UK elections

[Sarkus]

For some of the rest of us, there has been a general election in the UK (there's also one on-going in France!) and, unsuprisingly, the Labour party has won a majority.
A big majority.
At the last election they won c.32.1% of the vote, and won 201 seats. The conservatives in 2019 won c.43.7% of the vote, and won 372 seats - a 47 majority.

This time round, Labour has won a whopping 33.7% of the vote - so 1.6% higher than last time round. Yet they have won a staggering 412 seats!! This will give them a c.174 seat majority. Which is massive.

So while Labour won a significant majority on a vote that only saw them as the largest minority at the last election, the Lib Dem's share went up 0.7% to 12.2% and their seats went up from 8 to 71!!

Reform UK won 14.3% of the vote - effectively ripping it from the Conservatives (Reform UK are sort of the MAGA equivalent - the most far right we have in the mainstream, and are led by Trump-buddy Farage) - so they got more vote than the Lib Dems, and have yet won only 5 seats.

This is because of our "First Past The Post" (FPTP) system, which throws out these weird results.


So we now have a party with a significant majority, yet 66% of the population of the population did not vote for them or what they stand for.

Time for reform (little "r" - I'm not advocating for "Reform UK") methinks, but the party that has benefitted the most from it will never give up that which put them in. All they really need to do is stoke the flames that help split Reform UK from the Conservatives, while not splitting themselves (between the more centrist and the far-left).

Interesting times... well, not really, unless you're into all this data analysis stuff.

 

[geordief]

For some of the rest of us, there has been a general election in the UK (there's also one on-going in France!) and, unsuprisingly, the Labour party has won a majority.
A big majority.
At the last election they won c.32.1% of the vote, and won 201 seats. The conservatives in 2019 won c.43.7% of the vote, and won 372 seats - a 47 majority.

This time round, Labour has won a whopping 33.7% of the vote - so 1.6% higher than last time round. Yet they have won a staggering 412 seats!! This will give them a c.174 seat majority. Which is massive.

So while Labour won a significant majority on a vote that only saw them as the largest minority at the last election, the Lib Dem's share went up 0.7% to 12.2% and their seats went up from 8 to 71!!

Reform UK won 14.3% of the vote - effectively ripping it from the Conservatives (Reform UK are sort of the MAGA equivalent - the most far right we have in the mainstream, and are led by Trump-buddy Farage) - so they got more vote than the Lib Dems, and have yet won only 5 seats.

This is because of our "First Past The Post" (FPTP) system, which throws out these weird results.


So we now have a party with a significant majority, yet 66% of the population of the population did not vote for them or what they stand for.

Time for reform (little "r" - I'm not advocating for "Reform UK") methinks, but the party that has benefitted the most from it will never give up that which put them in. All they really need to do is stoke the flames that help split Reform UK from the Conservatives, while not splitting themselves (between the more centrist and the far-left).

Interesting times... well, not really, unless you're into all this data analysis stuff.

How would you suggest the system be reformed? A system with single transferable votes?

Single transferable vote - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I am happy with the result in the UK but it is hard to defend FPTP.

Can FPTP be tweaked to make it fairer?

 

[Sarkus]

I do irk at the idea a government can claim they have massive support for their agenda based on a majority of seats when in reality a majority of people didn't vote for them.

I'd prefer a purely proportional representation, to be honest. It does lead to coalitions, but also to the will of the majority getting heard more often than currently. The parties would fill their allotted seats from a list. But clearly this doesn't help decide a local MP.

In the absence of the pure proportional representation, there are some systems that would achieve a more proportional outcome than currently, and I'd happily consider them.

 

[James R]

Wasn't there a suggestion some time ago that the UK adjust its voting system to copy (one of) the Australian preference system(s)?

 

[Sarkus]

One of the conditions of the Lib Dems sought when joining the Conservatives in a coalition government in 2010 was that there be a national referendum on the voting system. The Lib Dems had wanted Proportional Representation (PR) to be offered in the referendum, but for some reason they acquiesced to the Conservatives only allowing the Alternative Vote (AV) system.
There was only just over 40% turnout, but those that voted did so more than 2:1 in favour of retaining the current FPTP system.

There was no suggestion, as far as I'm aware, to "copy (one of) the Australian" systems - i.e. it being the Australian system was not a determining factor in its choice. If the AV system is one used by Australia then that is coincidental, nothing more. One might as well say that the suggestion was to "copy the Papua New Guinea system", or that if we sought to adopt the PR system then we would be looking to "copy the Angolan system".
That said, as the largest country to use AV, there were naturally some references to Australia in the debates around it, although mostly about costs.

