labour's share of the vote is lower than it was under Corbyn, and its total vote count is far lower. All the results show is that the Conservatives collapsed, because for at least the last five (and more like fourteen) years they've proven themselves to be entirely incapable of governing a serious country. Hell, Corbyn blew the Labour candidate out of the water running as an independent. I'm sure returning Labour to Blairite conservative politics has helped draw in some of those running from the Conservatives, but it mathematically cannot be responsible for the result, and I'm not aware of any reason to believe voters wanted it.
Corbyn is a strong MP in his district and gets great feedback on the minutiae of responding to constituent's emails etc. He's well-intentioned but politically toxic at a national scale. Starmer...
Corbyn is a strong MP in his district and gets great feedback on the minutiae of responding to constituent's emails etc. He's well-intentioned but politically toxic at a national scale. Starmer was right to kick him from Labor based on the recent results.
Really? The party got more votes nationally under Corbyn. Even Starmer personally got more votes running for his own seat under Corbyn. In what sense do you think the results show us that Starmer...
Really? The party got more votes nationally under Corbyn. Even Starmer personally got more votes running for his own seat under Corbyn. In what sense do you think the results show us that Starmer was right to kick him from Labour? Labour was numerically doing better under Corbyn than it has done under Starmer. What the results very clearly show is that Starmerite Labour easily won an election because their opposition collapsed, and what was left of their opposition fragmented between two different parties in a FPTP system. I just don't know what you even think you're referring to here. There are a lot of different ways to break down the results, and none of them show what you're suggesting, and all of them show the opposite of what you're suggesting. Look at the visualizations in this article, for example. Labour didn't do better, the Conservatives did worse. Labour's vote share didn't meaningfully increase, only their seat share, and it did so as a consequence of the Conservatives' vote share cratering. That gap was predominantly filled by Reform, not Starmer's Labour.
Corbyn is so distasteful that his hypothetical presence would have prevented a Tory collapse because people don't want him in power. Parties don't collapse in a vacuum, Starmer enabled the collapse.
Corbyn is so distasteful that his hypothetical presence would have prevented a Tory collapse because people don't want him in power.
Parties don't collapse in a vacuum, Starmer enabled the collapse.
I guess you would just need some extraordinary evidence for that extraordinary claim. I don't think you can provide any, but I don't think it would be conceptually possible for you to provide any,...
I guess you would just need some extraordinary evidence for that extraordinary claim. I don't think you can provide any, but I don't think it would be conceptually possible for you to provide any, even if you were right. What you're saying is entirely non-falsifiable. You're telling us that Labour reorienting to neoliberalism radically impacted public perception of the parties but without impacting Labour? That just doesn't make much sense.
It already happened in 2019, so it doesn't seem such an extraordinary claim. Tbh, I think you are leaving out a lot of details about this election and previous ones that paint a more complex...
It already happened in 2019, so it doesn't seem such an extraordinary claim.
Tbh, I think you are leaving out a lot of details about this election and previous ones that paint a more complex picture. The election was largely a foregone conclusion, which produces historically low turnout and encouraged a lot more people voting for various minor parties. Comparing this to 2017 is difficult, because 2017 had historically low support for minor parties, as the Lib Dems were still suffering from the effect of tuition fees, and UKIP had basically fallen apart. Even despite this, and the truly awful campaign that May ran (with the infamous dementia tax), the Tories still gained vote share alongside Labour, and it's very difficult to describe this as a Labour victory given that they didn't, well, win.
Aside from turnout, the single biggest issue that Labour faced was the Israel/Palestine issue, driven by (mainly) Muslim voters supporting candidates with a platform of supporting Gaza. In fairness, along these voters, Corbyn would have done very well, but nationally his defence and geopolitical beliefs have always been some of his weakest. Any gains he made by taking a hard-line pro-Palestine stance would have been lost several times over in other sections of the population.
I cannot tell you how Corbyn would have fared in total had he been the leader during this election. In all fairness, I think the Conservatives were so deeply unpopular at this point that you could have stuck a red rosette to Mr Blobby and have him lead the party to victory. But we don't know what didn't happen, so we can only ever guess.
But we do know that Corbyn is - and was - deeply unpopular, that even his greatest victory (to come second and force a hung parliament) was probably an outlier, and that he has been a substantial reason for people to vote against Labour in previous elections and in polling. Those are not counterfactuals, and taken in combination, they pretty clearly paint a picture of an excellent local campaigner who did a tremendous amount of damage to the Labour party.
I believe YouGov or one of the other pollsters, about a week before the election, asked their usual "Who would you vote for?“ question but with the caveat that Jeremy Corbyn rather than Keir...
I believe YouGov or one of the other pollsters, about a week before the election, asked their usual "Who would you vote for?“ question but with the caveat that Jeremy Corbyn rather than Keir Starmer was Labour leader.
I'm sure the Labour vote dropped, however it still lead to a Labour victory, but with a reduced seat count.
Like I said, it's difficult to know what would have happened because it didn't. I'm sceptical of that sort of polling, because it's hard enough getting people to say what the actually will do, let...
Like I said, it's difficult to know what would have happened because it didn't. I'm sceptical of that sort of polling, because it's hard enough getting people to say what the actually will do, let alone what they might do in hypothetical scenarios, but I think it's fair to say that the mood was firmly anti-Tory, and many people could have lead the Labour party to victory this election.
But that doesn't make Corbyn a good candidate, and I think I've down pretty well that he was a poor candidate when he was in charge, and would have likely not pulled anything new out of the bag in this election.
I'm actually agreeing with you. My point was that Starmer is far more favourable than Corbyn, although the "get the Tories out" sentiment still delivered Corbyn a win in that scenario. I'm also...
I'm actually agreeing with you. My point was that Starmer is far more favourable than Corbyn, although the "get the Tories out" sentiment still delivered Corbyn a win in that scenario.
I'm also suspicious of that sort of polling as well but it's as close as you're going to get to an answer to the question on how Corbyn would've fared in this election.
I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just saying it is typical Internet that no matter how good the news is, there is always someone to point out how it may not be really that good at all.
I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just saying it is typical Internet that no matter how good the news is, there is always someone to point out how it may not be really that good at all.
I understand that you want to feel positive about what may seem like a move in the right direction, and that it does not feel good when someone rains on what feels like good news. However, I do...
I understand that you want to feel positive about what may seem like a move in the right direction, and that it does not feel good when someone rains on what feels like good news. However, I do not enjoy the implication that I'm just playing a 'typical Internet' cynic set piece by expressing my feelings about it - this is a real thing that affects me and many other people.
I want good news as much as you do. I really do not see it as good news. Put simply, it's nominally a massive move to the less conservative party, but it comes at the cost of the less conservative party becoming far more conservative - critically, now, with far less opposition from any other less conservative party.
Wouldn't that still be a massive improvement over the previous direction? If the new government manages to turn things around, that sounds way better than the current "managed decline".
