The 2024 UK General Election - news, speculation and updates

[Lord Camomile]

I mean, been thinkin about this, and I don't see how Labour could have had any control over the spread of the Labour vote, short of asking people to move house, which they clearly didn't do. Its just blind luck isn't it?

The suggestion seems to be they:

a) focused resources almost exclusively on swing seats, rather than safe seats where they relied on the base vote to carry them through
b) put together a manifesto that would appeal to a broader UK constituency, and one that yes, may piss off or fail to inspire their 'traditional' support but, again, that's not who they need to win control of parliament.

Contrasted with Corbyn, where the claim is that sure, those manifestos were really popular, but only with certain voters, all of whom tend to be in the same, smaller number of seats. That's where the idea of 'useless' votes comes from - doesn't matter if you win 20 seats by 10,000s of votes, if you lose all the other seats.

Though I can believe that may have been going on to a certain extent, I remain skeptical it was that much of fully coherent and well-executed masterplan. Partly because I don't really believe they have it in them, and partly because I think they were always going to put together a manifesto that wouldn't appeal to the left anyway.

"I wouldn't want to win from the left", or whatever it was Blair said.

 

[Pickman's model]

The suggestion seems to be they:

a) focused resources almost exclusively on swing seats, rather than safe seats where they relied on the base vote to carry them through
b) put together a manifesto that would appeal to a broader UK constituency, and one that yes, may piss off or fail to inspire their 'traditional' support but, again, that's not who they need to win control of parliament.

Contrasted with Corbyn, where the claim is that sure, those manifestos were really popular, but only with certain voters, all of whom tend to be in the same, smaller number of seats. That's where the idea of 'useless' votes comes from - doesn't matter if you win 20 seats by 10,000s of votes, if you lose all the other seats.

Though I can believe that may have been going on to a certain extent, I remain skeptical it was that much of fully coherent and well-executed masterplan. Partly because I don't really believe they have it in them, and partly because I think they were always going to put together a manifesto that wouldn't appeal to the left anyway.

"I wouldn't want to win from the left", or whatever it was Blair said.

Blair obvs a Christian who would never follow the left hand path

 

[frogwoman]

But Labour's 1997 victory had much more of a higher vote share. 43% of the electorate who voted, voted Labour back then. I tend to agree that far left policies will never get that % but what he was running on back then wasn't that much more left wing. Who's to say that a different 33.8% won't take us back to the Tories in another few years? It's not convincing.

 

[cupid_stunt]

I mean, been thinkin about this, and I don't see how Labour could have had any control over the spread of the Labour vote, short of asking people to move house, which they clearly didn't do. Its just blind luck isn't it?

Well in West Sussex, Labour throw their resources at the three urban seats - Crawley, Worthing East & Shoreham, plus Worthing West - pulling in activists from the more rural seats where the LDs were better placed to win - Chichester, Horsham, and Mid-Sussex - that allowed both parties to take 3 seats each, leaving the Tories with just 2.

And, they hit my village very hard, I've never witnessed anything like it, 11 flyers, I was amazed enough to find a Labour canvasser on my door-step, and even more amazed at a Labour door knocker on the day, checking to make sure I was voting and that I was aware of needing photo ID.

And, it's clear they were doing that elsewhere.

That's how they can influence the vote count in more winnable seats.

ETA - And, in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton they came close, only around 1500 votes behind the Tories, there was no hope in winning the Arundel and South Downs seat.

 

[Jennaonthebeach]

This stuff is pretty wild to me, like sure buddy I guess it's fine to abandon like 90% of your political position for the sake of shitting the bed about making sure 0.5% of the population have fewer rights.

Its a subject where people lose all sense of proportion, become fanatical, obsessed, and ultimately allow their obsession to ruin their lives.

 

[PR1Berske]

The weird bubble that is the Speaker's constituency

 

[Lord Camomile]

I think this might be the quote I was distantly remembering from Blair:

“Let me make my position clear: I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it.”

“Even if you did [win] it wouldn’t be right because it wouldn’t take the country forward, it would take it backwards. That’s why it’s not the right thing to do.”

from 2015

 

[moochedit]

Or one of the 58 new Lib Dems I can't believe I just typed that it feels insane

I think its 72 now

 

[Pickman's model]

I think might be the quote I was distantly remembering from Blair:


from 2015

He'd say the same about a contemporary left wing platform too because he's a right wing shit

 

[Pickman's model]

I think its 72 now

What, there's 83 lib dem mps?

 

[Lord Camomile]

This stuff is pretty wild to me, like sure buddy I guess it's fine to abandon like 90% of your political position for the sake of shitting the bed about making sure 0.5% of the population have fewer rights.

