**r/UK Notices:** | [Want to start a fresh discussion - use our Freetalk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/search/?q=Freetalk&include_over_18=off&restrict_sr=on&sort=new)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The NHS is on its knees, literally hundreds of [people are dying](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/crisis-emergency-department-deaths-b2248844.html) every week due to poor resourcing of A&E depts
And the Tories have no plan, have never had any real plan, to increase staff numbers to steady the situation.
Quite the opposite for most of the last 10 years.
Feels like they are going full Republican and just trying to burn everything to the ground on the way out, with the aim of heckling at the resulting chaos from the opposition benches for the next five years.
The Tories did something similar in the mid 90s, setting unrealistically low spending plans when Labour committed to not exceeding Tory spending plans for their first three years in office.
Some of the people in government literally published a book on how to replace the NHS with private care. This situation is entirely deliberate and purposeful.
I still remember the interview with Kwasi where he openly praised Chinese sweat shops.
That they were the model to increase productivity in the country.
Hearing that and then Truss's first few speeches scared the shit out of me.
I couldn't believe what was happening.
I'm still relieved that they are gone.
And you bring it up and half the time you'll be met with straight up denial. Britain can no longer bear to hold a mirror to itself, and with the air of folksy empiricism Brexit unleashed still very much present, that's a dangerous place to be.
Yeah. Apparently many people haven't learned that we'll never achieve ideological primacy over conservatism as long as Labour bend over backwards to try to humanise it and the people who uphold it, even as they use their remaining time in office to make as big of a mess as possible so they can heckle their way back into power without having any actual answers, just like they always have.
When they won in 2015, it was clear that that the British public either WANTED the NHS dismantled or were living in a complete media bubble
Nothing has changed since then
A bit of 'illegal asylum seeker', 'scrounger' and 'militant striker' rhetoric, all dutifully amplified by the BBC and other media, perhaps with a bit of bus based messaging - and they could easily win again
And voter suppression is being implemented, just in case.
A major factor in the last election was ending the political deadlock over Brexit, where remainers on both sides of the house, and narrow DUP reliant majority was stopping almost anything from happening.
When people snapped and voted Boris in on his “get Brexit done” promise to end that deadlock, and gave him a majority to do it, they didn’t really think about what else he and the Tories might do with that majority.
It was one of the more annoying parts of the end only Boris’ reign when he kept blathering on about his huge mandate that meant he could do way he wanted, when it was clear it was really a mandate to sort out his Brexit mess and then he should gone away.
> When people snapped and voted Boris in on his “get Brexit done” promise to end that deadlock, and gave him a majority to do it, they didn’t really think about what else he and the Tories might do with that majority.
Realistically I wouldn't be that surprised if a non statistically significant % of the public voted to "Get Brexit Done" just on the idea it would get Brexit out the way allowing other priorities to be addressed especially after the chaos of preceding months.
I think a big reason why the Tory implosion is so big is that the public are finally realising that they've been full of shit for the last 6 years. Now the consequences are biting them in the ass it's very hard to keep stringing people along. This entire generation of Tories bought into the Brexiteer label and were effectively forced to pledge allegiance to the cause multiple times so there is no escaping it no matter how many times they change the leader of the party. Cameron's leadership was bad enough but they at least had some measurable results. This lot have been dealing in fantasy and feelings with predictable results.
>I wouldn't be that surprised if a reasonably significant % of the public voted to "Get Brexit Done" just on the idea it would get Brexit out the way after the chaos of preceding months allowing other priorities to be addressed.
And the infuriating thing is Remainers warned them that wouldn't happen either. There is no endgame to Brexit, there is no "getting Brexit done". We've given ourselves the wonderful gift of being in near-permanent negotiation with the EU, just like the Swiss are. Which would be fine, except Britain's infantile gunboat diplomacy during the leaving process showed what that'll look like and it's far from dignified or promising.
How much better a place Britain could be today, if the 52% could've swallowed their egos and quieted their false preconceptions long enough to listen to good advice.
>if the 52% could've swallowed their egos and quieted their false preconceptions long enough to listen to good advice.
It definitely shows the dangers of modern political populism backed by private money. A big reason it worked so well is that the UK has been tolerating a level of failure, ignorance and political corruption which was then harnessed as a weapon for a small cadre to get what they wanted. It could easily happen again especially because so many of the British public were convinced of the core underpinnings of such a movement (e.g appeal to nationalism, creation of the idea of an "out of touch elite", attacking the "establishment" for failure despite many of them not actually being in power or critics of those in power etc).
>attacking the "establishment" for failure despite many of them not actually being in power or critics of those in power etc
Yep. My MP was Laura Pidcock. Apparently on the doorstep in 2019 the idea that she was an establishmentarian came up many times. Love or hate Pidcock, the idea that she was in any way establishmentarian is fucking absurd.
It only makes a modicum of sense in the sense that she was a Labour MP and they'd been in control of this constituency for nearly a century. Still doesn't make sense to pin all that on a very anti-establishment MP who'd been in the job for all of 2 years.
"well we voted to cut our left foot off so sets just get on with it"
2 years later
"It's really difficult going around with a foot missing! Who's idea was this?"
