UK election 2024

[Nearly Sane]

"Labour vows to fund NHS pledges by tackling tax dodgers".

Given even the figures used by Labour have a recovery rate that starts lower than the amount they commit to spend, presumably this means the NHS pledges will be slowed?



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68762802

[Nearly Sane]

Labour moves into poll lead in Scotland


https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/labour-lead-snp-in-scotland-for-first-time-since-indyref-poll-shows/ar-BB1lnTPo

[Nearly Sane]

Labour wants to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, strangely the same as the Tories want to, when economic conditions allow. Given that the aim is about an apportionment of govt spending, it would be useful to know what needs to change to allow the increase to happen. Is it reduction in debt repayments? What?


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68790435

[SteveH]

Labour wants to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, strangely the same as the Tories want to, when economic conditions allow. Given that the aim is about an apportionment of govt spending, it would be useful to know what needs to change to allow the increase to happen. Is it reduction in debt repayments? What?


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68790435

Yet another bit of news that disenthuses me from Labour. I think I'll vote Green, if they stand.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yet another bit of news that disenthuses me from Labour. I think I'll vote Green, if they stand.

Steve - I think you are Hemel Hempstead? If so, yes there will be a Green candidate (Sherief Hassan).

It is also a seat that on current predicted swings could go Labour - the Tories won't be helped by having to have a new candidate - Mike Penning is not standing again. But it will probably be pretty tight.

So I guess the question is one of pragmatism vs ideology. Sure you can vote Green (they got 3% in the 2019 election), but this seat will either be retained by the Tories or won by Labour. No other result is plausible. Any vote for Green rather than Labour will make the former outcome more likely. Sadly, that's what happens in FPTP - so I guess your choice is whether your top priority is ensure you don't end up with another Tory MP or to vote closest to your ideology.

[Aruntraveller]

Beat me to it Prof D.

I was going to say much the same. Unless the Greens stand a reasonable chance it is a wasted vote and more than that may let the Conservatives squeak through.

[SteveH]

Steve - I think you are Hemel Hempstead? If so, yes there will be a Green candidate (Sherief Hassan).

It is also a seat that on current predicted swings could go Labour - the Tories won't be helped by having to have a new candidate - Mike Penning is not standing again. But it will probably be pretty tight.

So I guess the question is one of pragmatism vs ideology. Sure you can vote Green (they got 3% in the 2019 election), but this seat will either be retained by the Tories or won by Labour. No other result is plausible. Any vote for Green rather than Labour will make the former outcome more likely. Sadly, that's what happens in FPTP - so I guess your choice is whether your top priority is ensure you don't end up with another Tory MP or to vote closest to your ideology.

Yes, I'm Hemel.
The above is why I will probably, grudgingly and unenthusiastically, vote Labour again after all.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, I'm Hemel.
The above is why I will probably, grudgingly and unenthusiastically, vote Labour again after all.

Until there is a change in the electoral system this is what millions of people end up doing - and it isn't just Labour - there are plenty of examples where people feel they have to vote Tory, LidDem, SNP etc when they'd actually prefer to vote for another party.

FPTP make people vote to get rid of their least preferred option, rather than to vote for their most preferred option.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, I'm Hemel.
The above is why I will probably, grudgingly and unenthusiastically, vote Labour again after all.

And one of the things that obviously then increases your grudges is the Labour Party's position on PR.

[ProfessorDavey]

And one of the things that obviously then increases your grudges is the Labour Party's position on PR.

But we come back to pragmatism. Which is more likely to achieve PR - voting for a party with a chance of holding the levers of power that may be somewhat lukewarm to PR or voting for a party that is massively in favour but has absolutely no chance of holding the levers of power and therefore implementing that change.

Now I know Labour aren't wholeheartedly in favour of PR for general elections (although conference did vote in favour of this), but actually they have a pretty good track record of implementing non-FPTP systems when they have held the levers of power - examples being Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, various Mayors including in London, EU elections etc. By contrast have the Tories ever legislated to bring in a non-FPTP system for elections - in London they've just reversed the Labour non-FPTP system to introduce FPTP.

Now seeing as under the current arrangements there are only 2 choices to lead a Westminster government - Tory or Labour - which is more likely to move towards non-FPTP for general elections?

[Nearly Sane]

But we come back to pragmatism. Which is more likely to achieve PR - voting for a party with a chance of holding the levers of power that may be somewhat lukewarm to PR or voting for a party that is massively in favour but has absolutely no chance of holding the levers of power and therefore implementing that change.

Now I know Labour aren't wholeheartedly in favour of PR for general elections (although conference did vote in favour of this), but actually they have a pretty good track record of implementing non-FPTP systems when they have held the levers of power - examples being Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, various Mayors including in London, EU elections etc. By contrast have the Tories ever legislated to bring in a non-FPTP system for elections - in London they've just reversed the Labour non-FPTP system to introduce FPTP.

