UK election 2024

[Aruntraveller]

Two thirds of the seats for one third of the vote.

Whiilst I am pleased that Labour won (naturally) it does make a mockery of the phrase "representative democracy".

[Nearly Sane]

Whiilst I am pleased that Labour won (naturally) it does make a mockery of the phrase "representative democracy".

I'm not sure there's ever been a majority on a share of vote that small, never mind a landslide.

I'll be interested in the total votes, and what that would compare with historically.

ETA: in 2005 which is closest 35.2% got 66 seats majority,  in 2015 Cameron got 36.8, and a majority of 12. 1922 38.4 for Tories got a majority of 79.

Nothing really close.

[Nearly Sane]

Discussions on Shadow Cabinet highlighted the Leicester South result where Shockat Ali won as an independent highlighting Gaza against Jonathan Ashworth.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leicester_South_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

[Nearly Sane]

No Tories in Wales.

[ad_orientem]

Whiilst I am pleased that Labour won (naturally) it does make a mockery of the phrase "representative democracy".

Agreed. Some kind of hybrid system would be good with PR but you'd still have constituencies. I like the idea of an MP being voted to represent a certain area. The only thing FPTP has is that it's simple.

[SteveH]

Agreed. Some kind of hybrid system would be good with PR but you'd still have constituencies. I like the idea of an MP being voted to represent a certain area. The only thing FPTP has is that it's simple.

Single Transferable Vote does that.

[ad_orientem]

Single Transferable Vote does that.

That's more or less what we have here in Finland.

[SteveH]

 

[ProfessorDavey]

Incredible targeting of seats by both Labour and LibDems.

Absolutely disastrous night for the SNP - the result was at the very bottom level of expectations from the polling.

[Nearly Sane]

Incredible targeting of seats by both Labour and LibDems.

Absolutely disastrous night for the SNP - the result was at the very bottom level of expectations from the polling.

Helped enormously by Reform. Celebrating the results of FPTP as being really cunning is in this case simplistic.

[Nearly Sane]

Be very interested to see the total votes for the Tories and how that looks historically. A low turnout and a historically low % share...

Labour less votes than 2019...

The Tories have not just broken themselves but have created real democratic failings. Perhaps repairing that would be Starmer's greatest achievement.

[ProfessorDavey]

Labour less votes than 2019...

Hence my point about targeting seats.

[Nearly Sane]

Hence my point about targeting seats.

Which would then seen to imply that Reform was just a conspiracy by Labour and Lid Dems. The Tories list this by screwing up the UK so badly. There may be twenty seats overall where really good targeting made a difference but claiming it as about that as opposed to Johnson, Partyfate, Truss, and Reform is merely mythicising.

[ProfessorDavey]

There may be twenty seats overall where really good targeting made a difference ...

Laughable - the results in seat after seat showed one or other of Labour or LibDem having a huge swing to them, while the other had vote which remained flat or even declined. The story of this election will be tactical voting between Labour and LibDem to take seats from the tories.

Somewhat naive to imply that Reform only took tory votes - the polls leading up to yesterday don't back this up at all. The surge in Reform polling was matched by pretty similar drops in both tory and labour shares.

[Nearly Sane]

Laughable - the results in seat after seat showed one or other of Labour or LibDem having a huge swing to them, while the other had vote which remained flat or even declined. The story of this election will be tactical voting between Labour and LibDem to take seats from the tories.

Somewhat naive to imply that Reform only took tory votes - the polls leading up to yesterday don't back this up at all. The surge in Reform polling was matched by pretty similar drops in both tory and labour shares.

That there was tactical voting does not mean it was all done by the parties targeting, rather people fed up with the Tories are capable of thinking for themselves. The reform vote had more effect in Tory spaces. The Labout vote is down on 2019. The system is way more broken than Labour and Lib Dems targeting seats.

[jeremyp]

Laughable - the results in seat after seat showed one or other of Labour or LibDem having a huge swing to them, while the other had vote which remained flat or even declined. The story of this election will be tactical voting between Labour and LibDem to take seats from the tories.

Somewhat naive to imply that Reform only took tory votes - the polls leading up to yesterday don't back this up at all. The surge in Reform polling was matched by pretty similar drops in both tory and labour shares.

Yes, i agree both Labour and the Lib-Dems benefitted from tactical voting, but whether it was by "incredible targeting" is doubtful. I think there was an overwhelming feeling of "get the Tories out" to the point that there were web sites set up that would tell you how to vote to make sure the Tories doidn't get in, and targeting by the parties wasn't required.

