Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party? (Vol. 2)
Discussion
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Massive fking majority and the Conservatives this close to being wiped out is "not exactly what you could objectively describe as a huge democratic mandate".
I mean I know people have their coping mechanisms but bloody hell
It's barely more share and fewer actual votes than when Labour got pasted five years ago. king majority and the Conservatives this close to being wiped out is "not exactly what you could objectively describe as a huge democratic mandate".I mean I know people have their coping mechanisms but bloody hell
It's millions fewer votes and significantly less share than their narrow defeat in 2017.
They have gained hundreds of seats and massive parliamentary power. But have they democratically earned it? Technically, in the only way that really matters, of course they have.
Do they deserve it? Quite another matter.
PurplePenguin said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Now people are moaning about 35%
It's seats that matter.
With FPTP - yes. People aren’t moaning, they are pointing out a factIt's seats that matter.
Taking results under one system and applying them to a system we don’t have is pointless because voting habits could well change under a different system.
It’s like fans of a sport that uses playoff systems to determine a champion complaining that the team that finishes top of the league aren’t champions if they lose a playoff final. It’s pointless because the teams prepare for knock out sport and not the final league standings.
To say it’s not a win for Labour is just stupid.
PurplePenguin said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Now people are moaning about 35%
It's seats that matter.
With FPTP - yes. People aren’t moaning, they are pointing out a factIt's seats that matter.
Taking results under one system and applying them to a system we don’t have is pointless because voting habits could well change under a different system.
It’s like fans of a sport that uses playoff systems to determine a champion complaining that the team that finishes top of the league aren’t champions if they lose a playoff final. It’s pointless because the teams prepare for knock out sport and not the final league standings.
To say it’s not a win for Labour is just stupid.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Massive fking majority and the Conservatives this close to being wiped out is "not exactly what you could objectively describe as a huge democratic mandate".
I mean I know people have their coping mechanisms but bloody hell
Depends if you are capable of objective / critical thinking Stewie king majority and the Conservatives this close to being wiped out is "not exactly what you could objectively describe as a huge democratic mandate".I mean I know people have their coping mechanisms but bloody hell
The system has delivered him that majority, not the electorate.
FPTP has always been capable of delivering a result like this but it never really has to this extent before, which is why we live with it (in conjunction with the obvious sclerotic possibilities thrown up by with PR).
This one does test the boundaries of what really represents a mandate though. These numbers are going to be thrown up repeatedly over the next 5 years.
Between Reform, the LDs and the Greens there is also a combined vote share (for 3 parties in favour of PR) that pretty much equal's Labour's vote share.
Nonetheless, Starmer can do what he wants now for the time being.
Wombat3 said:
In 1977 Thatcher polled 44% on a 76% turnout - i.e. 33.5% of the eligible electorate & she had a majority of 43
Starmer has polled 33% on a 60% turnout so just under 20% of the total for a majority of over 180
All down to FPTP obviously but not exactly what you could objectively describe as a huge democratic mandate when 4 out of 5 people are not supporting you.
Well it is as defined by our system of elections. Not sure these illustrations move the dial in any meaningful way when the uncontrollable variable is turnout, unless you do something like Australia & compel people to vote.Starmer has polled 33% on a 60% turnout so just under 20% of the total for a majority of over 180
All down to FPTP obviously but not exactly what you could objectively describe as a huge democratic mandate when 4 out of 5 people are not supporting you.
I'm not actually unsymapthetic to PR but very wary of its pitfalls & really can never see it here because our system entrenches fptp by the very nature of the two party hegemony.
President Merkin said:
Wombat3 said:
In 1977 Thatcher polled 44% on a 76% turnout - i.e. 33.5% of the eligible electorate & she had a majority of 43
Starmer has polled 33% on a 60% turnout so just under 20% of the total for a majority of over 180
All down to FPTP obviously but not exactly what you could objectively describe as a huge democratic mandate when 4 out of 5 people are not supporting you.
Well it is as defined by our system of elections. Not sure these illustrations move the dial in any meaningful way when the uncontrollable variable is turnout, unless you do something like Australia & compel people to vote.Starmer has polled 33% on a 60% turnout so just under 20% of the total for a majority of over 180
All down to FPTP obviously but not exactly what you could objectively describe as a huge democratic mandate when 4 out of 5 people are not supporting you.
I'm not actually unsymapthetic to PR but very wary of its pitfalls & really can never see it here because our system entrenches fptp by the very nature of the two party hegemony.
Blair set up the devolved governments, the Supreme court, the Metroplitan Mayoralities and then gave unelected people (Cambell & co) significant powers over the civil service and handed over control of the most significant fiscal instrument to the Bank of England.. All stripping power from parliament.
