You must log in or register to comment.
It’s a Tory wipeout in Wales!
CON: 0 (-12)
Love to see it.
I’m watching the BBC program, currently just discussing the exit poll before any official results.
Exit poll shows conservatives losing 241 seats, Labour landslide predicted with 410 seats. Not a huge surprise, but a welcome start.
I did find it entertaining that the labour guest in the show is congratulating Kier Starmer and Co. On a job well done, when really this is almost entirely caused by Tory self destruction.
Peter Mandelson? I think he had a point in that Starmer has changed the party from unelectable with Corbyn (which sadly, they were) to a more than realistic prospect for a sensible alternative to the Tories.
You’re right of course that the Conservatives have utterly fucked the pooch (not to mention the country) but Starmer has nonetheless made a massive change in making the party palatable to many, many more people (not that I personally agree with quite a lot of his policies and policy reversals)
Interestingly, Labour have less of the vote (proportionaly) than when Corbyn was at the helm.
I agree, and I do infinitely prefer Corbyn. I didn’t vote Labour this time. I think the nuance here is that Corbyn motivated Tory voters to vote against him, whereas Starmer was less threatening to them, so they didn’t worry so much about vote splitting or staying home
That’s a fair take, and yes it was Mandelson.
here is the entire exit poll for everyone interested btw:
The fuck happened in Leicester East that it’s the sole Con gain in the country?
Their last two Labour MPs not only were kicked out in scandal, but also ran in this election splitting the vote. It looks like the Lib Dems also got a significant vote share which has helped the Tories.
Makes sense. Thanks
3 seats to go!
2 now
Feels quicker than previous years
So looking forward to the next five years…
Looking at how Reform and Lib Dems made significant gains in vote share you have to wonder if its still worth Labour chasing after the right wing vote that Reform achieved. I just do not see the where the voters who voted Reform actually believe Starmer on the key issues that Reform campaigned on, immigration, anti “woke”, and Brexit. I cannot see Labour ever gaining the lead on those issues over someone like Farage who will always position himself to the right of whatever Labour or the Tories campaign on. I cant even see Labour being trusted at the voting booth on these right wing issues over a rebuilt Tory party. Its a fools errand to try.
The Lib Dem vote share, as with Reform, boosted by previous Tory voters but Lib Dems campaigned on almost the opposite of Reform (with some tactical, local, NIMBYism) and achieved way more seats on a lower overall percentage vote than Reform. If you are going to pick a direction to go in, wouldn’t it make more sense to move towards the Lib Dems position to shore up in time for the next election?
Labour did worse total percentage of the vote than 2017, its more that the Tories collapsed losing about 20% of their vote that caused this swing in seats. The Tories will rally next time around and a lot of the seats look winnable for them with only a small local swing. The current stance of Labour simply isn’t popular enough to be a vote winner against a rebuilt Tory party.
Yes, but I think you’re overstating how right wing Labour pitched it. There were no claims to be anti woke. I think it was a pretty firmly centrist pitch. It’s the Conservatives who are going to panic and try to out-nutcase Farage. Labour are going to try and be responsible and fix the broken ship. It’s just whether they can do it fast enough for people to notice a big improvement in the cost of living vs wages problem.
Are you forgetting Starmers statements around women only spaces as it seems like it.
Farages entire point of existence is to drag the overton window to the right, which he succeed yet again, particularly around Brexit.
The other big concession Starmer made, this time because of the Tories, was not to raise taxes, which was also incredibly dumb. As was honouring triple lock.
My biggest issue with Starmer making claims like these is that he will stick to them. Someone like Boris is too lazy and an out and out liar so has no problem dropping things. Starmers big pitch to be different is that he will stick with what he says.
By sticking to what he said around terfs issues, Brexit, taxes, he really fucks his options in these areas, and for what? As you and I have both said, toil not out crazy Farage or be trusted by people who these are important issues for, so it’s a massively stupid thing to do.
You make very good points.