Wouldn't that still be a massive improvement over the previous direction? If the new government manages to turn things around, that sounds way better than the current "managed decline".
I think it still falls under managed decline - one of the major reasons for this, I think, is that Labour essentially promises a continuation of austerity-style public spending policy. However, as...
I think it still falls under managed decline - one of the major reasons for this, I think, is that Labour essentially promises a continuation of austerity-style public spending policy. However, as I mentioned in the top level comment, I think there is something to be gained from a reduction in overall incompetence and therefore occurrence of major unforced error type events (of which there have been very many in the last set of governments), so that is indeed a positive!
You've put it better than I could. The creeping harm and rotting out of the core that austerity has done it's unthinkable to continue down that path and yet "radical change" appears to just be...
You've put it better than I could. The creeping harm and rotting out of the core that austerity has done it's unthinkable to continue down that path and yet "radical change" appears to just be more of austerity with slightly better trimmings. I hope for more but I'm concerned I can't see it coming.
With the specter of inflation, the options are increasing taxes on everyone or cutting and reallocating spending. Preferably a combination of the two. They could also boost growth by fixing...
With the specter of inflation, the options are increasing taxes on everyone or cutting and reallocating spending. Preferably a combination of the two. They could also boost growth by fixing regulations, allowing things to actually be built in the UK. I'm cautiously optimistic!
If you add labour, libdem, greens, UK has practically the most leftist sentiment in whole Europe. With a bit of campaining, you can actually fix the NHS!
If you add labour, libdem, greens, UK has practically the most leftist sentiment in whole Europe. With a bit of campaining, you can actually fix the NHS!
Stayed up as long as I could (a 2 year old and work today made this particularly dangerous) but saw the first few constituencies being called, all for Labour. I live in Scotland and have typically...
Stayed up as long as I could (a 2 year old and work today made this particularly dangerous) but saw the first few constituencies being called, all for Labour.
I live in Scotland and have typically been an SNP or Scottish Green voter but voted Labour this time to try and keep the SNP out of the seat (a new one after changes to constituency boundaries) as punishment for their monetary issues leading to party members, including ex-leaders, being arrested, and petty party infighting over the past year. It also worked, our constituency is a Labour gain with a roughly 6500 vote majority.
I'm not particularly happy with Labour, but Keir at least seems like a good man, I might not agree with everything he's said socially but that's okay, he doesn't seem like a narcissist or sociopath like some of the Tory PMs we've had and I'm not going to let perfect be the enemy of good.
Great fun seeing Truss, Mercer, Rees-Mogg, Mordaunt, Fabricant, and Schapps losing their seats though, absolute bloodbath.
Hopefully we can get back to boring politics now and fingers crossed our lives can get a little bit better over the next 5 years. Otherwise I fear Reform will sweep over more seats in 5 years time because they might've only gained 4 seats but some of those swings were quite scary, Reform came in second in quite a number of constituencies. Maybe dragging these MPs into the sunlight will show the public how mental and swivel-eyed they are but I'm not entirely hopeful.
They definitely seem to have hit the ground running which is great but my issues with Labour aren't their manifesto ideas which I'm generally pretty happy with but what they were saying about...
They definitely seem to have hit the ground running which is great but my issues with Labour aren't their manifesto ideas which I'm generally pretty happy with but what they were saying about trans people before and in the run up to the election wasn't great, especially when they announced they were in discussions of a sort with J. K. Rowling.
I'm hoping now the election is over and Labour seem like they'd rather just get on with things they and the media can just leave the LGBTQ+ community alone, especially since I have family members who are gay.
It's officially confirmed that Labour have a majority. https://news.sky.com/story/election-results-labour-conservative-starmer-sunak-latest-live-updates-12593360?postid=7922202#liveblog-body
I'd be interested to hear from any Tildoes in the United Kingdom, what are you hopeful that Labour's landslide victory will mean for the country? Fund the NHS? Any chance of rejoining the European...
I'd be interested to hear from any Tildoes in the United Kingdom, what are you hopeful that Labour's landslide victory will mean for the country? Fund the NHS? Any chance of rejoining the European Union?
I have a lot of hopes, most of them tempered. I’d love to see a radical shift in this country towards social and economic equality. Labour doesn’t seem to be offering this: anything that could be...
I have a lot of hopes, most of them tempered.
I’d love to see a radical shift in this country towards social and economic equality. Labour doesn’t seem to be offering this: anything that could be seen as “controversial” (I.e. trans rights) they seem unwilling to push for, and any chance of actually taxing the wealthy in this country seems off the table.
But, it does seem like they intend to enact some policies which will uncontroversially improve the country. Fixing the NHS, addressing the climate crisis, improving workers rights: I hope this will happen, and I hope that they will go far enough.
They’ve made a big fuss about economic growth. I would like to see the economy turn around, but it’s not clear how the government can create growth without actually stimulating the economy by spending more - and of course they can only realistically spend more by taxing more.
On the EU, it’s pretty clear that we won’t be rejoining it any time soon, certainly not in this parliament. Labour have also said they won’t rejoin the single market or customs union, and to be honest the EU probably wouldn’t have us if we asked. But I hope that we can have a more positive trade relationship with our European friends, and maybe, in the long term, seek to heal the rift between us and move towards a closer relationship involving free trade, free movement etc.
I think the simple answer is by removing stupid regulations that limit growth. It's absolutely ridiculous how much HS2 cost and how slow the reviews were. Zoning is something that could be...
it’s not clear how the government can create growth without actually stimulating the economy by spending more - and of course they can only realistically spend more by taxing more.
I think the simple answer is by removing stupid regulations that limit growth. It's absolutely ridiculous how much HS2 cost and how slow the reviews were. Zoning is something that could be addressed too. Britain is the build nothing nation with worse public transit than the US per capita.
The most hopeful feeling which has come up in discussions with friends (several of whom are fee-paying Labour party members!) over the last few days is that things will might get worse marginally...
The most hopeful feeling which has come up in discussions with friends (several of whom are fee-paying Labour party members!) over the last few days is that things will might get worse marginally less quickly than they have been doing in recent years.
While it is undeniably satisfying to see the Tories get the kind of electoral kicking they so richly deserve, Labour's offering is so uninspiring it's somewhat taking the fun out of something I've been waiting 14 years for. And Reform being predicted double figures is awful, even if those seats are being taken from Tories.
I guess the Human Rights Act and our EHCR membership is looking a little safer than it was yesterday. So that's nice.
As someone from the US, it's interesting to contemplate such a huge shift in representation. I can only compare to what I know, and I realize it's a different system, but I'd have to go back to...
As someone from the US, it's interesting to contemplate such a huge shift in representation. I can only compare to what I know, and I realize it's a different system, but I'd have to go back to 1894 to see one party loose that badly on a percentage basis, so it's never happened in any of our lifetimes. I guess I'll be interested to see if it actually leads to any significant changes (short or long term), or just less chaos.
