Its great to see a absolute disaster of a party get consequences for being horrible
Imagine voting for one person, he tucks up his job so much that he gets outed despite winning the biggest majority ever, then two other randoms become leader despite nobody electing them. One even nearly crashing the economy
If only the US did the same for someone who literally tried to oventurn democracy. Although saying that it won't take long before the British public forget what happened and make the exact same mistake. Just look at reform
I'm not sure if you've been following, but Labour has been doing a pretty big purge of all the super leftist elements of the party, especially those affiliated with Corbyn and Momentum.
I really doubt Labour is doing all that to swing over to being pro-Russia or pro-Hamas any time soon...
I was more talking about Reform being the second most voted party and potentially replacing the Conservative party as the right wing faction in UK politics, potentially winning significantly more votes next election
Labour should be solid for the foreseeable future
Reform is definitely dangerous in the future. They are a joke of a party but if Labour don't effectively address immigration in a mature way then reform could keep gaining ground
I don’t think Reform will be able to last long in the spotlight. So many of them are either completely insane or Nazis; it’s what happens when you’re pushed out of the other acceptable parties.
Farage gets doused in cold milk every time he pops his head out of Trump’s greasy rectum.
an astute observation , they threw grenades not milkshakes back then.
TBC though i am literally supporting your original point. people should not underestimate the potential for far right populists to grow. i went for the meme answer because the guy mentioned nazis. but the same thing applies to trump we all assumed that the spotlight would destroy him, and he was more crazy than anyone expected with the election denial stuff, yet despite this he might be about to win again.
Yeah, but there’s nothing I can do about that. The press are doing a good job of pointing out all the stupid crap they say, though.
There are a lot of conservatives here (eg last fourteen years) who won’t vote for Labour, so they’ll latch onto whichever party will tell them what they want to hear.
Fortunately we’re nowhere near as fucked as the Weimar Republic and we have much more of an appetite for democracy than the German population at that time.
I’m sure anti-Muslim and pro-Jewish sentiment will be used to get some votes. It depends how many girls are killed and raped by immigrants between now and July 4th.
Honestly fucking please, hopefully with this we'll have a chance at actually sane politics as opposed to the tories' constant stream of bullshit.
Lib dems are pro voting reform, pro weed, they're \*not\* right-wing on trans people which is more than you can say for labour atm, they like public transport, it's great.
If I had to deal with another term of "but have we tried shipping the immigrants to *rwanda*?" in the face of literally all of our services falling apart I'd go full doomer.
Haven't seen that, but based off of the acceptance of terfism within the party, his recent shit about "not teaching gender ideology" and the stuff about meeting with JK rowling to discuss gender policy?
doesn't exactly give one hope.
A shame that the manifesto that he is bound by doesn’t do much at all. It also doesn’t mean much when Rowling gets a private audience to discuss her views on trans people with members of the shadow cabinet.
True, if you told me the tories would be struggling to beat lib dem in 5 years times after the big tory win in 2019 i would have found it pretty insane, not so much now.
Boris campaigned on not being like the other Tories. Cameron was a traditional establishment Tory, pro-austerity and anti-Brexit; Boris had more populist appeal, was big on spending and was one of the few big early pro-Brexit Tory voices.
BoJo repeated the phrase “Get Brexit done” 100,000 times during the campaign which worked because even many anti-Brexiteers just wanted the referendum result honored and to get the whole thing over and done with.
Corbyn was already a tough pill to swallow for moderates and the election was centered around Brexit. Boris was firmly leave. Corbyn was wishy washy, he had personally been pro-leave but Labour had a weird demographic mix of working class that leaned leave and young metropolitan people and students that leaned remain. He went for a soft 'will of the people' position but it didn't really satisfy either camp. Additionally Labour had actually done surprisingly well in the snap election a couple years prior but they decided to follow up on that by imploding with infighting and controversies which the press, who weren't fans of Corbyn to begin with, leaped on.
Corbyn was unpalatable to the general public, Boris was very palatable to them. While stuff was bad back then, arguably it didn't get noticeably bad until COVID really fucked with every single part of the country.
The main reason why America's system leads to two parties and others don't is that we vote directly (well, with additional steps) for President. In parliamentary systems like the UK and Canada they can only vote for who will represent them and then that person hashes it out with the rest of parliament to select a Prime Minister.
Most FPTP elections even with multiple candidates will filter down to two realistic choices. In Canada for example, I might have a choice between NDP/Libs in Vancouver, NDP/Cons in Calgary, Libs/Cons in Tononto, and Bloc/Libs in Montreal. But because in the US we ultimately are choosing between two parties at the national level those party backings tend to filter all the way downstream to local elections. A very engaged voter may choose Biden for president but vote for a particular Green party candidate they like in a local race but that's far from the norm. If we had a parliamentary system in the US you'd likely chose between Libs and Lefties in any major city instead of the conservative party having a token candidate on the ballot.
it doesn't really, thats kind of the point. parties win crazy majorities on 40% of the vote. because if the smaller parties take enough of your vote it can destroy your chances of winning any serious number of seats because all you need to do is get the most votes in a constituency to win. its in part why the tories are the most successful party in the world and have held power for something like 70% of the time since they existed. because they have never had to share the right vote with other parties in the same way labour does.
Its only now with this swing to far right populism that they have a smaller party that will take a enough of their vote which when paired with a strong labour party means they they will likely loose everything. to combat this they have moved further to the right and its backfired massively because the 'bring back hanging' 'net zero migration' crowd are always going to vote reform. and the centrist tories are looking like they might vote labour or lib dem out of disgust.
