The Reform Party and the UK’s lurch towards fascism

A turn of phrase deliberately chosen in the campaign to mislead.
As before once you get to a certain number of seats you can push your agenda through.

The bigger the majority, the easier it is for the leadership to get their agenda through.

I can't think of a single post war government which didn't struggle to govern with a small majority.

Super majority isn't a technical term in UK politics and therefore is very unlikely to be misleading as the vast majority (super?) of the British public will be unaware of any potential technical implication.

A three figure majority is, on paper, no more potent than a single figure majority.

In reality they are very different beasts.

Rich_cb wrote:

Super majority isn't a technical term in UK politics and therefore is very unlikely to be misleading as the vast majority (super?) of the British public will be unaware of any potential technical implication.

That's right - the term "scarymajority" (cf "Labslide" / "Starmergeddon") was about to be coined when someone pointed out that could sound like it was just something made up to worry people, hence the use of the technical-sounding but meaningless term...

TBH apart from a couple of changes (privatise most of the railways rather than just the odd one when the operator fails, give up the "send (a tiny number of) 'em back where they came from - er, to Rwanda") they are claiming to do much of what was being done before. If you liked the last lot... (Don't know if you did care for the Westminster folk mind...)

In fact what was notable for me was just how similar most of the manifestos seemed - but perhaps not surprising as we're massively in debt, have a backlog of "issues" and recently seen mostly to have been reacting to events.

David9694 wrote:

Having a slim minority usually means party discipline has to be tight, but a large majority, while a good problem to have, is a lot of people to keep onside over time and keep from getting into/making mischief.

Short - they won't have the same headaches as eg. those under Theresa May, but the whips won't be out of business...

(It certainly is possible to get stuff done without a "warning!Socialists!majority" *, see Scotland / lots of other places.  Would that translate directly to Westminster?  Perhaps; it's complicated?  Starmer clearly though it was not just the "right thing" but also to his party's advantage to back many of the last government's policies while in opposition, or at least not oppose them all.)

* Not particularly socialist, unless you're looking from eg. the States: then all the parties here probably appear so!

mdavidford wrote:

If you want to make an argument about enthusiasm, focusing on vote share is probably missing the wood for the trees. Look at raw votes - the number of people voting for Labour was down on what it was at the last election, so at the least we can say that enthusiasm for them is less now than it was then.

(Same goes for the Lib Dems, btw)

Of course, by that reckoning there was less than half as much enthusiasm for Reform as there was for Labour, though.

There's no such thing as raw votes; all the numbers are a function of party activity. Labour chose to prioritize getting their vote out in target seats, not all seats. On polling day I was coming down the road from Prospect Hill (National Hill Climb course 2017 - cycling link) into a leafy suburb in a safe Tory seat. I encountered Labour GOTV doorknockers who've never previously been seen there for any election - mainly because they were a mix of party staff and activists bussed in from Newcastle, where Labour was confident of victory. There is no such thing as raw data, and activity by parties changes all the numbers.

exilegareth wrote:

There's no such thing as raw votes

I'm pretty sure I remember making a mark on a piece of paper and dropping it in a box. My understanding is those bits of paper then get counted to decide who won.

exhilarated wrote:

all the numbers are a function of party activity. Labour chose to prioritize getting their vote out in target seats, not all seats. [...] activity by parties changes all the numbers.

Enthusiasm is a function of that activity; votes are an indication of that enthusiasm.

The lib dems are very good at targeting, helped as Rich points out, with tactical voting. 

Mr Sunak rose considerably in my estimation yesterday with the dignified and gracious way he accepted his defeat and wished the new government well. A shame that attitude appears not to have trickled down to some of his supporters.

If you want to quibble about figures, maybe you should look at the differential in vote share between the leading two parties: from 2010 the advantage has been, consecutively, 7.1%, 6.3%, 2.3%, 11.5% and in this latest election it's 10.1%, so Labour second only by a whisker to Johnson's 2019 landslide on that metric. I'm sure you were complaining vociferously in 2017 when Mrs May was only 2.3% ahead on votes and yet 6.5% ahead in seats?