I don't know the US system well enough but has the party in power ever held it for 14 consecutive years making things consistently worse for the average persons life? I think the pent up...
I don't know the US system well enough but has the party in power ever held it for 14 consecutive years making things consistently worse for the average persons life? I think the pent up resentment especially with 3 un-elected prime ministers in the last few years have lead to this sudden change.
Edit: Also the Conservatives have had their vote split with the far right and the center-left labour are much more center than they were.
I mean, but you kinda did. You voted for Labour fully knowing who the PM was going to be. That's a bit different from Liz Truss collapsing the pound in a fit of rightwingness, when most people...
I mean, but you kinda did. You voted for Labour fully knowing who the PM was going to be. That's a bit different from Liz Truss collapsing the pound in a fit of rightwingness, when most people didn't even know her name.
It's like saying Americans don't technically vote for the President, they technically vote for the electors in the EC who vote for the President. Which is true, but so think it misses the point a bit.
"Kinda" is not "actual" though. It's not quite the same as in the US, who have an actual Presidential election, albeit one with a weird electoral system. Nobody stands for election as PM in the...
"Kinda" is not "actual" though.
It's not quite the same as in the US, who have an actual Presidential election, albeit one with a weird electoral system. Nobody stands for election as PM in the UK, and the only actual way to vote for the PM is to join a political party (assuming it is a party who lets it's members vote for leader) and hope they have a leadership change while in government.
I didn't vote for Labour, but if I did, still I wouldn't have been voting for Kier Starmer for PM, I'd only be voting for my MP. Even if I lived in Holborn and St Pancras I still wouldn't have been voting for Starmer as PM, I'd be voting for him as my MP.
Some people seem to think they get to vote for PM but some people think all sorts of things. Doesn't change how things actually are. Is this a technicality, I mean, OK maybe. But I'm not technically wrong.
It's Starmer's face on the billboards, the buses, the ads. It's Starmer who's part of the debates. It's Starmer making the campaign promises. It's Starmer who Sunak called after his defeat, and...
It's Starmer's face on the billboards, the buses, the ads. It's Starmer who's part of the debates. It's Starmer making the campaign promises. It's Starmer who Sunak called after his defeat, and it's Starmer who gives the acceptance speech. It's not as explicit as a presidential system, but the personality of the potential PM is a huge part of the campaign.
You are absolutely voting for Starmer when you vote for Labour. That's why one of the post mortems is that the Tories went through two unelected PMs without a mandate. No, no technically votes for a PM. But everyone practically does.
Kier Starmer is the leader of the Labour party, of course he's on the nationwide ads (although I didn't see his face that I recall, the only ads I saw were for my local Labour person) and doing...
Kier Starmer is the leader of the Labour party, of course he's on the nationwide ads (although I didn't see his face that I recall, the only ads I saw were for my local Labour person) and doing the big televised debates to promote the Labour party and carrying out the duties of the leader of the governing party. But none of that means a single person in the country got to cast a vote for the office of Prime Minister. At least not yesterday. Members of the Labour party got to vote for who their leader is, which is the closest anyone gets.
The idea that we do vote for PM is neither practically nor technically true. That some people might think that's what they are doing or get angry that they didn't get to do it doesn't change what is actually happening.
If people were upset about Truss and Sunak not having "a mandate", that's not really the fault of the Tories. These people simply don't understand how the British political system works. Also why aren't these same people upset about the entire cabinet not having a mandate, every single time a minister is appointed? Because that's no different. We don't vote for who is Chancellor or Home Secretary or anything else either, and those appointments are arguably even less "democratic" than the office of PM because nobody gets to vote on those one, not even party members.
If people think they're doing that, if politicians act like they're doing that, and if the political forces are operating under that, that is what's happening. It doesn't matter that, on paper,...
If people think they're doing that, if politicians act like they're doing that, and if the political forces are operating under that, that is what's happening.
It doesn't matter that, on paper, Britain votes for the PM. Just like it doesn't matter that the king has this or that power. Britain has American style debates between PM candidates. Britain (in fits and starts) has American style primaries. All of these resolve around the personality of the leader, who everyone in the room knows is the PM candidate.
When people say Truss and Sunak are unelected, you can say people are ignorant all they want, it doesn't matter. When the Tory party itself thinks part of the damage was removing Johnson's elected mandate, you can say they're technically wrong, but it doesn't matter either.
For all practical purposes, for most normal people, PMs in Britain are de facto elected officials. This is why eating a bacon sandwich wrong hurt Labour, not just Miliband. If you're just electing your local MP, why should it affect your race? Because he's not just a local MP, he's the PM candidate.
The thing is, this isn't something mutable and analogue like the meaning of words, where usage defines meaning and meaning shifts all the time. "Vote for Prime Minister" is a discrete, binary...
The thing is, this isn't something mutable and analogue like the meaning of words, where usage defines meaning and meaning shifts all the time. "Vote for Prime Minister" is a discrete, binary option and it's currently false.
The less well informed section of the electorate's thoughts and actions do not change the fact that the prime minister is not an elected role. It's certainly a position filled by an elected official, but the role itself is not voted on. That's just how the system works and I don't see that changing any time soon, nor would I want it to.
If various Tories think removing Boris was a mistake that's fine. Maybe it was. That a proportion of the electorate have misunderstood the system and parties do some things based on that misunderstanding in order to win elections still doesn't magically make ballot papers appear in polling stations with "Office of the Prime Minister" written on them. Because that is the only thing that would mean we vote for our PM.
Do party leaders have an influence on local outcomes, where other candidates are the ones actually standing? Yes, of course that's true. It would be ridiculous to try to claim otherwise. But that's still not the British people voting for their PM.
Britain (in fits and starts) has American style primaries
Do we? I'm not sure we do but then I don't really know what the US primary system involves.
They absolutely can. They're called faithless electors, and different states handle them differently. It's never swing the outcome of a race, but legally there'd be nothing stopping that...
They absolutely can. They're called faithless electors, and different states handle them differently. It's never swing the outcome of a race, but legally there'd be nothing stopping that particular event.
That's before the president is selected. Removing a president once selected is done by congress impeaching them, not the EC. And is supposed to be an exceptional situation, unlike other...
That's before the president is selected. Removing a president once selected is done by congress impeaching them, not the EC. And is supposed to be an exceptional situation, unlike other parliamentary systems where the PM can be removed by the parliament for "We just don't think you're the best choice anymore".
Maybe I'm explaining myself badly. I'm saying that what's happening legally (you're voting for an elector) doesn't change what's happening practically (you're voting for the president). I am not...
Maybe I'm explaining myself badly. I'm saying that what's happening legally (you're voting for an elector) doesn't change what's happening practically (you're voting for the president). I am not saying both systems are the same. I'm drawing an analogy to another system where what's written on paper and what matters politically aren't congruent. I'm well aware you can't electorally remove the president midterm, except through impeachment and conviction.
