General Election 2024....

[BoldonLad]

I think you'll find it's a much smaller trough.

Yes, I did say “small beer compared to”, 😊

 

[BoldonLad]

Like Starmer, they think it's best to play safe. They don't want one of their candidates inadvertently giving a Nazi salute on TV. Keep that till after the election.

Playing safe is what they are all trying to do this time around. So far, Starmer seems to be doing best at it, but, there is time yet for a slip up, or, two.

 

[theclaud]

They did present a united front. 21 of them walked

Just think what could have been avoided if Corbyn had stepped down at that point. Possibly not another Tory govt, but probably one without such a massive majority, and certainly no crisis within the Labour party.

Besides, your statement is disingenuous because I was talking about unity in the run up to an election.

LOL. As Sir Keir's sole remaining fluffer on this forum, you've bullshat yourself into a very tight corner and a ludicrous political space, but I've got a grudging admiration for the commitment.

 

[multitool]

LOL. As Sir Keir's sole remaining fluffer on this forum, you've bullshat yourself into a very tight corner and a ludicrous political space, but I've got a grudging admiration for the commitment.

A desire for the only possible alternative to another 5 years of Tory hardly qualifies me as a "fluffer", but I get that you have your role to play as chief renegade.

Grudging respect for past participle "bullshat" though. Never occurred to me to do that.

 

[theclaud]

Grudging respect for past participle "bullshat" though. Never occurred to me to do that.

Doesn't even cause the swear filter to flicker...

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Starmer fluffer - that thought might make the next three weeks seven harder (oops) to endure..
Keith, you're live in 4 minutes....

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Did anyone say they found him a bit wooden?

 

[presta]

This is doing the rounds on TwiX, I think it's from Survation:

 

[Rusty Nails]

Whether he is wooden or not is just fluff and makes not an ounce of difference as long as he is leading towards a Labour win. Boris was not wooden and look at what happened there.

The only thing that matters at this stage is a win, even though that is not enough for those who want a promise of immediate, transformational change accompanied by a juvenile chorus of "Things can only get better" or mawkish, messianic chants of the leader's name. To get real change will take more than one five year period in government, more like at least three terms, and while I am not at all excited by Starmer or his style there is no real option but to reserve judgement until he actually has the power to do things that improve the lot of people.

If he doesn't he will be out and if he does he might just last a while. That is the way things work in this rather unsatisfactory fptp system. Suck it up.

 

[Beebo]

This is doing the rounds on TwiX, I think it's from Survation:

View attachment 6164

Can’t see it happening but the glaring issue is vote percentage to seats won.
Lab 42% 506 seats
Lib Dem’s 13% 65 seats
Cons 18% 36 seats
Reform 17% 3 seats

1% of the vote should give you 6.5 seats in a pro rata system.

 

[BoldonLad]

Can’t see it happening but the glaring issue is vote percentage to seats won.
Lab 42% 506 seats
Lib Dem’s 13% 65 seats
Cons 18% 36 seats
Reform 17% 3 seats

1% of the vote should give you 6.5 seats in a pro rata system.

Not sure that such a massive majority (no matter which party), is healthy.

A straight proportion distribution of seats using 1% = 6.5 seats would give Reform 110 seats, unless my calculator is broken. A horrifying prospect IMHO

 

[Ian H]

Can’t see it happening but the glaring issue is vote percentage to seats won.
Lab 42% 506 seats
Lib Dem’s 13% 65 seats
Cons 18% 36 seats
Reform 17% 3 seats

1% of the vote should give you 6.5 seats in a pro rata system.

And you end up with tiny extremist parties holding the keys to power.

 

[icowden]

And you end up with tiny extremist parties holding the keys to power.

How? If those voting percentages turned into seats based on direct proportional representation you would get:-

Labour	42​	265​
Lib Dem	13​	82​
Cons	18​	114​
Reform	17​	107​
Green	5​	32​
SNP	3.1​	20​
PlaidC	0.7​	4​
N.Ire	18​	18​

325 seats is needed for a majority, so we would have a hung parliament. Labour would be the biggest party and would most likely form a government in alliance with the Lib Dems. Reform and the Conservatives would largely be the opposition with Green, SNP and Plaid having a much stronger voice in parliament.

Labour wouldn't be able to drive anything through without the support of the Lib Dems, so would have to put through more moderate policy.

If the same system had been used in 2019 this would have happened:-

Labour	33​	209​
Lib Dem	11.8​	75​
Cons	44.7​	283​
Reform	2.1​	13​
Green	2.8​	18​
SNP	4​	25​
PlaidC	0.5​	3​
N.Ire	18​	18​

The Conservatives would have formed a Government but to pass policy would need to ally with the Lib Dems again to get through any policy. No chance of lunacy like the Rwanda scheme.

Of course under PR the percentages would likely be vastly different. People wouldn't feel that their vote was pointless if they lived in "safe consituencies" and wouldn't need to change their vote tactically in marginals. There would likely be a much higher Green and Labour vote in my constituency for example.

 

[Ian H]

You start to answer your own question in your last paragraph. There would also likely be an increase in the number of parties, particularly if there was no minimum vote requirement.

 

[fozy tornip]

Did anyone say they found him a bit wooden?

Don't make the mistake of thinking that seeming a bit wooden is the same as being charged with, or convicted of, woodenness.
Because it isn't.