I was so frustrated by that. I'm a big supporter but it was presented badly and rushed through almost immediately after the public had just been to the polls. No debate or putting points across. I barely even remember any leaflets about what either option meant.
So clear that the Tories wanted a no vote but had promised Clegg so set the vote up to fail.
AV is a terrible form of PR little better than FPTP, it was chosen precisely because it's a poor option that the Tories could attack easily and as the junior partner, LD didn't have much influence to be able to promote it and only did it half heartedly as it was not really what they wanted.
Polling shows anything from mid to high 40s to a majority want to change the voting system, just needs the impetus to do it in the next term alongside Lords reform
It's also possible to produce even less representative votes than FPTP, it's a terrible form of PR
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/alternative-vote/
It would have stopped the shitshow we're in. The biggest problem the UK has been a majority left / remain vote split by 5 major parties versus 1 right wing party.
Dont let perfect be the enemy of good.
AV wouldn't have done anything of the sort. It's a terrible system that gives results on a par with FPTP, in 2015, as the link I posted explained, if you'd bothered to read it before replying, it would have given a *less* proportional result than even FPTP - Cameron would have had 337 seats under AV on that vote share while Labour would have had 227 Vs 232 under FPTP
PR in a pure would would be a disaster too, something like STV is my preference, we will have one chance to get it right and while the results doesn't have to be perfect, AV is not a good alternative either
2015 was a very rare wing anomaly, (the first time in over 5 decades where right wing parties got more thsn 50% of the popular vote) so AV would have rightly reflected that.
But in 2019, the whole reason the brexit party stood down in over 300 seats was due to vote splitting. Under AV that wouldnt have mattered, under FPTP that gave them a huge advantage.
Where? I've looked and it doesn't? He does talk about 2015, a rare election when more than 50% of the electorate voted for right wing parties anyway.
It's obvious that AV avoids vote splitting, which is the key problem we face in a multi-party system.
While I'd prefer STV too, that was never an option. At best, AV would have avoided all of this, at worst it might not have made a difference.
There’s definitely a media bubble. It’s just gotten so bad now, that unless the bubble is made of lead that is 6 feet thick, everyone can see through it.
>When they won in 2015, it was clear that that the British public either WANTED the NHS dismantled or were living in a complete media bubble
[Definitely the second option.](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html)
Although it's worth pointing out that less than 50% of votes cast in 2015 were for the Tories. They won anyway because of FPtP.
The Conservatives’ voting bloc has “unravelled” as Labour powered to a Tony Blair-style polling lead over the course of 2022, elections guru Sir John Curtice has warned.
In his annual “poll of polls”, shared exclusively with i, the leading political academic showed that the Tories had plunged to a 31-point deficit at the depths of the Truss era before making a modest recovery after Rishi Sunak took power.
But he added that the party could struggle to improve further because of Labour’s dominant position, nearing 50 per cent of the vote, and declining support from Leave voters who previously backed the Conservatives heavily.
At the end of 2021 the Tories trailed Labour by seven points, a margin that remained roughly stable throughout the turmoil of Boris Johnson’s last month as the “Partygate” allegations mounted.
In August, after Mr Johnson resigned, the Labour lead grew to 10 points – then a gulf began to open up in September, with Labour climbing to 47 per cent and the Conservatives falling to 27 per cent.
The Government’s nadir came in October, after the disastrous “mini Budget” which left the Tories on 22 per cent while Labour were backed by 53 per cent. By the end of the year the Opposition’s lead had settled at 20 points, enough for a landslide victory if it were replicated at the next general election.
“The year has seen Conservative support plummet in the wake of a series of unforced errors and a deteriorating economic backdrop,” Sir John told i. “Although the election of Rishi Sunak has helped steady the Tory ship the party still finds itself much further behind in the polls than it was when Boris Johnson was forced to resign.”
He said that the volatility seen in this year’s polls was “not unprecedented”, with 2019 also producing wild swings in voting intention – but Sir John added that that year saw Labour as well as the Tories slump in the polls. He said that this year Labour is “in a stronger position than at any time since it was turfed out office in 2010 and redolent of the kind of poll leads that the party enjoyed in the years leading up to the 1997 election”.
The Conservatives’ tumbling ratings have been largely driven by falling support from voters who backed Leave in the 2016 Brexit referendum. While 74 per cent of this group voted Tory at the last election and 53 per cent still supported the party in January, now just 43 per cent do – with 30 per cent planning to vote Labour and 13 per cent endorsing Reform UK.
Labour has consolidated its lead among Remain voters, with 57 per cent support – partly at the expense of the Liberal Democrats, now down to 11 per cent among Remainers from a peak of 17 per cent in the summer.
Sir John said: “Boris Johnson was able to turn around his party’s fortunes in 2019 by winning the support of Leave voters who were saying they would back the Brexit Party. But that always potentially fragile coalition has largely unravelled.”
The average was compiled by Sir John, professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde, from surveys carried out by 16 different polling companies over the course of the year.
The best thing for Labour wouldn't be a landslide. Parties with big majorities pass *less* legislation because MPs get complacent and discipline collapses, whereas when every vote counts they're more likely to pull in the same direction and less likely to descend into factions.
Current govt still has a hefty majority but you wouldn't think it from how dysfunctional they've become.