I was going to ask you what was so much worse but still article does a good job at showing that: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/07/03/world/europe/uk-election-better-worse.html
I don't know the US system well enough but has the party in power ever held it for 14 consecutive years making things consistently worse for the average persons life? I
I was going to ask you what was so much worse but still article does a good job at showing that:
From what I understand, the two systems are actually very similar; first past the post single member districts. I suspect the main difference is cultural; that political affiliation isn't as much...
From what I understand, the two systems are actually very similar; first past the post single member districts. I suspect the main difference is cultural; that political affiliation isn't as much a core part of one's identity in the UK as in the US, making voters more likely to switch parties, and to vote for third parties.
Speaking of third parties, the UK has some interesting local quirks. Scotland is usually dominated by the Scottish National Party, which tries to get Scotland out of the UK and back into the EU, while Northern Ireland is more or less split between Sinn Fein (who wants to leave the UK and join Ireland) and the Democratic Unionist Party (who wants to stay part of the UK).
The two systems are extremely different. The biggest one being that the UK is a parliamentary system in which the party with a majority in the House of Commons forms the government, whereas the US...
the two systems are actually very similar; first past the post single member districts
The two systems are extremely different. The biggest one being that the UK is a parliamentary system in which the party with a majority in the House of Commons forms the government, whereas the US has a separately-elected executive. That has a huge effect on how the two systems work differently, and that's before you get into other differences like how both the higher and lower houses are elected representatives (thus making it not really single-member districts, since that's only true of the House) in the US.
The first-past-the-post voting does negatively affect both systems in similar ways, but there are absolutely huge differences in the way the systems work that have a big effect before you can attribute differences solely to culture.
There's also the greens and reform (environmental and racist respectively) smaller parties that get seats as well as the larger centrist third option of lib Dems. There's also independant...
There's also the greens and reform (environmental and racist respectively) smaller parties that get seats as well as the larger centrist third option of lib Dems. There's also independant politicans and the Welsh local party.
CGP Grey made a video about this back in 2015. I can't find it, but I vaguely remember him making a very short update video in 2019 about how that election was even less representative. Maybe...
I can't find it, but I vaguely remember him making a very short update video in 2019 about how that election was even less representative. Maybe he'll make another one about this election.
But hey; my team won! Go reds!
Are there any UK politicians talking about election reform? It's clearly long overdue.
The big parties heavily benefit from the current system, so they're likely to not want to change it, and the small parties who it might benefit aren't able to push it through. We did have a...
The big parties heavily benefit from the current system, so they're likely to not want to change it, and the small parties who it might benefit aren't able to push it through. We did have a Referendum on an alternative vote back in 2011 pushed through by the Lib Dems who were in coalition with the Conservatives at the time. I was 11 years old at the time so I don't remember what the campaigns fully were like but the vote ended in a resounding "no" for changing the system.
"Ooooh, it's not really democratic, how can you trust a system that uses maths?" "AV is too confusing for British people" (which the pro-AV didn't jump on with "The No side think you're thicker...
"Ooooh, it's not really democratic, how can you trust a system that uses maths?"
"AV is too confusing for British people" (which the pro-AV didn't jump on with "The No side think you're thicker than a Frenchman")
"You don't want coalition governments, do you?" (yes, yes I bloody do actually)
And so on. Also a lot PR enthusiasts - myself included - were pretty lukewarm on the issue because AV is barely better than FPTP. Utter fumble by the Lib Dems. They could (should) have made implementation of a proper PR system their sole and necessary condition for helping the Conservatives, and walked away to form a government with Labour if they didn't get it (on the same terms). Nick Clegg was a terrible, utterly spineless jelly of a politician. That Cameron subsequently almost destroyed the Lib Dems entirely over tuition fees was shitty but was wholly Clegg's fault.
It was the first referendum I took part in as a voting adult at 20 years old. I remember those mental pink-themed adverts about the soldier and the baby. I voted Yes because I figured AV would be...
It was the first referendum I took part in as a voting adult at 20 years old. I remember those mental pink-themed adverts about the soldier and the baby.
I voted Yes because I figured AV would be better than our current system and might've prompted further voter reform given time but those adverts really did the trick, considering it was a resounding No from the electorate.
If I recall, and it's been over a decade, the Lib Dems couldn't really coalition with Labour. They didn't have a combined majority. It was either the Tories, minority government or new election.
If I recall, and it's been over a decade, the Lib Dems couldn't really coalition with Labour. They didn't have a combined majority. It was either the Tories, minority government or new election.
More interestingly Tory was 24% and Reform was 14%. So if the right actually merged before 2029 (there's been speculation of a reverse takeover of the Conservatives by Farage) the picture could...
More interestingly Tory was 24% and Reform was 14%. So if the right actually merged before 2029 (there's been speculation of a reverse takeover of the Conservatives by Farage) the picture could look very different. And this vote share is already reflecting a rejection of the tired/unpopular incumbent party.
They will have noticed this too. The options I guess are 1/ go for broke and try to make big noticeable improvements in 5 years, or 2/ play it safe against the populists and hope the right doesn't retrench/reorganize effectively. 1/ really doesn't feel like his style.
Technically true, but you can't add Conservatives and Reform like that, because uniting the two will scare some Tories into the Lib Dems. How many? I dunno, and neither do the Tories, which if...
Technically true, but you can't add Conservatives and Reform like that, because uniting the two will scare some Tories into the Lib Dems. How many? I dunno, and neither do the Tories, which if their dilemma. If they abandon the centre, they risk being abandoned by the centrists.
While a scary prospect, the Conservatives can barely keep their own party together so the idea they could merge with the extremists at Reform seems pretty unlikely. Reform - quite deliberately -...
While a scary prospect, the Conservatives can barely keep their own party together so the idea they could merge with the extremists at Reform seems pretty unlikely. Reform - quite deliberately - present a moderately respectable face but they are truly vile underneath and despite the shouty, and somewhat powerful, right wing of the Tories like Rees-Mogg, Braverman and even defectors like Anderson - there is still a lot of (relatively) centre ground in the Tory party who don't want any part of Farage's racist bullshit.
A split into a centre-right party with the rest of the Tories going to Reform (or Reform to them, whatever) feels more possible but still seems unlikely to gain much traction. The only thing the Tories hate more than each other is everyone who isn't them. And the poor, obviously. They always look like they're about to fall apart, then pull together at the last minute.
If Starmer is smart, and I suspect he is, he'll play mostly safe but with a few big spectacular changes that will (ideally) have a noticable impact on people's quality of life.
RE tories / reform... it might not be up to them if that's where the wind is blowing. The GOP tried to resist Trump initially in 2016 but failed miserably. Ultimately the voters decide, so...
