Westminster Politics

[Red in STL]

That would be the case with PR, but not with FPTP, the Tories would just either get a narrow majority due to their locked-in base, or form a coalition again with an ambitious secondary party.

,
Which is why everyone needs to do it, these aren't secondary parties in a true sense but specific interest coalitions, look at the Radcliffe First example in Bury and replicate something similar across the country.

Something like this needs to happen or you'll be talking about the same things in 20 years

 

[Jericholyte2]

,
Which is why everyone needs to do it, these aren't secondary parties in a true sense but specific interest coalitions, look at the Radcliffe First example in Bury and replicate something similar across the country.

Something like this needs to happen or you'll be talking about the same things in 20 years

…but that won’t break the Tory base, only split the remaining vote.

Too many vote Tory no matter what (as examples I know, teachers, nurses and doctors who have and always will).

The reality is this is a conservative country (they’ve been in charge for +/- 90 of the last 120 years) and so a revolutionary tactic like that wouldn’t work.

 

[Buster15]

…but that won’t break the Tory base, only split the remaining vote.

Too many vote Tory no matter what (as examples I know, teachers, nurses and doctors who have and always will).

The reality is this is a conservative country (they’ve been in charge for +/- 90 of the last 120 years) and so a revolutionary tactic like that wouldn’t work.

And that is the reality of the historical way this country has voted.
We are a right of centre electorate. Certainly over the recent past. Which is precisely why a left wing Labour Party fails to attract sufficient votes to overcome the Tories at successive GEs.

 

[Red in STL]

And that is the reality of the historical way this country has voted.
We are a right of centre electorate. Certainly over the recent past. Which is precisely why a left wing Labour Party fails to attract sufficient votes to overcome the Tories at successive GEs.

True but the Tories will not win the next election, I think they know that themselves, but Labour are not really the answer either TBH, the last left wing goverment was in the 1970's and that got the country Thatcher, Blair/Brown was just a better version of Tory!

A sea change is required, something radical is needed, if no attempt is made you can hardly complain when the same-old, same-old continues

 

[The Corinthian]

What a depressing read.

 

[Salt Bailly]

Hmm, who to vote for in the next election? The man who has me bent over, dry raping me or my saviour who has stopped midway from saving me to have a quick ****-wank?

That escalated quickly.

 

[Bert_]

And that is the reality of the historical way this country has voted.
We are a right of centre electorate. Certainly over the recent past. Which is precisely why a left wing Labour Party fails to attract sufficient votes to overcome the Tories at successive GEs.

I don't think we are right of centre at all as an electorate. The problem is (as many have said) the FPTP system we have. You can never get the government the country actually wants. Prime example was Corbyn's labour. Polling suggested his policies (2017 ones at least) were actually pretty popular to the point they had a majority supporting them. But due to the electoral system we have, people are not voting on policies or what they think is the best course for the nation. It's an all or nothing proposition based on a manifesto and a leader (despite that being a complete illusion). If there is one aspect of that manifesto or leader the electorate don't like or are worried about then that can have a huge sway.

As an example, you might want to leave the EU but also want more funding for the NHS or nationalisation of rail. If you vote Corbyn then you may get better funding for the NHS and nationalised rail but you might not leave the EU/Single Market/Customs Union etc. So you prioritise what is important to you in that election. You may think that this is the one and only chance to leave the EU in the way you believe is the right way, so you go single issue and choose to vote for the party that you are confident will deliver it. You may well have bit your tongue voting for them in that election but did so happy in the knowledge that you temporarily sacrificed your secondary issues for a few years and will just switch back the next GE. Hence all those the Labour leave areas voting Tory for the first time that will no doubt revert back to Labour (regardless of who the leader is) next time.

That is the systemic problem we have. Single issues dominate FPTP. We need to get out of the mindset of absolutism in voting and start to accept that not everyone that votes a certain way is voting for the same thing. We need to be able to more freely express our views on what is the best way forward for our society without having to make a black and white choice. That will involve consensus voting and compromise. Basically proportional representation, which if implemented properly will see the Tories dismantled as any force in politics.