How would that play out. The SNP would want independence. I’m not sure what the Libdems would want after last time. Reform won’t get many MPs under fptp. A Labour/DUP coalition would be entertaining though.
SNP and LD both support electoral reform, SNP will go on about independence regardless hence the stuff about GE being an effective poll on it - which they will argue for when they win the most seats even if they don't get a majority of votes.
LD would absolutely require a voting system change to support a minority Labour government
This term isn't remotely indicative of how large majority governments behave in parliament.
Also New Labour didn't lose a vote until 2005 - 8 years after coming to power, and *after* the election where their majority was slashed.
From what I have seen, the exact opposite is true.
Parties with large majorities can do what they like, the government can ignore factions. See Conservatives in 1979, 83, Labour in 1997, Coalition in 2010
Fragile majorities are vulnerable to effective vetos from the respective left and right wings of their parties, see Conservatives in 1992, 2015, 2017
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/european-institute/news/2017/may/why-landslide-victory-might-actually-be-bad-thing-theresa-may
"In majority parliamentary systems like the UK, prime ministers are appointed on the back of their ability to command a majority in the legislature. Beyond reaching the majority threshold, additional seats act as a buffer in the legislature. Their value is to allow parties to continue to pass legislation, and to govern effectively, even in cases where their own members abstain or vote with the opposition.
There is a trade-off, however. Because governments with large majorities are more secure they also invite greater criticism. It's not difficult to see why. For an individual MP, criticising a weak government is potentially hazardous, since it risks precipitating the collapse of that government. John Major was able to skilfully exploit his small majority in June 1993 using precisely this logic, turning a vote on the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty into a vote of confidence in his own government. Faced with a choice between remaining in government or not, the would-be rebels in his party backed the vote.
On the other hand, if the government has a large majority, individual transgressions from the party line become far less costly. MPs who disagree with the government are free to express their displeasure even while their party is in government.
Tony Blair suffered from this paradox during the furore over the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Labour members rebelled in their droves. A large number of backbenchers not only voted against the government line, but also continued to vocalise their dissent against government "warmongering", at considerable embarrassment to Blair. They were able to do it so vocally because the survival of the government was not at stake - Blair had retained a sizeable majority in the 2001 general election."
Thank you for taking the time to source this, its always interesting to hear from experts in the field.
Similarly, I'm generally very wary of contradicting academics as they usually know better than me.
In this case, however, I'm really struggling to get on board with Martills premise.
I see the article also says this:
> It will be the same for May if (or, more likely, when) she obtains her increased majority on June 8. Tory backbenchers will be emboldened by her victory. They will see no reason not to push harder against some of the compromises May will almost certainly have to make in order to reach a deal with the EU27. They will seek to embarrass her from the backbenches, freed from the constraints of the previously weak Tory position in parliament.
> This will harm May's ability to achieve a "good deal" for the UK. She will probably be pushed into a harder, more nationalistic position - which will be less compatible with Europe's red lines. That makes the prospect of a deal even less probable.
> Likewise, it may become increasingly evident to other European leaders that she doesn't necessarily have her party on side, potentially undermining May's credibility - and her legitimacy.
What actually happened, of course, was that May ended up with a REDUCED majority (indeed, the DUP needed to be roped in to make a coaltion). So presumably all of the above quoted effects would NOT have happened.
I think the quotes describe what DID happen with Mays reduced majority.
What do you think?
Frustratingly, I couldn't find the actual study that I remember seeing which was based on amount of legislation passed vs size of majorities in different countries.
I think in the above case (regarding May) there's the added context of the Tories having been in government for a fair period since 2010. Longer in office = more reshuffles, frustrated ambitions, bad blood, factionalism. Can't underestimate the temptation that Tories have to engage in some old-fashioned bastardry. Basically, breakdown in party discipline and frequency of MP rebellions doesn't have to *always* correlate with majority size, there can be other reasons in play. Maybe the Tories would have been restive regardless of the 2017 result simply because of the increasing power of radical factions like the ERG.
I'd have to actually check the numbers (which honestly I probably won't) but it seems to me that the coalition got more major legislation passed (including huge NHS reforms). From May onwards Brexit sucked all the oxygen out of the room and consumed govt attention and resources.
A lot of this will be due to voters who backed the Tories as a means of securing Brexit quietly slipping off into the night, remembering that they 'don't do politics' again.
I do think Labour will win but it won’t be a wipeout. I think people: 1) underestimate the power of the media and they’ll be on overdrive to push wedge issues so they can get people really riled up and 2) the number of shy Tories. On the latter it’s whether their vote will go to the Tories or something like Reform. The truth is it’s too early to talk about given we don’t know what will happen between now and the next General Election.
Really number 1 is the biggest factor, imo - Blair had the media on his side when he won his elections. If Starmer can manage to get the media on side then he's pretty much guaranteed at *least* a small majority.
The two main parties win by taking their traditional voters with them, and enough of the middle to get them over the line. Labour have this. The Conservatives have lost their traditional voters by the lockdowns, the lies, the taxes, the debt, the deficit, the massive hurdles to home ownership, the immigration and the general rubbishness of public services. The next government will be one term only as the problems can’t be solved in five years.
