Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
Not likely to change and are the rules that politicians are happy to participate in.
Fuck me I know mate. I’m just saying it’s a shit system.
Not likely to change and are the rules that politicians are happy to participate in.
What a bunch of Fuckwhits
I think there's one point that a lot are overlooking when they say things like "Starmer got a worse vote share than Corbyn in 2017" - which is true. But there's a reason Corbyn lost.
Let's be honest, the voters permitted Starmer to win. Implicitly, they didn't mobilise to vote against him. They didn't deem him enough of a threat to vote efficiently in opposition - that might not be an endorsement but it is an acceptance. That wasn't the case for Corbyn. People stacked up on the Tories with unprecedented weight specifically to stop him.
So while only a third of the electorate voted for Labour, I think it's fair to say that another 15-30% were somewhere between apathetic about a Labour victory and voting another party to ensure one. Whereas clearly 75% were working actively against the Conservatives which is why they lost.
FPTP creates the perception of binary support when actually it's more nuanced. It is often more about who most of the electorate allow to win rather than who they want to win. I hate it as a system, but the truth is that the voters let Cameron in with 36% in 2010 and now it's the same with Starmer. In FPTP the electorate acts more like a gatekeeper.
We need to fix FPTP, but I'm not suddenly going to promote some new urgency to the topic just because it's the other side of the spectrum that has benefited on this occasion. It's been a problem for decades.
You are not taking into account the significant numbers of voters who are not aligned to one political party and those who vote tactically. It's not like supporting a football team, it can be much more fluid than that. I know a person who was torn between Labour and Green but in the end voted Green because she lives in an ultra safe Labour seat and wanted Greens to take a bigger share of the popular vote. My personal political views are somewhere between Labour and Lib Dem but I voted Labour because Lib Dem would have been a wasted vote in Altrincham and Sale West.Makes loads of sense that, mate.
That's sort of what I said earlier. The election was more about getting the Conservatives out, than it was getting Labour in. One third of the vote, in the lowest turnout in 20 years, is certainly not a ringing endorsement for Labour. Even the most enthusiastic Labour supporters on here wouldn't pretend otherwise.So while only a third of the electorate voted for Labour, I think it's fair to say that another 15-30% were somewhere between apathetic about a Labour victory and voting another party to ensure one. Whereas clearly 75% were working actively against the Conservatives which is why they lost.
I think you'll find they wouldThat's sort of what I said earlier. The election was more about getting the Conservatives out, than it was getting Labour in. One third of the vote, in the lowest turnout in 20 years, is certainly not a ringing endorsement for Labour. Even the most enthusiastic Labour supporters on here wouldn't pretend otherwise.
Well then, they're kidding themselves.I think you'll find they would
Unfortunately we will never know. I hesitate to call out people who didn't vote because as the old saying goes, walk a mile in my shoes, so there could be very valid reasons why they couldn't/wouldn't vote but I can see the time coming when the powers that be say, well people can't be bothered voting so we won't bother having elections. They must be satisfied!!!!Until you get 100% turn out, the voting system will never be right. For all we know, the c40% who never voted on Thursday may well have voted Labour had they turned out
Then they should also have the right not to complain when they don't like a government initiative!! JMHOAbsolutely not, everyone has the right to vote but it doesn't mean they have to nor should they.