Aye, it's like the people who said "Corbyn made me leave Labour for the Tories", and you just think "if you can consider joining the Tories, what the fuck were you ever doing in Labour in the first place??".

Of course, these days, it wouldn't maybe seem that far-fetched. But then, they also wouldn't feel the need to switch

 

[moochedit]

What, there's 83 lib dem mps?

Sorry I missed the word new

 

[moochedit]

Sorry I missed the word new

72 with 64 of them new according to sky..

 

[pbsmooth]

Haven’t seen it mentioned but for all the obsession about number of votes rather than seats won, one aspect must be that more than half the country didn’t want to vote for Labour AND didn’t want Corbyn anywhere near power. The whole point of what Starmer did was make his party electable. So the more than half of people who still didn’t want to vote Labour were now OK with him being in power, and therefore happy to vote tactically or for Reform to get rid of the Tories and allow Labour to win. That was basically the whole problem with Labour under Corbyn - people actively didn’t want them in power.

 

[_Russ_]

Labour has stated in its manifesto that it will scrap anti TU laws. Am I imagining things or didn't Tony Blair say he would do this in 1997? I remember the SP making a big deal of this when I was a member.

...and who do you think decides whether or not a law is actually anti something or merely part of reasonable checks and balances?

 

[cupid_stunt]

Haven’t seen it mentioned but for all the obsession about number of votes rather than seats won, one aspect must be that more than half the country didn’t want to vote for Labour AND didn’t want Corbyn anywhere near power. The whole point of what Starmer did was make his party electable. So the more than half of people who still didn’t want to vote Labour were now OK with him being in power, and therefore happy to vote tactically or for Reform to get rid of the Tories and allow Labour to win. That was basically the whole problem with Labour under Corbyn - people actively didn’t want them in power.

Sad, but true.

 

[Lord Camomile]

Haven’t seen it mentioned but for all the obsession about number of votes rather than seats won, one aspect must be that more than half the country didn’t want to vote for Labour AND didn’t want Corbyn anywhere near power. The whole point of what Starmer did was make his party electable. So the more than half of people who still didn’t want to vote Labour were now OK with him being in power, and therefore happy to vote tactically or for Reform to get rid of the Tories and allow Labour to win. That was basically the whole problem with Labour under Corbyn - people actively didn’t want them in power.

Yeah, this was another thing coming up a lot - Corbyn got more people to vote for Labour, but he also got more people to vote against Labour.

Of course, I'd argue that there were a lot of others responsible for people wanting to vote against Labour too, Corbyn can't take all the credit for that one.

Ironically, I guess I am similar to Blair in a way, just with one slight change: I wouldn't want to win from the right.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Well in West Sussex, Labour throw their resources at the three urban seats - Crawley, Worthing East & Shoreham, plus Worthing West - pulling in activists from the more rural seats where the LDs were better placed to win - Chichester, Horsham, and Mid-Sussex - that allowed both parties to take 3 seats each, leaving the Tories with just 2.

And, they hit my village very hard, I've never witnessed anything like it, 11 flyers, I was amazed enough to find a Labour canvasser on my door-step, and even more amazed at a Labour door knocker on the day, checking to make sure I was voting and that I was aware of needing photo ID.

And, it's clear they were doing that elsewhere.

That's how they can influence the vote count in more winnable seats.

ETA - And, in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton they came close, only around 1500 votes behind the Tories, there was no hope in winning the Arundel and South Downs seat.

Also, ditto with the Greens throwing all their resources at four target seats, and winning them all.

 

[frogwoman]

Yeah, as votes for other parties shrank too in 2019 iirc

 

[frogwoman]

...and who do you think decides whether or not a law is actually anti something or merely part of reasonable checks and balances?

Good point. Do you think they might just quietly stop mentioning it?

 

[Lord Camomile]

...and who do you think decides whether or not a law is actually anti something or merely part of reasonable checks and balances?

I mean, I'm pretty sure it has been actively described as 'anti-TU', even by those who are creating/supporting it.

It explicitly seeks to make it harder for trade union members to organise, take action, build and exercise collective power. That's pretty "anti-" to me.

And again, it puts more checks and balances on worker action than getting into government.

 

[Idris2002]

 

[andysays]

Labour has stated in its manifesto that it will scrap anti TU laws. Am I imagining things or didn't Tony Blair say he would do this in 1997? I remember the SP making a big deal of this when I was a member.

Are you sure about this?

I don't remember hearing anything along those lines

 

[frogwoman]

Are you sure about this?

I don't remember hearing anything along those lines

Labour will update trade union legislation, so it is fit for a modern economy, removing unnecessary restrictions on trade union activity and ensuring industrial relations are based around good faith negotiation and bargaining.