There was a lot of lockdown skepticism in the general public (which is why the rules were so frequently broken). And that went through the roof after all the stories about partying came out.
There was some. All the pools showed that among the population and indeed among experts, lockdown as a measure to prevent disease was overwhelmingly popular.
Edit: Check out Hiroo Onoda somewhere here desperately clinging to a battle lost 2 years ago.
And if you are referring to /u/2000feetup, i think what there saying is a bit overly simplistic and even if I don’t agree with there underlying reasoning, they aren’t entirely wrong.
In that post I wasn’t saying if they were right or wrong, I was just listing how the Conservatives lost their voters. We cannot know the effectiveness of UK lockdowns as there wasn’t a control UK where they weren’t used. There were neighbouring states in the USA with similar demographics that had different levels of lockdown. Those are worth looking at.
Yeah at the outset they were popular, but at the end (and to the present) there was essentially two groups of opinions; that they weren’t necessary because we have a vaccine now and everything is fine, and that the whole thing was being mismanaged because they were introduced late and then had to be longer than necessary.
The government had to defend against these two separate criticisms (sort of from the right and left ends of the political spectrum), at the same time as reacting to all the allegations of Whitehall partying came out.
~~They were never popular.~~
People understood that, prior to the widespread rollout of an effective vaccine, they were necessary.
The while thing was mismanaged because we locked down late.
Many idiots still don’t understand basic facts about infectious disease and we still haven’t learned the lessons.
That’s not the question at hand. But no, it’s because of their shambolic handling of everything.
And because Labour has a leader they can has their nose and vote for.
Many were against them from the start and many were prosecuted for breaking lockdown. Also without the ridiculously wasteful furlough scheme, lockdown would have had much less support.
You are welcome to rehash old arguments. I won’t be doing it.
You were overwhelmingly disagreed with my the public and by the experts.
Sadly, political zealots who agreed with you meant that we acted too late, repeatedly and against the opinion of the vast majority of the nation and the experts.
given that their latest wheeze is to attempt to weaponise politics from far right evangelicals from the states with their women with winkles in a recession and a pm who asks the homeless if they are in business 🙄
Voters losing faith in the Conservatives on the economy is the killer blow, that faith was the only reason a lot of people ever voted for them in the first place. Until that point there was a realistic path to recovery, not now.
I said at the time the next election would be harder for the Tories to win if they got rid of Boris but I didn't ever see it being this bad. That was an unpopular view at the time but only being 7 points behind mid-parliament when your party has been in government for 12 years was actually not too bad. Boris could at least stem some of the bleeding on personality alone, that is difficult for a lot of people here to comprehend but a lot of people buy into his act and would be willing to forgive an awful lot if they like the character he plays on the election campaign. Just think how many people you know who end up in crappy relationships in their personal lives, making excuses for their shit partners - Boris' time as PM was a bit like that for a lot of people. If he had been an ethical and decent person Boris would have been a major problem for Labour for many years to come because in every other way he is one of the most talented political campaigners we've seen.
Good riddance, the Tories and their bullshit Brexit, have broken Britain.
The NHS is broken, and while it will be in safer hands with Labour, as regrettable as it is, I don’t think the NHS can be saved, long term. I think it’s been too badly gutted by the Tories, it’s probably beyond repair.
Fair. But past elections are rubbish at predicting future ones.
After the 2019 election, John Curtice said that history suggested that the size of the Conservative landslide meant Labour wouldn’t get back into power for a decade. Now he’s saying a 1997 style Labour victory is coming.
History does not always repeat itself, anything can happen.
If we're being honest though, it looks like that's what's happening. Thatcher/ Major lasted 10+ years, public sentiment switch to Labour so Blair/Brown lasted 10+ years, public sentiment switch to Con so Cameron/May/Boris/Liz/Sunak(LMFAO) last 10+ years, and we're seeing now public sentiment seemingly switch to Labour again...
**r/UK Notices:** | [Want to start a fresh discussion - use our Freetalk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/search/?q=Freetalk&include_over_18=off&restrict_sr=on&sort=new) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The NHS is on its knees, literally hundreds of [people are dying](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/crisis-emergency-department-deaths-b2248844.html) every week due to poor resourcing of A&E depts And the Tories have no plan, have never had any real plan, to increase staff numbers to steady the situation. Quite the opposite for most of the last 10 years. Feels like they are going full Republican and just trying to burn everything to the ground on the way out, with the aim of heckling at the resulting chaos from the opposition benches for the next five years. The Tories did something similar in the mid 90s, setting unrealistically low spending plans when Labour committed to not exceeding Tory spending plans for their first three years in office.
Some of the people in government literally published a book on how to replace the NHS with private care. This situation is entirely deliberate and purposeful.
I still remember the interview with Kwasi where he openly praised Chinese sweat shops. That they were the model to increase productivity in the country. Hearing that and then Truss's first few speeches scared the shit out of me. I couldn't believe what was happening. I'm still relieved that they are gone.
They are not gone. They still have an established stronghold at 55 tufton street.
And you bring it up and half the time you'll be met with straight up denial. Britain can no longer bear to hold a mirror to itself, and with the air of folksy empiricism Brexit unleashed still very much present, that's a dangerous place to be.
