During the live coverage the BBC still went on about swing a lot in the usual way, including via graphics. Sometimes it masked what the raw numbers showed, and made the elections seem more typical, sometimes it ended up highlighting that the old norms and the lazy election night narratives that went with them were not a great fit for this election. Even the BBC did start to lean more towards pointing out the latter at times as the night wore on. It partly sponsored a 'stories of tories losing more than labour winning' at some point, but the BBC only had to wait till Friday to get back into their comfort zone, of bigging up the organs of the state by treating the ministerial appointments like some very dull sports coverage.Similarly, I didn't see much talk of 'swing' this time round because it's become pretty meaningless with 3 or more parties now getting significant chunks of the vote in most seats and fewer clear regional trends.
I think you’re obsessing over numbers of votes rather than looking at the bigger picture, which is necessary if you want to make such sweeping statements… but you know thatThere's sophisticated discussion to be had about voter motivation.....BUT YOU WON'T GET THAT FROM ME.....
Essentially, Labour got 32% in the worst imaginable circumstances in 2019. Ongoing internal treachery, weaponised antisemitism and the Tory Party gifted a massive slice of Faragist votes. This time the Tory Party have spent 2 years shoving dogshit through voters letterboxes and Labour can STILL only manage 33% ...and less actual votes.
How did I do John Curtice?
Elections.... obsessing over number of votes...I think you’re obsessing over numbers of votes rather than looking at the bigger picture, which is necessary if you want to make such sweeping statements… but you know that
Suffolk Coastal got a surprise Reform candidate so they did for Therese. But Labour saw a decent rise in vote percentage too - probably lots of people who wouldn’t vote Corbyn but would vote Starmer to get rid of Tories.I looked at Suffolk coastal because politics there are heavily defined by new energy infrastructure (that and family there); Sizewell C is huge, and there are plans for landing points for offshore wind. This constituency is expected to deal with something like 30% of UK energy infrastructure. Drive through and you will see signs about this everywhere. In political terms it's Therese Coffey's old seat, that should also motivate Labour types and tactical voting. In sum those motivated to vote Labour there should be more aware than average, and more inclined to turn up to the polling station. But they weren't. And green voters who should have voted tactically didn't. Sure, to actually understand this would require going more in depth, I'm just looking at broad election stats here. Could definitely be missing a bunch of stuff... But I think it's at least a reasonable argument.
Labour doesn't need Suffolk Coastal of course. It's a surprise bonus. But they do need Bolsover, and they managed to get a whole 600 extra votes over 2019 there. With Blair the low turnout came in 2001, 1997 was a lowish but fine 71%. Are people really convinced that we're going to see an explosion of interest come 2029?
The number of seats doesn’t relate to anything apart from the actual result and winning elections… is that you Jezza?!Ell
Elections.... obsessing over number of votes...
The number of seats, certainly for Labour, doesn't relate to seats at all. Everything is imperfect but I'd say the nation's attitude to the party/Starmer is best seen in the turnout and vote share.
Suffolk Coastal got a surprise Reform candidate so they did for Therese. But Labour saw a decent rise in vote percentage too - probably lots of people who wouldn’t vote Corbyn but would vote Starmer to get rid of Tories.
Coffey was incredibly unpopular due to the sewage in the water which seemed to be the big issue based on my fairly political family in the area. Sizewell is sort of old news - half of those signs have been there for years. And nuclear has had a decent image rebrand in recent years.
Wonder who'll be minister "for" (against) disabled people this time. And what title they'll come up with since it keeps getting changed.
The wikipedia page hasn't been updated since the middle of April.
Still no minister for disabled people.
It's Vicky Foxcroft who was the shadow minister so no weird surprises. Wonder how long it'll take them to update the page on the government website.
Found out through checking wikipedia, can't be doing with SM rn.
Minister of State for Disabled People, Health and Work
(not to be confused with Secretary of State for Work and Pensions)
I dunno. I think you'll only get a real understanding of what's happening by looking at constituency level.Ell
Elections.... obsessing over number of votes...
