General Election July 2024

[hidetheelephants]

Mortarboard said:

p1stonhead said:

The absolute state of this. It’s not even been a day.

Bashing labour's not going to do it- it's reform keeping the Tories out

M.

Reform stole the tories' lunch. If Sunak had waited a month or so longer Farage would have been in the US coining it in talking st on FOX etc.

[tamore]

p1stonhead said:

The absolute state of this. It’s not even been a day.

he will put himself up as the way for a blue wave back into power. don't dismiss it easily.

[Derek Smith]

MiniMan64 said:

A lot being made of Labour winning on a reduced vote share, only 34% of votes meaning they’re not that popular.

Doesn’t that rather miss the point that ALL winning parties from now into the future are going to do so with continually reducing vote shares?

The UK is no longer a 2 party (plus a few Lib Dem’s) state, we are now much more European in political nature with multiple parties winning seats and spreading the winning vote a lot more thinly.

The corks out the bottle, it’s not going back in.

I largely agree. This might well be a change of voting habits. I wonder if it is more along the lines of abandoning traditional allegiances? The 2019 election was a one-factor election, and crossed party lines. A considerable number of people became floating voters. I've voted for all three 'big' parties and for independents over the years and there's no way I'd ever follow one party's dictates. Yesterday I voted libdem. Whatever happens in the next election or elections, the change of party, from 100% tory to libdem, will mean that the present incumbent will be nervous and will probably have to take notice of what her voters want. There's a change for a start. If a tory is returned in the future, the same will go for them.

Whether the bottle will be resealed is another matter. Popularism is popular. Farage and Johnson, both wasters, secured followings, the latter more so. I hope that cork can be returned. On the other hand, Galloway was imperialistic when voted in. Not so much now I assume.

Perhaps, though, things are looking up. No more safe seats. You want it? You'll have to graft for it.

[Murph7355]

Sway said:

Both systems have flaws - and rare examples where each shows the benefits or flaws of the other.

There is no absolute right or wrong here. I acknowledge the appeal of PR - I'm just far more focussed on outcomes rather than an impossible to definitively define ideal of 'most fair'.

I believe the FPTP system has helped enable our success as a nation, rather than being dully average and run by committees.

It might have done 60yrs ago.

But now the bickering and bullst just means more of the same cobblers. Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic

I think 2010 was one of the better governments we've had recently (everything's relative) and that relied on horse trading policy and compromise. It also had two parties tempering each other's excesses.

Reform should not be just one element (GE outcome) changing. It needs the lot doing.

National govt governs nationally (duh) so focusing too heavily on local representation is flawed.

Use the other house more effectively for checks and balances and also, maybe, devolve more power locally if the boys in the centre can't do it.

As noted before, times have changed. We're not a two party electorate and haven't been for ages. But the two big parties cling to our antiquated system. It needs changing.

As other examples, I do think we'd be far, far better off with some of the big ticket issues being cross-party handled. NHS and pensions being good examples. At present they are political footballs and will never, ever be addressed properly while that remains.

[MiniMan64]

Has anyone worked out what this result would like under a PR system?

And more importantly what kind of coalition possibly form from it…

[JNW1]

MiniMan64 said:

A lot being made of Labour winning on a reduced vote share, only 34% of votes meaning they’re not that popular.

Doesn’t that rather miss the point that ALL winning parties from now into the future are going to do so with continually reducing vote shares?

The UK is no longer a 2 party (plus a few Lib Dem’s) state, we are now much more European in political nature with multiple parties winning seats and spreading the winning vote a lot more thinly.

The corks out the bottle, it’s not going back in.

The point is share of the vote not being translated into representation in Parliament. You may well be correct about the UK no longer being a two party state but doesn't that make the case for PR stronger so those different views are represented fairly?

[MC Bodge]

bhstewie said:

I was looking at that earlier.

It's actually fascinating how utterly consumed Reform voters are with immigration and how backward they are when it comes to cultural attitudes.

It is disappointing, but not surprising.

[swisstoni]

MiniMan64 said:

Has anyone worked out what this result would like under a PR system?

And more importantly what kind of coalition possibly form from it…

It’s come up but, rightly imho, it’s been pointed out that people would likely vote differently with PR.