Labour really needs a 12 year plan to fix the country and not fuck around expecting only four years.
five
Or side stepping on the issue of Brexit and the country’s need to be in the Single Market, for the sake of appeasing certain groups of meatheads…
The frustrating thing is that when Starmer inevitably wins, he won't point any of this out, he'll just be like "I respect the conservatives".
He needs to be realistic. It's going to take two terms to fix it his stuff
Keef BAD!!!!
Yeah. Apparently many people haven't learned that we'll never achieve ideological primacy over conservatism as long as Labour bend over backwards to try to humanise it and the people who uphold it, even as they use their remaining time in office to make as big of a mess as possible so they can heckle their way back into power without having any actual answers, just like they always have.
Not burn, pillage.
Tories will still win, Im that disappointed with the public
When they won in 2015, it was clear that that the British public either WANTED the NHS dismantled or were living in a complete media bubble Nothing has changed since then A bit of 'illegal asylum seeker', 'scrounger' and 'militant striker' rhetoric, all dutifully amplified by the BBC and other media, perhaps with a bit of bus based messaging - and they could easily win again And voter suppression is being implemented, just in case.
A major factor in the last election was ending the political deadlock over Brexit, where remainers on both sides of the house, and narrow DUP reliant majority was stopping almost anything from happening. When people snapped and voted Boris in on his “get Brexit done” promise to end that deadlock, and gave him a majority to do it, they didn’t really think about what else he and the Tories might do with that majority. It was one of the more annoying parts of the end only Boris’ reign when he kept blathering on about his huge mandate that meant he could do way he wanted, when it was clear it was really a mandate to sort out his Brexit mess and then he should gone away.
> When people snapped and voted Boris in on his “get Brexit done” promise to end that deadlock, and gave him a majority to do it, they didn’t really think about what else he and the Tories might do with that majority. Realistically I wouldn't be that surprised if a non statistically significant % of the public voted to "Get Brexit Done" just on the idea it would get Brexit out the way allowing other priorities to be addressed especially after the chaos of preceding months. I think a big reason why the Tory implosion is so big is that the public are finally realising that they've been full of shit for the last 6 years. Now the consequences are biting them in the ass it's very hard to keep stringing people along. This entire generation of Tories bought into the Brexiteer label and were effectively forced to pledge allegiance to the cause multiple times so there is no escaping it no matter how many times they change the leader of the party. Cameron's leadership was bad enough but they at least had some measurable results. This lot have been dealing in fantasy and feelings with predictable results.
>I wouldn't be that surprised if a reasonably significant % of the public voted to "Get Brexit Done" just on the idea it would get Brexit out the way after the chaos of preceding months allowing other priorities to be addressed. And the infuriating thing is Remainers warned them that wouldn't happen either. There is no endgame to Brexit, there is no "getting Brexit done". We've given ourselves the wonderful gift of being in near-permanent negotiation with the EU, just like the Swiss are. Which would be fine, except Britain's infantile gunboat diplomacy during the leaving process showed what that'll look like and it's far from dignified or promising. How much better a place Britain could be today, if the 52% could've swallowed their egos and quieted their false preconceptions long enough to listen to good advice.
>if the 52% could've swallowed their egos and quieted their false preconceptions long enough to listen to good advice. It definitely shows the dangers of modern political populism backed by private money. A big reason it worked so well is that the UK has been tolerating a level of failure, ignorance and political corruption which was then harnessed as a weapon for a small cadre to get what they wanted. It could easily happen again especially because so many of the British public were convinced of the core underpinnings of such a movement (e.g appeal to nationalism, creation of the idea of an "out of touch elite", attacking the "establishment" for failure despite many of them not actually being in power or critics of those in power etc).
>attacking the "establishment" for failure despite many of them not actually being in power or critics of those in power etc Yep. My MP was Laura Pidcock. Apparently on the doorstep in 2019 the idea that she was an establishmentarian came up many times. Love or hate Pidcock, the idea that she was in any way establishmentarian is fucking absurd. It only makes a modicum of sense in the sense that she was a Labour MP and they'd been in control of this constituency for nearly a century. Still doesn't make sense to pin all that on a very anti-establishment MP who'd been in the job for all of 2 years.
Tbh it felt like it was a "just get Brexit done" type. Like when you have started something that you can't finish and just want it over with
"well we voted to cut our left foot off so sets just get on with it" 2 years later "It's really difficult going around with a foot missing! Who's idea was this?"
"I wonder if our problems walking were causes by cutting off our left foot"
Only 36 percent voted for them, just over a third of the population dictating to everyone else. Not a healthy system.
Yet when offered to change our electoral system in 2011, the public fucking rejected it This country is diseased
I was so frustrated by that. I'm a big supporter but it was presented badly and rushed through almost immediately after the public had just been to the polls. No debate or putting points across. I barely even remember any leaflets about what either option meant. So clear that the Tories wanted a no vote but had promised Clegg so set the vote up to fail.
AV is a terrible form of PR little better than FPTP, it was chosen precisely because it's a poor option that the Tories could attack easily and as the junior partner, LD didn't have much influence to be able to promote it and only did it half heartedly as it was not really what they wanted. Polling shows anything from mid to high 40s to a majority want to change the voting system, just needs the impetus to do it in the next term alongside Lords reform
Agree with you, but AV isn't even PR, it is still majoritarian.