 

[Pinball1970]

For some of the rest of us, there has been a general election in the UK (there's also one on-going in France!) and, unsuprisingly, the Labour party has won a majority.
A big majority.
At the last election they won c.32.1% of the vote, and won 201 seats. The conservatives in 2019 won c.43.7% of the vote, and won 372 seats - a 47 majority.

This time round, Labour has won a whopping 33.7% of the vote - so 1.6% higher than last time round. Yet they have won a staggering 412 seats!! This will give them a c.174 seat majority. Which is massive.

So while Labour won a significant majority on a vote that only saw them as the largest minority at the last election, the Lib Dem's share went up 0.7% to 12.2% and their seats went up from 8 to 71!!

Reform UK won 14.3% of the vote - effectively ripping it from the Conservatives (Reform UK are sort of the MAGA equivalent - the most far right we have in the mainstream, and are led by Trump-buddy Farage) - so they got more vote than the Lib Dems, and have yet won only 5 seats.

This is because of our "First Past The Post" (FPTP) system, which throws out these weird results.


So we now have a party with a significant majority, yet 66% of the population of the population did not vote for them or what they stand for.

Time for reform (little "r" - I'm not advocating for "Reform UK") methinks, but the party that has benefitted the most from it will never give up that which put them in. All they really need to do is stoke the flames that help split Reform UK from the Conservatives, while not splitting themselves (between the more centrist and the far-left).

Interesting times... well, not really, unless you're into all this data analysis stuff.

On the results specifically. A change was needed but I was not rejoicing.
It would have been a horror show for me if Corbyn was still leader but we do still have people like Rayner as deputy which is scary as hell.
I will put people and personalities aside for now and see what Starmer and his team do in the next months.

 

[exchemist]

On the results specifically. A change was needed but I was not rejoicing.
It would have been a horror show for me if Corbyn was still leader but we do still have people like Rayner as deputy which is scary as hell.
I will put people and personalities aside for now and see what Starmer and his team do in the next months.

My first impressions, based on the ministerial appointments so far, are favourable. They seem to be imaginative, professional and to be seeking out relevant expertise and experience, rather than rewarding political favours. I note that Emily Thornberry has not been picked as Attorney General, but that job has gone to an eminent KC with a background in international law. Also the choice of Timpson for the prison service seems to me inspired. (We bang up far too many young men and turn them into hardened criminals and drug addicts with mental illnesses. It’s expensive, vengeful and counterproductive. Other countries do it far better.) Streeting at Health seems to have spent several years mastering the brief and to have some fresh and non-ideological ideas. Cooper at the Home Office is an experienced pair of hands.

I don't find Rayner scary. It’s true she’s a lippy northern lass with a rather alarmingly striking mass of red hair (which she is obviously extremely proud of) but I think she’s energetic and useful to keep the conscience of the party focused on the less well-off, and thereby keep the left wing of the party on-side. That’s important. Blair had Prescott for that, if you cast your mind back.

So yeah, I heave a sigh of relief that we’ve had enough of: “We’ve had enough of experts.”

Experts are back, hooray! We need as much of them as we can get, after the mendacity and incompetence, the contempt for law and constitutional principles, and the petty party self-absorption of the last few years. What I want to see now is a blast of competent, managerial dullness, putting in the spadework to rebuild our wrecked public services and finances, and recover some of the trust in politics and government that been lost. So, God speed to Steamer and his team!

 

[Pinball1970]

I don't find Rayner scary. It’s true she’s a lippy northern lass with a rather alarmingly striking mass of red hair (which she is obviously extremely proud of) but I think she’s energetic and useful to keep the conscience of the party focused on the less well-off,

Not my experience.

She is uneducated, arrogant and self-righteous in interviews.

I wrote to her and the union she was speaking up for regarding a serious issue and was ignored. Not my constituency although relevant to my query.
My colleague who wasin her constituency was also ignored.

Sure she has a "strange" northern accent and she is a woman which is a good reason to keep her in the picture in the labour party.
Why do you think Dianne Abbott lasted so long? She was booted out but somehow found her way back in. Even after insensitive and racist comments going back a long time.
No one can say she is not educated yet she is again an absolute car crash in interviews.

 

[exchemist]

Not my experience.

She is uneducated, arrogant and self-righteous in interviews.

I wrote to her and the union she was speaking up for regarding a serious issue and was ignored. Not my constituency although relevant to my query.
My colleague who wasin her constituency was also ignored.

