OV9

They basically got votes as a big fuck you to "politics".

I once heard someone say that we should never use our vote as an anger management tool

Jobbo wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 6:38 am

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 12:11 am

dinny_g wrote: Thu Jul 04, 2024 11:06 pm Still think this isn’t a GE that Labour won but one the Conservatives have lost

That's what the results are bearing out so far. The combined Con/Reform vote is very very close to the Lab vote. Lab haven't won back the voters they lost to the Cons in 2019

I think you’re looking at one or two constituencies without considering the detail here. The variation per constituency is very interesting indeed.

I posted that when 3 seats had been declared in the NE

Ii certainly rang true at that moment. Haven't delved into any of the results this morning though

Rich B wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 9:01 am

Gavster wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 8:41 am

Rich B wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 8:18 am do you think? The only seats they won were their "big names" (farage, tice, Anderson) who campaigned heavily. I think they'll slope off and get renamed after whatever big issue is prevalent in the next GE.

I think Reform will grow for a few reasons. Firstly, they get a LOT of votes, despite only winning two seats.

they won 4 seats. They basically got votes as a big fuck you to "politics". They didn't have any actual manifesto - they aren't a proper party and just like UKIP, Brexit, etc, they are 2024s protest vote.

They'll either grow or disappear depending on what direction the Conservative party goes in (and possibly whether Starmer keeps up the centrist schtik or Labour unleash the leftist leanings of their backbenchers).

You're absolutely right that their manifesto is directional only, but as you note, just like UKIP - their aims were achieved by others...

This sore loser mentality definitely aligns with the second half of the Tories campaign. They switched from telling us how great their plan was to desperately trying to rubbish labour. They're still doing it too - labour didn't win, we lost.. etc..

Maybe people are just sick of corrupt liars? It's clear people don't want lefty loonies either, so maybe putting Starmer out front is exactly what people want to vote for. They're a gnats cock away from the majority Blair had in 1997, but no one accused him of "not winning" because he was a showman.

The good thing is, Starmer doesn't seem to get riled up by this crap - like when he said he'd look to not work past 6 on Fridays to see his family and the Tories accused him of being part time - he just laughed it off as the ridiculous childish lashing out that it was

GG. wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 9:55 am

Rich B wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 9:01 am

Gavster wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 8:41 am

I think Reform will grow for a few reasons. Firstly, they get a LOT of votes, despite only winning two seats.

they won 4 seats. They basically got votes as a big fuck you to "politics". They didn't have any actual manifesto - they aren't a proper party and just like UKIP, Brexit, etc, they are 2024s protest vote.

They'll either grow or disappear depending on what direction the Conservative party goes in.

You're absolutely right that their manifesto is directional only, but as you note, just like UKIP - their aims were achieved by others...

I don't think that reforms destiny is linked to the Tories at all any more. They'll just latch on to whatever perceived failing from the government and brand themselves as such in 5 years time.

Spotted that Mark Harper has lost his seat (Forest of Dean) - by less than 300 votes. I think he probably lost those through his TV appearances where he looked a bit of a blustering buffoon by not answering questions. He could probably have won by sticking to local campaigning, but being a minister he was doubtless pushed out by Rishi to do appearances which should have been for the leader. Similar for Mordaunt. Both better than Rishi, though toeing the party line lost them their seats.

Rich B wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 9:59 am I don't think that reforms destiny is linked to the Tories at all any more. They'll just latch on to whatever perceived failing from the government and brand themselves as such in 5 years time.

Looking at individual constituency results, it's clear in some that Reform actually took votes from Labour rather than Conservative. If Reform had not been in the picture, I don't think we'd actually have seen a very different overall result. This is why the total vote share is not a particularly useful thing; far too blunt because it is an average and no constituency is average.

Jobbo wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 10:19 am

Rich B wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 9:59 am I don't think that reforms destiny is linked to the Tories at all any more. They'll just latch on to whatever perceived failing from the government and brand themselves as such in 5 years time.

