The 2024 UK General Election - news, speculation and updates

[Wilf]

Ha Ha BBC - "He's off to see The Queen". Oops.

Wish he was.

 

[Elpenor]

So with two seats to go, exit poll about right for Labour, a bit toppy for tories, Lib Dems 10% underestimate

And the final outcome quite different % wise to all of the polls, but seats won about what these clever MRPs said ?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm no expert at all but something like Single Transferable Vote would allow for independents to win and retain local/constituency links.

All PR systems have an element of ugliness. The system used in the Scottish assembly allows for constituency links with its additional members system.

While all PR systems have some ugliness, nobody starting from scratch chooses a so-called FPTP system (in reality there is no post, of course (just ask Liz Truss), so this is a very misleading name for it).

 

[Artaxerxes]

Ahem, Snickers not a sprint.

Anyone old enough to understand the reference should already know that yes

 

[Pickman's model]

Ha Ha BBC - "He's off to see The Queen". Oops.

if the king knew what was coming down the line he'd lop shammer's head off now

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So with two seats to go, exit poll about right for Labour, a bit toppy for tories, Lib Dems 10% underestimate

And the final outcome quite different % wise to all of the polls, but seats won about what these clever MRPs said ?

Yeah, I'm actually quite taken aback by how low the Labour vote was. I was assuming it would be high-30s. Among other things, the polls seem to have missed the effect of the low turnout (former labour voters not being able to stomach voting for Starmer) and the level of support for the pro-Gaza independents.

As an example of that last point, in Starmer's constituency, Feinstein was placed at 5% by a poll last week. In the end, he polled 19%.

 

[Wilf]

Marathon not a sprint

... not a Snickers. Sorry

 

[Wilf]

I've always adocated PR on the simple basis of fairness and democratic representation. It does not in and of itself produce good political outcomes. It does not in and of itself embody a way to fight the right wing.

I'm not sure you represent people's views fairly here.

I'd support PR on the same grounds. However it has zilch to do with any kind of working class advance.

 

[Knotted]

It looks like Labour got 33.7% (from the BBC) of the vote (still counting in a couple of constituencies). Labour's average vote share since 1970 is about 36% (interestingly it doesn't make much difference if you go from 1992). So that's a poor share of the vote on a poor turn out. If I'm not mistaken it's their lowest winning share of the vote ever - they got 35.2% in 2005.

They lost on 34.4% in 1992.

 

[Wilf]

It looks like Labour got 33.7% (from the BBC) of the vote (still counting in a couple of constituencies). Labour's average vote share since 1970 is about 36% (interestingly it doesn't make much difference if you go from 1992). So that's a poor share of the vote on a poor turn out. If I'm not mistaken it's their lowest winning share of the vote ever - they got 35.2% in 2005.

I'm on a tiny phone so struggling to search, but I'd guess that's one of the smallest vote shares by ANY winning party.

 

[Silas Loom]

We have multiparty politics now. Of course vote shares are going to be lower than historical comparators.

 

[Wilf]

THE STARMER EFFECT: pulling labour's vote share down to the point where only the oddity of the right's vote being split 3:2 delivered power.

 

[Wilf]

We have multiparty politics now. Of course vote shares are going to be lower than historical comparators.

Yes, but that doesn't explain Starmer v 2019 and 2017.

 

[Silas Loom]

Yes, but that doesn't explain Starmer v 2019 and 2017.

Efficient vote distribution and improved polling accuracy means that people in safe Tory votes seeking a Lab government are happy to vote either LD or Lab, while people in safe Labour seats feel comfortable with risk-free protest votes for nonsense candidates and minor parties. There aren’t any electoral rewards for vote share, so why should Labour chase it?

 

[skyscraper101]

I liked the imagery of Sunak giving his farewell speech under dark clouds, his wife standing by with an umbrella. And then Starmer enters an hour or so later with sunshine and blue skies.