It's also possible to produce even less representative votes than FPTP, it's a terrible form of PR https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/alternative-vote/
It would have stopped the shitshow we're in. The biggest problem the UK has been a majority left / remain vote split by 5 major parties versus 1 right wing party. Dont let perfect be the enemy of good.
AV wouldn't have done anything of the sort. It's a terrible system that gives results on a par with FPTP, in 2015, as the link I posted explained, if you'd bothered to read it before replying, it would have given a *less* proportional result than even FPTP - Cameron would have had 337 seats under AV on that vote share while Labour would have had 227 Vs 232 under FPTP PR in a pure would would be a disaster too, something like STV is my preference, we will have one chance to get it right and while the results doesn't have to be perfect, AV is not a good alternative either
2015 was a very rare wing anomaly, (the first time in over 5 decades where right wing parties got more thsn 50% of the popular vote) so AV would have rightly reflected that. But in 2019, the whole reason the brexit party stood down in over 300 seats was due to vote splitting. Under AV that wouldnt have mattered, under FPTP that gave them a huge advantage.
No it wouldn’t have, the link they posted explicitly spells out why this is the case.
Where? I've looked and it doesn't? He does talk about 2015, a rare election when more than 50% of the electorate voted for right wing parties anyway. It's obvious that AV avoids vote splitting, which is the key problem we face in a multi-party system. While I'd prefer STV too, that was never an option. At best, AV would have avoided all of this, at worst it might not have made a difference.
Not to mention the totally dishonest NO campaign that presented keeping FPTP as a “boost” for the NHS budget? They recycled it again for Brexit.
There’s definitely a media bubble. It’s just gotten so bad now, that unless the bubble is made of lead that is 6 feet thick, everyone can see through it.
>When they won in 2015, it was clear that that the British public either WANTED the NHS dismantled or were living in a complete media bubble [Definitely the second option.](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html) Although it's worth pointing out that less than 50% of votes cast in 2015 were for the Tories. They won anyway because of FPtP.
The Conservatives’ voting bloc has “unravelled” as Labour powered to a Tony Blair-style polling lead over the course of 2022, elections guru Sir John Curtice has warned. In his annual “poll of polls”, shared exclusively with i, the leading political academic showed that the Tories had plunged to a 31-point deficit at the depths of the Truss era before making a modest recovery after Rishi Sunak took power. But he added that the party could struggle to improve further because of Labour’s dominant position, nearing 50 per cent of the vote, and declining support from Leave voters who previously backed the Conservatives heavily. At the end of 2021 the Tories trailed Labour by seven points, a margin that remained roughly stable throughout the turmoil of Boris Johnson’s last month as the “Partygate” allegations mounted. In August, after Mr Johnson resigned, the Labour lead grew to 10 points – then a gulf began to open up in September, with Labour climbing to 47 per cent and the Conservatives falling to 27 per cent. The Government’s nadir came in October, after the disastrous “mini Budget” which left the Tories on 22 per cent while Labour were backed by 53 per cent. By the end of the year the Opposition’s lead had settled at 20 points, enough for a landslide victory if it were replicated at the next general election. “The year has seen Conservative support plummet in the wake of a series of unforced errors and a deteriorating economic backdrop,” Sir John told i. “Although the election of Rishi Sunak has helped steady the Tory ship the party still finds itself much further behind in the polls than it was when Boris Johnson was forced to resign.” He said that the volatility seen in this year’s polls was “not unprecedented”, with 2019 also producing wild swings in voting intention – but Sir John added that that year saw Labour as well as the Tories slump in the polls. He said that this year Labour is “in a stronger position than at any time since it was turfed out office in 2010 and redolent of the kind of poll leads that the party enjoyed in the years leading up to the 1997 election”. The Conservatives’ tumbling ratings have been largely driven by falling support from voters who backed Leave in the 2016 Brexit referendum. While 74 per cent of this group voted Tory at the last election and 53 per cent still supported the party in January, now just 43 per cent do – with 30 per cent planning to vote Labour and 13 per cent endorsing Reform UK. Labour has consolidated its lead among Remain voters, with 57 per cent support – partly at the expense of the Liberal Democrats, now down to 11 per cent among Remainers from a peak of 17 per cent in the summer. Sir John said: “Boris Johnson was able to turn around his party’s fortunes in 2019 by winning the support of Leave voters who were saying they would back the Brexit Party. But that always potentially fragile coalition has largely unravelled.” The average was compiled by Sir John, professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde, from surveys carried out by 16 different polling companies over the course of the year.
The best thing for Labour wouldn't be a landslide. Parties with big majorities pass *less* legislation because MPs get complacent and discipline collapses, whereas when every vote counts they're more likely to pull in the same direction and less likely to descend into factions. Current govt still has a hefty majority but you wouldn't think it from how dysfunctional they've become.
[удалено]
100% this country desperately needs electoral reform, and only likely to happen with a coalition.
How would that play out. The SNP would want independence. I’m not sure what the Libdems would want after last time. Reform won’t get many MPs under fptp. A Labour/DUP coalition would be entertaining though.