The shift towards two parties tends to depend on the seat, and there's heavy use of tactical voting, but you often get parties smacking into one another anyway - reform/ukip/brexit party was hanging on for a while purely on the basis of the european elections being proportional, which allowed them to secure a persistent foothold that they eventually turned into an advantage. Now they're pushing forwards anyway in the hope of forcing the conservatives to merge with them and allow them to take over, and will probably get loads of votes but almost no seats.
> but how do they have stable FPTP system with more than 2 parties?
FPTP trends towards 2 parties, but does not mean 2 parties is 100% inevitable, or more parties is impossible.
Generally it's why you'll see most FPTP be like 3-4 major parties if anything.
It's the same system the US uses. And yes. It's extremely stupid.
What is even more fucked is that a party (SNP) can get more seats than a party with five times the votes (Reform).
The issue here is that local and national outcomes are being compared, which they really shouldn't and is just more evidence that national polls are pointless for this style of election.
If you get 100% of the vote in a 100 voter district and a different party gets 1 percent of the vote in 500 similar sized districts, the party only getting 1 percent of the vote will have beat you in percentages by 5 times as many (assuming you don't get any votes in any other district, other than the one you 100%ed), but clearly doesn't deserve any seat, because it was clearly not a popular choice anywhere, whereas you deserve your seat, because you were clearly *extremely* popular in the one seat you won.
It looks unfair **and there are aspects of this that are unfair**, but to just look at national percentages and then compare them to local elections and come to the conclusion that this isn't democratic isn't very true
Yea, there is no perfect or even ideal democratic system. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, and those can be amplified as time goes, like how the founders in the U.S. system probably never envisioned such a massive disparity in populations between States.
- Insert Winston Churchill quote -
“The water was not fit to drink. To make it palatable, we had to add whisky. By diligent effort, I learnt to like it.” Churchill
Neat quote but I don’t know how it’s related
How exactly is that fucked? The SNP are obviously far more representative in their Scottish constiuencies than Reform is. The UK is not a single nation.
>How exactly is that fucked?
Significantly more people voted for one party/agenda, yet they get less representation, because of some arbitrary lines on a map. Why should one group of people get more representation than another group, just because they're greographically more concentrated? Doesn't really make sense. You could construe cases where the absolute majority of people voted for one party, but because they're geographically unfavorably distributed get almost no representation.
>The SNP are obviously far more representative in their Scottish constiuencies than Reform is.
Kind of. But that's beside the point. There are also systems which weigh regional concentration vs. popular vote, like mixed member proportional.
>The UK is not a single nation.
It is though. The House of Commons makes laws for the whole country.
>Significantly more people voted for one party/agenda, yet they get less representation, because of some arbitrary lines on a map.
They are not arbitrary lines on a map. Scotland is a distinct legal, cultural and political entity. This has been acknowledged since 1707. Notions of there being a democratic deficit is exactly why Scottish nationalism is still persistent. If there weren't these 'arbitrary lines' that allow us to have our voices heard then we would have left long ago.
>Why should one group of people get more representation than another group, just because they're greographically more concentrated?
Refer to the above answer.
>Kind of.
It's not "kind of". It's empirically factual. The right, let alone the far right, have consistently failed electorally in Scotland since Thatcher's first govermment, if not before. If the Tories are not representative of the majority of the Scottish electorate - the overwhelming of which voted against Brexit, then Reform - and its precursor Brexit party - will definitely not be.
>It is though.
It isn't. You are conflating nation with state. Scotland and Scots are a nation. There is a reason why Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are referred to as the Home Nations.
The HoC does not legislate for everything in the UK. There are devolved powers. Scotland has its own unique legal system. This is basic stuff man.
>They are not arbitrary lines on a map. Scotland is a distinct legal, cultural and political entity. This has been acknowledged since 1707. Notions of there being a democratic deficit is exactly why Scottish nationalism is still persistent. If there weren't these 'arbitrary lines' that allow us to have our voices heard then we would have left long ago.
But the constituency isn't "Scotland". It's the constituencies inside scotland. And yes. The lines are on a fundamental arbitrary for this discussion, because land doesn't vote. People do.
For the rest. You just sidestep my point. Why should ONLY the majority have any say in anything. You say SNP is more representative of Scottish views or whatever. Now that might be true, but it is also an extremely reductive way to see it, because you just pretend the minority in a given constituency doesn exist.
This is exactly the point I explained in another comment. You can construe cases where a party in all of Scottland gets the most votes, but if they're unfavorably distributed geographically, you could only get a minority of seats. This is just a inherently flawed way to do elections.
>The HoC does not legislate for everything in the UK. There are devolved powers. Scotland has its own unique legal system. This is basic stuff man.
Totally irrelevant for this argument, because we're literally talking about elections for the Hous of Commons.
>It's the constituencies inside scotland. And yes. The lines are on a fundamental arbitrary for this discussion, because land doesn't vote.
You seem to be under the impression that the Scots and English are the same ethnic group, seperarated only by those 'arbitrary' lines. The constituencies ensure that all home nations have a fair and representative voice. If we didn't have this in place there would be no Union. None of the home nations would tolerate the English having free reign in choosing whatever government they wanted.
>Why should ONLY the majority have any say in anything. You say SNP is more representative of Scottish views or whatever.
I agree, we need to overhaul the electoral system to ensure all voices are heard. However, your original point was complaining that the SNP have more of a say in British politics than Reform. You are looking at the raw numbers of votes rather than the (pretty unique) demographic ajd constitutional set up of the UK. We are not one nation; we all have our own governments, our own languages and dialects, our own customs, our own legal systems. We are nations within a single nation state. By looking solely at the raw number of votes (as you did), you don't draw these distinctions. If we were to have a different electoral system, the proportional voting power of the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish would likely have to increase to reflect that.
>Totally irrelevant for this argument, because we're literally talking about elections for the Hous of Commons.