The number of seats, certainly for Labour, doesn't relate to seats at all. Everything is imperfect but I'd say the nation's attitude to the party/Starmer is best seen in the turnout and vote share.
Well let's see.Good! See question Foxcroft asked in Parliament recently:
Question for Department of Health and Social Care
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Exercise
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether he plans to put in place a new reporting system to enable myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome patients to report harms resulting from graded exercise therapy following the publication of the updated NICE guidelines on myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome.
We can take that particular aspect to the ME thread in K&S if needed, but augurs well in general.
There were huge numbers of tactical voters in what are now Lib Dem seats. You only have to look at the drop in Labour vote in those seats, coupled with a rise in Lib Dem votes to see that a large part of the Labour vote share went towards booting Tories out in favour of a Lib Dem. Could be wrong, but from the voting threads on here, it seemed like quite a lot of posters who voted Labour under Corbyn last time voted Lib Dem this time round.To be clear, I'm not pining for the days of Corbyn here. Even had he been elected I'm highly dubious he could have competently handled covid or Ukraine etc. I actually expected that Starmer's centrism would bring out the pragmatists and the tactical voters. My point is I don't actually see a huge amount of evidence that that happened.
There were huge numbers of tactical voters in what are now Lib Dem seats. You only have to look at the drop in Labour vote in those seats, coupled with a rise in Lib Dem votes to see that a large part of the Labour vote share went towards booting Tories out in favour of a Lib Dem. Could be wrong, but from the voting threads on here, it seemed like quite a lot of posters who voted Labour under Corbyn last time voted Lib Dem this time round.
Labour probably strategised a good election and might have had less seats but more votes by other approaches. Marginal, I'd guess, but I'll give you that. Let's say they might have got 35% vote share. Fine. Loads of seats, a victory over the decomposing Tory Party. No doubt, loads of seats against, basically, a blob of snot. Where does that leave the left , people who are struggling? What will the representatives of the 33% do to stop the rise of populism?The number of seats doesn’t relate to anything apart from the actual result and winning elections… is that you Jezza?!
But is a hard right more likely to be defeated by people being offered an alternative hard left gov or a centrist gov? I’d wager a centrist party will more easily get a majority to turn away from extreme right.Labour probably strategised a good election and might have had less seats but more votes by other approaches. Marginal, I'd guess, but I'll give you that. Let's say they might have got 35% vote share. Fine. Loads of seats, a victory over the decomposing Tory Party. No doubt, loads of seats against, basically, a blob of snot. Where does that leave the left , people who are struggling? What will the representatives of the 33% do to stop the rise of populism?
There were huge numbers of tactical voters in what are now Lib Dem seats. You only have to look at the drop in Labour vote in those seats, coupled with a rise in Lib Dem votes to see that a large part of the Labour vote share went towards booting Tories out in favour of a Lib Dem. Could be wrong, but from the voting threads on here, it seemed like quite a lot of posters who voted Labour under Corbyn last time voted Lib Dem this time round.
*Labour won with a similar vote share to Corbyn. The change in seats indicates two things: must better targeting of swing seats, and a huge collapse in the Tory vote
Reform means privatisation now?Vote Labour to get the Tories out/save the NHS, they told me.
View attachment 432360
Reform means privatisation now?
I'm sure i remember a time when the media called privatisation what it was, rather than some mealy mouthed euphemism.'reform' in politician language almost always means any or all of privatisation / cuts / redundancies / worse pay and terms + conditions for workers / more money for bosses and shareholders and accountants and lawyers
But is a hard right more likely to be defeated by people being offered an alternative hard left gov or a centrist gov? I’d wager a centrist party will more easily get a majority to turn away from extreme right.
Nicking them from which anti-austerity party though?ed davey spending the whole election as a series of fun days out and his loathsome party nicking 72 seats has annoyed me. The co authors of austerity.
Apologies if this has already been posted... not sure how I missed it..
It's up there with Greg Knight's campaign video
Quite possibly, electorally. But do nothing to overturn the conditions that brought us to this point.But is a hard right more likely to be defeated by people being offered an alternative hard left gov or a centrist gov? I’d wager a centrist party will more easily get a majority to turn away from extreme right.