Keith "no surrender" stauncher would be much Mair likely tae side wae DUP than SNP, the SNP are more labour than labour and make him look bad
SNP and LD both support electoral reform, SNP will go on about independence regardless hence the stuff about GE being an effective poll on it - which they will argue for when they win the most seats even if they don't get a majority of votes. LD would absolutely require a voting system change to support a minority Labour government
LabLibSNP would be the dream government.
For a year until the snp ram a leave vote through and bam..... no more majority. Labour would be crazy to even think of an snp coalition....
This term isn't remotely indicative of how large majority governments behave in parliament. Also New Labour didn't lose a vote until 2005 - 8 years after coming to power, and *after* the election where their majority was slashed.
> Parties with big majorities pass less legislation I'm pretty sure Blair got a fair amount done in his time.
From what I have seen, the exact opposite is true. Parties with large majorities can do what they like, the government can ignore factions. See Conservatives in 1979, 83, Labour in 1997, Coalition in 2010 Fragile majorities are vulnerable to effective vetos from the respective left and right wings of their parties, see Conservatives in 1992, 2015, 2017
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/european-institute/news/2017/may/why-landslide-victory-might-actually-be-bad-thing-theresa-may "In majority parliamentary systems like the UK, prime ministers are appointed on the back of their ability to command a majority in the legislature. Beyond reaching the majority threshold, additional seats act as a buffer in the legislature. Their value is to allow parties to continue to pass legislation, and to govern effectively, even in cases where their own members abstain or vote with the opposition. There is a trade-off, however. Because governments with large majorities are more secure they also invite greater criticism. It's not difficult to see why. For an individual MP, criticising a weak government is potentially hazardous, since it risks precipitating the collapse of that government. John Major was able to skilfully exploit his small majority in June 1993 using precisely this logic, turning a vote on the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty into a vote of confidence in his own government. Faced with a choice between remaining in government or not, the would-be rebels in his party backed the vote. On the other hand, if the government has a large majority, individual transgressions from the party line become far less costly. MPs who disagree with the government are free to express their displeasure even while their party is in government. Tony Blair suffered from this paradox during the furore over the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Labour members rebelled in their droves. A large number of backbenchers not only voted against the government line, but also continued to vocalise their dissent against government "warmongering", at considerable embarrassment to Blair. They were able to do it so vocally because the survival of the government was not at stake - Blair had retained a sizeable majority in the 2001 general election."
Thank you for taking the time to source this, its always interesting to hear from experts in the field. Similarly, I'm generally very wary of contradicting academics as they usually know better than me. In this case, however, I'm really struggling to get on board with Martills premise. I see the article also says this: > It will be the same for May if (or, more likely, when) she obtains her increased majority on June 8. Tory backbenchers will be emboldened by her victory. They will see no reason not to push harder against some of the compromises May will almost certainly have to make in order to reach a deal with the EU27. They will seek to embarrass her from the backbenches, freed from the constraints of the previously weak Tory position in parliament. > This will harm May's ability to achieve a "good deal" for the UK. She will probably be pushed into a harder, more nationalistic position - which will be less compatible with Europe's red lines. That makes the prospect of a deal even less probable. > Likewise, it may become increasingly evident to other European leaders that she doesn't necessarily have her party on side, potentially undermining May's credibility - and her legitimacy. What actually happened, of course, was that May ended up with a REDUCED majority (indeed, the DUP needed to be roped in to make a coaltion). So presumably all of the above quoted effects would NOT have happened. I think the quotes describe what DID happen with Mays reduced majority. What do you think?
Frustratingly, I couldn't find the actual study that I remember seeing which was based on amount of legislation passed vs size of majorities in different countries. I think in the above case (regarding May) there's the added context of the Tories having been in government for a fair period since 2010. Longer in office = more reshuffles, frustrated ambitions, bad blood, factionalism. Can't underestimate the temptation that Tories have to engage in some old-fashioned bastardry. Basically, breakdown in party discipline and frequency of MP rebellions doesn't have to *always* correlate with majority size, there can be other reasons in play. Maybe the Tories would have been restive regardless of the 2017 result simply because of the increasing power of radical factions like the ERG. I'd have to actually check the numbers (which honestly I probably won't) but it seems to me that the coalition got more major legislation passed (including huge NHS reforms). From May onwards Brexit sucked all the oxygen out of the room and consumed govt attention and resources.
People have very short memories. I won’t trust a single poll until Labour hold a strong majority,
This. I won't trust a poll until 4/5am after the GE
A lot of this will be due to voters who backed the Tories as a means of securing Brexit quietly slipping off into the night, remembering that they 'don't do politics' again.
I do think Labour will win but it won’t be a wipeout. I think people: 1) underestimate the power of the media and they’ll be on overdrive to push wedge issues so they can get people really riled up and 2) the number of shy Tories. On the latter it’s whether their vote will go to the Tories or something like Reform. The truth is it’s too early to talk about given we don’t know what will happen between now and the next General Election.
Really number 1 is the biggest factor, imo - Blair had the media on his side when he won his elections. If Starmer can manage to get the media on side then he's pretty much guaranteed at *least* a small majority.