RE tories / reform... it might not be up to them if that's where the wind is blowing. The GOP tried to resist Trump initially in 2016 but failed miserably. Ultimately the voters decide, so politicians either change their behavior or get replaced (e.g. Liz Cheney).
RE Starmer / prospects for the term. Big problem is no budget for major positive change. Worsening demographics (aging) means pension/healthcare spend growth just to maintain standards per capita, while the tax base shrinks. Meanwhile they've boxed themselves into a corner by ruling out any changes in all the largest tax categories (income, NI, VAT). Tinkering around the edges with private school VAT / carried interest / non dom which all have questionable net tax benefits once behavioral changes occur.
I suspect it will be 5 years of nothing and continuing to paper over the widening cracks.
I dream of the tories splitting with the far right going to reform and the moderates joining the Lib Dem’s. Then have a libdemcon opposition to labour with reform gradually losing support as they...
I dream of the tories splitting with the far right going to reform and the moderates joining the Lib Dem’s. Then have a libdemcon opposition to labour with reform gradually losing support as they realise they will never gain enough power to have a say.
I think one of the most interesting aspects of the election is the rise of the reform party. I wonder how this will change the conservatives, and Labour in their strategy. Will the tories combine...
I think one of the most interesting aspects of the election is the rise of the reform party. I wonder how this will change the conservatives, and Labour in their strategy.
Will the tories combine with reform with Nigel farage as a leader?
Will they try and fight reform and struggle, leading to long term fracture of the right?
Similarly I will be interested how the SNP wipe out will impact on the local/regional Scottish politics.
Reform have a lot of votes, but that only ended up with 4 seats (as of now) and that's well under the exit poll. I'm not from the UK, but to me that doesn't indicate that what the conservatives...
Reform have a lot of votes, but that only ended up with 4 seats (as of now) and that's well under the exit poll. I'm not from the UK, but to me that doesn't indicate that what the conservatives need to do is be more like reform, or am I missing something?
A lot of seats looked like: Labour: 30% Lib Dems: 25% Conservatives: 20% Reform: 20% When there was no real force to the right of the Tories they used to be: Labour: 30% Lib Dems: 25%...
A lot of seats looked like:
Labour: 30%
Lib Dems: 25%
Conservatives: 20%
Reform: 20%
When there was no real force to the right of the Tories they used to be:
Labour: 30%
Lib Dems: 25%
Conservatives: 40%
So without any real shift to the left, just the splitting of the right, labour takes the seat from the conservatives. The thinking among many conservatives and pundits is that if reform wasn't there, that the conservatives would have taken those votes.
However, I'm not sure that's true given the conservatives have done a pretty poor job running the country, so some of those reform voters would not vote conservatives if reform was not an option. So the current election if reform didn't exist might be:
Labour: 35%
Lib Dems: 35%
Conservatives: 30%
However, to make reform not exist or not be competitive, the conservatives would have to lurch to the right. And that will lose their centrist wing to the lib dems, as you've rightfully pointed out, so you might then get an election like:
Labour: 30%
Lib Dems: 35%
Conservatives: 25%
On the other hand, a lurch to the center is harder as both labour and the lib dems are currently occupying that ground and they're worried they'd lose more of their right wing to Reform.
It's good, I guess. In my view, to achieve this, Labour has had to compromise themselves so deeply that they aren't especially substantively different from the Tories anymore. I think there's a small consolation that, repugnant as the government will remain, they will at least be slightly less incompetent? Scarily, I think that it's actually too late to arrest the death spiral in a meaningful way, at this point.
Also not to keep harping on about it, but in any case both Labour and the Tories explicitly agree 'fuck trans people,' so for me it's hard to feel excited or happy about any of it. I voted Green and then saw literally hours later a quote from the co-leader praising the Cass review, its opinions, recommendations. The Greens! Just can't fucking win.
It's actually seriously depressing how reactionary people are about trans people. Like, it's not your business to decide who people are! Just shut your fucking mouth and listen. It's not your business to decide for someone else.
My understanding is that they didn't really even have to sell out to achieve these results! They just wanted to! Labour's share of the vote is lower than it was under Corbyn, and its total vote count is far lower. All the results show is that the Conservatives collapsed, because for at least the last five (and more like fourteen) years they've proven themselves to be entirely incapable of governing a serious country. Hell, Corbyn blew the Labour candidate out of the water running as an independent. I'm sure returning Labour to Blairite conservative politics has helped draw in some of those running from the Conservatives, but it mathematically cannot be responsible for the result, and I'm not aware of any reason to believe voters wanted it.
Corbyn is a strong MP in his district and gets great feedback on the minutiae of responding to constituent's emails etc. He's well-intentioned but politically toxic at a national scale. Starmer was right to kick him from Labor based on the recent results.
Really? The party got more votes nationally under Corbyn. Even Starmer personally got more votes running for his own seat under Corbyn. In what sense do you think the results show us that Starmer was right to kick him from Labour? Labour was numerically doing better under Corbyn than it has done under Starmer. What the results very clearly show is that Starmerite Labour easily won an election because their opposition collapsed, and what was left of their opposition fragmented between two different parties in a FPTP system. I just don't know what you even think you're referring to here. There are a lot of different ways to break down the results, and none of them show what you're suggesting, and all of them show the opposite of what you're suggesting. Look at the visualizations in this article, for example. Labour didn't do better, the Conservatives did worse. Labour's vote share didn't meaningfully increase, only their seat share, and it did so as a consequence of the Conservatives' vote share cratering. That gap was predominantly filled by Reform, not Starmer's Labour.
Corbyn is so distasteful that his hypothetical presence would have prevented a Tory collapse because people don't want him in power.
Parties don't collapse in a vacuum, Starmer enabled the collapse.
I guess you would just need some extraordinary evidence for that extraordinary claim. I don't think you can provide any, but I don't think it would be conceptually possible for you to provide any, even if you were right. What you're saying is entirely non-falsifiable. You're telling us that Labour reorienting to neoliberalism radically impacted public perception of the parties but without impacting Labour? That just doesn't make much sense.
It already happened in 2019, so it doesn't seem such an extraordinary claim.
Tbh, I think you are leaving out a lot of details about this election and previous ones that paint a more complex picture. The election was largely a foregone conclusion, which produces historically low turnout and encouraged a lot more people voting for various minor parties. Comparing this to 2017 is difficult, because 2017 had historically low support for minor parties, as the Lib Dems were still suffering from the effect of tuition fees, and UKIP had basically fallen apart. Even despite this, and the truly awful campaign that May ran (with the infamous dementia tax), the Tories still gained vote share alongside Labour, and it's very difficult to describe this as a Labour victory given that they didn't, well, win.
Aside from turnout, the single biggest issue that Labour faced was the Israel/Palestine issue, driven by (mainly) Muslim voters supporting candidates with a platform of supporting Gaza. In fairness, along these voters, Corbyn would have done very well, but nationally his defence and geopolitical beliefs have always been some of his weakest. Any gains he made by taking a hard-line pro-Palestine stance would have been lost several times over in other sections of the population.