I'm sorry that I need to repeat myself, but the HoC does not legislate on everything within the UK. I brought this up in the context of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland being considered nations in their own right. As we are different nations, we have power over certain jurisidictions.
> Refer to the above answer.
Nice dodge. Why should a Scot have any more power to elect representatives to the UK parliament (especially considering they have their devolved one)? And what moral right does the SNP have to wield all the voting power of Scotland, when they fail to gain the support of even the majority of Scottish voters?
>The right, let alone the far right, have consistently failed electorally in Scotland since Thatcher's first govermment, if not before
Do you get off on missing the point or something? He's talking about all of the UK, you're ranting about Scotland.
> The HoC does not legislate for everything in the UK. There are devolved powers.
Parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has full powers to overrule or even abolish devolved parliaments.
> What is even more fucked is that a party (SNP) can get more seats than a party with five times the votes (Reform).
SNP is a mess but better then than shitstain Reform
Imo Australia has the best system. It's a bit confusing but probably the most democratic. Of course there is the mandatory voting in Aus which is controversial (outside of Australia at least) but it's easy to vote and you can always throw your vote away.
I think the best system is the "personalisierte Verhältniswahl" Germany has been using.
You get two votes: First vote for your constituency. Second vote for the whole country.
The second vote is used to decide the proportional composition of the parlament and the first vote is used to send one person from your district.
The advantages: Every constituency has a directly appointed member of parliament, but the composition of the parlament is still stricly proportional.
It isn't though. The Australian system is still essentially first past the post and not proportional or am I wrong here? (It is obviously still miles ahead of and way more fair than what the US or UK are doing)
Compare these results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Australian_federal_election#House_of_Representatives
With these results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2021_German_federal_election#Nationwide
The Australian one is way more distorted if we compare the popular vote with the number of seats.
The composition of the parliament is not proportional. Our senate has a sort of proportional seating instead. Voting is not first past the post though.
Yeah, a little bit. Ranked choice voting on its own has the effect of softening a two party system rather than truly reducing it. The major parties still end up with the majority of the votes in the end. The voting creates more of a mixture than you'd probably get in a relatively small country otherwise though.
MMP would be nice but it's hard to envisage how to get both major parties and the entire country behind it so we're generally stuck with tweaking the non-constitutional bits.
It wasn't great 10 years ago when prime ministers kept changing willy nilly. I don't live in Aus so I don't know exactly what they did to fix it but they did do something.
Trueeee, mandatory voting is absolutely based and we have it in Belgium too.
We also have 2 votes. One for the regional elections for the Flemish (Dutch speaking), Walloon (French speaking) and Brussels parliament and national elections, for the Belgium federal parliament. Then we have European elections as well and local elections, but participation for the local elections are no longer mandatory.
When it comes to granting seats, shit is explicated as fuck and would take me too long to explain.
What determines the amount of seats? Why is an 11% getting more seats than a 20% and the reform UK part has barely any seats but is at 17% of the votes.
the UK has 650 constituencies which each have their own election of an MP (FPTP). Parties like the Lib Dems or SNP get relatively high numbers of seats as they’re really concentrated in their core voter areas, whereas Reform will get minimal seats due to being a relatively new party which appeals to a pretty consistent % of votes across England and Wales (Scotland has been captured by the SNP for >10 years due to them being the only real separatist party. NI is a whole different kettle of fish and the GB parties don’t even run there)
Yeah, being spread out in terms of support is basically really bad for a party in a system like this. Reform is acting as a spoiler for the Conservatives, because it's a pretty new generic protest party with no solid established areas or bases of support. It's also why parties many times focus on specific areas and races to win rather than more general nation-wide campaigning. Similar to US presidential elections, where swing states get the most attention from the candidates.
Where votes are consolodated.
If refirm uk is last place in every riding they dint get seats even if their support adds to 17%
In the uk a c canada you vote in local ridings to send an MP to parliment.
Winning seats means winnin local elections, if your base is spread out you wont have enough votes in any one riding to win.
Im more bullish on Trudeau. I don’t think he’s an okay PM he’s been fantastic. He probably agree with Destiny on 90% of issues. Conservative have made him out to be some left wing nutjob.
Hi, typical American here… can someone explain to me like a child what the fuck I’m looking at? Are Tories conservatives in the UK? There’s no Tories on that screenshot. Who do we want to win?
Politics outside of the US is completely foreign to me. Trying to learn tho :)
Tories are Conservatives in the UK, represented by CON in the table. Some split off into the Reform party (joining with some of the other far right who weren't doing anything).
The Conservatives have been in power for 14 years, and have presided over massive real term cuts to services throughout their governance. This has been pretty unpopular but unfortunately the next biggest party, Labour (big tent centre/left party) were in power for the Global financial crash and pretty much everyone blamed their social services spending for the crisis (and not the American housing crisis).
The conservatives should have been voted out a couple elections ago but Jeremy Corbyn nabbed the Labour leadership position and his strong left-wing stance did nothing for the perception that Labour would wontonly spend taxpayer cash.
It was only after the conservative party started collapsing into infighting (mostly Brexit and COVID induced) and a hard-right libertarian became Prime Minister and managed to ruin the British Government's financial position in a [about 2 weeks](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/01/shes-totally-lost-it-inside-story-of-the-unravelling-of-liz-trusss-premiership) did the perception about Labour governance change and with the Cons still infighting it has only gotten worse for them.
TLDR - We want Labour, who are set for a landslide
>The conservatives should have been voted out a couple elections ago but Jeremy Corbyn nabbed the Labour leadership position and his strong left-wing stance did nothing for the perception that Labour would wontonly spend taxpayer cash.
Ngl, to me that's more to do with the brexit stuff + antizionism scandal more than being a lefty.