Having said that, some clearly don’t know the difference so will vote the same whatever the system. But what’s the proportion?

[Solocle]

MiniMan64 said:

Has anyone worked out what this result would like under a PR system?

And more importantly what kind of coalition possibly form from it…

Using a 3.25% vote threshold:

(In order: SNP, LAB, CON, GRN, LIB, RFM, PLD, SNF, IND)
Labour-Lib Dem coalition most likely, scraping through to a majority of 8 at 329 seats.

[Murph7355]

JNW1 said:

The point is share of the vote not being translated into representation in Parliament. You may well be correct about the UK no longer being a two party state but doesn't that make the case for PR stronger so those different views are represented fairly?

Yes it does make the case stronger.

It's the whole point really. We are not a two party electorate, but we have a system designed to give results as a two party system.

The big parties cry foul and insist on pretending to be two big parties because it suits them.

[CraigyMc]

p1stonhead said:

CraigyMc said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

No doubt someone will point out the flaw or the perverse incentive, but until then...

Well, for a start, Lord Galloway and Lady Truss would now be in the Lords.

fk. That.

Assume it would only be for an election period though. On the whole seems better than the current system!

Chucking the losers into a woodchipper would be better than putting them into the only part of our government that actually works on detailed stuff.

[OutInTheShed]

MiniMan64 said:

Has anyone worked out what this result would like under a PR system?

And more importantly what kind of coalition possibly form from it…

Every PR enthusiast is wanting a different system, which one did you have in mind?

The major flaw in your question is assuming firstly that people would have voted the same way under PR and secondly that politicians would align with parties in the same way.

Obviously under some versions of PR, we might have had a lot of Reform and Green MPs
I suspect more people would have voted LD.
But then, many of the politicians who want to get elected would have joined parties which might do better under PR?

[Sway]

Murph7355 said:

Sway said:

Both systems have flaws - and rare examples where each shows the benefits or flaws of the other.

There is no absolute right or wrong here. I acknowledge the appeal of PR - I'm just far more focussed on outcomes rather than an impossible to definitively define ideal of 'most fair'.

I believe the FPTP system has helped enable our success as a nation, rather than being dully average and run by committees.

It might have done 60yrs ago.

But now the bickering and bullst just means more of the same cobblers. Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic

I think 2010 was one of the better governments we've had recently (everything's relative) and that relied on horse trading policy and compromise. It also had two parties tempering each other's excesses.

Reform should not be just one element (GE outcome) changing. It needs the lot doing.

National govt governs nationally (duh) so focusing too heavily on local representation is flawed.

Use the other house more effectively for checks and balances and also, maybe, devolve more power locally if the boys in the centre can't do it.

As noted before, times have changed. We're not a two party electorate and haven't been for ages. But the two big parties cling to our antiquated system. It needs changing.

As other examples, I do think we'd be far, far better off with some of the big ticket issues being cross-party handled. NHS and pensions being good examples. At present they are political footballs and will never, ever be addressed properly while that remains.

2010 is a great example - it was indeed exactly the sort of horrifically dull and visionless government we needed at the time.

However, let's not forget that the horse trading that got them there pissed off their voter base such that they were utterly humiliated for over a decade. That's exactly what I dislike about coalitions. Very clearly, the Lib Dem voters did not feel like they were represented.

The post referendum elections under PR would have been immeasurably worse than they were. Nothing would have happened - which would have given those that lost the referendum what they wanted, but not those who won.

I agree with taking more out of politics, and into national level collaborative discussion. That's the sort of technocratic stuff I can get behind.

But for creating and delivering a vision for the country's (near term) future, it sucks.

The bit that's sticking out for me with reform is that everyone is focusing on their views on immigration as the sole reason people moved there. Ignoring actually reasonable policies such as elimination of IR35, support for SMEs, etc. - I know a few who held their nose at the fortress UK ste because they wanted a small government, SME supporting party.

[FMOB]

Solocle said:

MiniMan64 said:

Has anyone worked out what this result would like under a PR system?

And more importantly what kind of coalition possibly form from it…

Using a 3.25% vote threshold:

(In order: SNP, LAB, CON, GRN, LIB, RFM, PLD, SNF, IND)
Labour-Lib Dem coalition most likely, scraping through to a majority of 8 at 329 seats.