This, for better or worse, is how the system works and the Tories didn't seem to mind when it delivered them four elections on the bounce. What's that phrase we have been hearing ad nauseam from Brexiteers since 2016? Something about you lost, get over it?

I've long argued against FPTP.

I've said multiple times on this forum that I voted for AV in the previous referendum and that I continue to support a change to our voting system.

Had you forgotten?

This latest election is simply the most egregious example of the failures of FPTP. My position on FPTP has remained entirely consistent.

Rich_cb wrote:

I've long argued against FPTP. I've said multiple times on this forum that I voted for AV in the previous referendum and that I continue to support a change to our voting system. Had you forgotten? This latest election is simply the most egregious example of the failures of FPTP. My position on FPTP has remained entirely consistent.

I do remember that, as it happens, and it's one of the rare things on which we agree. However, whilst you have voiced your support for a change to the electoral system at various points I think I'm correct in saying, unless I've missed it, that in none of the previous three general elections won by the Tories did you come here directly after the results and complain what a travesty it was that they should be in government having such a much higher percentage of the available seats than they did of the popular vote. Obviously something different has happened this time that has inspired your disgruntlement, whatever could it be…

Given that, on this occasion, I was responding to another poster I'm not really sure your desperate little line of attack really works.

I have consistently been opposed to FPTP, that hasn't changed with previous Conservatives majorities.

The latest election result is a particularly bad example of how FPTP can lead to unrepresentative results, hopefully it will be the final straw for meaningful electoral reform.

Rich_cb wrote:

I have consistently been opposed to FPTP, that hasn't changed with previous Conservatives majorities.

I'll take your word for that, but the fact remains that you didn't whine that the majorities achieved by the Tories in 2015, 2017 or 2019 were unfair, indeed you rather celebrated and crowed about them, but all of a sudden Labour wins under the same rules and the system's sooo wrong. Enjoy the next five years chap x

I have repeatedly said that FPTP is unfair during Conservative governments.

I voted to change FPTP during a Conservative led government.

I'm now stating that FPTP is unfair during a Labour government and you're accusing me of bias?

I don't really think you've got a point here Rendel, you're just having a go for the sake of it.

The most amusing thing is that the Labour government that's just been elected is probably closer to me politically than it is to you.

Rich_cb wrote:

I have repeatedly said that FPTP is unfair during Conservative governments.

Unfair to who, the smaller parties? The system does not owe any duty of fairness to the employment prospects of MPs nor to their parties. Once the ideas espoused by smaller parties gain currency they will be taken up by larger parties. If that means the ideas succeed whilst their original political proponents don't, so what?

Unfair to the supporters of smaller parties. How many Green votes did it take to elect each MP?

All votes should be equal in an ideal democracy.

FPTP makes a mockery of that aspiration.

Rich_cb wrote:

Unfair to the supporters of smaller parties. How many Green votes did it take to elect each MP? All votes should be equal in an ideal democracy. FPTP makes a mockery of that aspiration.

I kind of agree with both you and Sriracha on this.

I'm not a fan of FPTP, but I do think that the ideas/policies are more important than the implementers of those ideas.

There's also technical difficulties with trying to balance the "value" of votes which would lead to MPs being elected to areas that hadn't voted for them i.e. balancing out the number of green votes to the number of MPs.

Ultimately, FPTP favours the larger parties  but also has the effect of making parliament more effective by providing larger/more majorities.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Ultimately, FPTP favours the larger parties  but also has the effect of making parliament more effective by providing larger/more majorities.

Depends what you mean by 'effective'. It allows governments to do more stuff, but that's not necessarily a good thing, especially when it's driven by dogma. Arguably, Parliament is often more effective when it's doing less.

mdavidford wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Ultimately, FPTP favours the larger parties  but also has the effect of making parliament more effective by providing larger/more majorities.

Depends what you mean by 'effective'. It allows governments to do more stuff, but that's not necessarily a good thing, especially when it's driven by dogma. Arguably, Parliament is often more effective when it's doing less.

