Labour: Can they ever win another General Election?

[Serene]

This is not coherent. Many Tory votes come from the working class.

Yes they do, but are largely dictated to by the Labour party being unelectable ( such as Corbyn ) or not very good. When the Labour party has a good manifesto then there is the swing vote and those people do not vote Tory in that election.

 

[platinumsage]

Any change in voting system would a consequent realignment of parties, such that power would change hands as often as it does now.

 

[Serene]

Any change in voting system would a consequent realignment of parties, such that power would change hands as often as it does now.

This is an interesting statement, I am trying to picture exactly what you mean.

 

[danny la rouge]

Yes they do, but are largely dictated to by the Labour party being unelectable ( such as Corbyn ) or not very good. When the Labour party has a good manifesto then there is the swing vote and those people do not vote Tory in that election.

You’re jumping back and forth between different concepts here. Let’s assume the Labour manifesto is of the sort you call “good”. - I have a sneaking suspicion it wouldn’t be what I call good. But never mind. Let’s say, all things considering, Labour have an optimal manifesto.

As Butchers asks: What do you think the percentages in my earlier post referred to?

 

[redsquirrel]

The Party with the most votes, votes per person gets power, that is totally fair.

That has happened at every UK election since 1945 bar two.

The constituencies are done after that.

I'm probably going to regret asking this, but how? How is an MP assigned to a constituency when there is no votes assigned on a constituency basis

 

[platinumsage]

This is an interesting statement, I am trying to picture exactly what you mean.

Well, if there was some PR system that would supposedly on current polling stats hand victory to Labour every time, you can be sure that the Tories would adjust themselves to appeal to enough voters who were dissatisfied with the incumbent Labour government to gain power using the new system. It might take a while, as it has in the past e.g. 1997-2010, but there's no reason to believe that the frequency of changes of government would be any different.

 

[Serene]

That has happened at every UK election since 1945 bar two.

So it doesnt go off constituencies? See, I am a newby to Politics. I will never make a Politician as Im honest. I always thought that the winner is the party that wins the most constituencies. Is this correct, or is it false?

 

[Roadkill]

Yes they do, but are largely dictated to by the Labour party being unelectable ( such as Corbyn ) or not very good. When the Labour party has a good manifesto then there is the swing vote and those people do not vote Tory in that election.

So what would a 'good manifesto' look like, then?

 

[redsquirrel]

So it doesnt go off constituencies? See, I am a newby to Politics. I will never make a Politician as Im honest. I always thought that the winner is the party that wins the most constituencies. Is this correct, or is it false?

The number of seats allocated in parliament is allocated on constituencies. However, since 1945 this system has only twice resulted in the largest party not being the party that got the greatest number of votes.

 

[Serene]

The number of seats allocated in parliament is allocated on constituencies. However, since 1945 this system has only twice resulted in the largest party not being the party that got the greatest number of votes.

In order for me to understand this concept, can you answer the question I have asked a number of times, and answer it with a yes or no. Is the winner the party that wins the most constituencies? Is this correct, or is it false? Yes or no.

 

[danny la rouge]

Is the winner the party that wins the most constituencies? Is this correct, or is it false? Yes or no.

Yes. And mostly they win the most constituencies and also win the most votes. A “plurality”. In other words, short of an outright majority, but more than any one other party. That’s the normal way that FPTP works.

It also delivers an MP to each constituency. So we know who our MP is. What you proposed would not have this area to MP link.

 

[butchersapron]

Yes. And mostly they win the most constituencies and also win the most votes. A “plurality”. In other words, short of an outright majority, but more than any one other party. That’s the normal way that FPTP works.

It also delivers an MP to each constituency. So we know who our MP is. What you proposed would not have this area to MP link.

They're not the winner as serene seems to understand it though - i.e they then simply get to from the govt. They are only winners in that sense dependent on other results and conditions being met.

 

[Serene]

Yes.

Thus then, if it is done by constituencies, then the Tories whom have certain constituencies with fewer people in get more seats for less poll-vote. Conversely the Labour voting areas with a lot more people in them get less seats per poll votes.
What is the exact name they have given to the most votes winner in an election, did you say the plurality? is that it?

 

[Serene]

They're not the winner as serene seems to understand it though - i.e they then simply get to from the govt. They are only winners in that sense dependent on other results and conditions being met.

Indeed I am ignorant of the process and your post here has lost me. The crux of it, now, is upon the area you refer to here, of which I have no knowledge.

 

[Serene]

I appreciate you explaining these things to me.
Basically what I have inside my mind is a picture of this. Imagine there are 3 constituencies. Two are tory and the population of each is 2. One is Labour and the population of it is 200. The Tories get power with 4 votes. Even though they lost by 200 votes to 4.