Now seeing as under the current arrangements there are only 2 choices to lead a Westminster government - Tory or Labour - which is more likely to move towards non-FPTP for general elections?

Agree.

[ProfessorDavey]

Agree.

I think the fundamental problem here is that a party that wins under FPTP will be unlikely to propose something that may rock the boat that allowed them to win. And while in opposition they cannot implement anything regardless of their desire to.

Crystal ball gazing - one of the key things you need to do when in power is to change and set the agenda. Every government has done this over my lifetime, but often as an opposition coming into an election they are 'timid' as they are playing to the agenda set by the incumbent government.

So I wouldn't be surprised if, when Labour assuringly comes to power, there is a big shift in agenda on constitution/electoral reform. They won't have much money to play with, but these kind of changes cost next to nothing. And therefore it seems completely plausible that a Labour government would use the first term on more minor stuff (Lords reform, bringing back non-FPTP where it has been removed etc) but goes into a 2028/29 election with a manifesto promise on reform of the electoral system for general elections.

[Nearly Sane]

I think the fundamental problem here is that a party that wins under FPTP will be unlikely to propose something that may rock the boat that allowed them to win. And while in opposition they cannot implement anything regardless of their desire to.

Crystal ball gazing - one of the key things you need to do when in power is to change and set the agenda. Every government has done this over my lifetime, but often as an opposition coming into an election they are 'timid' as they are playing to the agenda set by the incumbent government.

So I wouldn't be surprised if, when Labour assuringly comes to power, there is a big shift in agenda on constitution/electoral reform. They won't have much money to play with, but these kind of changes cost next to nothing. And therefore it seems completely plausible that a Labour government would use the first term on more minor stuff (Lords reform, bringing back non-FPTP where it has been removed etc) but goes into a 2028/29 election with a manifesto promise on reform of the electoral system for general elections.

Can't really be assured of govts implementing the manifestos they are elected on so voting on unwritten future election manifestos would seem a fool's game 

[ProfessorDavey]

Can't really be assured of govts implementing the manifestos they are elected on so voting on unwritten future election manifestos would seem a fool's game

At least there is a possibility of a manifesto getting implemented if that party wins power.

If the implementation of a manifesto is your goal then you will always be disappointed if you vote for a party that has no chance of winning power and therefore having the opportunity of implementing their manifesto.

The art of the possible.

[ProfessorDavey]

Can't really be assured of govts implementing the manifestos they are elected on so voting on unwritten future election manifestos would seem a fool's game

By the way I'm not saying you should vote Labour on the basis of my speculation about where their position may be on electoral reform by the 2028/29 election. I'm merely speculating and given that there will be precious little cash to splash about an incoming Labour government may look at ways in which they can change things and set a new agenda without having to spend billions.

[Nearly Sane]

At least there is a possibility of a manifesto getting implemented if that party wins power.

If the implementation of a manifesto is your goal then you will always be disappointed if you vote for a party that has no chance of winning power and therefore having the opportunity of implementing their manifesto.

The art of the possible.

And yet if a party that doesn't have a chance of winning directly gets a substantial vote it may move other parties to pick up elements of its manifesto.

[ProfessorDavey]

And yet if a party that doesn't have a chance of winning directly gets a substantial vote it may move other parties to pick up elements of its manifesto.

But those votes for a minor party would only affect the next election manifesto and I thought you considered voting on unwritten future election manifestos to be a fool's game.

[Nearly Sane]

But those votes for a minor party would only affect the next election manifesto and I thought you considered voting on unwritten future election manifestos to be a fool's game.

It may also change govt policy after the election. But l, yes, I'm not consistent there. I was just working off the idea of the art of the possible.

[Nearly Sane]

Former MPs on the comeback trail.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68721389

[jeremyp]

Viewers of GB News are more likely to vote Labour than Conservative

https://archive.fo/qpWmz

[Nearly Sane]

Monty Panesar to stand for George Galloway's I Love George Galloway Party, obviously


https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/england-cricket-star-monty-panesar-32701158

[Nearly Sane]

Muslim Vote group issues 18 demands to Starmer.

Just the 18 then!


https://archive.fo/heHXi

[Nearly Sane]

Monty Panesar to stand for George Galloway's I Love George Galloway Party, obviously


https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/england-cricket-star-monty-panesar-32701158

And now not, and pulled out of the party


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68976806

[Nearly Sane]

Labour 30% ahead of Tories who are on 18%

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/labour-holds-30-point-poll-lead-over-conservatives/ar-BB1m6dut

[jeremyp]

Electoral Calculus currently predicts less than 100 seats for the Tories

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html