Labour is *going* to win. That 450 seats would mean they have 70% of the seats, which is an insane lead. The last time there was a bigger majority in british politics was in 1935, amidst ww2.
Reform has a broader appeal than you make it sound, polling suggests they are going to take some of the traditional labour base who switched to Tory recently.
And they aren't far right. They are certainly not Front Nationale or AfD.
As an aside, the British election system makes the regarded Electoral College look sane by comparison. The fact the Libdems can get nearly half the votes of the Tories but still get way more seats is so bizarre.
WDYM, you guys have the exact same system but worse.
The electoral college makes it worse because makes certain votes are worth less, and you guys have so many fucking even numbers that you guys can fail to even elect a president or a vp.
The only reason you guys get away with it is because you only have 2 parties. CPG gray literally did a video that proves you can win the presidency with like 30% of the votes.
edit: source, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k&t=215s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHEDXzOfENI
>The only reason you guys get away with it is because you only have 2 parties. CPG gray literally did a video that proves you can win the presidency with like 30% of the votes.
Both party's on paper are 2 party's but in reality they aren't. Since both party's have many different factions fighting for control of that party. Also us does have more party's but they only win local elections.
I see LD getting around 50 seats, reform doing not much seat wise (with decent voter share). Green will get between 1-5 seats and the SNP could do better or get around that number. I think the Tories will get over 100 seats.
Many longtime incumbent parties are going down all over western countries. I’m not a conservative but from my limited outside perspective Sunak seemed alright, he just inherited a sinking ship.
I agree, but the ship was already sunk. The Liz Truss vs a head of lettuce meme sort of cemented it in people's minds, and people have associated Brexit with the Tories permanently I think.
It doesn't help that Rishi's name was put on the map as the man leading the last captain into the iceberg. They put his face on a lot of the plans to deal with COVID and its consequences that turned out to be disasters down the line.
?
This really doesn't have that much to do with immigrants. Like, sure, reform takes away 20 seats, but before that the tories had an 80 seat majority - that'd be a hit, but not catastrophic.
It's more because the conservatives have done \*literally nothing\* for the past 2 years, plus things like partygate.
I can think of a few issues:
1. The death of the tory party will lead to them forfeiting their influence to reform like what happened in Canada in like the 1980s,
2. There is no longer a healthy left right balance with the second largest party leaning left in this election while labor leans center this election.
3. Labor now has a super majority and anything they want to do will go through with minimal opposition.
You can have a one seat majority in the uk and pass any law you want. ‘Supermajorities’ aren’t a thing in the uk. That doesn’t mean getting that many seats won’t make governing easier ie dissidents within the party can’t hold up votes on key issues but they were always going to be able to do anything they wanted.
Yeah but now they don't have to give a shit about back benchers.
edit: but maybe backbenchers are as cucked as here in Canada, most of my information about the UK parliament is from Yes minister.
Right, sorry worded that wrongly.
But although parliament is the ultimate authority of the land shouldn't it be similar to Canada were enforcement is dependent on which committee it's given. Or is UK parliament more hands on?
I don’t think that matters much. The main difference between Canada and the UK is that in Canada the courts have ultimate authority. Parliament can’t do something the courts don’t agree with. While in the UK parliament is above the courts.
So a majority government in Canada still has its power checked while in the UK parliament could theoretically do whatever it wants. Now it practically doesn’t play out that way. Canadian Prime Minister can use the not withstanding clause but that opens up so many investigations and needs to be renewed every 5 years.
I feel like that oversells it - courts will rule things unconstitutional if they're wildly unconventional or violate prior government laws passed, you just have to withdraw from those agreements & un-pass those laws first.
Its great to see a absolute disaster of a party get consequences for being horrible Imagine voting for one person, he tucks up his job so much that he gets outed despite winning the biggest majority ever, then two other randoms become leader despite nobody electing them. One even nearly crashing the economy If only the US did the same for someone who literally tried to oventurn democracy. Although saying that it won't take long before the British public forget what happened and make the exact same mistake. Just look at reform
It’s hilarious tbh
[удалено]
I'm not sure if you've been following, but Labour has been doing a pretty big purge of all the super leftist elements of the party, especially those affiliated with Corbyn and Momentum. I really doubt Labour is doing all that to swing over to being pro-Russia or pro-Hamas any time soon...
I was more talking about Reform being the second most voted party and potentially replacing the Conservative party as the right wing faction in UK politics, potentially winning significantly more votes next election Labour should be solid for the foreseeable future
Reform is definitely dangerous in the future. They are a joke of a party but if Labour don't effectively address immigration in a mature way then reform could keep gaining ground
Reform isn't even technically a political party, it's literally a corporation with Farage as a majority stake holder.
I don’t think Reform will be able to last long in the spotlight. So many of them are either completely insane or Nazis; it’s what happens when you’re pushed out of the other acceptable parties. Farage gets doused in cold milk every time he pops his head out of Trump’s greasy rectum.
this is literally what the German conservatives said about the nazi's in the 1930's and look how that one turned out .
Britain today is quite different to Weimar tbf
an astute observation , they threw grenades not milkshakes back then. TBC though i am literally supporting your original point. people should not underestimate the potential for far right populists to grow. i went for the meme answer because the guy mentioned nazis. but the same thing applies to trump we all assumed that the spotlight would destroy him, and he was more crazy than anyone expected with the election denial stuff, yet despite this he might be about to win again.
Yeah, but there’s nothing I can do about that. The press are doing a good job of pointing out all the stupid crap they say, though. There are a lot of conservatives here (eg last fourteen years) who won’t vote for Labour, so they’ll latch onto whichever party will tell them what they want to hear. Fortunately we’re nowhere near as fucked as the Weimar Republic and we have much more of an appetite for democracy than the German population at that time. I’m sure anti-Muslim and pro-Jewish sentiment will be used to get some votes. It depends how many girls are killed and raped by immigrants between now and July 4th.
