General Election July 2024

[pheonix478]

Dave200 said:

pheonix478 said:

Dave200 said:

rscott said:

Dave200 said:

Carl_VivaEspana said:

smn159 said:

The country has given their verdict on that and it's going to take a while to start to put right - but at least some grown ups are back in the room to start doing so.

as pointed out elsewhere, there's approx 9 million labour voters and 6 million public sector workers. The remainder of the 3 million were 2.9999m benefits scroungers and me (joke).

I exaggerate of course but it's unlikely that many in the 40%+ tax bracket voted red and therefore he has 4.5 years to win their vote otherwise Labour are back out of power in 5 years.

Again, absolute twaddle. Support for Labour across the socio-economic grades was broadly even, and voters from all groups were most likely to pick Labour.

The Ashcroft poll posted earlier backs that up too - https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2024/07/how-britain-... - shows that social grade AB were the group most likely to vote for Labour. That group is "Higher and intermediate managerial, administrative and professional occupations", so will have more higher rate tax payers than any other.

But the expat confidently said "it's unlikely that many in the 40%+ tax bracket voted red". So it must be true.

Does "social grade AB" actually translate to income though? I have no idea. "Higher and intermediate managerial, administrative and professional occupations", describes much of the public sector...

Yes. Social grade is highly correlated with income.

Thanks. Just seems an odd way to classify people rather than simply by income decile....

oh i see, when you look at the definition of C1 it's obvious the "higher and intermediate" bit of AB also applies to administrative and professional so I guess it would be well correlated to income. As you were!

[Dog Star]

hidetheelephants said:

bhstewie said:

How did Galloway get booted out so soon didn't he only get elected a couple of months back?

Odious man but what changed so quickly?

Protest vote plus the labour candidate getting the party endorsement withdrawn for the by election, then an actual labour candidate at the GE spanked him. Or at least that appears to be the case.

That is exactly the case - Labour polled almost nothing in the by-election.

Whilst I’m ecstatic that the turd has been kicked out (the Labour chap, Paul Waugh seems a genuinely nice bloke) I’m very aware that had the independent candidate, Tully, who stood in the by-election, stood in the GE that Galloway would have retained his seat. Luckily he didn’t.

Galloway basically polled the exact same voters he got last time - looks like he got a large tranche of the Muslim community based in a couple of hotspots block voting for him and the proportion of postal votes was very high at the by election. I’m not convinced at all that the people who were meant to do the postal votes even got sight of them.

Bloke is such a loser that he didn’t even turn up for the count - proves what he really thought of his constituency and the people he exploited for their votes.

He won’t be back for another go - historically he never has; he’s such a narcissist that I doubt he would show his stupid face.

Good riddance!

[Catweazle]

Some years ago, on this forum possibly after the 2015 election, I proposed that we retain FPTP but send those candidates who come second in the constituency to the House of Lords. Here are the numbers with one still to be announced:-

Conservative, 295.
Labour, 106.
Reform, 96.
SNP, 48.
Green, 39.
Lib Dem, 28.
Independents, 12.
Alliance, 5.
Plaid Cymru, 4.
DUP, 4.
WPB, 3.
Sinn Fein, 3.
UUP, 3.
SDLP, 2.
Independent Network, 1.
Newham Independents, 1.

[BikeBikeBIke]

Catweazle said:

Some years ago, on this forum possibly after the 2015 election, I proposed that we retain FPTP but send those candidates who come second in the constituency to the House of Lords.

That is bloody genius.

I'm opposed to a elected HoL but an "accidentally" elected HoL sounds ideal. And you get better candidates because second place has value. And you HoL is packed with opponents of the winners. (Who hopefully are sane.)

Like it.

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

[p1stonhead]

BikeBikeBIke said:

Catweazle said:

Some years ago, on this forum possibly after the 2015 election, I proposed that we retain FPTP but send those candidates who come second in the constituency to the House of Lords.

That is bloody genius.

I'm opposed to a elected HoL but an "accidentally" elected HoL sounds ideal. And you get better candidates because second place has value. And you HoL is packed with opponents of the winners. (Who hopefully are sane.)

Like it.

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

I know they’re not supposed to hold things up unnecessarily, but I’d imagine they’d never pass anything if they were made up with a majority of the opposition.

[CraigyMc]

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.

[E63eeeeee...]

