[Politics] The NSC 'up all night' election night *** OFFICIAL MATCH THREAD ***

[Guinness Boy]

The Labour Party have not been given a mandate by the British people as 66% did not vote for them. As much as I'm pleased to see the Tories go and Reform get very few seats it changeth not my view.

But every single MP has a mandate among their own people. You elect an MP. You do NOT - whatever the leaflets say - elect a party or a president.

If, for some reason, Labour had kicked Kyle out and replaced him with an inadequate I would not have voted Labour. If that was a one off and they looked electorally competent in the rest of the country I still would have wanted Labour to win. I also know people, including on here who voted for the independent Tanushka, but still would have wanted the Tories out, and you’re not going to get 341 Independents.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Now that is true. I guess this is because 1) it’s easy 2) You cannot make easily make direct comparisons.

I just read there are around a hundred variations of PR around the world.

I presume if in principle you want PR, you select/develop a model with the things you want to protect eg MPs to represent their constituent.

It's also because there's a load of nice easy criticisms of a simple party list PR system, so it suits people who don't want change to insist that it's the only alternative.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

I agree it may have made a difference to Lib dems, but it wouldn't have affected Reform or the conservatives.
There was no tactical voting for reform voters

It's likely that Reform would receive fewer votes under a more proportional system.

I saw on Newsnight last night that some quick polling suggests only about 30-odd percent of Reform voters would consider voting Conservative, Labour were next on about 16%. Followed by Green and Lib Dems in single figures.

In other words, while they definitely lean towards whatever politics you associate with Farage, their vote is hugely boosted by protest voting, which there would be much less reason to do in a system where most votes count for something.

 

[Machiavelli]

Not sure if this has already been mentioned but watching and listening to Starmer post-election, I get the feeling he is a man who is going to be far more comfortable and impressive in office than in opposition. I don’t think he comes off as a natural campaigner and doesn’t have that aura of likeability about him. However, he certainly gives off the impression that he is a pragmatic administrator who will govern seriously and make sensible decisions. With time, this may well improve his likeability.

Perhaps tinged with hope, I think you're spot on with this. He emphasised action in his inaugural speech. He's got a record of achieving in an office of state. He's now going to have to translate that into the biggest one of all. There's so much to do, given the fact that public services are on its knees (glad Streeting has come out saying the NHS is broken), cost of living continues to bite for a significant minority, infrastructure is in dire need of a boost, and the green transition needs cramping up. He'll only address this by being bold, and delivering on it. His support is broad yet shallow but, within that, there's a mood to give him the chance to address all this.

 

[maffew]

I don't fully understand all the ins and outs/pros and cons of PR vs fptp but surely if n% of the population want Green, n% want another party then it's only right that should be the amount of seats represented, voting would be more accurate, less spoilt/tactical votes, suspect it would be a higher turnout.. that's got to be better right, all votes should be equal? And obviously you can't say so and so would have got this many seats this year as so many people would vote differently. Isn't it that simple, I dunno!

 

[raymondo]

I don't fully understand all the ins and outs/pros and cons of PR vs fptp but surely if n% of the population want Green, n% want another party then it's only right that should be the amount of seats represented, voting would be more accurate, less spoilt/tactical votes, suspect it would be a higher turnout.. that's got to be better right, all votes should be equal? And obviously you can't say so and so would have got this many seats this year as so many people would vote differently. Isn't it that simple, I dunno!

I think it's a bit more complicated (how to choose the sitting MPs and so on) but... I agree with your sentiment.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

There was a quote from Alastair Campbell on Channel 4 from election night after the majority had been reached that Keir Starmer throughout his career has been somebody who has been underestimated before he started but has then over- delivered. I think he’s quietly confident.

 

[Diablo]

It does seem amazing that Labour has more than doubled no of MPs up 208 to 410 with 9.7 million votes compared with 2019 when it had 202 with 10.3 million votes.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

It does seem amazing that Labour has more than doubled no of MPs up 208 to 410 with 9.7 million votes compared with 2019 when it had 202 with 10.3 million votes.

Yes it does, on face value. But there are some massive differences between the options available to the electorate in 2024 over 2019.

If Reform (or whatever they were called in 2019) had stood in all constituencies in 2019, Labour would have had significantly more seats, and the Tories significantly less.

Tactical voting has also played a major part.
Anecdotally there seems to have been a gentleman's agreement between Lib Dems and Labour, to not compete against each other in constituencies where the other party is second to the sitting Tory.

Most importantly of all, the impact on seats is down to the drop in popularity of the Conservatives in the two elections.
Conservatives were Mid 40s in 2019, but were polling at 20% in 2024.
Labour only picked up by about 6% of that.

 

[ROSM]

It does seem amazing that Labour has more than doubled no of MPs up 208 to 410 with 9.7 million votes compared with 2019 when it had 202 with 10.3 million votes.

Because they were piling them up in places they had already won. Also down to the 2nd ref campaign point a number of remain people lent their vote to labour

 

[Diablo]

Yes it does, on face value. But there are some massive differences between the options available to the electorate in 2024 over 2019.

If Reform (or whatever they were called in 2019) had stood in all constituencies in 2019, Labour would have had significantly more seats, and the Tories significantly less.

Tactical voting has also played a major part.
Anecdotally there seems to have been a gentleman's agreement between Lib Dems and Labour, to not compete against each other in constituencies where the other party is second to the sitting Tory.

Most importantly of all, the impact on seats is down to the drop in popularity of the Conservatives in the two elections.
Conservatives were Mid 40s in 2019, but were polling at 20% in 2024.
Labour only picked up by about 6% of that.

I am not in favour of PR. Believing that a lot of people vote for a person to be their MP. Not necessarily for the Party. We had Norman Baker here in Lewes. At the time I was no fan of Libs but voted for him as he worked hard for his constituents.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Which thread is now a general discussion of all things about the new government?

 

[Diablo]

Which thread is now a general discussion of all things about the new government?

Don`t think there is one...You could start one !!

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The LibDems have won the last remaining seat in Inverness & Sky, making their total 72.

 

[jcdenton08]

The LibDems have won the last remaining seat in Inverness & Sky, making their total 72.

Boo

 

[Motogull]

The LibDems have won the last remaining seat in Inverness & Sky, making their total 72.

Thank Cliff for that. Plenty on here can finally go to bed.