 

[Red in STL]

I don't think we are right of centre at all as an electorate. The problem is (as many have said) the FPTP system we have. You can never get the government the country actually wants. Prime example was Corbyn's labour. Polling suggested his policies (2017 ones at least) were actually pretty popular to the point they had a majority supporting them. But due to the electoral system we have, people are not voting on policies or what they think is the best course for the nation. It's an all or nothing proposition based on a manifesto and a leader (despite that being a complete illusion). If there is one aspect of that manifesto or leader the electorate don't like or are worried about then that can have a huge sway.

As an example, you might want to leave the EU but also want more funding for the NHS or nationalisation of rail. If you vote Corbyn then you may get better funding for the NHS and nationalised rail but you might not leave the EU/Single Market/Customs Union etc. So you prioritise what is important to you in that election. You may think that this is the one and only chance to leave the EU in the way you believe is the right way, so you go single issue and choose to vote for the party that you are confident will deliver it. You may well have bit your tongue voting for them in that election but did so happy in the knowledge that you temporarily sacrificed your secondary issues for a few years and will just switch back the next GE. Hence all those the Labour leave areas voting Tory for the first time that will no doubt revert back to Labour (regardless of who the leader is) next time.

That is the systemic problem we have. Single issues dominate FPTP. We need to get out of the mindset of absolutism in voting and start to accept that not everyone that votes a certain way is voting for the same thing. We need to be able to more freely express our views on what is the best way forward for our society without having to make a black and white choice. That will involve consensus voting and compromise. Basically proportional representation, which if implemented properly will see the Tories dismantled as any force in politics.

Absolutely spot on except the last part, Tories wouldn't be dismantled, they'd still be prominent but just at the proper level

 

[Bert_]

Absolutely spot on except the last part, Tories wouldn't be dismantled, they'd still be prominent but just at the proper level

I honestly don't think they'd survive PR. The Tories as they are right now are basically a coalition of various right wing interests. Under PR they'd be broken up into several different parties.

Labour would as well to be fair but I think you would see far more centre-left coalitions forming than centre-right in that system.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

I don't think we are right of centre at all as an electorate. The problem is (as many have said) the FPTP system we have. You can never get the government the country actually wants. Prime example was Corbyn's labour. Polling suggested his policies (2017 ones at least) were actually pretty popular to the point they had a majority supporting them. But due to the electoral system we have, people are not voting on policies or what they think is the best course for the nation. It's an all or nothing proposition based on a manifesto and a leader (despite that being a complete illusion). If there is one aspect of that manifesto or leader the electorate don't like or are worried about then that can have a huge sway.

As an example, you might want to leave the EU but also want more funding for the NHS or nationalisation of rail. If you vote Corbyn then you may get better funding for the NHS and nationalised rail but you might not leave the EU/Single Market/Customs Union etc. So you prioritise what is important to you in that election. You may think that this is the one and only chance to leave the EU in the way you believe is the right way, so you go single issue and choose to vote for the party that you are confident will deliver it. You may well have bit your tongue voting for them in that election but did so happy in the knowledge that you temporarily sacrificed your secondary issues for a few years and will just switch back the next GE. Hence all those the Labour leave areas voting Tory for the first time that will no doubt revert back to Labour (regardless of who the leader is) next time.

That is the systemic problem we have. Single issues dominate FPTP. We need to get out of the mindset of absolutism in voting and start to accept that not everyone that votes a certain way is voting for the same thing. We need to be able to more freely express our views on what is the best way forward for our society without having to make a black and white choice. That will involve consensus voting and compromise. Basically proportional representation, which if implemented properly will see the Tories dismantled as any force in politics.

All valid points.

You also cannot discount our poorly regulated media, which leads to wealthy private interests being continuously propagated by narratives in almost every media outlet. Which ultimately convinces people to vote Tory, in most cases against their own personal interest.

Combine that with an overstrained state education system that doesn't particularly promote critical thinking, its a dangerous combination.

 

[Buster15]

I don't think we are right of centre at all as an electorate. The problem is (as many have said) the FPTP system we have. You can never get the government the country actually wants. Prime example was Corbyn's labour. Polling suggested his policies (2017 ones at least) were actually pretty popular to the point they had a majority supporting them. But due to the electoral system we have, people are not voting on policies or what they think is the best course for the nation. It's an all or nothing proposition based on a manifesto and a leader (despite that being a complete illusion). If there is one aspect of that manifesto or leader the electorate don't like or are worried about then that can have a huge sway.

