Will this be "Independence Day" from the Tories?
Seats won based on proportional representation rather than FPTP
Labour
220
Conservative
154
Reform UK
93
Liberal Democrat
79
Green
44
Others
19
Scottish National Party
16
Sinn Fein
5
Workers Party of Britain
Plaid Cymru
Democratic Unionist Party
4
Alliance
3
Ulster Unionist Party
2
Social Democratic and Labour Party
Moggxit.
Notwithstanding the foregone conclusion aspect (which is why Labour were trying to dismiss the polling), there was also more tactical voting, if not officially endorsed by parties this time than many elections I remember in the past.
But it also has to be recognised that there was really good vote/ resource management by Labour and in particular the Lib Dems on doing so much better seat wise than they have managed in the past on similar or even bigger shares of the vote.
Rees Mogg and Boris Johnson fit the description but I am not sure which is clearly the party of toffs .Certainly not Starmer and his grouping,I would say. but let's not forget Thatcher and Tebbit weren't toffs either even if She went to Oxbridge from recollection.
Geoffrey Howe ,her joyous nemesis was I think a toff (but appearances can deceive and perhaps he had a more normal background .I just don't know.)
Is Suella Bravaman a toff?
Oh, but these are good honest upper-class activists sharpening the knives this time. They won't burden the people with such odious Marxist concepts like minimising sewage and fertiliser runoff getting into streams and rivers.
How fvcking dare you accuse me of such absolute unfounded bullsh1t. You have come out with some absolute horseshit in your history on this site but that takes the biscuit. I have been always absolutely consistent on my criticism of FPtP and the need for electoral reform in the UK. Reform deserve to have a fair representation of seats vs their vote share just like the Lib Dems have, would I be happy due to my opinions of them? No. but I would never complain that they had an equitable seat share vs votes and that democracy was properly being enacted.
It is a pretty new party in a way. It would be interesting to know why they voted for Farage and why they didn't vote Tory.Perhaps there will be studies done in the next week or so.
Hard to forecast the political future other than Labour has 5 years in all likelihood to show its worth to the general public.
I wonder who will be their best performers this time around.
Will Farage be the BJ nouveau?
Either way, they are screwed under the FPTP system. Move too far to the right and they lose the moderate vote - gravitate towards the centre and they lose the Reform votes.
George Galloway lost his seat. LOLLERS!
Well I meant not a total disaster.
They seemed almost relieved they came back with triple digit figures and take comfort that they lost many seats due to tactical voting.
I remember 1997. Labour had not only won that election but they had won the next one after it (and even the one after that).
Not the case here.
You are missing the point. People voted for Reform as they expected the Tories to be ultra right wing but had to water it down to appeal to the middle right. A rock and a hard place for the Tories.
What we are seeing is the emergence of two unelectable "Tory" parties, one right wing version with Farage as leader and a middle right wing one with somebody like Suella Braverman as leader.
There is no chance of a unified Tory party now. They will go with either one or the other now for years to come. The traditional Tories will end up similar to what the UUP are now.
Right whatever helps you get through it.
Its like saying the storm was meant to destroy the whole house but look a wall is still up so it's fine
talking to a few english colleagues, there did seem to be a certain 'yeah, i'll probably vote but it's a foregone conclusion' note of resignation in their attitudes; and as suggested earlier in the thread; i guess that is one reason that turnout was low. complacency from labour voters, a sense of 'why bother' from non-labour voters.
again, it's one benefit of PRSTV, you have more of a sense that you vote will be counted even if your preferred candidate is almost certainly not going to win.
FPTP is a case of demockracy in action.
They had a large number of seats with 10k+ majorities in 2019. They have almost none now. I saw a scatter plot for it but I'm struggling to find it again
Basically while their overall vote as roughly static, they increased it where they needed to and they decreased it where it didn't matter.
Funny meme online, the latest Hezbollah activist to be taken out.
And the majority of parliament isn't even elected.
Speaking of which, wonder if Truss and Boris will get peerages? in the future I saw this morning that Sunak put May forward for one.
Yes, the voting share was utterly meaningless but it shouldn’t be in a country that claims to be a democracy. Putting people who have little support among the public in power thanks to an undemocratic system is what gives the likes of Farage the chance to fester and grew.
People say that in a more democratic system reform would have 60 seats or whatever, but I would counter that by saying in a more democratic system a democratically elected government wouldn’t have created all the issues and disillusionment among the electorate that have allowed reform to achieve the vote share that they did.
Looking at the results up north there are still more Unionist votes up there so no point in pushing border polls for awhile yet .If push came to shove the majority would vote to remain as they are with a bit to spare .
True in practice but unwise.All genuine opinions should be respected.
With over 400 seats, the Left in the Labour Party can be ignored.
Likely true but would apply on the Tory side too (in spades,this time?)
Exactly you can't take anything from it. It was done using defined rules.
The structure of FPTP is terrible but you can't infer what would happen changing system as too much changes. Before it was a novelty that Boris won so many seats, now it is of import because labour over performed their vote.
Good call, exactly 4.
Ok I will accept that(can you provide a reference that may seek to quantify it- and whether it is not counterbalanced to any degree on the Tory side?)
"Their average majority is a lot lower as their vote is far more efficiently spread."
Could you rephrase that.Not quite sure what you are saying.
You'd be the first giving out if Reform had 65 seats today with a PR system.
The middle ground in the UK is grateful for their system today, limiting Reform to a fragment of the House of Commons.
Asking for 'evidence' is pointless. It is always going to be a theoretical exercise. Pollsters and political commentators will spend years analysing the result but ultimately it can never be anything other than guesswork/theory.
Personally I would buy into the concept/idea that Labour didn't campaign in their heartlands (Liverpool, London, Newcastle) to the same extent as under Jeremy Corbyn in 2017&19, and thus accepted they would retain these safe seats with reduced majorities and number of votes. We can never have any evidence of this though, it is just something that can be theorized by the results in those type of constituencies.
Great to see the Tories get their arse handed to them....
Starmer should join the EEA/ Customs Union immediately....
You think people didn't bother to vote Labour in Labour heartlands because they were assured of victory. I doubt that .But you could point to evidence if there is any?
Their vote share went up in contested seats and down in held seats. Their average majority is a lot lower as their vote is far more efficiently spread.
It certainly is not out of a sense of excitement for labour but 400 plus seats is better than public enthusiasm.
It will energise the left in labour to take on their life long enemies, the rest of the labour party etc.