As an Australian, I have to once again apologise on behalf of my nation for the turd in a tuxedo that is Rupert Murdoch.
Thank you. But we don’t blame regular Aussies. You’re good with us.
I do love the trend of Returning Officers wearing silly hats.
I believe most of those are mayors in their official garb.
i mean, it’s both, it’s britain.
Fucking everything on its most official capacity looks as stupid as possible. The courts, the soldiers, mayors, etc.
Holy shit the crowd’s reaction at Jeremy Corbyn getting 24,000. 😲
well, it is a crowd that includes a number of that 24k.
Gosh what an absolute bloodbath for the Tories. While I knew the Tories would lose and massively and that Reform would have impact I didn’t think this is beyond what I was expecting.
The best thing is, they did worse than the exit poll so they can’t even say “we did better than expected”
73 in Keir Starmer’s electorate voted “for more than one candidate”. I’d love to see what those ballots looked like. Or to speak with those voters. Was it a change of mind that they thought they could just cross out? Did they think they were doing an IRV vote? Approval voting? Was it just a deliberate nonsense protest vote?
UKIP still exists? Wat?
I do like that Farage tries to call himself “centre-right”.
On the other hand, I unironically do like that he calls out how shit FPTP is.
The one thing i can agree with reform on is electoral reform. unfortunately all the racism, homophonia and general goose-stepping made it so i couldn’t vote for him.
Plus lib dems are better placed to actually make it happen.
unfortunately i was one of the absolute tools that voted no on the AV vote back in 2010ish
Honestly I can hardly blame you. It was set up to fail the moment Clegg agreed to let it be about IRV instead of a proportional system. That meant it was under assault from both sides which meant it never had a chance.
Anyone got that link that recalculates the results of the GE by different voting systems? For example if we had a form of PR how would this election turned out? I swear it was posted here a few days ago.
Given, many systems require more than just marking one box. While, even those that do not, would drastically change how people choose their vote.
I am unsure any such site can give a realistic result from available data?
Edit:
If we just assume proportional based on % of vote yesterday.
Tor 22.9% Lab 35.2% LDe 11.3% Ref 14.5% SNP 2.5% Oth 13.6%
It is bloody hard to see how either party could form a viable 50% Lab LD SNP and a few independents would take it over 50. But honestly, it is hard to imagine that working with the politicians voted yesterday. Tory Ref would need all independents. So less likely to work.
But as I said. Voters would go to the polls with very different ideas about how to vote.
Tory Ref would need all independents
“Other” is not all independents. 6.8% of the vote share was Green, and 0.8% is between Workers Party and Social Democratic Party who, based purely on the names, I cannot possibly imagine would ever back the Conservatives. Unless LibDems were to support that coalition (which, after the 2010 Government I cannot imagine they’d be super keen on), there is no path to a Tory Government from these results under a proportional system. Labour can form a Government with just LibDem, SNP, and Green parties.
An independent (SNP) and unionist (Labour) party would be hard-pressed to form a government.
But again the whole idea of the votes being identicle under a vastyyly different system
Honestly the big question would be how government is formed. With seat numbers matching % of vote. under our current system. Labour could run a weak gov by depending on greens snp and others never supporting a tor ref vonc.
But with centre right lab, it is likely only ld and lab would be garmented to support most policy votes. Others, often refusing because it’s not left enough and not right enough at the same time.
Unfortunately, while the right has clasped over this election. The right has a long history of unity to fight the left.
the left much the opposite in fighting the right.
An independent (SNP) and unionist (Labour) party would be hard-pressed to form a government.