As an example, you might want to leave the EU but also want more funding for the NHS or nationalisation of rail. If you vote Corbyn then you may get better funding for the NHS and nationalised rail but you might not leave the EU/Single Market/Customs Union etc. So you prioritise what is important to you in that election. You may think that this is the one and only chance to leave the EU in the way you believe is the right way, so you go single issue and choose to vote for the party that you are confident will deliver it. You may well have bit your tongue voting for them in that election but did so happy in the knowledge that you temporarily sacrificed your secondary issues for a few years and will just switch back the next GE. Hence all those the Labour leave areas voting Tory for the first time that will no doubt revert back to Labour (regardless of who the leader is) next time.

That is the systemic problem we have. Single issues dominate FPTP. We need to get out of the mindset of absolutism in voting and start to accept that not everyone that votes a certain way is voting for the same thing. We need to be able to more freely express our views on what is the best way forward for our society without having to make a black and white choice. That will involve consensus voting and compromise. Basically proportional representation, which if implemented properly will see the Tories dismantled as any force in politics.

History says different.

 

[Red in STL]

History says different.

Care to expand on why history says different?

 

[Bert_]

History says different.

Just pinched this from Wikipedia but it demonstrates what I'm talking about. In the last 100 years, only twice (both in the 1930s) have more than 50% of people that voted have actually voted for the winning party. Also take into account that roughly 1/3 people don't even vote these days.

Year	Conservative % vote​	Conservative Seats​	Labour % vote​	Labour Seats​	Liberal Democrats % vote​	Liberal Democrats Seats​	SNP/PC % vote​	SNP/PC Seats​	N.Ireland % vote​	N.Ireland Seats​	Other % vote​	Other Seats​	% Turnout	Total Seats
1922	38.5	344	29.7	142	28.8	115					3	14	73	615
1923	38	258	30.7	191	29.7	158					1.6	8	71.1	615
1924	46.8	412	33.3	151	17.8	40					2.1	12	77	615
1929	38.1	260	37.1	287	23.6	59					1.2	9	76.3	615
1931	60.7	522	30.6	52	6.5	32					2.2	9	76.4	615
1935	53.3	429	38	154	6.7	21					2	11	71.1	615
1945	39.6	210	48	393	9	12					3.4	25	72.8	640
1950	43.4	299	46.1	315	9.1	9					1.4	2	83.9	625
1951	48	321	48.8	295	2.5	6					0.7	3	82.6	625
1955	49.7	345	46.4	277	2.7	6					1.2	2	76.8	630
1959	49.4	365	43.4	258	5.9	6					1.3	1	78.7	630
1964	43.4	304	44.1	317	11.2	9					1.3	0	77.1	630
1966	41.9	253	48	364	8.5	12					1.6	1	75.8	630
1970	46.4	330	43.1	288	7.5	6	1.7	1			1.3	5	72	630
1974 (Feb)	37.9	297	37.2	301	19.3	14	2.5	9	2.3	12	0.8	2	78.8	635
1974 (Oct)	35.8	277	39.2	319	18.3	13	3.5	14	2.4	12	0.8	0	72.8	635
1979	43.9	339	36.9	269	13.8	11	2	4	2.2	12	1.2	0	76	635
1983	42.4	397	27.6	209	25.4	23	1.5	4	2.5	17	0.6	0	72.7	650
1987	42.2	376	30.8	229	22.6	22	1.7	6	2.2	17	0.5	0	75.3	650
1992	41.9	336	34.4	271	17.8	20	2.4	7	2.3	17	1.2	0	77.7	651
1997	30.7	165	43.2	419	16.8	46	2.5	10	2.5	18	4.3	1	71.3	659
2001	31.7	166	40.7	413	18.3	52	2.5	9	3.1	18	3.7	1	59.4	659
2005	32.4	198	35.2	356	22.1	62	2.4	9	2.6	18	5.3	3	61.4	646
2010	36.1	307	29	258	23	57	2.3	9	2.3	18	7.3	1	65.1	650
2015 7	36.8	331	30.4	232	7.8	8	5.3	59	2.3	18	17.4	2	66.4	650
2017	42.3	318	40	262	7.4	12	3.5	39	2.5	18	4.3	1	68.8	650
2019	43.6	365	32.2	203	11.5	11	4.4	52	2.5	18	5.8	1	67.3	650

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Just pinched this from Wikipedia but it demonstrates what I'm talking about. In the last 100 years, only twice (both in the 1930s) have more than 50% of people that voted have actually voted for the winning party. Also take into account that roughly 1/3 people don't even vote these days.