I cannot tell you how Corbyn would have fared in total had he been the leader during this election. In all fairness, I think the Conservatives were so deeply unpopular at this point that you could have stuck a red rosette to Mr Blobby and have him lead the party to victory. But we don't know what didn't happen, so we can only ever guess.
But we do know that Corbyn is - and was - deeply unpopular, that even his greatest victory (to come second and force a hung parliament) was probably an outlier, and that he has been a substantial reason for people to vote against Labour in previous elections and in polling. Those are not counterfactuals, and taken in combination, they pretty clearly paint a picture of an excellent local campaigner who did a tremendous amount of damage to the Labour party.
I believe YouGov or one of the other pollsters, about a week before the election, asked their usual "Who would you vote for?“ question but with the caveat that Jeremy Corbyn rather than Keir Starmer was Labour leader.
I'm sure the Labour vote dropped, however it still lead to a Labour victory, but with a reduced seat count.
Like I said, it's difficult to know what would have happened because it didn't. I'm sceptical of that sort of polling, because it's hard enough getting people to say what the actually will do, let alone what they might do in hypothetical scenarios, but I think it's fair to say that the mood was firmly anti-Tory, and many people could have lead the Labour party to victory this election.
But that doesn't make Corbyn a good candidate, and I think I've down pretty well that he was a poor candidate when he was in charge, and would have likely not pulled anything new out of the bag in this election.
I'm actually agreeing with you. My point was that Starmer is far more favourable than Corbyn, although the "get the Tories out" sentiment still delivered Corbyn a win in that scenario.
I'm also suspicious of that sort of polling as well but it's as close as you're going to get to an answer to the question on how Corbyn would've fared in this election.
I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just saying it is typical Internet that no matter how good the news is, there is always someone to point out how it may not be really that good at all.
I understand that you want to feel positive about what may seem like a move in the right direction, and that it does not feel good when someone rains on what feels like good news. However, I do not enjoy the implication that I'm just playing a 'typical Internet' cynic set piece by expressing my feelings about it - this is a real thing that affects me and many other people.
I want good news as much as you do. I really do not see it as good news. Put simply, it's nominally a massive move to the less conservative party, but it comes at the cost of the less conservative party becoming far more conservative - critically, now, with far less opposition from any other less conservative party.
Wouldn't that still be a massive improvement over the previous direction? If the new government manages to turn things around, that sounds way better than the current "managed decline".
I think it still falls under managed decline - one of the major reasons for this, I think, is that Labour essentially promises a continuation of austerity-style public spending policy. However, as I mentioned in the top level comment, I think there is something to be gained from a reduction in overall incompetence and therefore occurrence of major unforced error type events (of which there have been very many in the last set of governments), so that is indeed a positive!
You've put it better than I could. The creeping harm and rotting out of the core that austerity has done it's unthinkable to continue down that path and yet "radical change" appears to just be more of austerity with slightly better trimmings. I hope for more but I'm concerned I can't see it coming.
With the specter of inflation, the options are increasing taxes on everyone or cutting and reallocating spending. Preferably a combination of the two. They could also boost growth by fixing regulations, allowing things to actually be built in the UK. I'm cautiously optimistic!
If you add labour, libdem, greens, UK has practically the most leftist sentiment in whole Europe. With a bit of campaining, you can actually fix the NHS!
Stayed up as long as I could (a 2 year old and work today made this particularly dangerous) but saw the first few constituencies being called, all for Labour.
I live in Scotland and have typically been an SNP or Scottish Green voter but voted Labour this time to try and keep the SNP out of the seat (a new one after changes to constituency boundaries) as punishment for their monetary issues leading to party members, including ex-leaders, being arrested, and petty party infighting over the past year. It also worked, our constituency is a Labour gain with a roughly 6500 vote majority.
I'm not particularly happy with Labour, but Keir at least seems like a good man, I might not agree with everything he's said socially but that's okay, he doesn't seem like a narcissist or sociopath like some of the Tory PMs we've had and I'm not going to let perfect be the enemy of good.
Great fun seeing Truss, Mercer, Rees-Mogg, Mordaunt, Fabricant, and Schapps losing their seats though, absolute bloodbath.
Hopefully we can get back to boring politics now and fingers crossed our lives can get a little bit better over the next 5 years. Otherwise I fear Reform will sweep over more seats in 5 years time because they might've only gained 4 seats but some of those swings were quite scary, Reform came in second in quite a number of constituencies. Maybe dragging these MPs into the sunlight will show the public how mental and swivel-eyed they are but I'm not entirely hopeful.
How do you feel about Starmer and Sarwar after yesterday too?
They definitely seem to have hit the ground running which is great but my issues with Labour aren't their manifesto ideas which I'm generally pretty happy with but what they were saying about trans people before and in the run up to the election wasn't great, especially when they announced they were in discussions of a sort with J. K. Rowling.
I'm hoping now the election is over and Labour seem like they'd rather just get on with things they and the media can just leave the LGBTQ+ community alone, especially since I have family members who are gay.
It's officially confirmed that Labour have a majority. https://news.sky.com/story/election-results-labour-conservative-starmer-sunak-latest-live-updates-12593360?postid=7922202#liveblog-body
I'd be interested to hear from any Tildoes in the United Kingdom, what are you hopeful that Labour's landslide victory will mean for the country? Fund the NHS? Any chance of rejoining the European Union?
I have a lot of hopes, most of them tempered.
I’d love to see a radical shift in this country towards social and economic equality. Labour doesn’t seem to be offering this: anything that could be seen as “controversial” (I.e. trans rights) they seem unwilling to push for, and any chance of actually taxing the wealthy in this country seems off the table.
But, it does seem like they intend to enact some policies which will uncontroversially improve the country. Fixing the NHS, addressing the climate crisis, improving workers rights: I hope this will happen, and I hope that they will go far enough.
They’ve made a big fuss about economic growth. I would like to see the economy turn around, but it’s not clear how the government can create growth without actually stimulating the economy by spending more - and of course they can only realistically spend more by taxing more.
On the EU, it’s pretty clear that we won’t be rejoining it any time soon, certainly not in this parliament. Labour have also said they won’t rejoin the single market or customs union, and to be honest the EU probably wouldn’t have us if we asked. But I hope that we can have a more positive trade relationship with our European friends, and maybe, in the long term, seek to heal the rift between us and move towards a closer relationship involving free trade, free movement etc.
I think the simple answer is by removing stupid regulations that limit growth. It's absolutely ridiculous how much HS2 cost and how slow the reviews were. Zoning is something that could be addressed too. Britain is the build nothing nation with worse public transit than the US per capita.