Where did the "get the Tories out" sentiment come from? From all the personalities and scandals that NS listed - and more.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, i agree both Labour and the Lib-Dems benefitted from tactical voting, but whether it was by "incredible targeting" is doubtful. I think there was an overwhelming feeling of "get the Tories out" to the point that there were web sites set up that would tell you how to vote to make sure the Tories doidn't get in, and targeting by the parties wasn't required.

Where did the "get the Tories out" sentiment come from? From all the personalities and scandals that NS listed - and more.

Add to that the big number is the Tory share of vote 44% to 24%.

[Nearly Sane]

Leaving aside specific considerations about the result, I hope that Starmer is lucky as well as a winner. The system feels broken onany levels. I worried for the Tory Party - not something I've written before but it's lost a lot of people through the result and the retirements. At 120 it's going to need to redefine itself almost entirely while Farage gloats in waiting.


The effect of Johnson's premiership is deep, and public life I'm Britiain seems as dark as I can remember.

So good luck, Mr Starmer.
 

[ProfessorDavey]

That there was tactical voting does not mean it was all done by the parties targeting, rather people fed up with the Tories are capable of thinking for themselves.

Disagree - sure there were sites that helpfully indicated where to place tactical votes to get rid of the tories, but these weren't just based on polling (which was pretty tricky to unpack) but also on quietly released information from the parties themselves. Where I live Labour were no-where (despite having held the seat as recently as 2005) - the LibDems campaigned clearly on documents from Labour indicating it not to be a target seat. LibDem efforts went in in my seat. The next door seats, both west and east were Labour targets (they gained them both) - SteveH will tell us how much presence and activity there was from Labour compared to LibDems there.

Just look at the 3 neighbouring seats to me - all gains, 2 Labour one LibDem - Hemel, Hatfield and Harpenden. Where the LibDems were targeting the Labour vote went down, where Labour were targeting the LibDem vote barely shifted or went down.

That's what targeting is all about.

[Nearly Sane]

Disagree - sure there were sites that helpfully indicated where to place tactical votes to get rid of the tories, but these weren't just based on polling (which was pretty tricky to unpack) but also on quietly released information from the parties themselves. Where I live Labour were no-where (despite having held the seat as recently as 2005) - the LibDems campaigned clearly on documents from Labour indicating it not to be a target seat. LibDem efforts went in in my seat. The next door seats, both west and east were Labour targets (they gained them both) - SteveH will tell us how much presence and activity there was from Labour compared to LibDems there.

Just look at the 3 neighbouring seats to me - all gains, 2 Labour one LibDem - Hemel, Hatfield and Harpenden. Where the LibDems were targeting the Labour vote went down, where Labour were targeting the LibDem vote barely shifted or went down.

That's what targeting is all about.

And has very little comparative effect on votes. The big number as already covered is the 44% that 25% of market share.

[Nearly Sane]

So Union Jacks, and Welsh flags, and Saltires on Starmer's procession up Downing St but no St George's Crosses that I can see.

Obviously viewers in Northern Ireland have their own programme.

[ProfessorDavey]

And has very little comparative effect on votes. The big number as already covered is the 44% that 25% of market share.

Again I disagree - there would have been loads more seats that would have remained tory, even with a a drop to 25% of the vote if Labour/LibDem opposition had been split on a more uniform swing basis allowing the tories to just hold on.

It really is very, very hard to argue that there wasn't incredibly efficient targeting on the basis of Labour getting 412 seat (up 211) on just 33% of the vote, and the LibDems getting 71 seats on a vote share barely different to 2019.

Effectively Labour and the LibDems didn't go against each other in trying to oust the tories in individual seats - it was a case of 'after you' in some seats and 'no after you' in others.

Just think about the campaign - I can hardly think of a single point in which Labour attacked the LibDems or vice versa.

[Nearly Sane]

Again I disagree - there would have been loads more seats that would have remained tory, even with a a drop to 25% of the vote if Labour/LibDem opposition had been split on a more uniform swing basis allowing the tories to just hold on.

It really is very, very hard to argue that there wasn't incredibly efficient targeting on the basis of Labour getting 412 seat (up 211) on just 33% of the vote, and the LibDems getting 71 seats on a vote share barely different to 2019.

Effectively Labour and the LibDems didn't go against each other in trying to oust the tories in individual seats - it was a case of 'after you' in some seats and 'no after you' in others.

Just think about the campaign - I can hardly think of a single point in which Labour attacked the LibDems or vice versa.

And focusing resources is fine. It's not what caused the result. And has Reform not stood, it would have been very different.

[Nearly Sane]

Not bad speech, but as it said deeds rather than words so we need to see what happens next.

[ProfessorDavey]

NS - I note you have quietly side stepped my comment on how disastrous the SNP's night was - arguably far worse than for the tories.

The tories lost 67% of their seats, but the SNP have lost (one seat to go) pretty well 80% of their seats.