Year	Conservative % vote​	Conservative Seats​	Labour % vote​	Labour Seats​	Liberal Democrats % vote​	Liberal Democrats Seats​	SNP/PC % vote​	SNP/PC Seats​	N.Ireland % vote​	N.Ireland Seats​	Other % vote​	Other Seats​	% Turnout	Total Seats
1922	38.5	344	29.7	142	28.8	115					3	14	73	615
1923	38	258	30.7	191	29.7	158					1.6	8	71.1	615
1924	46.8	412	33.3	151	17.8	40					2.1	12	77	615
1929	38.1	260	37.1	287	23.6	59					1.2	9	76.3	615
1931	60.7	522	30.6	52	6.5	32					2.2	9	76.4	615
1935	53.3	429	38	154	6.7	21					2	11	71.1	615
1945	39.6	210	48	393	9	12					3.4	25	72.8	640
1950	43.4	299	46.1	315	9.1	9					1.4	2	83.9	625
1951	48	321	48.8	295	2.5	6					0.7	3	82.6	625
1955	49.7	345	46.4	277	2.7	6					1.2	2	76.8	630
1959	49.4	365	43.4	258	5.9	6					1.3	1	78.7	630
1964	43.4	304	44.1	317	11.2	9					1.3	0	77.1	630
1966	41.9	253	48	364	8.5	12					1.6	1	75.8	630
1970	46.4	330	43.1	288	7.5	6	1.7	1			1.3	5	72	630
1974 (Feb)	37.9	297	37.2	301	19.3	14	2.5	9	2.3	12	0.8	2	78.8	635
1974 (Oct)	35.8	277	39.2	319	18.3	13	3.5	14	2.4	12	0.8	0	72.8	635
1979	43.9	339	36.9	269	13.8	11	2	4	2.2	12	1.2	0	76	635
1983	42.4	397	27.6	209	25.4	23	1.5	4	2.5	17	0.6	0	72.7	650
1987	42.2	376	30.8	229	22.6	22	1.7	6	2.2	17	0.5	0	75.3	650
1992	41.9	336	34.4	271	17.8	20	2.4	7	2.3	17	1.2	0	77.7	651
1997	30.7	165	43.2	419	16.8	46	2.5	10	2.5	18	4.3	1	71.3	659
2001	31.7	166	40.7	413	18.3	52	2.5	9	3.1	18	3.7	1	59.4	659
2005	32.4	198	35.2	356	22.1	62	2.4	9	2.6	18	5.3	3	61.4	646
2010	36.1	307	29	258	23	57	2.3	9	2.3	18	7.3	1	65.1	650
2015 7	36.8	331	30.4	232	7.8	8	5.3	59	2.3	18	17.4	2	66.4	650
2017	42.3	318	40	262	7.4	12	3.5	39	2.5	18	4.3	1	68.8	650
2019	43.6	365	32.2	203	11.5	11	4.4	52	2.5	18	5.8	1	67.3	650

So you've unwittingly confirmed his point - how many times have people voted for Labour more than the Tories - not many. You also cannot guess what the non-voters would have voted for.

Furthermore, if there were more parties other than just two main parties, nobody would get close to 50%.

 

[Bert_]

So you've unwittingly confirmed his point - how many times have people voted for Labour more than the Tories - not many. You also cannot guess what the non-voters would have voted for.

Furthermore, if there were more parties other than just two main parties, nobody would get close to 50%.

The point I'm trying to make (unsuccessfully it seems) is that we have minority rule. If you consider the Libs, SNP and Labour as centre-left then there has been a centre-left majority in most elections.

In PR, no single party would get near 50% but that's kind of the point. Parties that share certain aims can unite to see out those aims. In theory, those aims would be supported by the majority of the electorate.

And agreed, you can't assume what non-voters would do but I'd wager a good % of those voters don't vote because they feel disenfranchised. Having something more aligned to their personal views to vote for may get them into a polling station.

 

[Buster15]

Care to expand on why history says different?