Britmonkey had a really good video about the causes of stagnation under the Tories: https://youtu.be/b5aJ-57_YsQ?si=Ezsrhsb6IiVtSddW
The most hopeful feeling which has come up in discussions with friends (several of whom are fee-paying Labour party members!) over the last few days is that things will might get worse marginally less quickly than they have been doing in recent years.
While it is undeniably satisfying to see the Tories get the kind of electoral kicking they so richly deserve, Labour's offering is so uninspiring it's somewhat taking the fun out of something I've been waiting 14 years for. And Reform being predicted double figures is awful, even if those seats are being taken from Tories.
I guess the Human Rights Act and our EHCR membership is looking a little safer than it was yesterday. So that's nice.
As someone from the US, it's interesting to contemplate such a huge shift in representation. I can only compare to what I know, and I realize it's a different system, but I'd have to go back to 1894 to see one party loose that badly on a percentage basis, so it's never happened in any of our lifetimes. I guess I'll be interested to see if it actually leads to any significant changes (short or long term), or just less chaos.
I don't know the US system well enough but has the party in power ever held it for 14 consecutive years making things consistently worse for the average persons life? I think the pent up resentment especially with 3 un-elected prime ministers in the last few years have lead to this sudden change.
Edit: Also the Conservatives have had their vote split with the far right and the center-left labour are much more center than they were.
But we've never had a directly elected PM. I didn't vote for Kier Starmer any more than I didn't vote for the lettuce lady.
I mean, but you kinda did. You voted for Labour fully knowing who the PM was going to be. That's a bit different from Liz Truss collapsing the pound in a fit of rightwingness, when most people didn't even know her name.
It's like saying Americans don't technically vote for the President, they technically vote for the electors in the EC who vote for the President. Which is true, but so think it misses the point a bit.
"Kinda" is not "actual" though.
It's not quite the same as in the US, who have an actual Presidential election, albeit one with a weird electoral system. Nobody stands for election as PM in the UK, and the only actual way to vote for the PM is to join a political party (assuming it is a party who lets it's members vote for leader) and hope they have a leadership change while in government.
I didn't vote for Labour, but if I did, still I wouldn't have been voting for Kier Starmer for PM, I'd only be voting for my MP. Even if I lived in Holborn and St Pancras I still wouldn't have been voting for Starmer as PM, I'd be voting for him as my MP.
Some people seem to think they get to vote for PM but some people think all sorts of things. Doesn't change how things actually are. Is this a technicality, I mean, OK maybe. But I'm not technically wrong.
It's Starmer's face on the billboards, the buses, the ads. It's Starmer who's part of the debates. It's Starmer making the campaign promises. It's Starmer who Sunak called after his defeat, and it's Starmer who gives the acceptance speech. It's not as explicit as a presidential system, but the personality of the potential PM is a huge part of the campaign.
You are absolutely voting for Starmer when you vote for Labour. That's why one of the post mortems is that the Tories went through two unelected PMs without a mandate. No, no technically votes for a PM. But everyone practically does.
Kier Starmer is the leader of the Labour party, of course he's on the nationwide ads (although I didn't see his face that I recall, the only ads I saw were for my local Labour person) and doing the big televised debates to promote the Labour party and carrying out the duties of the leader of the governing party. But none of that means a single person in the country got to cast a vote for the office of Prime Minister. At least not yesterday. Members of the Labour party got to vote for who their leader is, which is the closest anyone gets.
The idea that we do vote for PM is neither practically nor technically true. That some people might think that's what they are doing or get angry that they didn't get to do it doesn't change what is actually happening.
If people were upset about Truss and Sunak not having "a mandate", that's not really the fault of the Tories. These people simply don't understand how the British political system works. Also why aren't these same people upset about the entire cabinet not having a mandate, every single time a minister is appointed? Because that's no different. We don't vote for who is Chancellor or Home Secretary or anything else either, and those appointments are arguably even less "democratic" than the office of PM because nobody gets to vote on those one, not even party members.
If people think they're doing that, if politicians act like they're doing that, and if the political forces are operating under that, that is what's happening.
It doesn't matter that, on paper, Britain votes for the PM. Just like it doesn't matter that the king has this or that power. Britain has American style debates between PM candidates. Britain (in fits and starts) has American style primaries. All of these resolve around the personality of the leader, who everyone in the room knows is the PM candidate.
When people say Truss and Sunak are unelected, you can say people are ignorant all they want, it doesn't matter. When the Tory party itself thinks part of the damage was removing Johnson's elected mandate, you can say they're technically wrong, but it doesn't matter either.
For all practical purposes, for most normal people, PMs in Britain are de facto elected officials. This is why eating a bacon sandwich wrong hurt Labour, not just Miliband. If you're just electing your local MP, why should it affect your race? Because he's not just a local MP, he's the PM candidate.
The thing is, this isn't something mutable and analogue like the meaning of words, where usage defines meaning and meaning shifts all the time. "Vote for Prime Minister" is a discrete, binary option and it's currently false.
The less well informed section of the electorate's thoughts and actions do not change the fact that the prime minister is not an elected role. It's certainly a position filled by an elected official, but the role itself is not voted on. That's just how the system works and I don't see that changing any time soon, nor would I want it to.
If various Tories think removing Boris was a mistake that's fine. Maybe it was. That a proportion of the electorate have misunderstood the system and parties do some things based on that misunderstanding in order to win elections still doesn't magically make ballot papers appear in polling stations with "Office of the Prime Minister" written on them. Because that is the only thing that would mean we vote for our PM.
Do party leaders have an influence on local outcomes, where other candidates are the ones actually standing? Yes, of course that's true. It would be ridiculous to try to claim otherwise. But that's still not the British people voting for their PM.
Do we? I'm not sure we do but then I don't really know what the US primary system involves.
I don't disagree with what's happening legally. I feel like we're taking in circles, so I'll be disengaging now. Thanks for the discussion.
The EC can't change their mind without consulting the voters the way that MPs can though, which is a pretty significant difference.
They absolutely can. They're called faithless electors, and different states handle them differently. It's never swing the outcome of a race, but legally there'd be nothing stopping that particular event.
That's before the president is selected. Removing a president once selected is done by congress impeaching them, not the EC. And is supposed to be an exceptional situation, unlike other parliamentary systems where the PM can be removed by the parliament for "We just don't think you're the best choice anymore".
Maybe I'm explaining myself badly. I'm saying that what's happening legally (you're voting for an elector) doesn't change what's happening practically (you're voting for the president). I am not saying both systems are the same. I'm drawing an analogy to another system where what's written on paper and what matters politically aren't congruent. I'm well aware you can't electorally remove the president midterm, except through impeachment and conviction.
I was going to ask you what was so much worse but still article does a good job at showing that:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/07/03/world/europe/uk-election-better-worse.html
From what I understand, the two systems are actually very similar; first past the post single member districts. I suspect the main difference is cultural; that political affiliation isn't as much a core part of one's identity in the UK as in the US, making voters more likely to switch parties, and to vote for third parties.