This is what is in my mind about democracy.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Thus then, if it is done by constituencies, then the Tories whom have certain constituencies with fewer people in get more seats for less poll-vote. Conversely the Labour voting areas with a lot more people in them get less seats per poll votes.

i'm not entirely sure that's the case - the tories were (before brexit and covid overtook just about everything else) talking about changing constituencies (as they said) to even the number of voters in each constituency, and the general consensus said this would advantage the tories. obviously how you draw the boundaries, and how enthusiastically you try to get people to register, will also have an effect.

as redsquirrel has said, it's quite rare in the UK for one party to get more votes but less seats than the other.

while FPTP has its flaws, i'm not sure the idea of a UK-wide party list - which seems to be what you're advocating - appeals.

it would pretty much remove all remaining influence of local political party members to select candidates, and take away any link between MP and constituents, and MPs would serve their party HQ first and the electors second.

while personally i currently live in one of the safest tory seats, so i've never really seen the point of writing to my MP about anything, i think a lot of people would want to keep that option, rather than just have a bunch of party place-people selected by london based party HQ as lobby fodder.

and would remove the opportunity for any independent to stand on local issues (it doesn't often happen that they are elected, but think it's important they can - was it kidderminster that last did it?)

had this system been brought in, i'm fairly sure that any remotely left wing labour MPs would have rapidly ended up fairly near the bottom of the party list...

 

[Serene]

There are 650 constituencies in the UK. Each one has an MP. The voting in each area decides which Party their MP represents. The winner is the first Party past the post with the most MP`s / Constituencies. Thus IT IS NOT A VOTE PER HEAD.

Basically what I have inside my mind is a picture of this. Imagine there are 3 constituencies. Two are tory and the population of each is 2. One is Labour and the population of it is 200. The Tories get power with 4 votes. Even though they lost by 200 votes to 4.

This is what is in my mind about democracy.

 

[danny la rouge]

I appreciate you explaining these things to me.
Basically what I have inside my mind is a picture of this. Imagine there are 3 constituencies. Two are tory and the population of each is 2. One is Labour and the population of it is 200. The Tories get power with 4 votes. Even though they lost by 200 votes to 4.

This is what is in my mind about democracy.

In 2019, the Tories got 317 seats, and won 42.4% of the vote.

Labour won 262 seats, and 40.0% of the vote.

By both measures, the Tories won. They had most votes. And they also won most seats. They formed the government.

PR advocates propose that the Tories won too many seats considering that they only just got more votes than Labour. But under FPTP that isn’t what matters. What matters is that the winner wins. Both in each constituency and in parliament.

I’m at a loss to see how your system improves upon this, other than by removing constituency MPs. In other words, my MP is Patrick Grady. I live in Glasgow North and he is the Glasgow North MP.

In your system, how would I get allocated an MP?

 

[brogdale]

i'm not entirely sure that's the case - the tories were (before brexit and covid overtook just about everything else) talking about changing constituencies (as they said) to even the number of voters in each constituency, and the general consensus said this would advantage the tories. obviously how you draw the boundaries, and how enthusiastically you try to get people to register, will also have an effect.

as redsquirrel has said, it's quite rare in the UK for one party to get more votes but less seats than the other.

while FPTP has its flaws, i'm not sure the idea of a UK-wide party list - which seems to be what you're advocating - appeals.

it would pretty much remove all remaining influence of local political party members to select candidates, and take away any link between MP and constituents, and MPs would serve their party HQ first and the electors second.

while personally i currently live in one of the safest tory seats, so i've never really seen the point of writing to my MP about anything, i think a lot of people would want to keep that option, rather than just have a bunch of party place-people selected by london based party HQ as lobby fodder.

and would remove the opportunity for any independent to stand on local issues (it doesn't often happen that they are elected, but think it's important they can - was it kidderminster that last did it?)

had this system been brought in, i'm fairly sure that any remotely left wing labour MPs would have rapidly ended up fairly near the bottom of the party list...

Agree with the thrust of this, but important to remember that we already have dual system elections in operation in this country that strive to retain the geographical linkage with list top-ups to effect a degree of proportionality; the GLA election being one example.

It's also true that proportional electoral systems based upon lists don't necessarily have to exclude the views of members; it's quite possible to design systems that allow party members to determine the list order offered to the electorate.

 

[redsquirrel]

In order for me to understand this concept, can you answer the question I have asked a number of times, and answer it with a yes or no. Is the winner the party that wins the most constituencies? Is this correct, or is it false? Yes or no.

It depends on what you mean by "winner". The party that gets the most seats? The party that gets to be in government?

I appreciate you explaining these things to me.
Basically what I have inside my mind is a picture of this. Imagine there are 3 constituencies. Two are tory and the population of each is 2. One is Labour and the population of it is 200. The Tories get power with 4 votes. Even though they lost by 200 votes to 4.

While it is possible for FPTP to result in a (majority) government of party that does not get the plurality of the vote, it is rare.