See post 33256.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

The point I'm trying to make (unsuccessfully it seems) is that we have minority rule. If you consider the Libs, SNP and Labour as centre-left then there has been a centre-left majority in most elections.

In PR, no single party would get near 50% but that's kind of the point. Parties that share certain aims can unite to see out those aims. In theory, those aims would be supported by the majority of the electorate.

And agreed, you can't assume what non-voters would do but I'd wager a good % of those voters don't vote because they feel disenfranchised. Having something more aligned to their personal views to vote for may get them into a polling station.

Most countries have minority rule if they have more than two parties. I wouldn't class the Libs as left of centre either. At the moment Labour don't seem very left of centre either as Starmer tries to do a milder version of the Tories.

But over history, England, which is the main voting base, has always voted more to the right than the left.

There's one point the Tories and Labour have agreed on recently and that's being outside the EU.

 

[Vidyoyo]

Counter argument - Proportional representation (thanks STL Red) would encourage more fringe lunatic parties and you just know people would vote for them if they felt a chance at representation. UKIP for example would have done horribly well a few years ago.

 

[Red in STL]

Most countries have minority rule if they have more than two parties. I wouldn't class the Libs as left of centre either. At the moment Labour don't seem very left of centre either as Starmer tries to do a milder version of the Tories.

But over history, England, which is the main voting base, has always voted more n to the right than the left.

There's one point the Tories and Labour have agreed on recently and that's being outside the EU.

That last point is a tad misleading, both parties agree that the result of the referendum should be honoured which is not quite the same thing

The EU vote wasn't a partisan party issue, there are members of both sides of the referendum in both parties

 

[Bert_]

Most countries have minority rule if they have more than two parties. I wouldn't class the Libs as left of centre either. At the moment Labour don't seem very left of centre either as Starmer tries to do a milder version of the Tories.

But over history, England, which is the main voting base, has always voted more to the right than the left.

There's one point the Tories and Labour have agreed on recently and that's being outside the EU.

I suppose it depends on how you define minority rule. I'd argue a coalition of multiple parties is a better representation of the electorate. Especially considering you will see by voting % how well the makeup of that coalition is supported.

Starmer is a good example of what I'm talking about. Without FPTP, his version of the labour party would cease to exist. They are completely relying on the anti-Tory vote. Vote for us or else you get Tories. That's not representative of anything.

The EU stance is another example. If you re-ran the referendum today then Remain win by a decent margin. If you offer it up in the FPTP system, leave wins by a decent margin.

 

[Red in STL]

Counter argument - FPTP would encourage more fringe lunatic parties and you just know people would vote for them if they felt a chance at representation. UKIP for example would have done horribly well a few years ago.

I think you mean proportional representation not FPTP

And there's nothing wrong with that, UKIP, whether you like it or not, had a policy that was popular with a lot of people. I wasn't one of them though

FPTP does not represent what the people actually want, it never has and never will

 

[Bert_]

Counter argument - FPTP would encourage more fringe lunatic parties and you just know people would vote for them if they felt a chance at representation. UKIP for example would have done horribly well a few years ago.

Getting rid of FPTP for a PR system would do that. UKIP took about 12% of the vote in 2015 election so they would have had seats in a PR system. Got to take the rough with the smooth though.

 

[Vidyoyo]

I think you mean proportional representation not FPTP

And there's nothing wrong with that, UKIP, whether you like it or not, had a policy that was popular with a lot of people. I wasn't one of them though

FPTP does not represent what the people actually want, it never has and never will

Yes I did! Thanks for pointing that out.

Fair point re: bold. I was more just trying to make the point that neither system is perfect. I'd personally opt for proportional myself.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

That last point is a tad misleading, both parties agree that the result of the referendum should be honoured which is not quite the same thing

The EU vote wasn't a partisan party issue, there are members of both sides of the referendum in both parties

Yes there were people on both sides but both parties rushed into it without a thought and pressed the A50 trigger as soon as they could. There was no (coherent) plan from either side. There still isn't.

Now both parties are pandering to the Leave voters. Those who want to get closer again to the EU have nobody to vote for.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I suppose it depends on how you define minority rule. I'd argue a coalition of multiple parties is a better representation of the electorate. Especially considering you will see by voting % how well the makeup of that coalition is supported.