Catweazle said:

Some years ago, on this forum possibly after the 2015 election, I proposed that we retain FPTP but send those candidates who come second in the constituency to the House of Lords. Here are the numbers with one still to be announced:-

Conservative, 295.
Labour, 106.
Reform, 96.
SNP, 48.
Green, 39.
Lib Dem, 28.
Independents, 12.
Alliance, 5.
Plaid Cymru, 4.
DUP, 4.
WPB, 3.
Sinn Fein, 3.
UUP, 3.
SDLP, 2.
Independent Network, 1.
Newham Independents, 1.

That's batst. The House of Commons and the House of Rejects.

You'd be better off with some kind of sortition, selecting people at random.

[MiniMan64]

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.

[Catweazle]

p1stonhead said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

Catweazle said:

Some years ago, on this forum possibly after the 2015 election, I proposed that we retain FPTP but send those candidates who come second in the constituency to the House of Lords.

That is bloody genius.

I'm opposed to a elected HoL but an "accidentally" elected HoL sounds ideal. And you get better candidates because second place has value. And you HoL is packed with opponents of the winners. (Who hopefully are sane.)

Like it.

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

I know they’re not supposed to hold things up unnecessarily, but I’d imagine they’d never pass anything if they were made up with a majority of the opposition.

The answer is to introduce legislation that is acceptable to a majority of people. Anything too mad will simply be revised and sent back. Of course the Parliament Act would still be applicable.

[Catweazle]

E63eeeeee... said:

Catweazle said:

Some years ago, on this forum possibly after the 2015 election, I proposed that we retain FPTP but send those candidates who come second in the constituency to the House of Lords. Here are the numbers with one still to be announced:-

Conservative, 295.
Labour, 106.
Reform, 96.
SNP, 48.
Green, 39.
Lib Dem, 28.
Independents, 12.
Alliance, 5.
Plaid Cymru, 4.
DUP, 4.
WPB, 3.
Sinn Fein, 3.
UUP, 3.
SDLP, 2.
Independent Network, 1.
Newham Independents, 1.

That's batst. The House of Commons and the House of Rejects.

You'd be better off with some kind of sortition, selecting people at random.

Checks and balances, slowing down the passage of legislation allows for proper scrutiny.

[p1stonhead]

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!

[Sway]

E63eeeeee... said:

Sway said:

It's a matter of opinion that it's a fairer system.

Some, including me, think very minor parties gaining king maker status and a disproportionate amount of power, is a bad idea.

That applies if it's Cons/Reform or Labour/Greens.

Even worse is the bd muddle of 2nd/3rd party governments.

Then there's the fact that whatever the makeup, no one actually gets what they want. No party in government can be held to a manifesto that's had to be negotiated day one.

So in that instance, what exactly are people voting for under such a system?

It's fairer because it makes everyone's votes more equal in value. What meaning of fairness do you have in mind where FPTP wins? That's not really what happens with minority parties, their power is proportional to the votes they get, plus have you forgotten the DUP in 2017? Relying on mandate theory as an argument for FPTP is a bit of a joke, no government can be held to a manifesto in any case. And if you think that nobody gets what they want under PR, explain how that's worse than unfettered power going to a party that fully 67% of voters didn't choose.

Everyone's vote is equal in value - in your constituency.

You've used a very rare outcome as your exemplar - that wasn't a coalition it was a minority government with supply and confidence, and was incredibly weak!

Policies don't get redefined under PR. They get horse traded. I'll keep this on health, you get that on schools. That's not reflecting the will - especially when major policies can be defined (with the same absolute power) and implemented based on well under 10% of the vote.

All those not in the coalition are still just as 'valueless' for votes as FPTP.

[Randy Winkman]

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.

Yes - the same way we dont get 29million people watching one TV programme anymore. Not on one channel anyway.

(29m watched the 2020 Euro football final but not on the same channel.)

[E63eeeeee...]

Catweazle said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Catweazle said:

Some years ago, on this forum possibly after the 2015 election, I proposed that we retain FPTP but send those candidates who come second in the constituency to the House of Lords. Here are the numbers with one still to be announced:-

Conservative, 295.
Labour, 106.
Reform, 96.
SNP, 48.
Green, 39.
Lib Dem, 28.
Independents, 12.
Alliance, 5.
Plaid Cymru, 4.
DUP, 4.
WPB, 3.
Sinn Fein, 3.
UUP, 3.
SDLP, 2.
Independent Network, 1.
Newham Independents, 1.