Sure she has a "strange" northern accent and she is a woman which is a good reason to keep her in the picture in the labour party.
Why do you think Dianne Abbott lasted so long? She was booted out but somehow found her way back in. Even after insensitive and racist comments going back a long time.
No one can say she is not educated yet she is again an absolute car crash in interviews.

Hmm, interesting perspective. I’ll keep what you say in mind and see how she behaves.

 

[Pinball1970]

Hmm, interesting perspective. I’ll keep what you say in mind and see how she behaves.

I will post a couple of links to you on this and other examples on why I fell out with the party.
Hopefully Starmer change my mind, the country needs it.

 

[James R]

One of the conditions of the Lib Dems sought when joining the Conservatives in a coalition government in 2010 was that there be a national referendum on the voting system. The Lib Dems had wanted Proportional Representation (PR) to be offered in the referendum, but for some reason they acquiesced to the Conservatives only allowing the Alternative Vote (AV) system.
There was only just over 40% turnout, but those that voted did so more than 2:1 in favour of retaining the current FPTP system.

Thanks for that.

Are you aware of the reasons why the AV system was so comprehensively rejected?

There was no suggestion, as far as I'm aware, to "copy (one of) the Australian" systems - i.e. it being the Australian system was not a determining factor in its choice. If the AV system is one used by Australia then that is coincidental, nothing more. One might as well say that the suggestion was to "copy the Papua New Guinea system", or that if we sought to adopt the PR system then we would be looking to "copy the Angolan system".

It sounds like you're disturbed by the idea that the UK could adopt an idea used in Australia. Are you? Why?

 

[Sarkus]

Thanks for that.

Are you aware of the reasons why the AV system was so comprehensively rejected?

There were a number of possible reasons. The main one I can think of was that AV was already a compromise, so not something that even the promoters particularly wanted. Sure, some reform is better than none, you might think, but if you really want PR then AV is, well, all a bit "meh". So from the outset there wasn't the enthusiasm one might expect.

Second was the detail that the electoral commission put out to explain AV made it appear far too complicated for the general public to absorb and understand. And why vote for something you don't understand. This might also explain the low turnout.

Third, the two main parties love FPTP because it gives them majorities even when their share of the vote is relatively low. This latest election is a case in point, with the largest ever gap (I think) between share of vote and share of seats. So those seeking reform tended to be from the smaller parties, and could have been seen as just whingeing.
So, yeah, the Tories and labour are relatively conservative when it comes to electoral systems, as they don't want to reduce their chances of getting a majority.

And on that matter, any move towards a more proportional system increases the chance of there being no majority, of hung parliaments, of coalitions etc. And there's the feeling, rational or otherwise, that you don't get as much done under those conditions.
This might not be true if there are only a few parties, as coalitions could be easier to form, but PR might well mean more splits in the parties, such as labour splitting into a far-left and more centralist parties. Any internal disagreement could result in the formation of new parties until coalitions become more difficult to form.
Just look at Belgium, who couldn't even form a government for nearly 2 years.

Then there was the flat out deception of those arguing against AV, such as the proposed costs, which included things that inflated the figures while not being specific to AV - such as electronic voting systems.

But ultimately there just seemed to be a lack of any real energy behind the campaign. And so voters opted for the status quo.

It sounds like you're disturbed by the idea that the UK could adopt an idea used in Australia. Are you? Why?

I'm not disturbed by such coincidences.

I am merely rejecting the implication, intended or otherwise, that Australia using it was somehow causal to the selection of AV as the alternative.
If the implication was unintended, or if you can't see that people might read what you wrote as implying that, then no worries, and just take my position here as clarification that there was no causation, and that Australia using AV was merely coincidental.

 

[exchemist]

There were a number of possible reasons. The main one I can think of was that AV was already a compromise, so not something that even the promoters particularly wanted. Sure, some reform is better than none, you might think, but if you really want PR then AV is, well, all a bit "meh". So from the outset there wasn't the enthusiasm one might expect.

Second was the detail that the electoral commission put out to explain AV made it appear far too complicated for the general public to absorb and understand. And why vote for something you don't understand. This might also explain the low turnout.

Third, the two main parties love FPTP because it gives them majorities even when their share of the vote is relatively low. This latest election is a case in point, with the largest ever gap (I think) between share of vote and share of seats. So those seeking reform tended to be from the smaller parties, and could have been seen as just whingeing.
So, yeah, the Tories and labour are relatively conservative when it comes to electoral systems, as they don't want to reduce their chances of getting a majority.