Starmer is a good example of what I'm talking about. Without FPTP, his version of the labour party would cease to exist. They are completely relying on the anti-Tory vote. Vote for us or else you get Tories. That's not representative of anything.

The EU stance is another example. If you re-ran the referendum today then Remain win by a decent margin. If you offer it up in the FPTP system, leave wins by a decent margin.

Yes a coalition of multiple parties is a better representation. To achieve that the whole system needs to be completely overhauled which will take a long time even if everyone was agreeable. No party seems to favour that. Seems like many decades away if ever.

Agree with you regarding Starmer.

Not so sure regarding the EU, people may realise that Brexit was a catastrophic mistake but the reasons why people voted thus are still there. Voting against their own interests has not stopped people in the past.

 

[Bert_]

Yes a coalition of multiple parties is a better representation. To achieve that the whole system needs to be completely overhauled which will take a long time even if everyone was agreeable. No party seems to favour that. Seems like many decades away if ever.

Agree with you regarding Starmer.

Not so sure regarding the EU, people may realise that Brexit was a catastrophic mistake but the reasons why people voted thus are still there. Voting against their own interests has not stopped people in the past.

On the bold bit, completely anecdotal but it was shocking the amount of people I've spoken to that voted out because they thought David Cameron was a cnut! I can imagine a sizable amount of the leave vote was basically a f*** you without any consideration. If you re-ran it today it wouldn't be a landslide by any stretch but I could see a large swing to remain. Anyway, too late now

 

[Paul the Wolf]

On the bold bit, completely anecdotal but it was shocking the amount of people I've spoken to that voted out because they thought David Cameron was a cnut! I can imagine a sizable amount of the leave vote was basically a f*** you without any consideration. If you re-ran it today it wouldn't be a landslide by any stretch but I could see a large swing to remain. Anyway, too late now

I've been told loads of different weird and wonderful reasons why people voted Leave. Not many made much sense.

I still get the feeling that a large proportion of the population still don't realise what they've voted for. As other factors fade like Covid and Ukraine and full Brexit is introduced over the next few years, maybe things will change.

 

[nickm]

Counter argument - Proportional representation (thanks STL Red) would encourage more fringe lunatic parties and you just know people would vote for them if they felt a chance at representation. UKIP for example would have done horribly well a few years ago.

You get a different bunch of problems with proportional representation. In order to win power, parties have to trade elements of their manifesto that people voted on. Remember the Lib Dems changing position on student fees? That was a result of the negotiations to form the coalition. You'd see a load more of that kind of thing. So how representative are these parties being REALLY?

And I say this as no fan of FPTP.

To be honest, I think the bigger problem is the structure of parliament and the government overall; I'd rather we solved that first, eg had more localised power, a reformed 2nd chamber and a more federal kind of structure - and a written constitution. I think all of that would be transformational.

 

[Red in STL]

I've been told loads of different weird and wonderful reasons why people voted Leave. Not many made much sense.

I still get the feeling that a large proportion of the population still don't realise what they've voted for. As other factors fade like Covid and Ukraine and full Brexit is introduced over the next few years, maybe things will change.

In my view the biggest reason was immigration, a lot of people just can't distinguish between illegal and legal immigration + of course the bus message

I also think there was an element of sticking 2 fingers up at the establishment who were broadly in favour of remain

 

[Red in STL]

Yes I did! Thanks for pointing that out.

Fair point re: bold. I was more just trying to make the point that neither system is perfect. I'd personally opt for proportional myself.

So would I, as you say no system is perfect

 

[Jericholyte2]

 

[Paul the Wolf]

In my view the biggest reason was immigration, a lot of people just can't distinguish between illegal and legal immigration + of course the bus message

I also think there was an element of sticking 2 fingers up at the establishment who were broadly in favour of remain

Agreed and the immigration issue has been even more clouded now than then with legal + illegal + asylum seekers and/or people in small boats all placed in one pot.

Of all the people I asked in 2016/7 as to why they voted leave, the top answer was always immigration and especially refugees/asylum seekers (and that was before people started crossing the channel). When pointed out that leaving the EU certainly wouldn't have achieved their aims, the fallback answer was sovereignty, when that was refuted, the next answer was ...x.. and so on until the circle had been completed.

 

[ThehatchetMan]

So you've unwittingly confirmed his point - how many times have people voted for Labour more than the Tories - not many. You also cannot guess what the non-voters would have voted for.

