4 million votes, just 5 seats (updated) for Reform. But 3.5 million votes gave the Far Left 'LibDems' 71 seats to keep pumping their no-limits, no-vetting mass immigration mantra, which they know will screw Britain. Conservatism isn't dead, democracy is, the system is warped, by the Far Left and for the Far Left.
The LibDems got around 10% of the seats with around 10% of the vote, Mrs Bucket. They got about what they would have got with proportional representation. You might also note that the LibDems have been the biggest supporters of PR for as along as I can remember. I hope they have enough influence to make some progress this time.
I think the point is the disparity between Reform’s vote share and seats, when compared with the Lib Dems. I’m not here shouting for electoral reform, tbh it’s something I’ve never really thought about up until now. But the weird maths of this election has definitely made me sit up and take notice. I think a lot of there people will have had a similar reaction. I listened to a Spectator podcast earlier and was surprised to hear a lot of these same points articulated by the clever clogs on there. Also. Hello Ragged did you get what you wanted ? Carla Denver for you guys right?
Oh, totally. I agree entirely about the weird maths. It's not fair. I've been a fan of PR since forever too. But I was responding to Mrs Bucket's claim that is not fair that the LibDems got 10% of the seats when they only got 10% of the votes.
I wasn't here during the referendum on Alternative Vote and was very surprised to see it lose so badly. AV doesn't fix the problem of seats out of whack with votes but it does make it more likely that people will take a chance on smaller parties like the Greens and Reform so it puts a dent in the two party system that distorts everything. As far as I can tell, the Tories were against it because they were in power. Will Labour be against it now that they are in power? Probably. Maybe the Greens & the LibDems & Reform can collaborate to make some progress.
Carla won, yes. It's the first time I have ever voted for the winning candidate. Hooray!
Congrats to you Ragged. I got Starmer again obvs. Some change in the voting system seems necessary, but I can’t see it happening really. Since it doesn’t benefit Labour or the Tories, at least not usually. But at least the weirdness of our system has been show up by this result.
In Canada we also have the first-past-the-post system. It most often results in a Liberal majority or minority government, because the Liberal vote is most "efficient", that is, dominant in more electoral districts (ridings), giving them more seats even with a relatively small share of the popular vote. That seems likely to be different in the next federal election, since PM Fancy Socks has burned the brand with incompetence and his deceptive obsession with "fighting climate change" rather than fostering the well-being of Canadians.
Good points Ragged. I find LibDems very interesting. If you get up close they are all well meaning to the point of obsequieous, love to wear their charity and churchyness, 99% white and living comfortably in nice areas like Tunbridge Wells. But behind them, pulling their strings are the most cunning Marxists, massaging the mass UNVETTED immigration weapon, designed to eventually to replace them.
Oh there are plenty, I've met many, they are cultural Marxists but don't even realise it. People who are loudly in favour of UNVETTED immigration, pro-gender crap for kids, energy policies that will lead to blackouts, creating division by demonising white people but bending over backwards for anyone non-white just because of their skin colour and people who give Islam a free pass are all doing Gramsci's dirty work to destroy western society.
This strange sect. Dunno, I guess it does no harm but only the tiny number of people in your sect seem unable to understand that a democracy need not be a 'direct' democracy.
Yes, but that's one of the dangers of democracy and it's true if the democracy is direct (Athens) or representative, as in all modern democracies. It goes with the territory. Wasn't it Franklin who said that democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch?
The most important difference between a republic and a democracy is that rights are part of the black letter law in the former and voted on in the latter.
A republic, based on the Latin phrase “res publica” (‘public affair’), is a state in which political power rests with the public through their representatives. In a republic, supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them, governing according to law. Republic is another way of saying democracy.
I only pointed out that the etymology of the word Republic is tantamount to the same thing as Democracy. You are basing your argument it seems on only 1 Republic i.e. USA. In actuality in a democracy, rights are not necessarily elective but rather inherent to the system. The protection of individual rights is typically fundamental to the functioning of a democratic society. While citizens may elect representatives who make decisions on their behalf, certain rights are considered inalienable and cannot be subject to popular vote or majority rule. While that can be true of Democracy it can also be said to be untrue of a republic e.g. China, North Korea, Venezuela and Belarus.
That’s a fair point, however it is also a bit depressing as it implies no hope for reforming ‘the system’.
However, this conversation with you has reminded me of a guy called Dan Larimer who has been trying to solve some of the problems of current ‘democratic’ systems with the use of decentralised consensus building (I think) using blockchain technology.
He published a book called “More Equal Animals - True Democracy for All” on the problem we have been discussing. I have not read it yet (although I’ve just downloaded the PDF from his website), perhaps it will be of interest to you?
I agree LSO. It’s not the flavour of ‘democracy’ that will *really* make the difference, it is individual sovereignty and freedom. However, in order to achieve that, all the material wealth of the nation would have to be held by its citizens. Can you imagine telling King Charles III he was being evicted?! In my very limited knowledge of these matters, a Swiss style ‘democracy’ would be a reasonable first step towards the ultimate goal of true freedom. For now, alas, we reside in ‘The Matrix’
I just don’t think a Swiss style democracy is viable on any level in the UK or America. Too many people are making too much money from, and too many people are dependent on, the state. The Swiss, are for the most part independent actors due to their wealth. That is not the case with us.
The example I often use is the idea that ’Everyone pays £10 to see their GP.’ Which sounds like a good idea on the surface. But of course once it was fed through the machine of government there would be so many exceptions, carve outs, and exemptions that only the middle classes would be eligible to pay. And since so many people would be exempt they would have to put up the fee to £20 to cover the non payers.
Maybe that’s more of a metaphor. But I do think it’s a useful one.
Perhaps a shift to a Swiss style “direct democracy” might be more democratic (that is to say fairer), and improve engagement, accountability, and transparency? One can hope.
Yes BitKoda. It sounds attractive. But the power would remain with those who set the agenda for that direct democracy . ‘Do you think that men who identify as women should be allowed to use women’s toilets and join female sports teams? Or only allowed to join female sports teams. ‘ ‘Should Britain allow Free Movement from the EU, or Free Movement from the EU and the entire world?’ YOU decide! In many ways I think we are being distracted by the process (I just wrote a post on it!) as if that is the problem. It’s not. It’s the ideology.
Speaking of the election, there was yet something that really warmed me. The grace ... yes the grace of some of the concession speeches. That lady ... someone important, Portsmouth was it?, Mmmmm..., house leader or something ... (sorry, I'm only a colonial) ... anyway you never heard a more gracious, humble, honest, noble speech. Same with Sunak. Starmer did not gloat, either. Contrast the US. There is still an England.
That was her. Left me slack jawed. After mostly listening to American politics her speech felt like being taken to heaven in the arms of an angel. I want my civilization back :-(
That’s one element of civilised old England that survives. But for contrast watch the winner’s speech by Jess Philips (a Labour member I can’t abide but that’s beside the point) being shouted down by angry supporters of the Independent Gaza - heaven forfend - candidate.
I agree with your analysis and your conclusion but I don't think your analysis supports your conclusion. There was nothing particularly "conservative" about Brexit and it was done over the dead body of the "Conservative" party. Brexit was a populist revolt. The populist revolt continues apace. It is the spectre haunting Europe and the global Anglosphere. Conservatism may well be dead. Populism - what we used to call 'democracy' - is alive and thriving.
You make a good point Gilgamesh. Perhaps I meant conservative type people rather than the Conservative Party when I was talking about Brexit. But of course you are correct. The Tories hated Brexit. Just reading No Way Out by Tim Shipman now. Eye opening.
Well it’s very difficult to quantify. But look where the Tories won votes from Labour in 2019 (the Red Wall) and it’ll give you an idea. Although I’m not sure we can categorise these voters as ‘left leaning’ or even ‘Labour voters’. Of course up until the 80s Labour was the anti Europe (the EU don’t exist back then) party. Look at Tony Benn. I think this is well covered in State of Emergencyby Dominic Sandbrook. Which is a proper fun read about the early 1970s.
We should always refer to the Tories and forget its historic meaning. To use their chosen brand name is confusing to the laymen and gives them free publicity.
My impression from the US, for what little it's worth, is that the UK man in the street, the broad populace, seeks less, not more, social progressive change, they did not get it from the Tories, who had historically represent the status quo, and turn in frustration/desperation to the opposing major party in hopes that they'd "get it", and be more--well--like the old school Tories.
Now, this makes little intuitive sense, but between my correspondences with UK residents and my gut "feeling",it *seems* possible. Is this anywhere close?
The first part certainly. But they haven’t turned to the other party. Those voters have chosen smaller parties like Reform, maybe the Lib Dems, even the Greens and independents, or else stayed home. But thank you Gent for taking an interest in us.
Ah, I see where my error was. It was in failing to understand the effect of your multiparty system when voters who usually adhere to their favored party are dissatisfied with it. Not only do they not vote, but they are just as likely, or more likely, to vote, but to disperse it among other parties whom they hope will better represent them.
Here in the US, the strongest tendency, by far, is to simply not vote.
No error Gent. Yes. I think it’s clear. And was proven in the Brexit vote and the 2019 ‘get Brexit done’ election that there is a great prize for anyone , here and in the US plus other countries like Germany, who can engage with disaffected non voters. It is why the ruling elites hate populists. Because that is what they do.
All I would add to the responses you have had is to clarify that the the actions and inactions of the badly names Conservative Party were not accidental. They were not errors but intentional. That party has become the main part of the problem in Britain.
It has presented itself at election time as being conservative, freedom loving and keen on efficient markets whereas its actions and the developments it fails to prevent are all in the other direction.
There will be different interpretations of the way the election will unfold. Some in the Conservative Party want it to move towards the Labour Party position and adopt more woke polocies and more taxes and spending in a search for votes. This seems to me their likely decision but it will fail.
Others in the CP think they should move towards what are called "right wing" policies. They think this is what Reform advocate and its voters want. This is also incorrect.
Reform Party opposes the elites on almost every issue and it stands for the policies most of those not among the elites stand for. It will develop, improve and promulgate those policies and neither option being proposed by the CP will counter that.
Some great points Epping. I wonder if the Tories will get their act together or just tear themselves apart in recrimination and blame. Reform could be huge, or a big nothing. But it’s definitely all to play for right now, opportunity out of crisis and all that.
> Populism - what we used to call 'democracy' - is alive and thriving.
Funny, that word. Trying to make a distinction between populism and democracy is like trying to say that someone isn't overweight, they're just obese. We support six-packs, but beer should never be sold by the half-dozen.
As someone who would have identified as Old Labour (they were buried before I could ever take a vote), my take is the Conservative party died sometime between 1989 and 2010. By 2010 it was a fully signed up member of the progressive, middle class, graduate uniparty. Okay, with some paper thin variation’ on exactly which group from that class should reap the benefits (generally bankers and hedge fund managers). What I think has happened since Brexit is that unable to blame the EU for their decisions, they now own them as will Labour in 5 years time. Once rhetoric public saw what this ‘Conservative’ party actually wanted to do, they turned their back on them.
To be clear, I think capitalism remains the least worst option for the generation of wealth, that profit is the just reward for taking risk, but the system we have today is a twisted, crony/klepto capitalism that rewards those who have the market power to distort the market to generate what in economic terms is known as as abnormal profit.
Agree 100% with this P. Especially the bit about crony capitalism. I expect that just as the Tories blamed the EU for everything, so Labour will blame the Tories, and they will have a point!
34% of a low 60% turnout but 64% of the seats. I do hope Starmer has some humility about that. If not, here’s an idea: abolish the House of Lords and make a 2nd chamber of max 200 people, appointed in proportion to the number of votes cast per party as a form of PR. Probably a recipe for political constipation? Haven’t thought it through yet..
The last thing this country needs is more politicians. Once you have two elected chambers the opportunity to play games (think Nicola Sturgeon multiplied 10 times) will be to hard for these dullards to resist.
Good point. This is why I voted Brexit. I don’t need one massive over reaching government running my life. And I certainly don’t need two. The poor Scouts and the Welsh had three at one point. And look what that got them.
I agree, the prospect of more politicians is unappealing. But it would be a quarter of the 800 already in place, and we need a foil to the disproportionate power that Labour can now wield. Poor turnout gave them a massive 172 seat majority from only 20% of the population. In a new second chamber, I would allow the parties to choose their own members, but they would all have to comply with minimum standards for intellectual capacity, mental stability, integrity and useful experience, ie no nutters.
A no nutters rule would sadly be impossible to enforce Richard . One persons nutter is another person’s - congratulations to Britain’s new Foreign Secretary.
Now the infighting begins again in the Conservative Party. They are never happy unless they are fighting or plotting. Wets v Dries, leave v Remain, hard Brexit v Soft Brexit, centrists v old fashioned Conservatives etc. No wonder Farage described them as a broad church with no religion.
The thing is, if you are a broad church with a strong and effective leader, you massively extend your reach and appeal to the voting public. The sum of the parts is greater than those parts.
When you have pathetic, wishy washy leaders who try to please everybody, you end up alienating the wets with some populist looking policy, and you alienate the populists by not delivering on it. The sum is definitely less than the constituent parts. That is what happened under all of them from Cameron on.
Expect another period in the wilderness like the Hague/Duncan Smith/Howard period, where unelectable leader after unelectable leader came and went. Both Conservatives and Labour basically need two things: a strong leader with credibility in Opposition, and a government in power that is weak and tired. It may be a long time coming.
“Their argument was that although we voted to Leave, the vote being so tight, we should only Leave a bit. That we should also be careful to ‘respect the wishes of Remain voters.’”
A little like being a ‘little bit pregnant’ that one.😂
Yes, if the result did two things it showed up two things - one the disinterest, voter turnout out being 8% lower, and secondly, the unfairness and craziness of how the system operates.
Whatever you think of individual parties or leaders, the stats are insane. Reform should have way more seats than they do with all those votes. It’s just not fit for purpose.
I have a suggestion: everyone who is inclined to the so-called 'right-wing' of politics should move to Cornwall and probably Devon and Somerset as well. We then declare UDI. Only a small-ish land border to defend and otherwise surrounded by sea. Perfect!
Yes, it was my cunning plan. Cornwall was entirely 'blue' before yesterday. When you add the Conservative + Reform vote together in each constituency it beats the red ones. Darn it!
It's why I support ranked ballot or single transferable -- which is very slightly different but basically the same idea: your first pick is who you really want to win. Should they be knocked off, your ballot transfers to your second choice, and so on. You guys simply must trash FPP, it was fine in the Middle Ages, but not now.
The cool thing is that, if you complete your ballot and rank everyone, the final winner has the support of *everyone*, because the ballots are always forwarded to whoever is left. Thus, for example, Labour might be my last choice, nevertheless they are my choice, even if last, and if they win, I voted for them irrespective of how many other choices I would have preferred. Could go some distance to creating a sense of unity.
The French have a crude version if STV in their two stage election. First we decide who the final contenders will be, second we pick the winner.
I know! The turnout was less than 60%. What if Reform and other minority parties collaborate to promote a vote strike to get the turnout at future elections - including council ones - down to 20%. And not turn up to parliament until we are given PR! People vote differently when there's PR and the smaller parties might benefit a lot more, even if they think they've done OK in this system.
In an exchange with British friend a couple of days ago, asking him what was going on, I created a sort of metaphor for what seems to me was the mindset of the populace. It was this:
"So that metaphorically, the vote tomorrow is not one for the voters to express a desire to move from one deck to another on the QE II, but to jump off the ship entirely, and into the sea. "
Was this in any sense related to what happened at the polls?
We bought a crock of Bunter, so we ended up stinking of that crock.
Democracy is flawed. Less 2% of the population effectively brought us out of an institution we had subsumed our decision making process to for decades. I voted to leave, and am firmly of the mind that it was potentially a great decision, but the majority think otherwise now.
I dislike the unthinking Labour supporters who bandy mindless slogans about as a definitive truth, but the whole process is flawed.
Many of my recent Tory bedfellows were simpletons, on the sociopathic scale. Ergo 'Austerity' for the cheap seats.
We simply have to recognise, we get the a mirror image of us collectively.
It's painful to admit, for even the most robust of egos.
Exactly what aflyer says and perhaps my point. Labour hasn’t become more popular. The electorate have rather rejected the awful Tories. Not quite the same thing.
Don't know much about them. Eternal losers like our NDP, it seems. What? Sorta like our Liberals?
You know, it's paradoxical, I describe myself as an extreme centrist, and yet all the centrist parties throughout the civilized world are ... well, it's not my kind of centrism. It's fine to describe oneself as moderate, but ... take Macron: ok 'centrist' but it's a corrupt, tired, globalist, elitist centrism that I detest. I'd vote for LePenn if I was a Frog.
Haha. You almost made it to the end there Ray. 😂 Lis Dems are the sensible dad party. Or for people who think the Tories are a bit mean but are too snobbish to vote for (traditional) Labour.
And yet they vote for a party that is (and for a long time has been) actually to the left of Labour. How long can the ghost of Gladstone continue to bestow an aura of respectability on a party that he would despise?
The result we got was really the worst case scenario, with Zero Seats an unfulfilled dream and Labour a strong mandate (just not from the voters). I fully expect to see Bojo back in government next go around, but ultimately it matters little. It'll still be managerial globalist gay race commie decline.
What will be "interesting", if it doesn't ruin us all, is how Labour will use their massive majority to enact their agenda, when the Tories used theirs to enact more Blairism.
That’s an intriguing idea Sathanas. Bojo does seem to be keeping his options open. I’m not sure if the party would even consider him right now. But he’s very good at winning people over, (worked on me) so you could be right. It’s depressing that it matters so little. But yes. The technocrats are in charge, and it looks like, even though freed from the Brussels embrace (for all the good it did us) we’ll be returning to their sclerotic clutches soon. Also. Thanks for the other thing. Welcome aboard. Much appreciated.
It is all David Cameron’s fault. Instead of negotiating better terms for our membership of Europe, he decided to call a referendum, which ended 52% - 48%. This split the our country right down the middle, which l can never see being cured.
I don't think so. Merkel et al refused to give him better terms, so he came back brandishing whatever they'd offered him as A Really Good Deal and the British public took one look at it and voted for UKIP in the European Elections. Cameron was then panicked into offering a referendum when he didn't expect to win a majority at the next General Election. The rest as they say is history.
Well I think it is simply used as a catch all by left nowadays. Anything they don’t like, whether popular or mainstream, and especially widely held views, is easily dismissed as ‘right wing’. And it works I think. Like throwing around the word racist.
Exactly. It's one of those general purpose insults. Is it not astonishing how long these words retain their ability to sting you decades after they've lost all real meaning? 'A racist! A racist! Burn the racist!' ... what? for pointing out that Blacks have more fast-twitch muscles than whites? (Which is why they are so much better at most sports.)
The central argument here is illogical. If you’re saying that the narrow win for Leave still gave the government a mandate for a strong and absolute exit from the EU, then it would follow that a narrow win for Labour also gives the government a mandate for a strong and absolute implementation of their manifesto. Or else you think the small margin means that there should be compromise in both cases. It makes no sense to say that there should have been a hard Leave despite the close win but in this case there should be compromise because of the close win.
I’m absolutely not saying that at all Jon. I’m talking about arguments following these results. Not the results themselves. At no point do I question the legitimacy of either the Leave victory, nor Starmer’s landslide. And I point that out at least twice. Nor do I suggest that Labour should compromise on its agenda.
My point is simply that if the Tories had won under similar circumstances the demands from the mainstream media and the ‘Left’ for ‘compromise’ would be deafening. And I’m basing that claim on the way Labour and the Left made exactly that demand after Brexit. All the best.
I do applaud your two mentions of the importance of recognising the legitimacy of the election; this is the kind of attitude that has allowed the UK to become a peaceful and prosperous country.
With regard to the narrow margin, I’d take the opposite view - Labour should compromise, the Brexiteers should compromise. Politics should be about trying to find an approach that is durable because it’s broadly accepted.
FPTP is being talked about on so many threads and forums. I've posted most of this before but it's worth repeating and taking note of. In North Durham Labour got the seat with 39 percent of the vote and that's less than the ballots cast for Tories and Reform who split the non labour vote. Does Labour really represent the views of North Durham when the majority voted for other parties?
Labour got 32 percent of the vote in 2019 and it was a Tory majority. Labour got 34 percent of the vote in 2024 and it's a Labour landslide victory. FPTP can result in proportional and disproportional results. Smaller parties with neiche issues like the Greens don't succeed with FPTP and parties that overlap ideologically with competing parties split their vote share. If Tories didn't field a candidate in north Durham we would have a Reform MP today (important to note that it wouldn't have been the same vice versa but that's a longer conversation).
This is why PR is so important and direct democracy both of which are supported by reform. This way we get the representative we want as well as a mechanism to direct their actions in parliament. When direct democracy is a reality a person or party doesn't need to be a set menu of ideological objectives it can be representative of the electorate on a case by case basis.
Very interesting about voting in the North John. Thanks. Fptp is what we have though, and Starmer won fair and square using that system. There is a lot of chat as you say about voting systems at the moment. And plenty on here which is great. I do worry that ( and I’m definitely not accusing you of doing this) a lot of people out there are using the inadequacies of fptp to reflect the political landscape of today to claim that Labours massive majority is somehow illegitimate. It isn’t.
If we want to win next time ‘we’ need to look to ourselves not blame fptp.
Though he is going to give votes to 16 year olds- so that is gerrymandering the system!!! Thanks again for taking the time to comment.
Thanks for taking the time to reply again. I believe in a PR system and have done for a long time but don't dispute Labour's victory and authority to govern. I like Reform for PR and direct democracy and those are popular issues as well as culture and population. Reform didn't get a big enough portion of the Labour vote to get the seats. Maybe there is a need for an economically left and socially conservative movement.
Yes John. I like the SDP in some ways, even though they are a bit to the left (quite a bit!) of me on the economy. I voted for them in the London mayorals. They have a bit of integrity which really appeals to me. With such a tiny vote share they can only be in it because they believe in what they are saying.
4 million votes, just 5 seats (updated) for Reform. But 3.5 million votes gave the Far Left 'LibDems' 71 seats to keep pumping their no-limits, no-vetting mass immigration mantra, which they know will screw Britain. Conservatism isn't dead, democracy is, the system is warped, by the Far Left and for the Far Left.
Fair point Mrs Bucket.
The LibDems got around 10% of the seats with around 10% of the vote, Mrs Bucket. They got about what they would have got with proportional representation. You might also note that the LibDems have been the biggest supporters of PR for as along as I can remember. I hope they have enough influence to make some progress this time.
I think the point is the disparity between Reform’s vote share and seats, when compared with the Lib Dems. I’m not here shouting for electoral reform, tbh it’s something I’ve never really thought about up until now. But the weird maths of this election has definitely made me sit up and take notice. I think a lot of there people will have had a similar reaction. I listened to a Spectator podcast earlier and was surprised to hear a lot of these same points articulated by the clever clogs on there. Also. Hello Ragged did you get what you wanted ? Carla Denver for you guys right?
Oh, totally. I agree entirely about the weird maths. It's not fair. I've been a fan of PR since forever too. But I was responding to Mrs Bucket's claim that is not fair that the LibDems got 10% of the seats when they only got 10% of the votes.
I wasn't here during the referendum on Alternative Vote and was very surprised to see it lose so badly. AV doesn't fix the problem of seats out of whack with votes but it does make it more likely that people will take a chance on smaller parties like the Greens and Reform so it puts a dent in the two party system that distorts everything. As far as I can tell, the Tories were against it because they were in power. Will Labour be against it now that they are in power? Probably. Maybe the Greens & the LibDems & Reform can collaborate to make some progress.
Carla won, yes. It's the first time I have ever voted for the winning candidate. Hooray!
Congrats to you Ragged. I got Starmer again obvs. Some change in the voting system seems necessary, but I can’t see it happening really. Since it doesn’t benefit Labour or the Tories, at least not usually. But at least the weirdness of our system has been show up by this result.
In Canada we also have the first-past-the-post system. It most often results in a Liberal majority or minority government, because the Liberal vote is most "efficient", that is, dominant in more electoral districts (ridings), giving them more seats even with a relatively small share of the popular vote. That seems likely to be different in the next federal election, since PM Fancy Socks has burned the brand with incompetence and his deceptive obsession with "fighting climate change" rather than fostering the well-being of Canadians.
Good points Ragged. I find LibDems very interesting. If you get up close they are all well meaning to the point of obsequieous, love to wear their charity and churchyness, 99% white and living comfortably in nice areas like Tunbridge Wells. But behind them, pulling their strings are the most cunning Marxists, massaging the mass UNVETTED immigration weapon, designed to eventually to replace them.
I've never met a Marxist LibDem, Mrs Bucket. Can you share an example so I can look them up?
Oh there are plenty, I've met many, they are cultural Marxists but don't even realise it. People who are loudly in favour of UNVETTED immigration, pro-gender crap for kids, energy policies that will lead to blackouts, creating division by demonising white people but bending over backwards for anyone non-white just because of their skin colour and people who give Islam a free pass are all doing Gramsci's dirty work to destroy western society.
🤣
Fortunately, the United States has never been a democracy of any kind, having been created as a constitutional republic.
It's a kind of democracy. But your point is taken.
Majority rule isn't working very well in a rules-based governance.
This strange sect. Dunno, I guess it does no harm but only the tiny number of people in your sect seem unable to understand that a democracy need not be a 'direct' democracy.
In a democracy, 51% can vote to murder the other 49%, as can be seen in Israel.
Yes, but that's one of the dangers of democracy and it's true if the democracy is direct (Athens) or representative, as in all modern democracies. It goes with the territory. Wasn't it Franklin who said that democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch?
Franklin included the armed lunch as resistance.
We have armed lunch in the uk. It’s called Nando’s.
The most important difference between a republic and a democracy is that rights are part of the black letter law in the former and voted on in the latter.
A republic, based on the Latin phrase “res publica” (‘public affair’), is a state in which political power rests with the public through their representatives. In a republic, supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them, governing according to law. Republic is another way of saying democracy.
I guess you either don't care about rights or don't know anything about them.
Why would you guess such nonsense? Sounds like a slogan being thrown instead of thinking through a response.
Because you are silent about rights, which are elective in a democracy, and formally secured in the laws of a republic.
I only pointed out that the etymology of the word Republic is tantamount to the same thing as Democracy. You are basing your argument it seems on only 1 Republic i.e. USA. In actuality in a democracy, rights are not necessarily elective but rather inherent to the system. The protection of individual rights is typically fundamental to the functioning of a democratic society. While citizens may elect representatives who make decisions on their behalf, certain rights are considered inalienable and cannot be subject to popular vote or majority rule. While that can be true of Democracy it can also be said to be untrue of a republic e.g. China, North Korea, Venezuela and Belarus.
Has democracy ever truly been alive?…
Our version of it does seem a bit creaky.
That’s a fair point, however it is also a bit depressing as it implies no hope for reforming ‘the system’.
However, this conversation with you has reminded me of a guy called Dan Larimer who has been trying to solve some of the problems of current ‘democratic’ systems with the use of decentralised consensus building (I think) using blockchain technology.
He published a book called “More Equal Animals - True Democracy for All” on the problem we have been discussing. I have not read it yet (although I’ve just downloaded the PDF from his website), perhaps it will be of interest to you?
https://moreequalanimals.com/posts/book-launch
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this LSO!
I’ll take look at it. Thanks to you BitKoda.
I agree LSO. It’s not the flavour of ‘democracy’ that will *really* make the difference, it is individual sovereignty and freedom. However, in order to achieve that, all the material wealth of the nation would have to be held by its citizens. Can you imagine telling King Charles III he was being evicted?! In my very limited knowledge of these matters, a Swiss style ‘democracy’ would be a reasonable first step towards the ultimate goal of true freedom. For now, alas, we reside in ‘The Matrix’
I just don’t think a Swiss style democracy is viable on any level in the UK or America. Too many people are making too much money from, and too many people are dependent on, the state. The Swiss, are for the most part independent actors due to their wealth. That is not the case with us.
The example I often use is the idea that ’Everyone pays £10 to see their GP.’ Which sounds like a good idea on the surface. But of course once it was fed through the machine of government there would be so many exceptions, carve outs, and exemptions that only the middle classes would be eligible to pay. And since so many people would be exempt they would have to put up the fee to £20 to cover the non payers.
Maybe that’s more of a metaphor. But I do think it’s a useful one.
Perhaps a shift to a Swiss style “direct democracy” might be more democratic (that is to say fairer), and improve engagement, accountability, and transparency? One can hope.
Yes BitKoda. It sounds attractive. But the power would remain with those who set the agenda for that direct democracy . ‘Do you think that men who identify as women should be allowed to use women’s toilets and join female sports teams? Or only allowed to join female sports teams. ‘ ‘Should Britain allow Free Movement from the EU, or Free Movement from the EU and the entire world?’ YOU decide! In many ways I think we are being distracted by the process (I just wrote a post on it!) as if that is the problem. It’s not. It’s the ideology.
Speaking of the election, there was yet something that really warmed me. The grace ... yes the grace of some of the concession speeches. That lady ... someone important, Portsmouth was it?, Mmmmm..., house leader or something ... (sorry, I'm only a colonial) ... anyway you never heard a more gracious, humble, honest, noble speech. Same with Sunak. Starmer did not gloat, either. Contrast the US. There is still an England.
Penny Mourdant. (Chk spelling) she certainly gives good speech. If her policies in some areas are a bit iffy.
That was her. Left me slack jawed. After mostly listening to American politics her speech felt like being taken to heaven in the arms of an angel. I want my civilization back :-(
That’s one element of civilised old England that survives. But for contrast watch the winner’s speech by Jess Philips (a Labour member I can’t abide but that’s beside the point) being shouted down by angry supporters of the Independent Gaza - heaven forfend - candidate.
Unpleasant. I’m no fan of Phillips but that is unacceptable. Oh sorry. Turns out I’m wrong. We are accepting it. Every day of the week.
I respect the way she stood her ground, but what she said (about why this had been the worst election for her) was really disturbing
I’ll have a look.
Link?
Anyway it's not that we don't have our animals, it's just that it's sweet to see something civilized. Decency isn't quite dead.
https://youtu.be/RSBnIkppMag?si=it3GEDRh-81bnAR-
Could have been worse. She might have been beheaded.
I watched that and it was truly disturbing
She gave a brilliant speech in the House of Commons once about her Navy background. An absolute show stopper. It really put her on the map.
A bit iffy - you are too polite!
Haha. Maybe I’d just like to save her from herself.
I'm not a fan of her policies either but I respect her integrity. We should encourage and respect it more, especially in our political opponents.
Concession speeches over here are quite civilised — especially when compared to President Trump's concession on January 6th, 2020.
I agree with your analysis and your conclusion but I don't think your analysis supports your conclusion. There was nothing particularly "conservative" about Brexit and it was done over the dead body of the "Conservative" party. Brexit was a populist revolt. The populist revolt continues apace. It is the spectre haunting Europe and the global Anglosphere. Conservatism may well be dead. Populism - what we used to call 'democracy' - is alive and thriving.
You make a good point Gilgamesh. Perhaps I meant conservative type people rather than the Conservative Party when I was talking about Brexit. But of course you are correct. The Tories hated Brexit. Just reading No Way Out by Tim Shipman now. Eye opening.
I'm very curious about how many Labour/left leaning voters voted for Brexit. I've tried looking online but so far, nothing.
Well it’s very difficult to quantify. But look where the Tories won votes from Labour in 2019 (the Red Wall) and it’ll give you an idea. Although I’m not sure we can categorise these voters as ‘left leaning’ or even ‘Labour voters’. Of course up until the 80s Labour was the anti Europe (the EU don’t exist back then) party. Look at Tony Benn. I think this is well covered in State of Emergencyby Dominic Sandbrook. Which is a proper fun read about the early 1970s.
And the Great Leftie himself, Corby, was at heart a Brexiteer.
We should always refer to the Tories and forget its historic meaning. To use their chosen brand name is confusing to the laymen and gives them free publicity.
My impression from the US, for what little it's worth, is that the UK man in the street, the broad populace, seeks less, not more, social progressive change, they did not get it from the Tories, who had historically represent the status quo, and turn in frustration/desperation to the opposing major party in hopes that they'd "get it", and be more--well--like the old school Tories.
Now, this makes little intuitive sense, but between my correspondences with UK residents and my gut "feeling",it *seems* possible. Is this anywhere close?
The first part certainly. But they haven’t turned to the other party. Those voters have chosen smaller parties like Reform, maybe the Lib Dems, even the Greens and independents, or else stayed home. But thank you Gent for taking an interest in us.
Ah, I see where my error was. It was in failing to understand the effect of your multiparty system when voters who usually adhere to their favored party are dissatisfied with it. Not only do they not vote, but they are just as likely, or more likely, to vote, but to disperse it among other parties whom they hope will better represent them.
Here in the US, the strongest tendency, by far, is to simply not vote.
No error Gent. Yes. I think it’s clear. And was proven in the Brexit vote and the 2019 ‘get Brexit done’ election that there is a great prize for anyone , here and in the US plus other countries like Germany, who can engage with disaffected non voters. It is why the ruling elites hate populists. Because that is what they do.
All I would add to the responses you have had is to clarify that the the actions and inactions of the badly names Conservative Party were not accidental. They were not errors but intentional. That party has become the main part of the problem in Britain.
It has presented itself at election time as being conservative, freedom loving and keen on efficient markets whereas its actions and the developments it fails to prevent are all in the other direction.
There will be different interpretations of the way the election will unfold. Some in the Conservative Party want it to move towards the Labour Party position and adopt more woke polocies and more taxes and spending in a search for votes. This seems to me their likely decision but it will fail.
Others in the CP think they should move towards what are called "right wing" policies. They think this is what Reform advocate and its voters want. This is also incorrect.
Reform Party opposes the elites on almost every issue and it stands for the policies most of those not among the elites stand for. It will develop, improve and promulgate those policies and neither option being proposed by the CP will counter that.
Some great points Epping. I wonder if the Tories will get their act together or just tear themselves apart in recrimination and blame. Reform could be huge, or a big nothing. But it’s definitely all to play for right now, opportunity out of crisis and all that.
> Populism - what we used to call 'democracy' - is alive and thriving.
Funny, that word. Trying to make a distinction between populism and democracy is like trying to say that someone isn't overweight, they're just obese. We support six-packs, but beer should never be sold by the half-dozen.
Ha ha great analogy Ray.
As someone who would have identified as Old Labour (they were buried before I could ever take a vote), my take is the Conservative party died sometime between 1989 and 2010. By 2010 it was a fully signed up member of the progressive, middle class, graduate uniparty. Okay, with some paper thin variation’ on exactly which group from that class should reap the benefits (generally bankers and hedge fund managers). What I think has happened since Brexit is that unable to blame the EU for their decisions, they now own them as will Labour in 5 years time. Once rhetoric public saw what this ‘Conservative’ party actually wanted to do, they turned their back on them.
To be clear, I think capitalism remains the least worst option for the generation of wealth, that profit is the just reward for taking risk, but the system we have today is a twisted, crony/klepto capitalism that rewards those who have the market power to distort the market to generate what in economic terms is known as as abnormal profit.
Agree 100% with this P. Especially the bit about crony capitalism. I expect that just as the Tories blamed the EU for everything, so Labour will blame the Tories, and they will have a point!
34% of a low 60% turnout but 64% of the seats. I do hope Starmer has some humility about that. If not, here’s an idea: abolish the House of Lords and make a 2nd chamber of max 200 people, appointed in proportion to the number of votes cast per party as a form of PR. Probably a recipe for political constipation? Haven’t thought it through yet..
Ha ha. Let’s try it Richard! Anything is worth a go at this point.
The last thing this country needs is more politicians. Once you have two elected chambers the opportunity to play games (think Nicola Sturgeon multiplied 10 times) will be to hard for these dullards to resist.
Good point. This is why I voted Brexit. I don’t need one massive over reaching government running my life. And I certainly don’t need two. The poor Scouts and the Welsh had three at one point. And look what that got them.
I agree, the prospect of more politicians is unappealing. But it would be a quarter of the 800 already in place, and we need a foil to the disproportionate power that Labour can now wield. Poor turnout gave them a massive 172 seat majority from only 20% of the population. In a new second chamber, I would allow the parties to choose their own members, but they would all have to comply with minimum standards for intellectual capacity, mental stability, integrity and useful experience, ie no nutters.
A no nutters rule would sadly be impossible to enforce Richard . One persons nutter is another person’s - congratulations to Britain’s new Foreign Secretary.
Ha ha! 😂
Nice idea, but it won't work. The more intelligent they are, the bigger idiot they seem to be.
Thank you LSO. My favourite numbers game is:
Reform over 4 million votes, 4 seats.
Plaid Cymru fewer than 200,000 votes, 4 seats.
Now the infighting begins again in the Conservative Party. They are never happy unless they are fighting or plotting. Wets v Dries, leave v Remain, hard Brexit v Soft Brexit, centrists v old fashioned Conservatives etc. No wonder Farage described them as a broad church with no religion.
The thing is, if you are a broad church with a strong and effective leader, you massively extend your reach and appeal to the voting public. The sum of the parts is greater than those parts.
When you have pathetic, wishy washy leaders who try to please everybody, you end up alienating the wets with some populist looking policy, and you alienate the populists by not delivering on it. The sum is definitely less than the constituent parts. That is what happened under all of them from Cameron on.
Expect another period in the wilderness like the Hague/Duncan Smith/Howard period, where unelectable leader after unelectable leader came and went. Both Conservatives and Labour basically need two things: a strong leader with credibility in Opposition, and a government in power that is weak and tired. It may be a long time coming.
Perceptive and insightful as ever Jeremy. Thanks.
“Their argument was that although we voted to Leave, the vote being so tight, we should only Leave a bit. That we should also be careful to ‘respect the wishes of Remain voters.’”
A little like being a ‘little bit pregnant’ that one.😂
Yes, if the result did two things it showed up two things - one the disinterest, voter turnout out being 8% lower, and secondly, the unfairness and craziness of how the system operates.
Whatever you think of individual parties or leaders, the stats are insane. Reform should have way more seats than they do with all those votes. It’s just not fit for purpose.
Agreed. Labour won fair and square. It’s the voters who lost. Especially those who support smaller parties like Reform or the Greens.
I have a suggestion: everyone who is inclined to the so-called 'right-wing' of politics should move to Cornwall and probably Devon and Somerset as well. We then declare UDI. Only a small-ish land border to defend and otherwise surrounded by sea. Perfect!
Aren’t you already starting that trend Bettina ?
Yes, it was my cunning plan. Cornwall was entirely 'blue' before yesterday. When you add the Conservative + Reform vote together in each constituency it beats the red ones. Darn it!
I think that split will doom us for a generation Bettina. I can’t see this bag of cats finding common ground for a while.
It's why I support ranked ballot or single transferable -- which is very slightly different but basically the same idea: your first pick is who you really want to win. Should they be knocked off, your ballot transfers to your second choice, and so on. You guys simply must trash FPP, it was fine in the Middle Ages, but not now.
I think you’re right Ray. And I think that menthod you describe, single transferable vote(?) is a good option.
The cool thing is that, if you complete your ballot and rank everyone, the final winner has the support of *everyone*, because the ballots are always forwarded to whoever is left. Thus, for example, Labour might be my last choice, nevertheless they are my choice, even if last, and if they win, I voted for them irrespective of how many other choices I would have preferred. Could go some distance to creating a sense of unity.
The French have a crude version if STV in their two stage election. First we decide who the final contenders will be, second we pick the winner.
If only we could!!!! Turkeys. Christmas. Etc
I know! The turnout was less than 60%. What if Reform and other minority parties collaborate to promote a vote strike to get the turnout at future elections - including council ones - down to 20%. And not turn up to parliament until we are given PR! People vote differently when there's PR and the smaller parties might benefit a lot more, even if they think they've done OK in this system.
Yes, the outlook is so bleak, I think I'd like an alien invasion now please 🙏🏻
In an exchange with British friend a couple of days ago, asking him what was going on, I created a sort of metaphor for what seems to me was the mindset of the populace. It was this:
"So that metaphorically, the vote tomorrow is not one for the voters to express a desire to move from one deck to another on the QE II, but to jump off the ship entirely, and into the sea. "
Was this in any sense related to what happened at the polls?
A bit Accelertorist even if you know that idea.
Yes. It was very much a kick the table over moment.
Hairyhanded Gent, did you run amok in Kent by any chance? Were you looking for Lee Ho Fook's for a big dish of beef chow mein?
I'll come with you, Bettina, if we can all agree to vote LibDem.
Yes. But then we could all become the Lib Dems. Or at least take them over. That would be quite the coalition.
I don't think anyone has ever tried entryism with the Lib Dems......it's quite mad, but it might just work 🤔
Yes, I've got a couple of paddleboards we can fall off 🙃
🤣
I think a Labour Government will basically be the incompetent Tories on steroids. I mean, David Lammy as Foreign Secretary?
I know! 🤣 I was sure Starmer would swap him out immediately. But nope.
Who can complain?
We bought a crock of Bunter, so we ended up stinking of that crock.
Democracy is flawed. Less 2% of the population effectively brought us out of an institution we had subsumed our decision making process to for decades. I voted to leave, and am firmly of the mind that it was potentially a great decision, but the majority think otherwise now.
I dislike the unthinking Labour supporters who bandy mindless slogans about as a definitive truth, but the whole process is flawed.
Many of my recent Tory bedfellows were simpletons, on the sociopathic scale. Ergo 'Austerity' for the cheap seats.
We simply have to recognise, we get the a mirror image of us collectively.
It's painful to admit, for even the most robust of egos.
A brilliant comment.
Conservatism is dead.
With a one percent shift in the vote? So if we had a one percent shift the other way it would rise from the grave? The figure seems incredible.
Exactly what aflyer says and perhaps my point. Labour hasn’t become more popular. The electorate have rather rejected the awful Tories. Not quite the same thing.
One percent shift for Labour. The cons fell off a cliff, and rightly so
Ah ... so the Tory vote went elsewhere, but not to Labour? What was the final set of migrations? Reform, I'd guess?
Yes. And the Lib Dems. Our traditional third soft wet liberal party.
Don't know much about them. Eternal losers like our NDP, it seems. What? Sorta like our Liberals?