Would they? Outside of the question of independence, the two parties agree on more than not, don’t they? If they alternative is no functioning government, couldn’t you see Labour giving some minor concession to the SNP (like maybe allowing Holyrood to have power over one or two of the things that was recently denied by the Supreme Court) in exchange for the SNP’s support in Confidence?
the big question would be how government is formed
I’m not really sure what you mean. (It doesn’t help that the rest of that paragraph is ridden by typos to the point of being unintelligible. Sorry.) Government would be formed the same way they do it in Germany or New Zealand or any of the many other countries with proportional systems. They would find a way to reach a majority by agreeing on whatever compromises are palatable to both sides. In a hypothetical where the SNP had way more seats, Labour might have to agree to a second independence referendum. If they really needed Green support they might agree to pass strong climate legislation. They might have to give the LibDems a couple of significant cabinet positions. Proportional systems force politicians to actually do politics and pass legislation that is supported by a majority of people, instead of giving a single party a majority of seats based on a minority of people supporting them.
Your final sentence is painfully true.
Exactly, total up left(ish) votes and you get about 54% ✊️
Direct proportional representation is easy enough. Just look at the number of votes each party got, and assign that percentage to their overall parliamentary representation. That roughly gives you the answer.
IRV is more interesting, but more complicated. It relies on some assumptions (e.g. Green, SNP, LibDem, Labour all preference each other 100%, Conservatives & Reform preference each other 100%) and takes a lot of effort to do on a seat-by-seat basis. And of course it all assumes ceteris paribus, when in actuality people would vote differently if the voting system were different.
As one example, here’s the seat of Tatton:
Under IRV, with the above assumptions, Labour’s Ryan Jude would have won with 26,005 votes to Conservative Esther McVey’s 25,904. But tweak those assumptions just slightly (give 90% of LibDem votes to Labour, 10% to Conservatives) and it could go the other way (26,365 CON to 25,544 LAB). There are dozens or scores of seats where these sorts of interesting hypotheticals can be asked and analysed. IRV is actually, in my opinion, the next-worst voting system after FPTP (if you exclude weird and rarely-used ones like approval voting, range voting, etc.), but it’s one of the most interesting to do analysis with.
STV is an utterly impossible comparison to make, because it relies on multi-seat electorates, which would probably be done by merging existing electorates into groups of 3–8. STV is a more generalised case of IRV so if you decided on how to do those merges, then you can get even more interesting analysis. As one example, if we imagine a merged electorate involving West Ham, East Ham, Ilford North, Ilford South, Leyton & Wanstead, and Stratford & Bow. Some assumptions are necessary to make this work, my assumption is that anyone whose party name says “workers” or “socialist” preferences Green and then Labour, while those mentioning religion preference Conservative, and if I don’t know, I’m giving them to LibDems then Labour. I’m also assuming all voters for a named party vote as a block, preferencing the same candidate 1st, 2nd, etc., while independents get the votes as they were actually given. This is somewhat realistic because ballot paper design can be set up to encourage this in an STV context (see how Australia does it with “above the line” voting in the Senate, for an example). I’ve merged the minor parties named “workers” or “socialist” into a single party.
A detailed explanation of my calculation is contained here.
In our merged hypothetical under STV, they win 3.03 quotas on first preference, Conservative wins 0.88, Reform 0.41, LibDem 0.28, Green 0.78. So Labour immediately win 3 seats, before 0.03 quotas are distributed lower down in their party. After numerous more rounds (my attached spreadsheet simplifies multiple rounds that by eye would obviously not result in a new quota being reached being merged down into 1), the LibDems win a quota. I’ve decided to distribute their excess 50/50 to Green and Conservative, since Labour has already been eliminated. To be frank, after that I’m not sure what to do. LibDems having been eliminated, the 3 remaining independents can’t go to them as was my initial plan (the basic thinking being independents are probably more centrist, but LibDems and Labour being eliminated already. I’ve decided to give them 50/50 to Conservative and Green, but the reality could be so, so much more complex. After one of those is eliminated, Conservatives get a quota. One final independent distributed to Conservatives/Green and the Greens win the last quota.
This is Labour heartland and in FPTP Labour won all 6 of these seats. My calculation ends up with 3 Labour, 1 LibDem, 1 Conservative, and 1 Green.
MMP ends up with basically the same overall result as direct proportional, but can be interesting in terms of independents & very minor parties and resulting overhang seats.