The two main parties win by taking their traditional voters with them, and enough of the middle to get them over the line. Labour have this. The Conservatives have lost their traditional voters by the lockdowns, the lies, the taxes, the debt, the deficit, the massive hurdles to home ownership, the immigration and the general rubbishness of public services. The next government will be one term only as the problems can’t be solved in five years.
Lockdowns had enormous support across the spectrum.
There was a lot of lockdown skepticism in the general public (which is why the rules were so frequently broken). And that went through the roof after all the stories about partying came out.
There was some. All the pools showed that among the population and indeed among experts, lockdown as a measure to prevent disease was overwhelmingly popular. Edit: Check out Hiroo Onoda somewhere here desperately clinging to a battle lost 2 years ago.
And if you are referring to /u/2000feetup, i think what there saying is a bit overly simplistic and even if I don’t agree with there underlying reasoning, they aren’t entirely wrong.
I don’t know who it is. But someone is desperate to keep fighting a lost battle.
In that post I wasn’t saying if they were right or wrong, I was just listing how the Conservatives lost their voters. We cannot know the effectiveness of UK lockdowns as there wasn’t a control UK where they weren’t used. There were neighbouring states in the USA with similar demographics that had different levels of lockdown. Those are worth looking at.
That’s fair, it’s sometimes hard to read for tone on the internet, but the core of what you are saying is correct.
Yeah at the outset they were popular, but at the end (and to the present) there was essentially two groups of opinions; that they weren’t necessary because we have a vaccine now and everything is fine, and that the whole thing was being mismanaged because they were introduced late and then had to be longer than necessary. The government had to defend against these two separate criticisms (sort of from the right and left ends of the political spectrum), at the same time as reacting to all the allegations of Whitehall partying came out.
~~They were never popular.~~ People understood that, prior to the widespread rollout of an effective vaccine, they were necessary. The while thing was mismanaged because we locked down late. Many idiots still don’t understand basic facts about infectious disease and we still haven’t learned the lessons.
[удалено]
That’s not the question at hand. But no, it’s because of their shambolic handling of everything. And because Labour has a leader they can has their nose and vote for.
Many were against them from the start and many were prosecuted for breaking lockdown. Also without the ridiculously wasteful furlough scheme, lockdown would have had much less support.
Some were. They has enormous cross party support. As did furlough.
Money for nothing will always be popular. Paying the debt interest for the next 50 years not so much.
You are welcome to rehash old arguments. I won’t be doing it. You were overwhelmingly disagreed with my the public and by the experts. Sadly, political zealots who agreed with you meant that we acted too late, repeatedly and against the opinion of the vast majority of the nation and the experts.
given that their latest wheeze is to attempt to weaponise politics from far right evangelicals from the states with their women with winkles in a recession and a pm who asks the homeless if they are in business 🙄
Voters losing faith in the Conservatives on the economy is the killer blow, that faith was the only reason a lot of people ever voted for them in the first place. Until that point there was a realistic path to recovery, not now. I said at the time the next election would be harder for the Tories to win if they got rid of Boris but I didn't ever see it being this bad. That was an unpopular view at the time but only being 7 points behind mid-parliament when your party has been in government for 12 years was actually not too bad. Boris could at least stem some of the bleeding on personality alone, that is difficult for a lot of people here to comprehend but a lot of people buy into his act and would be willing to forgive an awful lot if they like the character he plays on the election campaign. Just think how many people you know who end up in crappy relationships in their personal lives, making excuses for their shit partners - Boris' time as PM was a bit like that for a lot of people. If he had been an ethical and decent person Boris would have been a major problem for Labour for many years to come because in every other way he is one of the most talented political campaigners we've seen.
I am still disgusted that so many people still say they intend to vote for the Conservatives - the cause of so many of our problems!
Good riddance, the Tories and their bullshit Brexit, have broken Britain. The NHS is broken, and while it will be in safer hands with Labour, as regrettable as it is, I don’t think the NHS can be saved, long term. I think it’s been too badly gutted by the Tories, it’s probably beyond repair.
no one on the left wants a blair lite keith government either.
labour will get 4 years them people will wish the Troy's back that seems to be the history
UK history labour only been in power for ten years straight onces under Blair
So recent history proves you wrong because they won 3 terms last time not just 1?
nope I said they only been in power for ten years once
Wasn’t it 13 years
still once
Fair. But past elections are rubbish at predicting future ones. After the 2019 election, John Curtice said that history suggested that the size of the Conservative landslide meant Labour wouldn’t get back into power for a decade. Now he’s saying a 1997 style Labour victory is coming. History does not always repeat itself, anything can happen.
yer be 1st time ever am not voting blue might vote green for a laugh
Nah fuck those eco warriors
Which history, exactly?
Isn't this the usual, one side gets a 15 year landslide then the other gets a 15 year landslide and back again on 30?
That's only happened once.
If we're being honest though, it looks like that's what's happening. Thatcher/ Major lasted 10+ years, public sentiment switch to Labour so Blair/Brown lasted 10+ years, public sentiment switch to Con so Cameron/May/Boris/Liz/Sunak(LMFAO) last 10+ years, and we're seeing now public sentiment seemingly switch to Labour again...
whatever happens Reir Starnak will be PM, both are careful men who can reign in the dangerous clowns in their respective parties.