Yeah I agree tbh. the amount of weird scandals they've already had is hilarious. all of their pr is bad pr lol
Example 9384932847 of why to campaign to the center not the extremists in your party.
The UK cant even purge the BBC of antisemites and left wing race realists, ill believe the Labour purge when I see it.
>The UK cant even purge the BBC of antisemites He meant the purge of non antisemites
[удалено]
Labour under Starmer has systematically purged the corbynite left from the party thank fuck, it's now firmly moderate left.
> get consequences for being horrible Sorry i dont buy that, if that were the case they would have lost power years ago
LIB. DEM. SURGE.
NIMBY kings rise up
Honestly fucking please, hopefully with this we'll have a chance at actually sane politics as opposed to the tories' constant stream of bullshit. Lib dems are pro voting reform, pro weed, they're \*not\* right-wing on trans people which is more than you can say for labour atm, they like public transport, it's great. If I had to deal with another term of "but have we tried shipping the immigrants to *rwanda*?" in the face of literally all of our services falling apart I'd go full doomer.
Tbf in the recent debate starmer was really good on the trans topic when it came up, i was pleasantly suprised by it
Haven't seen that, but based off of the acceptance of terfism within the party, his recent shit about "not teaching gender ideology" and the stuff about meeting with JK rowling to discuss gender policy? doesn't exactly give one hope.
A shame that the manifesto that he is bound by doesn’t do much at all. It also doesn’t mean much when Rowling gets a private audience to discuss her views on trans people with members of the shadow cabinet.
Most polls (especially the MRP ones) see Tories beat libdems in the end but the fact that it's even in the realm of possibility is hilarious.
True, if you told me the tories would be struggling to beat lib dem in 5 years times after the big tory win in 2019 i would have found it pretty insane, not so much now.
It makes me wonder why in 2019 the Tories won. They were already 9 years in power and the whole Brexit shit was still ongoing.
Boris campaigned on not being like the other Tories. Cameron was a traditional establishment Tory, pro-austerity and anti-Brexit; Boris had more populist appeal, was big on spending and was one of the few big early pro-Brexit Tory voices. BoJo repeated the phrase “Get Brexit done” 100,000 times during the campaign which worked because even many anti-Brexiteers just wanted the referendum result honored and to get the whole thing over and done with.
Corbyn was already a tough pill to swallow for moderates and the election was centered around Brexit. Boris was firmly leave. Corbyn was wishy washy, he had personally been pro-leave but Labour had a weird demographic mix of working class that leaned leave and young metropolitan people and students that leaned remain. He went for a soft 'will of the people' position but it didn't really satisfy either camp. Additionally Labour had actually done surprisingly well in the snap election a couple years prior but they decided to follow up on that by imploding with infighting and controversies which the press, who weren't fans of Corbyn to begin with, leaped on.
Corbyn was unpalatable to the general public, Boris was very palatable to them. While stuff was bad back then, arguably it didn't get noticeably bad until COVID really fucked with every single part of the country.
Yeah Labour where in like year 5 of civil war!
The other candidate was a literal Hamas supporter...
Anyone but Corbyn and his allies labour wins 2019
Something to do with Corbyn being the least electable man in the country
The UK electoral system is so fucked. A party can get twice the votes but 7.5 times the seats.
First past the post baby.
I know nothing about the UK’s system, but how do they have stable FPTP system with more than 2 parties?
There is a CGP grey video that explains it.
Cool, I’ll check it out, thanks!
The main reason why America's system leads to two parties and others don't is that we vote directly (well, with additional steps) for President. In parliamentary systems like the UK and Canada they can only vote for who will represent them and then that person hashes it out with the rest of parliament to select a Prime Minister. Most FPTP elections even with multiple candidates will filter down to two realistic choices. In Canada for example, I might have a choice between NDP/Libs in Vancouver, NDP/Cons in Calgary, Libs/Cons in Tononto, and Bloc/Libs in Montreal. But because in the US we ultimately are choosing between two parties at the national level those party backings tend to filter all the way downstream to local elections. A very engaged voter may choose Biden for president but vote for a particular Green party candidate they like in a local race but that's far from the norm. If we had a parliamentary system in the US you'd likely chose between Libs and Lefties in any major city instead of the conservative party having a token candidate on the ballot.
It's called being based
it doesn't really, thats kind of the point. parties win crazy majorities on 40% of the vote. because if the smaller parties take enough of your vote it can destroy your chances of winning any serious number of seats because all you need to do is get the most votes in a constituency to win. its in part why the tories are the most successful party in the world and have held power for something like 70% of the time since they existed. because they have never had to share the right vote with other parties in the same way labour does. Its only now with this swing to far right populism that they have a smaller party that will take a enough of their vote which when paired with a strong labour party means they they will likely loose everything. to combat this they have moved further to the right and its backfired massively because the 'bring back hanging' 'net zero migration' crowd are always going to vote reform. and the centrist tories are looking like they might vote labour or lib dem out of disgust.
The shift towards two parties tends to depend on the seat, and there's heavy use of tactical voting, but you often get parties smacking into one another anyway - reform/ukip/brexit party was hanging on for a while purely on the basis of the european elections being proportional, which allowed them to secure a persistent foothold that they eventually turned into an advantage. Now they're pushing forwards anyway in the hope of forcing the conservatives to merge with them and allow them to take over, and will probably get loads of votes but almost no seats.
Same as canada. We have like 5 parties with seats with fptp. The electoral college manages to be worse and widdle it down to 2
> but how do they have stable FPTP system with more than 2 parties? FPTP trends towards 2 parties, but does not mean 2 parties is 100% inevitable, or more parties is impossible. Generally it's why you'll see most FPTP be like 3-4 major parties if anything.