 

[Sue]

Just sorting out my recycling. I tend to tidy up the communal hall too and recycle all the leaflets and crap that's lying about. Just noticed the Reform leaflets that came through the main door -- and there's a huge pile of them -- are for the wrong constituency.

 

[Plumdaff]

Didn't the Brexit party stand aside in 2019 in a lot of seats to help the Tories against Corbyn?

Just reinforces the fact that Reform and the SNP collapse won it for Starmer.

 

[Wilf]

Efficient vote distribution and improved polling accuracy means that people in safe Tory votes seeking a Lab government are happy to vote either LD or Lab, while people in safe Labour seats feel comfortable with protest votes for nonsense candidates and minor parties. There aren’t any electoral rewards for vote share, so why should Labour chase it?

Oh, come off it, all of that since 2017?

 

[Petcha]

I liked the imagery of Sunak giving his farewell speech under dark clouds, his wife standing by with an umbrella. And then Starmer enters an hour or so later with sunshine and blue skies.

Given how late he was one does wonder whether he had people watching the weather radar

 

[Silas Loom]

Oh, come off it, all of that since 2017?

Yes, because all of that vote efficiency and unspoken coalition stuff requires a Labour leader who is broadly acceptable to the majority.

 

[Knotted]

I'm on a tiny phone so struggling to search, but I'd guess that's one of the smallest vote shares by ANY winning party.

If we're going back to the 18th century and rotten boroughs then probably not. Otherwise yes. Even in 2010 the Tories got 36.1% and that wasn't even an outright win.

Record breaking election in several alarming ways.

We now have a government with a huge electoral mandate and a tiny popular mandate. That's got trouble written all over it.

 

[moochedit]

Just sorting out my recycling. I tend to tidy up the communal hall too and recycle all the leaflets and crap that's lying about. Just noticed the Reform leaflets that came through the main door -- and there's a huge pile of them -- are for the wrong constituency.

My "pro life party" (or whatever they were called) one had a different candidates name inside it than the one on front page.

 

[Plumdaff]

Efficient vote distribution and improved polling accuracy means that people in safe Tory votes seeking a Lab government are happy to vote either LD or Lab, while people in safe Labour seats feel comfortable with risk-free protest votes for nonsense candidates and minor parties. There aren’t any electoral rewards for vote share, so why should Labour chase it?

I remember people doing tactical voting in the 90s to get the Tories out.

 

[ska invita]

Any figures for No ID?
I'm not convinced it was being counted tbh

 

[Silas Loom]

I remember people doing tactical voting in the 90s to get the Tories out.

That proves the point, doesn’t it? Commonality between then and now is a Labour leader who doesn’t frighten the horses.

 

[Wilf]

Didn't the Brexit party stand aside in 2019 in a lot of seats to help the Tories against Corbyn?

Just reinforces the fact that Reform and the SNP collapse won it for Starmer.

Yep it's hard to imagine more favourable circumstances for Labour this time. And yes of course, elections are about winning seats. But they also show what people think of parties and leaders. Only 10 out of 30 people voted Labour and, at a guess about 1 in 4 of registered voters.

 

[Plumdaff]

That proves the point, doesn’t it? Commonality between then and now is a Labour leader who doesn’t frighten the horses.

Blair in 97 was genuinely popular and had a broad manifesto and policy agenda, albeit very centrist. People felt hopeful, and the economy was doing well. He got 43% of the vote share.

Starmer.............

 

[Wilf]

If we're going back to the 18th century and rotten boroughs then probably not. Otherwise yes. Even in 2010 the Tories got 36.1% and that wasn't even an outright win.

Record breaking election in several alarming ways.

We now have a government with a huge electoral mandate and a tiny popular mandate. That's got trouble written all over it.

Hopefully. Though the right sort of trouble.

 

[skyscraper101]

Someone tell Starmer to let the cat in ffs

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Any figures for No ID?
I'm not convinced it was being counted tbh

Another factor in lower turnout, no doubt. Probably fucked the tories more than anyone else.