Furthermore, if there were more parties other than just two main parties, nobody would get close to 50%.

Not a lot? Out of around 20 elections since 1945, Labour have had more votes than the tories 9 times.

As the other poster has identified though. The uk uses a draconian electorate system which is well past its sell by date and acts as a detterant to people voting for the party they want because what's the point in voting greens in a Labour or Conservative stronghold.

This leads to disparity with some votes being worth a lot more than others. For example here are the amount of seats each labour/Conservative get per 1% of the vote in the last three elections:

2019:

Labour - 6.3
Conservstive - 8.7


2017:

Labour - 6.55
Conservative - 7.49

2015:

Labour - 7.63
Conservative - 9.11

If both parties had 50% of total votes in 2019. The Conservative Party would have came out with 120 more seats.

There's a reason why very few countries use a voting system like the uk nowadays. Its not fit for purpose and isn't democratic.

It benefits the two big parties (Labour/Con) the most and thus there is no urge to change it because power is more important than democracy for some.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Not a lot? Out of around 20 elections since 1945, Labour have had more votes than the tories 9 times.

As the other poster has identified though. The uk uses a draconian electorate system which is well past its sell by date and acts as a detterant to people voting for the party they want because what's the point in voting greens in a Labour or Conservative stronghold.

This leads to disparity with some votes being worth a lot more than others. For example here are the amount of seats each labour/Conservative get per 1% of the vote in the last three elections:

2019:

Labour - 6.3
Conservstive - 8.7


2017:

Labour - 6.55
Conservative - 7.49

2015:

Labour - 7.63
Conservative - 9.11

If both parties had 50% of total votes in 2019. The Conservative Party would have came out with 120 more seats.

There's a reason why very few countries use a voting system like the uk nowadays. Its not fit for purpose and isn't democratic.

It benefits the two big parties (Labour/Con) the most and thus there is no urge to change it because power is more important than democracy for some.

There were quite a lot of elections close together when they did and they usually got elected when they did. There are a couple of exceptions both ways.
I do not disagree that the UK system is not fit for purpose. It's a hopeless and out of date system. But yes, neither of the major parties want to change it.

Labour as a left of centre party hasn't been in power since the 70s which was when I voted for Wilson (Oct 74) when I was 18, my first time voting, I'm now 66. A long time ago.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Just pinched this from Wikipedia but it demonstrates what I'm talking about. In the last 100 years, only twice (both in the 1930s) have more than 50% of people that voted have actually voted for the winning party. Also take into account that roughly 1/3 people don't even vote these days.

Year	Conservative % vote​	Conservative Seats​	Labour % vote​	Labour Seats​	Liberal Democrats % vote​	Liberal Democrats Seats​	SNP/PC % vote​	SNP/PC Seats​	N.Ireland % vote​	N.Ireland Seats​	Other % vote​	Other Seats​	% Turnout	Total Seats
1922	38.5	344	29.7	142	28.8	115					3	14	73	615
1923	38	258	30.7	191	29.7	158					1.6	8	71.1	615
1924	46.8	412	33.3	151	17.8	40					2.1	12	77	615
1929	38.1	260	37.1	287	23.6	59					1.2	9	76.3	615
1931	60.7	522	30.6	52	6.5	32					2.2	9	76.4	615
1935	53.3	429	38	154	6.7	21					2	11	71.1	615
1945	39.6	210	48	393	9	12					3.4	25	72.8	640
1950	43.4	299	46.1	315	9.1	9					1.4	2	83.9	625
1951	48	321	48.8	295	2.5	6					0.7	3	82.6	625
1955	49.7	345	46.4	277	2.7	6					1.2	2	76.8	630
1959	49.4	365	43.4	258	5.9	6					1.3	1	78.7	630
1964	43.4	304	44.1	317	11.2	9					1.3	0	77.1	630
1966	41.9	253	48	364	8.5	12					1.6	1	75.8	630
1970	46.4	330	43.1	288	7.5	6	1.7	1			1.3	5	72	630
1974 (Feb)	37.9	297	37.2	301	19.3	14	2.5	9	2.3	12	0.8	2	78.8	635
1974 (Oct)	35.8	277	39.2	319	18.3	13	3.5	14	2.4	12	0.8	0	72.8	635
1979	43.9	339	36.9	269	13.8	11	2	4	2.2	12	1.2	0	76	635
1983	42.4	397	27.6	209	25.4	23	1.5	4	2.5	17	0.6	0	72.7	650
1987	42.2	376	30.8	229	22.6	22	1.7	6	2.2	17	0.5	0	75.3	650
1992	41.9	336	34.4	271	17.8	20	2.4	7	2.3	17	1.2	0	77.7	651
1997	30.7	165	43.2	419	16.8	46	2.5	10	2.5	18	4.3	1	71.3	659
2001	31.7	166	40.7	413	18.3	52	2.5	9	3.1	18	3.7	1	59.4	659
2005	32.4	198	35.2	356	22.1	62	2.4	9	2.6	18	5.3	3	61.4	646
2010	36.1	307	29	258	23	57	2.3	9	2.3	18	7.3	1	65.1	650
2015 7	36.8	331	30.4	232	7.8	8	5.3	59	2.3	18	17.4	2	66.4	650
2017	42.3	318	40	262	7.4	12	3.5	39	2.5	18	4.3	1	68.8	650
2019	43.6	365	32.2	203	11.5	11	4.4	52	2.5	18	5.8	1	67.3	650