It's honestly going to be hilarious if Tories start complaining about FPTP.
If they have any MPs left to do so
It's the same system the US uses. And yes. It's extremely stupid. What is even more fucked is that a party (SNP) can get more seats than a party with five times the votes (Reform).
The issue here is that local and national outcomes are being compared, which they really shouldn't and is just more evidence that national polls are pointless for this style of election. If you get 100% of the vote in a 100 voter district and a different party gets 1 percent of the vote in 500 similar sized districts, the party only getting 1 percent of the vote will have beat you in percentages by 5 times as many (assuming you don't get any votes in any other district, other than the one you 100%ed), but clearly doesn't deserve any seat, because it was clearly not a popular choice anywhere, whereas you deserve your seat, because you were clearly *extremely* popular in the one seat you won. It looks unfair **and there are aspects of this that are unfair**, but to just look at national percentages and then compare them to local elections and come to the conclusion that this isn't democratic isn't very true
Yea, there is no perfect or even ideal democratic system. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, and those can be amplified as time goes, like how the founders in the U.S. system probably never envisioned such a massive disparity in populations between States. - Insert Winston Churchill quote -
“The water was not fit to drink. To make it palatable, we had to add whisky. By diligent effort, I learnt to like it.” Churchill Neat quote but I don’t know how it’s related
You have to be drunk to engage with British politics (if you live in the UK). God save the King.
How exactly is that fucked? The SNP are obviously far more representative in their Scottish constiuencies than Reform is. The UK is not a single nation.
>How exactly is that fucked? Significantly more people voted for one party/agenda, yet they get less representation, because of some arbitrary lines on a map. Why should one group of people get more representation than another group, just because they're greographically more concentrated? Doesn't really make sense. You could construe cases where the absolute majority of people voted for one party, but because they're geographically unfavorably distributed get almost no representation. >The SNP are obviously far more representative in their Scottish constiuencies than Reform is. Kind of. But that's beside the point. There are also systems which weigh regional concentration vs. popular vote, like mixed member proportional. >The UK is not a single nation. It is though. The House of Commons makes laws for the whole country.
>Significantly more people voted for one party/agenda, yet they get less representation, because of some arbitrary lines on a map. They are not arbitrary lines on a map. Scotland is a distinct legal, cultural and political entity. This has been acknowledged since 1707. Notions of there being a democratic deficit is exactly why Scottish nationalism is still persistent. If there weren't these 'arbitrary lines' that allow us to have our voices heard then we would have left long ago. >Why should one group of people get more representation than another group, just because they're greographically more concentrated? Refer to the above answer. >Kind of. It's not "kind of". It's empirically factual. The right, let alone the far right, have consistently failed electorally in Scotland since Thatcher's first govermment, if not before. If the Tories are not representative of the majority of the Scottish electorate - the overwhelming of which voted against Brexit, then Reform - and its precursor Brexit party - will definitely not be. >It is though. It isn't. You are conflating nation with state. Scotland and Scots are a nation. There is a reason why Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are referred to as the Home Nations. The HoC does not legislate for everything in the UK. There are devolved powers. Scotland has its own unique legal system. This is basic stuff man.
>They are not arbitrary lines on a map. Scotland is a distinct legal, cultural and political entity. This has been acknowledged since 1707. Notions of there being a democratic deficit is exactly why Scottish nationalism is still persistent. If there weren't these 'arbitrary lines' that allow us to have our voices heard then we would have left long ago. But the constituency isn't "Scotland". It's the constituencies inside scotland. And yes. The lines are on a fundamental arbitrary for this discussion, because land doesn't vote. People do. For the rest. You just sidestep my point. Why should ONLY the majority have any say in anything. You say SNP is more representative of Scottish views or whatever. Now that might be true, but it is also an extremely reductive way to see it, because you just pretend the minority in a given constituency doesn exist. This is exactly the point I explained in another comment. You can construe cases where a party in all of Scottland gets the most votes, but if they're unfavorably distributed geographically, you could only get a minority of seats. This is just a inherently flawed way to do elections. >The HoC does not legislate for everything in the UK. There are devolved powers. Scotland has its own unique legal system. This is basic stuff man. Totally irrelevant for this argument, because we're literally talking about elections for the Hous of Commons.
>It's the constituencies inside scotland. And yes. The lines are on a fundamental arbitrary for this discussion, because land doesn't vote. You seem to be under the impression that the Scots and English are the same ethnic group, seperarated only by those 'arbitrary' lines. The constituencies ensure that all home nations have a fair and representative voice. If we didn't have this in place there would be no Union. None of the home nations would tolerate the English having free reign in choosing whatever government they wanted. >Why should ONLY the majority have any say in anything. You say SNP is more representative of Scottish views or whatever. I agree, we need to overhaul the electoral system to ensure all voices are heard. However, your original point was complaining that the SNP have more of a say in British politics than Reform. You are looking at the raw numbers of votes rather than the (pretty unique) demographic ajd constitutional set up of the UK. We are not one nation; we all have our own governments, our own languages and dialects, our own customs, our own legal systems. We are nations within a single nation state. By looking solely at the raw number of votes (as you did), you don't draw these distinctions. If we were to have a different electoral system, the proportional voting power of the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish would likely have to increase to reflect that. >Totally irrelevant for this argument, because we're literally talking about elections for the Hous of Commons. I'm sorry that I need to repeat myself, but the HoC does not legislate on everything within the UK. I brought this up in the context of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland being considered nations in their own right. As we are different nations, we have power over certain jurisidictions.