And on that matter, any move towards a more proportional system increases the chance of there being no majority, of hung parliaments, of coalitions etc. And there's the feeling, rational or otherwise, that you don't get as much done under those conditions.
This might not be true if there are only a few parties, as coalitions could be easier to form, but PR might well mean more splits in the parties, such as labour splitting into a far-left and more centralist parties. Any internal disagreement could result in the formation of new parties until coalitions become more difficult to form.
Just look at Belgium, who couldn't even form a government for nearly 2 years.

Then there was the flat out deception of those arguing against AV, such as the proposed costs, which included things that inflated the figures while not being specific to AV - such as electronic voting systems.

But ultimately there just seemed to be a lack of any real energy behind the campaign. And so voters opted for the status quo.


I'm not disturbed by such coincidences.

I am merely rejecting the implication, intended or otherwise, that Australia using it was somehow causal to the selection of AV as the alternative.
If the implication was unintended, or if you can't see that people might read what you wrote as implying that, then no worries, and just take my position here as clarification that there was no causation, and that Australia using AV was merely coincidental.

A good summary. I think the Conservatives knew it would be an uphill struggle to convince the electorate to vote for a change in the system, as the arguments are complex and FPTP is what people are used to and have learnt how to manipulate. Cameron threw a bone to Clegg, in the knowledge that it would go nowhere.

On which subject I think it is important to note that this election has done what the electorate wanted, which was to chuck out the Conservatives, for a variety of reasons. A lot of the votes for Reform and the Lib Dems and well as those for Labour, were cast tactically, knowing how FPTP works in each constituency, to ensure that outcome. The vote tallies should therefore not, in my opinion, be taken as indicating the level of considered support for the policies of each of those parties.

 

[Sarkus]

On the results specifically. A change was needed but I was not rejoicing.
It would have been a horror show for me if Corbyn was still leader but we do still have people like Rayner as deputy which is scary as hell.
I will put people and personalities aside for now and see what Starmer and his team do in the next months.

As soon as Reform UK entered the fray it was always going to go one way, and the question was just a matter of how bad it was going to be for the Conservatives. Labour having a huge majority is, well, yeah, not great on the face of it, but will depend on whether Starmer has the backbone to stand up to the far-left elements within his party. He hopefully has so big a majority that he won't need the far-left element to follow him.
However, that could, in the longer term, result in a similar split that the Conservatives have now brought upon themselves, with a far-left faction splitting away to create a more socialist party. This would then reduce the Labour vote in the elections, and perhaps we'd end up with 5 main parties (Reform, Tories, Lib Dems, Labour, Socialist). Would be interesting to see how FPTP worked in such a scenario... a party could end up with a majority with just c. 20-25% of the national vote!!

Anyhoo - we're not there yet.

I think at the moment I'm very much in the "wait and see" camp, and I wager most of the country is (given that the majority did not vote for them!). I'd favour just some stability and nothing too radical. Possibly tie up some loose threads, clamp down on some things, but on the whole nothing too adventurous. They've killed the Rwanda debacle, so they're off to a good start at least. Hopefully a refreshed and less combative relationship with the EU might bear some fruit as well.

 

[Sarkus]

A good summary. I think the Conservatives knew it would be an uphill struggle to convince the electorate to vote for a change in the system, as the arguments are complex and FPTP is what people are used to and have learnt how to manipulate. Cameron threw a bone to Clegg, in the knowledge that it would go nowhere.

Yep, and he thought the same about Brexit, throwing the far-right of his party a bone to keep them in line! Maybe it was the electoral reform referendum that gave him misguided confidence in the allowing the other!

On which subject I think it is important to note that this election has done what the electorate wanted, which was to chuck out the Conservatives, for a variety of reasons. A lot of the votes for Reform and the Lib Dems and well as those for Labour, were cast tactically, knowing how FPTP works in each constituency, to ensure that outcome. The vote tallies should therefore not, in my opinion, be taken as indicating the level of considered support for the policies of each of those parties.

I hear you, although I do think that the LD's share is a likely truer reflection of their normal support. It hasn't really changed since last election. There may have been some local tactical voting but it may well have netted out. Of Reform UK's share, it's probably overstated for reasons you say, and at this juncture I'm not sure anyone can say what their "normal" share would be. I'm not sure people know enough about their actual policies, or how much of a departure from Conservatism they might be. They seem more right-wing, but with only 5 seats, all we'll really see from them for the time being is likely to be a noisy Farage looking to disrupt and make sound-bites. That's the best he can really hope for, just being an annoying fly buzzing around, with no ability to sting, although expect him to bleat on about how they are now the 3rd largest party ahead of the LDs and therefore deserve to be heard. They are really just the party of protest, and I fully expect Conservative vote to pick up again before the next election.