I suppose it depends on whether they're working for themselves and their mates or for the people and country.

Rich_cb wrote:

The most amusing thing is that the Labour government that's just been elected is probably closer to me politically than it is to you.

The most amusing thing for me is watching such a desperate and graceless display, almost Trumpian in its petulance, of sour grapes and unwillingness to accept the result. I guess we all find our amusement where we can.

Still, we on the left can afford to be gracious now - have a drink on me old son.

Nice try Rendel.

Please point out where I said I was unwilling to accept the result?

I'm not sure why you feel that I shouldn't be allowed to criticise FPTP under a Labour government when you've never once objected to my criticism of it under Conservative governments?

FPTP has just produced the least representative government in over a century, if now is not the time to discuss electoral reform then when is?

Government is inevitably the art of compromise between competing interests and factions. We can't all get everything we want.

FPTP tends to push the voters themselves into deliberating upon those compromises, and in return obliges the parties to appeal to a broad church.

PR tends to allow parties to prosper on much narrower single issues, which leaves the compromises to be worked out far away from the voters, by horse trading between coalition partners and King makers behind the scenes, exacting a price that few voters voted for.

In this election we saw another aspect of FPTP - the ability to vote a government out. That's very hard in PR - there is a tendency for the new government to be just a rearrangement of the old pieces. Whereas under our system, constituency by constituency the winner seems to have often been whichever party was best placed to unseat a Tory incumbent. The country got what it wanted - Tories Out - and achieved this success despite only limited agreement over who should replace them.

You didn't really answer my question.

What was Labour's vote as a share of the population?

There are certain posters on this forum who are sticklers for consistency.

If you've spent a rather long time complaining that certain votes that actually achieved majorities shouldn't be considered legitimate as there wasn't 100% turnout and toddlers were disenfranchised I'd love to know how you square that circle with the ridiculously unrepresentative GE result?

Was it legitimate? If so, why?

Labour did indeed win under the rules in place. As did Leave.

You, and many others, have expended much time and energy attempting to undermine the validity of the referendum result and concentrating on vote share has been a frequent line of attack. Your pie chart earlier in the thread being a prime example.

Applying those same criteria to Labour's election victory would only be consistent.

Personally I think 20 years is the right amount of time between significant referenda. There was about 18 years between the first and second devolution referenda in Wales and that produced a significant change in result so 20 years seems about right.

David9694 wrote:

There are a couple of other variants (Alternative vote, single Transferable Vote) that try to offer a bit of both, but apart from having been rejected in the referendum of 2011, it's all a bit "add 5 and then divide by the number you originally thought of and then come back next week" complicated.

It's not really any more complicated than voting for Strictly, and the Great British Public™ seems to manage that OK.

Rendel Harris wrote:

This, for better or worse, is how the system works and the Tories didn't seem to mind when it delivered them four elections on the bounce. What's that phrase we have been hearing ad nauseam from Brexiteers since 2016? Something about you lost, get over it?

Hopefully, it won't be a simple lose/win dichotomy and the country will benefit from Starmergeddon (time will tell) and thus everyone will "win". It's not like the Brexit referendum where everyone apart from a small handful of people loses out.

I'm hoping that Labour will be looking over their shoulders at Green who put on a very good showing in Bristol. My area (Bristol East) had Greens come relatively close second place and of course, they won quite decisively in Bristol Central.

My area (Bristol East) had Greens come relatively close second place and of course, they won quite decisively in Bristol Central

Yes, I was quite impressed by that- I think the Greens would get an even higher vote % if people accepted they were in with a chance in more seats. That increased visibility would help cyclists against the overwhelming 'idle vote' of the motorists.

I think you're right. Major parties have to look over their shoulder and steal the ideas of up and coming parties, and weave them into the compromise they present to the voters.

Smaller parties complain that they never get any representation under FPTP, but as long as their ideas advance on their merits, regardless of who advances them, then democracy is served. The system exists not for the benefit of the parties, but for the electorate.