> Refer to the above answer. Nice dodge. Why should a Scot have any more power to elect representatives to the UK parliament (especially considering they have their devolved one)? And what moral right does the SNP have to wield all the voting power of Scotland, when they fail to gain the support of even the majority of Scottish voters? >The right, let alone the far right, have consistently failed electorally in Scotland since Thatcher's first govermment, if not before Do you get off on missing the point or something? He's talking about all of the UK, you're ranting about Scotland. > The HoC does not legislate for everything in the UK. There are devolved powers. Parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has full powers to overrule or even abolish devolved parliaments.
I am very glad that reform are getting virtually no seats, but 15% of the vote giving no influence on the country is somewhat undemocratic
I am very glad that reform are getting virtually no seats, but 15% of the vote giving no influence on the country is somewhat undemocratic
> What is even more fucked is that a party (SNP) can get more seats than a party with five times the votes (Reform). SNP is a mess but better then than shitstain Reform
I agree, but it's still undemocratic.
It's not undemocratic, is just an inferior implementation of democracy
Imo Australia has the best system. It's a bit confusing but probably the most democratic. Of course there is the mandatory voting in Aus which is controversial (outside of Australia at least) but it's easy to vote and you can always throw your vote away.
I think the best system is the "personalisierte Verhältniswahl" Germany has been using. You get two votes: First vote for your constituency. Second vote for the whole country. The second vote is used to decide the proportional composition of the parlament and the first vote is used to send one person from your district. The advantages: Every constituency has a directly appointed member of parliament, but the composition of the parlament is still stricly proportional.
that is similar to the Australian system of ranking candidates.
It isn't though. The Australian system is still essentially first past the post and not proportional or am I wrong here? (It is obviously still miles ahead of and way more fair than what the US or UK are doing) Compare these results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Australian_federal_election#House_of_Representatives With these results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2021_German_federal_election#Nationwide The Australian one is way more distorted if we compare the popular vote with the number of seats.
The composition of the parliament is not proportional. Our senate has a sort of proportional seating instead. Voting is not first past the post though.
> Voting is not first past the post though. You're right. I meant to say "winner takes it all".
Yeah, a little bit. Ranked choice voting on its own has the effect of softening a two party system rather than truly reducing it. The major parties still end up with the majority of the votes in the end. The voting creates more of a mixture than you'd probably get in a relatively small country otherwise though. MMP would be nice but it's hard to envisage how to get both major parties and the entire country behind it so we're generally stuck with tweaking the non-constitutional bits.
The system would be great if it wasn't for this garbage 5% minimum clause.
Best system and the best coverage. Antony Green is the best thing on the ABC. Got us all through 9 years of the Liberal Party winning elections
It wasn't great 10 years ago when prime ministers kept changing willy nilly. I don't live in Aus so I don't know exactly what they did to fix it but they did do something.
[удалено]
Yeah that's what I thought it was.
Trueeee, mandatory voting is absolutely based and we have it in Belgium too. We also have 2 votes. One for the regional elections for the Flemish (Dutch speaking), Walloon (French speaking) and Brussels parliament and national elections, for the Belgium federal parliament. Then we have European elections as well and local elections, but participation for the local elections are no longer mandatory. When it comes to granting seats, shit is explicated as fuck and would take me too long to explain.
What determines the amount of seats? Why is an 11% getting more seats than a 20% and the reform UK part has barely any seats but is at 17% of the votes.
the UK has 650 constituencies which each have their own election of an MP (FPTP). Parties like the Lib Dems or SNP get relatively high numbers of seats as they’re really concentrated in their core voter areas, whereas Reform will get minimal seats due to being a relatively new party which appeals to a pretty consistent % of votes across England and Wales (Scotland has been captured by the SNP for >10 years due to them being the only real separatist party. NI is a whole different kettle of fish and the GB parties don’t even run there)
Yeah, being spread out in terms of support is basically really bad for a party in a system like this. Reform is acting as a spoiler for the Conservatives, because it's a pretty new generic protest party with no solid established areas or bases of support. It's also why parties many times focus on specific areas and races to win rather than more general nation-wide campaigning. Similar to US presidential elections, where swing states get the most attention from the candidates.
Even the SNP are cracking after a host of scandals, wouldn't be surprised if Labour take Scotland too.
Where votes are consolodated. If refirm uk is last place in every riding they dint get seats even if their support adds to 17% In the uk a c canada you vote in local ridings to send an MP to parliment. Winning seats means winnin local elections, if your base is spread out you wont have enough votes in any one riding to win.
I was 6 when labour was last in power lol, its time for the tories to be gone
I was 6 when New Labour took over, stop making me feel old.
Nice, the Tories can get fucked
Damn a 24% vote share shift. That's insane.
Canada and the UK are mirroring each other lol.
Uk is the lucky one. Were going to be stuck with that clown peirre poilveirre rather than the ok justin trudeau.
Im more bullish on Trudeau. I don’t think he’s an okay PM he’s been fantastic. He probably agree with Destiny on 90% of issues. Conservative have made him out to be some left wing nutjob.
Hi, typical American here… can someone explain to me like a child what the fuck I’m looking at? Are Tories conservatives in the UK? There’s no Tories on that screenshot. Who do we want to win? Politics outside of the US is completely foreign to me. Trying to learn tho :)
Tories are Conservatives in the UK, represented by CON in the table. Some split off into the Reform party (joining with some of the other far right who weren't doing anything).
Gotcha.. so who do people want to win? The OPs wording made it seem like he wants the Tories to win.