Not directly on topic, but the recent Labour vote percentage in 2017 and even 2019 in context of Labour's vote percentage in the previous couple of decades was some of it's highest.

 

[Frosty]

Not directly on topic, but the recent Labour vote percentage in 2017 and even 2019 in context of Labour's vote percentage in the previous couple of decades was some of it's highest.

Posted without need to comment.

 

[GuybrushThreepwood]

In terms of PR, if it was in place, I think that Labour and the Tories would clearly and quickly split into multiple parties. They are forced to operate as wide coalitions within themselves under a FPTP electoral system, though Labour are a wider coalition than the Tories, just like the Democrats a wider coalition than the Republicans in the US.

Under PR, there’d be no need for the likes Rebecca Long-Bailey and Rachel Reeves to be in the same party as each other (they clearly shouldn’t be), or Jeremy Hunt and Jacob Rees-Mogg. Even the Lib Dems have operated as a coalition between the Social Liberals (such as Charles Kennedy - RIP) and Orange Bookers (such as Nick Clegg, who seized control of the party and led it to destruction). So there would be a (IMO) sorely needed political realignment. Yes there could well be a coalition between parties that currently make up different wings of the Labour party for example. But crucially they wouldn't be battling it out for the 'soul' of the same party on a daily basis. And while there were many things that the coalition government did from 2010-2015 that I despised, notably excessive austerity (while I'm no fan of Clegg, Cameron admitted that it would have been even deeper without the Lib Dems), Cameron had more battles with his own back-bench MPs during that period, notably over legalising same sex marriage and Europe, than he did with the Lib Dems in his government.

Also in terms of UKIP winning a lot of seats under PR in 2015, well under FPTP and even from outside the Commons, they and Farage (also through the Brexit Party) exerted a huge amount of influence over the Tories and several Tory governments. And a large number of Tory MPs such as Steve Baker, Suella Braverman, Christopher Chope, Peter Bone, Mark Francois etc. are in reality the same thing as Ukippers. They just were never going to give up / jeopardise their ultra-safe Tory seats where for a long time a donkeys wearing blue rosettes would get elected.

 

[P-Ro]

Sunak wants all pupils to study maths to 18

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64158179

Great idea mate. I can count on my hands the amount of times I've had to use what I learnt in my Maths A Level in my adult life. Zero. If you've got a decent GCSE in Maths there's absolutely no point to this whatsoever.

 

[Pexbo]

Sunak wants all pupils to study maths to 18

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64158179

Great idea mate. I can count on my hands the amount of times I've had to use what I learnt in my Maths A Level in my adult life. Zero. If you've got a decent GCSE in Maths there's absolutely no point to this whatsoever.

Soft skills are so much more important.

 

[Frosty]

Sunak wants all pupils to study maths to 18

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64158179

Great idea mate. I can count on my hands the amount of times I've had to use what I learnt in my Maths A Level in my adult life. Zero. If you've got a decent GCSE in Maths there's absolutely no point to this whatsoever.

Which is going to cost money, and apparently there isn't any to pay the nurses or train staff, so it will be fun to see the logic justifying this.