 

[Serene]

Agree with the thrust of this, but important to remember that we already have dual system elections in operation in this country that strive to retain the geographical linkage with list top-ups to effect a degree of proportionality; the GLA election being one example.

It's also true that proportional electoral systems based upon lists don't necessarily have to exclude the views of members; it's quite possible to design systems that allow party members to determine the list order offered to the electorate.

When you say you agree with the thrust of this. There is nothing complicated in this world, nothing. Everything can be explained in simple terms.
There is no dual general election. There is one general election. 650 constituencies and the first past the post wins. Simple. That is how it works, and if you agree with this being the way it works then, thus :


Imagine there are 3 constituencies. Two are tory and the population of each is 2. One is Labour and the population of it is 200. The Tories get power with 4 votes. Even though they lost by 200 votes to 4.

This is what is in my mind about democracy.






Quote Reply

Report Edit

 

[sleaterkinney]

Constituencies change, they’re not set in stone.

 

[Serene]

In 2019, the Tories got 317 seats, and won 42.4% of the vote.

Labour won 262 seats, and 40.0% of the vote.

By both measures, the Tories won. They had most votes. And they also won most seats. They formed the government.

PR advocates propose that the Tories won too many seats considering that they only just got more votes than Labour. But under FPTP that isn’t what matters. What matters is that the winner wins. Both in each constituency and in parliament.

I’m at a loss to see how your system improves upon this, other than by removing constituency MPs. In other words, my MP is Patrick Grady. I live in Glasgow North and he is the Glasgow North MP.

In your system, how would I get allocated an MP?

I see what you mean. They got an extra 55 votes for an extra 3.4 percent of the vote. If Glasgow had voted for a Labour MP then that would have been one extra constituency for Labour.
I do appreciate you hearing me out with all this, and I am coming around to see your side of things, which I thank you for your patience.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

This page on wikipedia has a list of constituencies and electorate.

In England, 3 of the 6 largest (by number of voters) constituencies are labour, 3 are tory. Of the 6 smallest, 2 are labour and 4 are tory (2 being 'red wall' seats that went tory in 2019)

Although it does seem faintly illogical that, across the UK, 21,000 electors form the smallest and 113,000 the largest constituency, each of which gets an MP.

Agree with the thrust of this, but important to remember that we already have dual system elections in operation in this country that strive to retain the geographical linkage with list top-ups to effect a degree of proportionality; the GLA election being one example.

It's also true that proportional electoral systems based upon lists don't necessarily have to exclude the views of members; it's quite possible to design systems that allow party members to determine the list order offered to the electorate.

I could possibly live with a system where there was a constituency MP on FPTP and maybe X number of regional MPs elected on proportionality, although wonder if the county / region MPs would be seen by all concerned as second class.

I'm not keen on anything that involves 'second preference' votes, as this tends to advantage parties with no principles who try and pretend to be all things to all people and present their soggy policies in one way if they are trying to win votes off one party and another way if they are trying to win votes off another (any resemblance between this illustration and any particular party is entirely intentional)

 

[Serene]

It depends on what you mean by "winner". The party that gets the most seats? The party that gets to be in government?
While it is possible for FPTP to result in a (majority) government of party that does not get the plurality of the vote, it is rare.

I appreciate your patience explaining this to me thank you.

 

[Serene]

Constituencies change, they’re not set in stone.

This is a very to the point and clever answer. I see now. I see now.

 

[Serene]

A Tory MP in Glasgow! Good Lord, I am trying to come to terms with that.

 

[David Clapson]

The idea that Corbyn could have held a coalition together is farcical.

If Labour is offered an open goal at the next election by a deep recession, I reckon they'll miss it because they'll be too busy arguing about Corbyn. The tories will persuade Johnson to step aside and his replacement will win. This will provide further proof that Corbyn fucked the country by not opposing Brexit.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

OK Serene , perhaps I can explain more clearly. Let's imagine there are 629 constituencies with 1 voter in each and one constituency with 35,231,119 voters. Everyone who votes in the first constituencies votes Tory. Everyone who votes in the really big one votes Labour. How many voters does it take in optimal circumstances to get a Labour government?

Answer:- 1 voter in the big constituency, if everyone else abstains. That's what I call democracy.

 

[Serene]

The idea that Corbyn could have held a coalition together is farcical.

If Labour is offered an open goal at the next election by a deep recession, I reckon they'll miss it because they'll be too busy arguing about Corbyn. The tories will persuade Johnson to step aside and his replacement will win. This will provide further proof that Corbyn fucked the country by not opposing Brexit.

When in fact it is Cameron to blame for ruining the country by holding a Brexit vote, which was totally unnecessary. It was totally unnecessary and one which the mass of unenlightened in such issues in the UK were bound to vote for, in their ignorance.