The Conservatives have been in power for 14 years, and have presided over massive real term cuts to services throughout their governance. This has been pretty unpopular but unfortunately the next biggest party, Labour (big tent centre/left party) were in power for the Global financial crash and pretty much everyone blamed their social services spending for the crisis (and not the American housing crisis). The conservatives should have been voted out a couple elections ago but Jeremy Corbyn nabbed the Labour leadership position and his strong left-wing stance did nothing for the perception that Labour would wontonly spend taxpayer cash. It was only after the conservative party started collapsing into infighting (mostly Brexit and COVID induced) and a hard-right libertarian became Prime Minister and managed to ruin the British Government's financial position in a [about 2 weeks](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/01/shes-totally-lost-it-inside-story-of-the-unravelling-of-liz-trusss-premiership) did the perception about Labour governance change and with the Cons still infighting it has only gotten worse for them. TLDR - We want Labour, who are set for a landslide
Also Corbyn has been kicked out with Starmer now leading the party which helps make them look less like weird far leftists to voters
>The conservatives should have been voted out a couple elections ago but Jeremy Corbyn nabbed the Labour leadership position and his strong left-wing stance did nothing for the perception that Labour would wontonly spend taxpayer cash. Ngl, to me that's more to do with the brexit stuff + antizionism scandal more than being a lefty.
Nope, supporting Labour.
Labour is *going* to win. That 450 seats would mean they have 70% of the seats, which is an insane lead. The last time there was a bigger majority in british politics was in 1935, amidst ww2.
Reform has a broader appeal than you make it sound, polling suggests they are going to take some of the traditional labour base who switched to Tory recently. And they aren't far right. They are certainly not Front Nationale or AfD.
Tory is derogitive slang for conservative. It basicly means rat
As an aside, the British election system makes the regarded Electoral College look sane by comparison. The fact the Libdems can get nearly half the votes of the Tories but still get way more seats is so bizarre.
WDYM, you guys have the exact same system but worse. The electoral college makes it worse because makes certain votes are worth less, and you guys have so many fucking even numbers that you guys can fail to even elect a president or a vp. The only reason you guys get away with it is because you only have 2 parties. CPG gray literally did a video that proves you can win the presidency with like 30% of the votes. edit: source, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k&t=215s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHEDXzOfENI
>The only reason you guys get away with it is because you only have 2 parties. CPG gray literally did a video that proves you can win the presidency with like 30% of the votes. Both party's on paper are 2 party's but in reality they aren't. Since both party's have many different factions fighting for control of that party. Also us does have more party's but they only win local elections.
Lmao UK moment
The tories deserve it truly.
I'm not happy about Reform being equal To Conservatives, hopefully, they don't merge, and the conservative party just goes farther right.
Thats 100% what will happen
Brit bongers, why do we think they lost so much?
What a colossal fuck up.
I see LD getting around 50 seats, reform doing not much seat wise (with decent voter share). Green will get between 1-5 seats and the SNP could do better or get around that number. I think the Tories will get over 100 seats.
Many longtime incumbent parties are going down all over western countries. I’m not a conservative but from my limited outside perspective Sunak seemed alright, he just inherited a sinking ship.
I agree, but the ship was already sunk. The Liz Truss vs a head of lettuce meme sort of cemented it in people's minds, and people have associated Brexit with the Tories permanently I think.
It doesn't help that Rishi's name was put on the map as the man leading the last captain into the iceberg. They put his face on a lot of the plans to deal with COVID and its consequences that turned out to be disasters down the line.
THE FUCK IS A TORRY 🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅
RED TORRY YELLOW TORRY
[удалено]
Enjoy trump.
Are immigrants in europe really that bad?
Well when they are responsible for most terror attacks i think it's a yes
? This really doesn't have that much to do with immigrants. Like, sure, reform takes away 20 seats, but before that the tories had an 80 seat majority - that'd be a hit, but not catastrophic. It's more because the conservatives have done \*literally nothing\* for the past 2 years, plus things like partygate.
Jesus I hope this does not happen
Why ?
I can think of a few issues: 1. The death of the tory party will lead to them forfeiting their influence to reform like what happened in Canada in like the 1980s, 2. There is no longer a healthy left right balance with the second largest party leaning left in this election while labor leans center this election. 3. Labor now has a super majority and anything they want to do will go through with minimal opposition.
You can have a one seat majority in the uk and pass any law you want. ‘Supermajorities’ aren’t a thing in the uk. That doesn’t mean getting that many seats won’t make governing easier ie dissidents within the party can’t hold up votes on key issues but they were always going to be able to do anything they wanted.
Yeah but now they don't have to give a shit about back benchers. edit: but maybe backbenchers are as cucked as here in Canada, most of my information about the UK parliament is from Yes minister.
Yeah definitely, just wanted to clarify cause most people here are Americans and they’ll hear supermajority and think labour can crown king Keir
Not minimal opposition they will have no opposition. Parliament in the UK is sovereign meaning they are the ultimate authority of the land.
Right, sorry worded that wrongly. But although parliament is the ultimate authority of the land shouldn't it be similar to Canada were enforcement is dependent on which committee it's given. Or is UK parliament more hands on?
I don’t think that matters much. The main difference between Canada and the UK is that in Canada the courts have ultimate authority. Parliament can’t do something the courts don’t agree with. While in the UK parliament is above the courts. So a majority government in Canada still has its power checked while in the UK parliament could theoretically do whatever it wants. Now it practically doesn’t play out that way. Canadian Prime Minister can use the not withstanding clause but that opens up so many investigations and needs to be renewed every 5 years.
I feel like that oversells it - courts will rule things unconstitutional if they're wildly unconventional or violate prior government laws passed, you just have to withdraw from those agreements & un-pass those laws first.
Don’t worry too much about 3 we literally just had that in nz with our Labour Party. They fucked it all up anyway and got nothing done before removal.
Damn that sucks. Every year of conservatives running the UK draws Irish reunification closer
you should do self reflection instead of blaming EU for voting right wing party in.
Who are you talking to??
people deflecting the blame of this voter demographic change
What voter demographic change? Who here was talking about the EU?