Starmer's vision quest

[monkers]

And that;s the point really.

There are a great number of people disengaged from voting because their votes "don't count", and a great number of people who voted but their votes still didn't count.

There are people who support Labour around here but their votes don't count. I think Reform are appalling but it's very hard to justify that they only have 5 seats given their vote share.

Under PR parties would have been represented as:-

• Labour 228
• Conservative 139
• Reform 100
• Lib Dem 73
• Green 71
• SNP 16
• Plaid 4
• N.Ireland 18

No single party would have been in overall control. Whilst the Tories could partner with Reform they would still not have a parliamentary majority. The most likely outcome would have been a Liberal Coalition between Labour, Lib Dems and Green and would most likely have produced better policy and better results for UK citizens. Labour wouldn't be chasing after the Reform vote or worrying about red walls etc.

It's hard to see how PR wouldn't just be better.

Thanks for the response.

I did engage by the way, I voted Green. Clearly they were not going to form a government, but I see it as the means to express my political views at the ballot box rather than just some way of saying, and to paraphrase idiots, ''Johnson's a good laugh'', or ''Farage is a true man of the people''. I take the responsibility possibly too seriously according to some, but that's me.

I don't think for a moment that Greens would enter a coalition with Labour, or that Labour would entertain the idea either. There's plenty of antagonism between the two, and for good reason.

 

[monkers]

Respectfully, I am struggling slightly with your argument. From 2017 to 2019 Labour (let's remove Corbyn for a second) saw an 8% drop in vote share, received around 2.5 million less votes and lost 30 seats. How does that translate to a 'skew' in the system that prevented them from winning enough seats? AMS and STV projections for 2019 (both being forms of PR) would have given Labour approx. 188 and 221 seats respectively, neither of which would have won them the 2019 election.

I am asking this in good faith, how does this show that Labour under Corbyn were popular enough to win an election? As far as I can see the total % percentage does not translate to an election win under any of the three voting scenario's suggested, therefore it was not the system that denied Labour an election win in 2019.

By the way, I have no problem being corrected if I am wrong.

Thanks. And equally respectfully I have to point out that finding one example of where the system produced an expected result does not undo the times when it does not. It's not quite the counter-argument perhaps that you thought.

To call Corbyn a failure for getting 40% of the vote, and Starmer a winner for getting 33% make little sense. For Starmer that 33% did not even amount to a narrow victory. As @icowden highlights, a system of PR produces a much different outlook. Only a tiny number of countries use FPTP for this reason - I forget which without googling, but the others are something like Iran and Belarus.

As I said in my analysis, Johnson only won (by a supposed landslide) because at the last moment Farage stood his candidates down. It was pivotal in the outcome. Taking this into account May's vote share was better than Johnson's. Johnson of course bathed himself in Kudos.

 

[icowden]

I don't think for a moment that Greens would enter a coalition with Labour, or that Labour would entertain the idea either. There's plenty of antagonism between the two, and for good reason.

Really? You think that if PR was in place and given a choice, the Labour Party would re-run the GE due to a hung parliament rather than creating a liberal coalition of parties which have broadly similar outlooks on key issues?

 

[Xipe Totec]

2017 was an odd election & (for me at least) hard not to feel it was where hope died, May's hugely reduced majority meaning she had to bribe the DUP (was it £2 billion?) for support.

In Scotland the SNP's seats dropped from 54 to 35, with the Tories gaining 12 of those. In the run-up, then Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale had urged Labour voters in Tory/SNP marginals to vote Tory to "keep the Nats out".

It's hard not to connect those two occurences, and similarly hard to think Corbyn wouldn't have been open to doing a deal with the SNP & other smaller parties to create that 'Rainbow Coalition of the Left' many of us hoped for two years later. How different the last few years might have been.

Kezia Dugdale is now married to an SNP MSP and supports independence. Funny, that.

 

[monkers]

Really? You think that if PR was in place and given a choice, the Labour Party would re-run the GE due to a hung parliament rather than creating a liberal coalition of parties which have broadly similar outlooks on key issues?

I'm not sure if you are looking backwards or forwards.

What Starmer might desire in a future with a hung parliament, and the willingness of other parties are quite different questions. With a hung parliament, I don't see the Greens being successfully courted by Starmer at the helm of the Labour Party; with somebody else possibly, but not Starmer.

A key difference is that in the case of say, the Lib Dems, their own leadership would be able to accept or reject any proposals. In the case of the Green Party, the leaders have no such power, they would have to ask the membership (who would say 'no').

 

[icowden]

A key difference is that in the case of say, the Lib Dems, their own leadership would be able to accept or reject any proposals. In the case of the Green Party, the leaders have no such power, they would have to ask the membership (who would say 'no').

That still seems a strange notion to me.

"Would you like to be in a position to move forward the green agenda and directly affect government policy in a positive way with a party that generally has left wing or liberal values?"

"Not if that bloke Starmer is in charge".

seems a bit reductive.

 

[monkers]

That still seems a strange notion to me.

"Would you like to be in a position to move forward the green agenda and directly affect government policy in a positive way with a party that generally has left wing or liberal values?"

"Not if that bloke Starmer is in charge".

seems a bit reductive.

Starmer is a right wing politician. Starmer and Green policies are leagues apart. Corbyn and Green policies were close. Greens are closer to the Lib Dems especially now that Green Party members have revisited the prior decision not to support NATO, so there will be some opportunity.

 

[CXRAndy]

Starmer is a right wing politician.

He can only be a day or two from becoming far right 🤣

 

[monkers]

He can only be a day or two from becoming far right 🤣

He appears to be moving beyond the centre right certainly. I know you enjoy being every billionaire's bitch, but some of the rest of us prefer to keep our dignity.

 

[CXRAndy]

Is that you call it, good for you, stand on that hill 👍

 

[matticus]

2017 was an odd election & (for me at least) hard not to feel it was where hope died, May's hugely reduced majority meaning she had to bribe the DUP (was it £2 billion?) for support.

Still the biggest WTF?? moment in all my time paying any attention to UK politics. No-one seemed to bat an eyelid.

 

[monkers]

Still the biggest WTF?? moment in all my time paying any attention to UK politics. No-one seemed to bat an eyelid.

erm ... I did! It was about a billion Euros. The money didn't go to the DUP but was spent in NI in the public domain. Well at least that is what we have been led to believe.

 

[CXRAndy]

Lamenting the demise of Jeremy Corbyn,

Stalin Starmer


View: https://x.com/JamesMelville/status/1902613024311062867?t=AwIg3EpQWAfu6OLygASy8w&s=19

 

[CXRAndy]

James Melville may not like Starmer


View: https://x.com/JamesMelville/status/1902477207790088422?t=PGO1MHGXUixpRKhR1zYW-g&s=19

 

[Xipe Totec]

He can only be a day or two from becoming far right 🤣

It's your vote he values most and desperately wants to get, Champ.

And that is absolutely not a joke.