Speaking of third parties, the UK has some interesting local quirks. Scotland is usually dominated by the Scottish National Party, which tries to get Scotland out of the UK and back into the EU, while Northern Ireland is more or less split between Sinn Fein (who wants to leave the UK and join Ireland) and the Democratic Unionist Party (who wants to stay part of the UK).
The two systems are extremely different. The biggest one being that the UK is a parliamentary system in which the party with a majority in the House of Commons forms the government, whereas the US has a separately-elected executive. That has a huge effect on how the two systems work differently, and that's before you get into other differences like how both the higher and lower houses are elected representatives (thus making it not really single-member districts, since that's only true of the House) in the US.
The first-past-the-post voting does negatively affect both systems in similar ways, but there are absolutely huge differences in the way the systems work that have a big effect before you can attribute differences solely to culture.
There's also the greens and reform (environmental and racist respectively) smaller parties that get seats as well as the larger centrist third option of lib Dems. There's also independant politicans and the Welsh local party.
Apparently Labor won 65% of the seats with 34% of the vote:
https://x.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1809117996264087579
CGP Grey made a video about this back in 2015.
I can't find it, but I vaguely remember him making a very short update video in 2019 about how that election was even less representative. Maybe he'll make another one about this election.
But hey; my team won! Go reds!
Are there any UK politicians talking about election reform? It's clearly long overdue.
The big parties heavily benefit from the current system, so they're likely to not want to change it, and the small parties who it might benefit aren't able to push it through. We did have a Referendum on an alternative vote back in 2011 pushed through by the Lib Dems who were in coalition with the Conservatives at the time. I was 11 years old at the time so I don't remember what the campaigns fully were like but the vote ended in a resounding "no" for changing the system.
"Ooooh, it's not really democratic, how can you trust a system that uses maths?"
"AV is too confusing for British people" (which the pro-AV didn't jump on with "The No side think you're thicker than a Frenchman")
"You don't want coalition governments, do you?" (yes, yes I bloody do actually)
And so on. Also a lot PR enthusiasts - myself included - were pretty lukewarm on the issue because AV is barely better than FPTP. Utter fumble by the Lib Dems. They could (should) have made implementation of a proper PR system their sole and necessary condition for helping the Conservatives, and walked away to form a government with Labour if they didn't get it (on the same terms). Nick Clegg was a terrible, utterly spineless jelly of a politician. That Cameron subsequently almost destroyed the Lib Dems entirely over tuition fees was shitty but was wholly Clegg's fault.
It was the first referendum I took part in as a voting adult at 20 years old. I remember those mental pink-themed adverts about the soldier and the baby.
I voted Yes because I figured AV would be better than our current system and might've prompted further voter reform given time but those adverts really did the trick, considering it was a resounding No from the electorate.
If I recall, and it's been over a decade, the Lib Dems couldn't really coalition with Labour. They didn't have a combined majority. It was either the Tories, minority government or new election.
More interestingly Tory was 24% and Reform was 14%. So if the right actually merged before 2029 (there's been speculation of a reverse takeover of the Conservatives by Farage) the picture could look very different. And this vote share is already reflecting a rejection of the tired/unpopular incumbent party.
They will have noticed this too. The options I guess are 1/ go for broke and try to make big noticeable improvements in 5 years, or 2/ play it safe against the populists and hope the right doesn't retrench/reorganize effectively. 1/ really doesn't feel like his style.
Technically true, but you can't add Conservatives and Reform like that, because uniting the two will scare some Tories into the Lib Dems. How many? I dunno, and neither do the Tories, which if their dilemma. If they abandon the centre, they risk being abandoned by the centrists.
While a scary prospect, the Conservatives can barely keep their own party together so the idea they could merge with the extremists at Reform seems pretty unlikely. Reform - quite deliberately - present a moderately respectable face but they are truly vile underneath and despite the shouty, and somewhat powerful, right wing of the Tories like Rees-Mogg, Braverman and even defectors like Anderson - there is still a lot of (relatively) centre ground in the Tory party who don't want any part of Farage's racist bullshit.
A split into a centre-right party with the rest of the Tories going to Reform (or Reform to them, whatever) feels more possible but still seems unlikely to gain much traction. The only thing the Tories hate more than each other is everyone who isn't them. And the poor, obviously. They always look like they're about to fall apart, then pull together at the last minute.
If Starmer is smart, and I suspect he is, he'll play mostly safe but with a few big spectacular changes that will (ideally) have a noticable impact on people's quality of life.
RE tories / reform... it might not be up to them if that's where the wind is blowing. The GOP tried to resist Trump initially in 2016 but failed miserably. Ultimately the voters decide, so politicians either change their behavior or get replaced (e.g. Liz Cheney).
RE Starmer / prospects for the term. Big problem is no budget for major positive change. Worsening demographics (aging) means pension/healthcare spend growth just to maintain standards per capita, while the tax base shrinks. Meanwhile they've boxed themselves into a corner by ruling out any changes in all the largest tax categories (income, NI, VAT). Tinkering around the edges with private school VAT / carried interest / non dom which all have questionable net tax benefits once behavioral changes occur.
I suspect it will be 5 years of nothing and continuing to paper over the widening cracks.
I dream of the tories splitting with the far right going to reform and the moderates joining the Lib Dem’s. Then have a libdemcon opposition to labour with reform gradually losing support as they realise they will never gain enough power to have a say.
I think one of the most interesting aspects of the election is the rise of the reform party. I wonder how this will change the conservatives, and Labour in their strategy.
Will the tories combine with reform with Nigel farage as a leader?
Will they try and fight reform and struggle, leading to long term fracture of the right?
Similarly I will be interested how the SNP wipe out will impact on the local/regional Scottish politics.
Reform have a lot of votes, but that only ended up with 4 seats (as of now) and that's well under the exit poll. I'm not from the UK, but to me that doesn't indicate that what the conservatives need to do is be more like reform, or am I missing something?
A lot of seats looked like:
When there was no real force to the right of the Tories they used to be:
So without any real shift to the left, just the splitting of the right, labour takes the seat from the conservatives. The thinking among many conservatives and pundits is that if reform wasn't there, that the conservatives would have taken those votes.
However, I'm not sure that's true given the conservatives have done a pretty poor job running the country, so some of those reform voters would not vote conservatives if reform was not an option. So the current election if reform didn't exist might be:
However, to make reform not exist or not be competitive, the conservatives would have to lurch to the right. And that will lose their centrist wing to the lib dems, as you've rightfully pointed out, so you might then get an election like:
On the other hand, a lurch to the center is harder as both labour and the lib dems are currently occupying that ground and they're worried they'd lose more of their right wing to Reform.
A bit late, but I just saw this and thought my fellow Tildos might enjoy it.
MC Hammersmith - The Vote Tory Rap
This brought me a whole lot of joy, especially the line "No wait, this is Keir Starmer's"