Pretty much all those institutions are inherently left-leaning.
What is likely is that Starmer will attempt to (and may succeed with) continuing those reforms such that in the future while Labour may be out of government its questionable as to whether they will be out of power.
Wombat3 said:
The obvious answer is some form of PR but I've never been convinced that would work especially well with our culture and our system. It takes politicians capable of proper collaboration and compromise.
The Conservatives can’t even work with each other in government, let alone with other parties in coalition. Barchettaman said:
Wombat3 said:
The obvious answer is some form of PR but I've never been convinced that would work especially well with our culture and our system. It takes politicians capable of proper collaboration and compromise.
The Conservatives can’t even work with each other in government, let alone with other parties in coalition. Different generation / different folk though.
There are clearly some complete tools that have been on the Tory benches of late & hopefully they are unlikely to be back.
Equally there will have been some good constituency MPs who will have also lost out. Plainly we need more of the latter and far less of the former.
There is no meaningful measure of popular vote from last night because we did not have a popular vote. A FPTP system always skews any popular vote measure because voters will behave differently. I keep seeing talk about share of vote, turnout etc but it is a false narrative in the context of last night. There are a lot of interesting insights about voters in the detail from last night. Voters understood the impacts of their choices. Non voters also understood the impact of their choice.
Out and about today and people seem upbeat about having a Labour government. Even from the (large) group of naturally Tory leaning voters here. Sentiments range from 'great' to 'the country needed a change' to 'they can't be worse'. None feel Labour are going to magically fix everything but they are feeling optimistic the country will be better as a result.
Everybody thinks the Tory party is very badly broken.
Out and about today and people seem upbeat about having a Labour government. Even from the (large) group of naturally Tory leaning voters here. Sentiments range from 'great' to 'the country needed a change' to 'they can't be worse'. None feel Labour are going to magically fix everything but they are feeling optimistic the country will be better as a result.
Everybody thinks the Tory party is very badly broken.
I think now SKS has got his foot over the threshold of No.10, his transformation of his party will come under strain, the unions learnt from Blair that shutting up would help get Labour into power.
The unions got their steam back under Corbyn and Labour got nowhere near No.10 so they shut up again under Starmer but will want their reward for not cocking it up.
As SKS has managed to get through the election with very few promises we really don't know what he will do.
The unions got their steam back under Corbyn and Labour got nowhere near No.10 so they shut up again under Starmer but will want their reward for not cocking it up.
As SKS has managed to get through the election with very few promises we really don't know what he will do.
C4ME said:
There is no meaningful measure of popular vote from last night because we did not have a popular vote. A FPTP system always skews any popular vote measure because voters will behave differently. I keep seeing talk about share of vote, turnout etc but it is a false narrative in the context of last night.
I freely acknowledge that seats won under FPTP is the only metric that really matters, and on that metric Labour obviously have been extremely successful.For instance, it is illustrative that they have won on lower share and numbers than 2017, in large part because what denied them the win in 2017 was the massive swing which stacked votes in already-held constituencies which therefore had no effect on the actual result. FPTP does require a party to have a broad base level of support and can't deliver a majority just by overwhelming popularity in its heartlands (which can happen with systems that work purely on share).
So in that sense Starmer and Labour have played a blinder by (electorally) spreading themselves thinly but broadly.
But if I was sitting down this morning to plan Labour's strategy for the next electoral cycle, I would be perturbed by some startling similarities with the process that has just eviscerated the Conservatives:
1) A low overall turnout
2) Stagnant vote share and count - on par with historic defeats and despite explicit party renewal/rebrand efforts
3) A small but growing party further on your side of the spectrum - the Greens in this case.
4) A socio-cultural wedge issue in your existing support base. Gaza/Palestine was a factor in some significant seats last night and Labour actually has multiple wedge issues waiting to cause trouble.
5) A leader with poor personal ratings and very little popular appeal.
These are all analogues with where the Tories found themselves a few elections ago. Labour need to address these and head off the issues that are underlying them then things could turn nasty for them very quickly.
This result is a balloon - impressive in size but hollow, fragile and not built on anything solid.
Wacky Racer said:
I've been a Conservative for the last fifty years,
Yesterday I voted Labour,
I'm really looking forward to a fresh start, slate wiped clean.
Give the man a chance ffs!
The Tories only have themselves to blame,
Petty much this but not for as long Yesterday I voted Labour,
I'm really looking forward to a fresh start, slate wiped clean.
Give the man a chance ffs!
The Tories only have themselves to blame,
You can't reward such corrupt and venal behaviour with a mandate for five more years of it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff