Exit Poll Lab majority 170

[caerkid]

Re: Exit Poll Lab majority 170

We got Brexit light which is easily reversible, the lowering of living standards came from Davos, and talking of Rwanda not one person went there.

You're right ,just the £300m sent to Rwanda wasnt it ?

Think this post has given the biggest laugh of today thanks. 'The Tories weren't Right Wing as they were too useless to implement their own policies'

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Re: Exit Poll Lab majority 170

This is interesting. More people voted for Reform than Lib Dems, yet the Lib Dems won 71 seats and Reform won 4.

That's one issue with our FPTP voting system.

Reform mainly took votes from Conservative voters, so the votes for the political right were split. Reform were unlikely to win many seats despite having a reasonable percentage of the vote. Once the Tory vote was split between two parties, Labour were likely to win the majority of seats, while Reform were unlikely to affect very safe Tory seats.

In 2010 there was a similar scenario where many disgruntled Labour voters switched to the Lib Dems and allowed the Tories into government.

[Citizen's Nephew]

Re: Exit Poll Lab majority 170

That's one issue with our FPTP voting system.

Reform mainly took votes from Conservative voters, so the votes for the political right were split. Reform were unlikely to win many seats despite having a reasonable percentage of the vote. Once the Tory vote was split between two parties, Labour were likely to win the majority of seats, while Reform were unlikely to affect very safe Tory seats.

In 2010 there was a similar scenario where many disgruntled Labour voters switched to the Lib Dems and allowed the Tories into government.

:thumbup:

[az city]

Re: Exit Poll Lab majority 170

That's one issue with our FPTP voting system.

Reform mainly took votes from Conservative voters, so the votes for the political right were split. Reform were unlikely to win many seats despite having a reasonable percentage of the vote. Once the Tory vote was split between two parties, Labour were likely to win the majority of seats, while Reform were unlikely to affect very safe Tory seats.

In 2010 there was a similar scenario where many disgruntled Labour voters switched to the Lib Dems and allowed the Tories into government.

I think you also have to factor in the Tories who voted Liberal in many constituencies too. Basically, it was a night when voters deserted the Tories in droves and went to the Liberals and Reform depending upon their nature.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Re: Exit Poll Lab majority 170

I think you also have to factor in the Tories who voted Liberal in many constituencies too. Basically, it was a night when voters deserted the Tories in droves and went to the Liberals and Reform depending upon their nature.

Indeed.

That poses a dilemma for the Tories. Follow Reform at their peril and the other main parties will pick up more votes.

[The Bloop]

Re: Exit Poll Lab majority 170

Indeed.

That poses a dilemma for the Tories. Follow Reform at their peril and the other main parties will pick up more votes.

Ed Davey and his team were very clever throughout the campaign. They focused their time on constituencies where they has a decent chance of dethroning the Tory incumbent. If they hadn't many of those seats may have ended up Reform.

[Claude Blue]

Re: Exit Poll Lab majority 170

All this pre-scripted nonsense from Starmer and his fan club about this landslide being due to him 'changing the Labour Party' is getting on my nerves.

He changed the Labour Party alright. Gutted it of a third of the membership and most of the distinctive (and popular) policies. Made it bland and offered no vision. Kept it safe for the arms industry and American private health companies.

But the landslide was down to an SNP and Tory collapse combined with a Reform surge. Labour barely moved the dial. If Starmer had managed to get up to the Corbyn Labour vote share of 2017 he might have had an argument. But he is barely above the 2019 share!

I know we've done this before but I'll correct you again Jon.

Share of the vote is irrelevant in our electoral system, it's seat numbers that count. Corbyn managed to rack up huge majorities in 2017 in already safe seats, hence the vote share he achieved. As always, Corbyn and his ilk were politically and electoral naive and lost to what was, until this one, the worst Tory election campaign in my lifetime. As you're so interested in vote share I wonder why you fail to mention that Theresa May got nearly 1m more votes than your hero in that election?

Losing a third of the membership has hardly damaged the party has it? We've gone from having our worst electoral result since 1935 to winning a 170 seat majority in less than five years. Hopefully the members who've left were those who preferred a party of protest rather than power, the comfortably off who aren't personally affected by the policies of a Tory government. The sort who prefer to whine rather than face the harsh realities and choices that actually being in government bring.

As for the distinctive and popular policies of Corbyn, you need to accept that the country rejected those in 2017 and 2019. That's the reality Jon, as much as you want to bring up vote share, etc. it makes no difference and repeating them for a third time would be a dictionary definition of madness. I obviously can't prove it but I bet a Corbyn led party - policies and all - would have lost yesterdays GE.