That's batst. The House of Commons and the House of Rejects.

You'd be better off with some kind of sortition, selecting people at random.

Checks and balances, slowing down the passage of legislation allows for proper scrutiny.

Allowing for something isn't the same as delivering it.

[crofty1984]

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.

[MiniMan64]

Randy Winkman said:

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.

Yes - the same way we dont get 29million people watching one TV programme anymore. Not on one channel anyway.

(29m watched the 2020 Euro football final but not on the same channel.)

Good comparison.

Point seems to be missed somehow though and instead it’s Labours fault for not being as strong as predicted.

Greens are getting drowned out by all the Reform noise and all those independents in the HoC now too…

[E63eeeeee...]

Sway said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Sway said:

It's a matter of opinion that it's a fairer system.

Some, including me, think very minor parties gaining king maker status and a disproportionate amount of power, is a bad idea.

That applies if it's Cons/Reform or Labour/Greens.

Even worse is the bd muddle of 2nd/3rd party governments.

Then there's the fact that whatever the makeup, no one actually gets what they want. No party in government can be held to a manifesto that's had to be negotiated day one.

So in that instance, what exactly are people voting for under such a system?

It's fairer because it makes everyone's votes more equal in value. What meaning of fairness do you have in mind where FPTP wins? That's not really what happens with minority parties, their power is proportional to the votes they get, plus have you forgotten the DUP in 2017? Relying on mandate theory as an argument for FPTP is a bit of a joke, no government can be held to a manifesto in any case. And if you think that nobody gets what they want under PR, explain how that's worse than unfettered power going to a party that fully 67% of voters didn't choose.

Everyone's vote is equal in value - in your constituency.

You've used a very rare outcome as your exemplar - that wasn't a coalition it was a minority government with supply and confidence, and was incredibly weak!

Policies don't get redefined under PR. They get horse traded. I'll keep this on health, you get that on schools. That's not reflecting the will - especially when major policies can be defined (with the same absolute power) and implemented based on well under 10% of the vote.

All those not in the coalition are still just as 'valueless' for votes as FPTP.

How exactly is equal value in a constituency fairer than equal value nationally? The DUP example is just a demonstration that FPTP doesn't guarantee strong governments and a lack of horse trading either. No idea what you're on about with 10% of people defining major policies, that would only happen if they're acceptable to at least another 40%. The ones not in the coalition remain as potential coalition partners, and of course they're never representing more than 49% of the vote as compared to almost always being well over half and as of today being more than two thirds in FPTP. It seems like most of your arguments against PR apply at least as much to FPTP as to PR and often are worse, without addressing the fundamental unfairness.

[Mr Penguin]

E63eeeeee... said:

How exactly is equal value in a constituency fairer than equal value nationally? The DUP example is just a demonstration that FPTP doesn't guarantee strong governments and a lack of horse trading either. No idea what you're on about with 10% of people defining major policies, that would only happen if they're acceptable to at least another 40%. The ones not in the coalition remain as potential coalition partners, and of course they're never representing more than 49% of the vote as compared to almost always being well over half and as of today being more than two thirds in FPTP. It seems like most of your arguments against PR apply at least as much to FPTP as to PR and often are worse, without addressing the fundamental unfairness.

The 2017 parliament was a bad one for FPTP but it would be every other election under PR.

[Leithen]

Catweazle said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Catweazle said:

Some years ago, on this forum possibly after the 2015 election, I proposed that we retain FPTP but send those candidates who come second in the constituency to the House of Lords. Here are the numbers with one still to be announced:-

Conservative, 295.
Labour, 106.
Reform, 96.
SNP, 48.
Green, 39.
Lib Dem, 28.
Independents, 12.
Alliance, 5.
Plaid Cymru, 4.
DUP, 4.
WPB, 3.
Sinn Fein, 3.
UUP, 3.
SDLP, 2.
Independent Network, 1.
Newham Independents, 1.

That's batst. The House of Commons and the House of Rejects.

You'd be better off with some kind of sortition, selecting people at random.

Checks and balances, slowing down the passage of legislation allows for proper scrutiny.

The standard of debate in the current HOL is generally regarded as much better than the HOC. It’s partially about respect and better behaviour, but expertise and experience also contributes.

Not sure a second place chamber would get anywhere near this.

The HOL needs to be smaller with shorter terms and IMHO ought to be drawn from the best the country has.

[p1stonhead]

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