From the Wikipedia article:
wp:2024 United Kingdom general election
is the,
UK general election 2024: live results in full
As of 02:56 UTC, 5 July 2024,
Labour: 168
Conservative: 28
Lib-Dem: 18
As of 04:03 UTC, 5 July 2024,
(7:03 AM EEST/MSK/TRT, 5 July 2024,
5:03 AM BST, 5 July 2024)
12:03 AM EDT, 5 July 2024,
9:03 PM PDT, 4 July 2024)
Labour: 326
Conservative: 70
Lib-Dem: 44
Green: 1
As of 05:41 UTC, 5 July 2024,
(8:41 AM EEST/MSK/TRT, 5 July 2024,
6:41 AM BST, 5 July 2024)
1:41 AM EDT, 5 July 2024,
10:41 PM PDT, 4 July 2024)
Labour: 401
Conservative: 107
Lib-Dem: 66
SNP: 7
Sinn Féin: 7
Green: 4
Jacob Rees Mogg suggesting Conservatives were demolished because they weren’t far right enough. Interviewer says “don’t you think maybe it’s because you let down the centre?” And Mogg is like “no way. Maggy Thatcher is based.”
😬
I mean, I hate him, but he’s right. Reform are basically the newest farage far right party, so the rabid nazis of britain aren’t satisfied with the bullshit the tories are serving up.
EDIT : they got fed up of still seeing ethnic minorities after brexit, and don’t want to vote for an ethnic minority for prime minister. It’s disgusting.
But would he win more electorates by pandering to the further right, or by giving the middle a reason to be enthusiastic about them?
https://www.bbc.com/news/election/2024/uk/results
Conservative
total votes 6,814,650
Reform UK
total votes 4,102,109
share change +12.3
Liberal Democrat
total votes 3,499,969
share change +0.6
Cons lost their votes to the nazis more often than the Lib Dems.
I left britain years ago when brexit happened, that country is stupid, and I wish the people that still live there the best of luck.
I also would like to remind them that I wasted much air trying to convince them that voting LD wasn’t a waste of time, but for some reason, 4 million of them can be convinced to vote for a third party, but only if it’s racist enough, and not civil liberties oriented enough.
Starmer didn’t win this election, the tories lost it due to a split vote.
Labour
total votes 9,686,329
share 33.7%
share change +1.6
This doesn’t look like the extremely winning party that run an extremely successful campaign. It looks like a bunch of chancers that got lucky flipping seats due to split voter base of nazis.
I’m not even optimistic that center left starmer is going to do anything all that impressive to be honest. I hope I’m wrong, I think Biden is doing great and getting no credit. Best of luck to him and to Britain, I hope things get better in that country.
Except apart from the proud ex BNP the motives for voting Reform seem to come from a scared impotent scarcity helplessness. It’s a “all these immigrants taking my stuff and my opportunities and there isn’t enough to go round” - if they’re paid properly and the NHS works the far right is less appealing. 🤞
I hope you’re right
My favourite quote: ‘Rees-Mogg congratulated the Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer, on “what seems to be a historic victory”, adding, as his final thought, “from the ashes of disaster grow the roses of success. So thank you very much everybody, and good night.”’
I can only read this as him admitting publicly that he and the Tories are a complete disaster.
all the socdem use of rose as a symbol makes it only better
There are some very close run seats out there, how close do they have to be to do a recount?
A recount is called if one of the sides requires one. Obviously if you only had a difference of 10 votes, it’d be daft not to demand recount, but technically it only happens if a candidate requests one.
Remember the votes are technically recounted already. They are counted three times, by three separate people, who don’t know what the other two people have found as results, so they cannot be influenced by their number. If all three people get the same answer, the count is probably correct, discounting incredibly bad luck, which is statistically unlikely.
If a recount is requested then three new people perform the task just to discount the possibility of collusion.
Starting the day and seeing Rees snob, grant schnapps and penny mordor are out.
Feels like a good start to the day
Oh and Liz snubbed