The party I very happily voted for yesterday now have five years to start to deal with the myriad of problems left by the appalling Tory governments since 2010. At least we have a chance now. Under Corbyn we had none.

[jon1959]

Re: Exit Poll Lab majority 170

Strangely I don’t feel corrected.

I understand how FPTP works, thanks.

I agree Corbyn was naive. Corbyn is not my hero - I was and am very critical of many parts of his leadership.

Labour lost in 2017 and 2019 - but most of their manifesto policies were popular with a majority of the public.

That is a fact - even if it is inconvenient for your argument.

I understand that Theresa May got more votes than Corbyn in 2017. I didn’t mention it because it is irrelevant to the point I was making.

Starmer cheerleaders pick and choose the electoral stats they use - but they are often contradictory and factional in their use. They spent last night claiming that the Changed Labour Party had reconnected with the public and had ‘regained trust’. There is sod all evidence of that. Starmer got fewer votes than Corbyn in 2017 or in 2019. He benefitted from the way the non Labour vote split and ended up with a massive majority but the support of only one in three of those that voted. He has a big majority in Parliament but no majority in the country.

Most commentators during today have come to accept that is a problem. But feel free to give lectures on FPTP if you want to.

Losing a third of the membership ‘has hardly damaged the party’? Well if you only measure of health is a freakish landslide, then no. But in my experience (before and after I left the Labour Party after 30 years of membership) it has resulted in fewer canvassers and campaigners, a massively reduced internal democracy, a transfer of decision making and power to the centre, a shift from a party funded by members and trade unions to one funded (and in part directed) by rich donors and lobbyists, and much less from the trades unions.

Your contempt for the activists who have been pushed out of the Labour Party is disappointing. I know many of them and know they are a big loss.

I also voted Labour yesterday and am happy to still have a good Labour MP ( saw off the Lib Dems). I wanted the Tories gone. I don’t share your apparent confidence that Starmer will bring about positive change - but let’s see. He was the reason I finally left Labour. I had my fill of lies, more lies, U turns, championing colonial racism, suppressing the Forde Report and acting like a godfather in the face of any dissent or different views. He has changed Labour - remade it in his right wing, authoritarian image - and I don’t like it.

That’s my reality Claude. It would be much easier if I shared your loyalist position (and talking points). But I don’t.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Exit Poll Lab majority 170

I accept that Labour, and the Lib Dems, played the FPTP system very well and got the maximum return from it. However, whether you look at it through the eyes of that system or a basic proportional representation, you don’t have to scratch too far below the surface to see that the reality is not as great as the figures suggest. In 1997, Labour won as confidently and impressively as the basic figures suggest - I don’t think I’m alone in saying that this feels different.

Running against the worst, most inept and accident prone Government most of us have seen, Labour barely increased their percentage share of the vote and, to their credit, maximised the return they got from that little over a third of votes cast to their max, but it has to be accepted that it requires little to go wrong for it be them who are living the Tory nightmare, or worse, in 2029. In 1997, Labour would have had to have done spectacularly badly for the next election to go wrong, I think it’s fair to say that things will need to go spectacularly right for Labour not to be in trouble in 2029.

[goats]

Re: Exit Poll Lab majority 170

Is it true Labour only increased their overall votes by 1.6% from 2019? Such a low turnout, really a sign of the times. Almost like treading water like we are with CCFC….just waiting and hoping for anything decent.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: Exit Poll Lab majority 170

It's two days after the election

The Tories are out and absolutely battered

I am not a fan of starmer but with a 170 seat majority and plenty of decent Mps if he screws up then there is wiggle room

The far left are pissed off but they have always shouted the loudest and they will never be an alternative to the Tories

The future surely lies in some sort of concensus between labour , liberals , green etc or a moderate party to keep out the right wing ......its so obvious that whilst tactical voting helps its the daft infighting between Labour, liberals , green etc that split the anti right wing vote

Unless this is dealt with then its going to be a persistent problem

As for the right wing Tories and reform voters its best to create a situation where they are put in a net , its tied up and they squabble , scrap and moan from the sidelines

If reform and right wing voters feel disenfranchised and not represented I really don't care .....the Conservative have had many decades of running the country on small majorities and the weakness of the split opposition

So fptp is what it is and if PR comes in then it's going to have to be dealt with

Until then it's great to see a lack of smiling right wing assasins at the first cabinet meeting

It's time to be reasonably happy 😊