You know, it's paradoxical, I describe myself as an extreme centrist, and yet all the centrist parties throughout the civilized world are ... well, it's not my kind of centrism. It's fine to describe oneself as moderate, but ... take Macron: ok 'centrist' but it's a corrupt, tired, globalist, elitist centrism that I detest. I'd vote for LePenn if I was a Frog.
Haha. You almost made it to the end there Ray. 😂 Lis Dems are the sensible dad party. Or for people who think the Tories are a bit mean but are too snobbish to vote for (traditional) Labour.
And yet they vote for a party that is (and for a long time has been) actually to the left of Labour. How long can the ghost of Gladstone continue to bestow an aura of respectability on a party that he would despise?
The result we got was really the worst case scenario, with Zero Seats an unfulfilled dream and Labour a strong mandate (just not from the voters). I fully expect to see Bojo back in government next go around, but ultimately it matters little. It'll still be managerial globalist gay race commie decline.
What will be "interesting", if it doesn't ruin us all, is how Labour will use their massive majority to enact their agenda, when the Tories used theirs to enact more Blairism.
Great article, as usual btw.
That’s an intriguing idea Sathanas. Bojo does seem to be keeping his options open. I’m not sure if the party would even consider him right now. But he’s very good at winning people over, (worked on me) so you could be right. It’s depressing that it matters so little. But yes. The technocrats are in charge, and it looks like, even though freed from the Brussels embrace (for all the good it did us) we’ll be returning to their sclerotic clutches soon. Also. Thanks for the other thing. Welcome aboard. Much appreciated.
I also had to queue for half an hour to vote. I was surprised to hear there was such a poor turnout.
I feel kinda dirty, involving myself in such a fake and ghey system.
It is all David Cameron’s fault. Instead of negotiating better terms for our membership of Europe, he decided to call a referendum, which ended 52% - 48%. This split the our country right down the middle, which l can never see being cured.
.
I’m very much a committed Brexiteer Tony, but yes, they made an absolute hash of it.
I don't think so. Merkel et al refused to give him better terms, so he came back brandishing whatever they'd offered him as A Really Good Deal and the British public took one look at it and voted for UKIP in the European Elections. Cameron was then panicked into offering a referendum when he didn't expect to win a majority at the next General Election. The rest as they say is history.
Can someone define right wing. It and the centre seem to be var to the left of where I think they are. And has anyome actually met a right winger?
Well I think it is simply used as a catch all by left nowadays. Anything they don’t like, whether popular or mainstream, and especially widely held views, is easily dismissed as ‘right wing’. And it works I think. Like throwing around the word racist.
Exactly. It's one of those general purpose insults. Is it not astonishing how long these words retain their ability to sting you decades after they've lost all real meaning? 'A racist! A racist! Burn the racist!' ... what? for pointing out that Blacks have more fast-twitch muscles than whites? (Which is why they are so much better at most sports.)
Basically anyone less of a fruit cake than Jeremy Corbyn.
The central argument here is illogical. If you’re saying that the narrow win for Leave still gave the government a mandate for a strong and absolute exit from the EU, then it would follow that a narrow win for Labour also gives the government a mandate for a strong and absolute implementation of their manifesto. Or else you think the small margin means that there should be compromise in both cases. It makes no sense to say that there should have been a hard Leave despite the close win but in this case there should be compromise because of the close win.
I’m absolutely not saying that at all Jon. I’m talking about arguments following these results. Not the results themselves. At no point do I question the legitimacy of either the Leave victory, nor Starmer’s landslide. And I point that out at least twice. Nor do I suggest that Labour should compromise on its agenda.
My point is simply that if the Tories had won under similar circumstances the demands from the mainstream media and the ‘Left’ for ‘compromise’ would be deafening. And I’m basing that claim on the way Labour and the Left made exactly that demand after Brexit. All the best.
I do applaud your two mentions of the importance of recognising the legitimacy of the election; this is the kind of attitude that has allowed the UK to become a peaceful and prosperous country.
With regard to the narrow margin, I’d take the opposite view - Labour should compromise, the Brexiteers should compromise. Politics should be about trying to find an approach that is durable because it’s broadly accepted.
FPTP is being talked about on so many threads and forums. I've posted most of this before but it's worth repeating and taking note of. In North Durham Labour got the seat with 39 percent of the vote and that's less than the ballots cast for Tories and Reform who split the non labour vote. Does Labour really represent the views of North Durham when the majority voted for other parties?
Labour got 32 percent of the vote in 2019 and it was a Tory majority. Labour got 34 percent of the vote in 2024 and it's a Labour landslide victory. FPTP can result in proportional and disproportional results. Smaller parties with neiche issues like the Greens don't succeed with FPTP and parties that overlap ideologically with competing parties split their vote share. If Tories didn't field a candidate in north Durham we would have a Reform MP today (important to note that it wouldn't have been the same vice versa but that's a longer conversation).
This is why PR is so important and direct democracy both of which are supported by reform. This way we get the representative we want as well as a mechanism to direct their actions in parliament. When direct democracy is a reality a person or party doesn't need to be a set menu of ideological objectives it can be representative of the electorate on a case by case basis.
Very interesting about voting in the North John. Thanks. Fptp is what we have though, and Starmer won fair and square using that system. There is a lot of chat as you say about voting systems at the moment. And plenty on here which is great. I do worry that ( and I’m definitely not accusing you of doing this) a lot of people out there are using the inadequacies of fptp to reflect the political landscape of today to claim that Labours massive majority is somehow illegitimate. It isn’t.
If we want to win next time ‘we’ need to look to ourselves not blame fptp.
Though he is going to give votes to 16 year olds- so that is gerrymandering the system!!! Thanks again for taking the time to comment.
Thanks for taking the time to reply again. I believe in a PR system and have done for a long time but don't dispute Labour's victory and authority to govern. I like Reform for PR and direct democracy and those are popular issues as well as culture and population. Reform didn't get a big enough portion of the Labour vote to get the seats. Maybe there is a need for an economically left and socially conservative movement.
Yes John. I like the SDP in some ways, even though they are a bit to the left (quite a bit!) of me on the economy. I voted for them in the London mayorals. They have a bit of integrity which really appeals to me. With such a tiny vote share they can only be in it because they believe in what they are saying.