Looking at individual constituency results, it's clear in some that Reform actually took votes from Labour rather than Conservative. If Reform had not been in the picture, I don't think we'd actually have seen a very different overall result. This is why the total vote share is not a particularly useful thing; far too blunt because it is an average and no constituency is average.

Again - I'm not clear on this analysis at all. With the vote on the right being split down the middle between the Tories and Reform - in a hypothetical where you remove Reform from the ballot the result would likely have gone from massive Labour majority to potentially a hung parliament. The Conservative + Reform vote share is significantly higher than Labour (37.9 v 33.9%). I guess in that situation where there wasn't a Reform like party some of their votes would go to Labour and not back to the Conservatives (particularly at the end of a period of 14 years of Tory rule), which would put Labour back into a position of having a majority but clearly it would make a big difference by not splitting the right leaning vote.

The vote share is also an important factor when you scratch the surface as this clearly stonking majority is not as a result of people actually voting Labour. Starmer got merely 700k more votes than Corbyn and which gives him the most disproportionately large majority versus vote share of any Prime Minister. What is mean is that the buzzwords of "sandcastle politics" is playing out before our eyes. Labour could be in and then back out again, or at least a very sizeably reduced majority or hung parliament within 5 years.

I think the seat majority is burying the lede that the actual voting was very close all over the place.

ZedLeg wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 12:01 pm I think the seat majority is burying the lede that the actual voting was very close all over the place.

Yes I agree with that. It was an election of disclocation and disatisfaction and nothing like a 1997 vote in favour of Labour.

This sky news headline has it closest:

Uneasy voters hand Labour a 'loveless landslide' shattering traditional voting patterns

I mean, that's what happens when you have FPTP and a particular part of the political spectrum is busy eating themselves alive and costing themselves seats as a result.

Both sides have done this repeatedly in the past.

While I'm glad the Tories are out, those numbers are a surely all the evidence needed to get PR. Irrespective of your political allegiance, the fact that we've such a massive majority based on a third of the votes cast should make voters doom the system (and also mean that bastion of democratic integrity Belarus is the only country left in the FPtP club).

The 4 mil votes that reform got will stop PR being a discussion for another 4 years.

Fear of the populist right is the only thing propping up fptp imo.

ZedLeg wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 12:07 pm The 4 mil votes that reform got will stop PR being a discussion for another 4 years.

Fear of the populist right is the only thing propping up fptp imo.

Reform would have benefited from PR, as would the Conservatives. Interesting to see whether they mention it.

Looking at the total number of votes, turnout is down compared to 2019 but the total number of votes for Labour and Lib Dems are similar (within 10%). Total votes for the Tories was under half the 2019 total. Reform will have taken a fair number of votes from them but the reality is that people simply didn't turn out for them, but Reform did not mobilise a few million to come out for them either.

That’s what I meant, Labour won’t do anything that could benefit Reform or whatever replaces them.

ZedLeg wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 12:19 pm That’s what I meant, Labour won’t do anything that could benefit Reform or whatever replaces them.

The Conservatives wouldn't discuss it either (the 2011 referendum being a sop to the Lib Dems to make the coalition happen). Doesn't mean it won't be a discussion topic; look at how much Reform would have benefited (over 90 seats) if there were PR.

Maybe discussion isn’t the right word. There isn’t going to be any movement on PR while Labour have this majority imo.

RE PR, you can't just take voting numbers from a FPTP system with it's tactical and protest voting, and apply that to a PR system - the campaigning, allegiances and voting systems themselves are entirely different.

But as Zed says, Labour pushing for PR now would be proper turkeys voting for Christmas stuff. Maybe give 'em another election which they scrape through, and then they might change their mind.

Fuck knows, I think we could all do with fewer extreme positions in politics.

That, why would they shoot themselves in the foot?

How would PR work in the UK ??