This will end the Conservatives’ scorched-earth approach to industrial relations, ushering in a new partnership of cooperation between trade unions, employers and government and putting us in line with high-growth economies that benefit from more cooperation and less disruption.



In 2022 and 2023 we lost more days to strike in any year since the 1980s, whilst we lost many more days to strikes than competitors like Germany, Spain and Norway.

Kickstart economic growth – The Labour Party

A Labour government will deliver economic stability with tough spending rules, boost growth, build 1.5 million new homes and create jobs.

labour.org.uk

 

[andysays]

Labour will update trade union legislation, so it is fit for a modern economy, removing unnecessary restrictions on trade union activity and ensuring industrial relations are based around good faith negotiation and bargaining.



This will end the Conservatives’ scorched-earth approach to industrial relations, ushering in a new partnership of cooperation between trade unions, employers and government and putting us in line with high-growth economies that benefit from more cooperation and less disruption.



In 2022 and 2023 we lost more days to strike in any year since the 1980s, whilst we lost many more days to strikes than competitors like Germany, Spain and Norway.

Kickstart economic growth – The Labour Party

A Labour government will deliver economic stability with tough spending rules, boost growth, build 1.5 million new homes and create jobs.

labour.org.uk

Thanks, I was completely unaware of that.

Let's see if any of it actually happens.

 

[Lord Camomile]

Labour will update trade union legislation, so it is fit for a modern economy, removing unnecessary restrictions on trade union activity and ensuring industrial relations are based around good faith negotiation and bargaining.

Bolded parts could be mean a lot of things...

 

[Cid]

I mean, been thinkin about this, and I don't see how Labour could have had any control over the spread of the Labour vote, short of asking people to move house, which they clearly didn't do. Its just blind luck isn't it?

I mean the principle is that by tacking 'centre' he's lost the votes of the likes of me in Labour safe seats to win support among LD/Greens/centrist Tories... But I haven't actually seen that in many of the seats I looked at. There are often minor LD shifts, but in fact the Greens have tended to increase their vote share in areas where tactical voting should be clearly indicated. E.g Bolsover:

Lab	Natalie Fleet	17,197	40.5 (+4.4)
Con	Mark Fletcher	10,874	25.6 (-22.1)
Reform	Robert Reaney	9,131	21.5 (-)
Green	David Kesteven	3,754	8.9 (+7.3)
Lib Dem	David Hancock	1,478	3.5 (-0.3)

It may be more true of somewhere like Suffolk coastal, where there's a collapse in the Tory vote that seems to conveniently reflect the Labour gain in votes (the rest going Reform)...

Lab	Jenny Riddell-Carpenter	15,672	31.7 (+10.3)
Con	Thérèse Coffey	14,602	29.5 (-26.9)
Reform	Matthew Jackson	7,850	15.9 (-)
Lib Dem	Jules Ewart	6,947	14.1 (-1.1)
Green	Julian Cusack	4,380	8.9 (+4.4)

...But in real terms the Lab candidate in fact gained around 3,000 votes over her 2019 predecessor. And this is Therese Coffey's old seat; I know there was a great deal of chat there about promising signs in the run up, about tactical voting etc. But they'd still have been hammered if Reform hadn't run.

Really what I see in everything I've looked at is a huge shift of Tory to Reform, and Labour cleaning up pretty much entirely because of that. They have pushed up the vote somewhat in many places... But you'd expect that purely through regression to the mean after 2019. Like Suffolk Coastal in 2017 there was no chance of booting Coffey, but Labour still racked up 17,707 votes; i.e 2,000 more than the new MP. And Bolsover the worst Skinner ever managed was still over 50% (er... until 2019 obvs).

Increasingly convinced Labour should be absolutely bricking it, they are currently entirely reliant on the Con-Reform conflict being unresolved for 2029. And even then reliant on Reform holding its vote share after 5 years. Regression to the mean will also likely work for the Tories; Reform is a right wing protest vote this year, it may not be in 2029.

 

[andysays]

No it hasn’t. Count is still ongoing.

No guarantee the ‘mismanaged’ Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire recount will be delivered today

Conservatives, Lib Dems and SNP election staff say ‘we are getting more frustrated as this mismanaged election count goes on’.

www.inverness-courier.co.uk

The LibDem has now been declared the winner, by 2160 votes

Liberal Democrats win last UK seat to declare result​

 

[strung out]

The LibDem has now been declared the winner, by 2160 votes

Liberal Democrats win last UK seat to declare result​

Nice of them to count through the England match.

 

[frogwoman]

Are you sure about this?

I don't remember hearing anything along those lines

Bolded parts could be mean a lot of things...

I dunno what 'unnecessary restrictions' means. The 6 person picket? Although that was brought in under Thatcher iirc. There's a turnout requirement for strike ballots Cameron brought in too iirc.