What you get is political paralysis, instability and inherent short-termism where every government is a coalition and a political flounce takes the government down, would we accept that happening every 6 months? I think people would lose patience with it very quickly.

FPTP everytime, if small parties don't like it then they need to grow and become big parties, if they can't grow well tough.

[OMITN]

FMOB said:

What you get is political paralysis, instability and inherent short-termism where every government is a coalition and a political flounce takes the government down, would we accept that happening every 6 months? I think people would lose patience with it very quickly.

FPTP everytime, if small parties don't like it then they need to grow and become big parties, if they can't grow well tough.

Start of a work call this afternoon and we were shooting the breeze about the election result. One of the guys on the call lives in Belgium so we joked about whether there is currently a government there.

His answer was “Not sure. Probably. To be honest when there is no government it does stop them raising taxes.”

[Sway]

The Belgians are probably one of the best countries suited to PR. So bland they don't even use anything with flavour for their chips, but mayo instead.

For me, the biggest argument for FPTP is that out of the G7, none of them are full PR. Closest is Germany (but still has FPTP constituency representatives) or Italy (similar weird mix of FPTP and PR). That says something to me - that FPTP systems, despite their flaws, tend to produce more successful nations.

[hidetheelephants]

FMOB said:

What you get is political paralysis, instability and inherent short-termism where every government is a coalition and a political flounce takes the government down, would we accept that happening every 6 months? I think people would lose patience with it very quickly.

FPTP everytime, if small parties don't like it then they need to grow and become big parties, if they can't grow well tough.

Because FPTP has given the UK such solid and stable govt in since 2010.

[captain_cynic]

FMOB said:

What you get is political paralysis, instability and inherent short-termism where every government is a coalition and a political flounce takes the government down, would we accept that happening every 6 months? I think people would lose patience with it very quickly.

FPTP everytime, if small parties don't like it then they need to grow and become big parties, if they can't grow well tough.

Indeed,

The UK is designed for FPTP, moreover, people in the UK expect local representation. Going to PR will either mean increasing the number of seats per constituency or consolidating constituencies so that you have enough seats per constituency to proportionally represent. The problem with the former is that it means the number of seats in parliament goes from 600 odd to 1200-2200 odd... The problem with the latter is that if you're in a rural area around a large town, Andover for example, the large town will just dominate. Candidates will only target the large town and leave you to rot.

My problem with FPTP in the UK is that in order for it to be first past the post, a candidate must pass said post. Simples, no? The best change we can make is to keep FPTP with local representation and change the voting system to Single Transferable Vote, Preferential Voting or some variant there of. Instead of scrawling an X on your ballot paper you order your candidates 1-5 (or 1 through whatever, depending on the number of candidates, one per party of course). That way we keep counting preferences until one candidate gets past said post.

This is simple enough for Australia, the UK should manage with no problem. It's simple. After all first preferences are counted and no-one has one, we count the second preferences... if no-one has 50%+1 vote after that, 3rd preferences, it rarely gets past that but you keep going until someone gets past the post. It also means that if Red is your absolute last preference, you can put it last.

This means that you prefer Red, then purple, then orange, then pink, it means your vote can still count if your orange wins on the second preference.

PR works well when you're electing something that works on a national level, like senators. It doesn't work for local representatives.

[uk66fastback]

crofty1984 said:

the-photographer said:

Very interesting, the re-built conservatives should absolutely aim for the centre in terms of leader and policy

Yes, keep Reform as the soft play areas for the trouble makers and get back to being a sensible party.

Hang on, that’s precisely the reason they didn’t do well this time round - too centre a party. And being conmen, liars, buffoons and just plain useless didn’t help either of course. This is why Reform has picked up lots of votes … they’re not right of centre enough … in fact they’re not right of centre at all.

[FMOB]

hidetheelephants said:

FMOB said:

What you get is political paralysis, instability and inherent short-termism where every government is a coalition and a political flounce takes the government down, would we accept that happening every 6 months? I think people would lose patience with it very quickly.

FPTP everytime, if small parties don't like it then they need to grow and become big parties, if they can't grow well tough.

Because FPTP has given the UK such solid and stable govt in since 2010.

I never said FPTP would give you a good government but each Government has lasted the distance between general elections as we vote for a party not a person.