Plenty of free money on Betfair for number of reform seats if you believe the Labour group leader on Basildon council who tweeted that Reform were 122 ahead prior to the recount for South Basildon.
How the heck did the Lib Dems get 70+ seats on that vote share? Must be some Reform knobbling of the Tories in some of those seats.
The Cons have a big problem. Chasing Reform will lose the reluctant loyalists in the centre, but it will look appealing when they start mentally adding their vote shares in lost seats. They need to win back some Lab and LD switchers and also some Reform switchers, but the only way to do that is not to go left or right but actually fins solutions for the people who have rightly given up on them. That won't be easy, so we're more likely to see a Reform chasing populist leader for now I guess.
The make up of the surviving Con MPs, given the leadership voting rules, is going to be critical here.
The big plus for Tories in 2028-9 is people won't be voting out the Tories. That will see many seats come back without doing anything.
On the other hand, we'll have children voting.
This is precisely the kind of post that tells me you’re out of power for a generation.
You really need to ditch the nastiness and sort yourselves out. Do NOT presume the electorate are just going to come rushing back into your arms unless you do.
It is quite remarkable that Sunak hasn't yet been to the Palace yet Labour have already lost the next election.
Starmer does need to play a bad economic and social cohesion hand well however. It is difficult to see him succeeding whilst GBNews, the Telegraph and the Mail are gaslighting their readers with no recourse. Free press my arse. He needs to clip their wings with formal regulation.
I am fascinated that there is much caressing of Farage's genitals whilst ignoring the equally pernicious (in my view) rise of the Corbyn/Gaza left.
PM Cameron in Witney - no longer a Conservative seat PM May in Maidenhead - no longer a Conservative seat PM Johnson in Uxbridge & Ruislip - no longer a Conservative seat PM Truss in SW Norfolk - no longer a Conservative seat
We’re a moderate nation and the only dog-whistling we follow is with our canine friends.
I think is a really bad take Heathener, I’m afraid to say.
In large parts of the country they are now the opposition to Labour. They are here to stay for the foreseeable and they will have a large impact on how the opposition behaves in the next parliament.
We need SKS to deliver a good government if we are to see the back of Reform. This isn’t a sturdy majority, and he needs to firm it up pronto.
I make it the least number of votes the Tories have received - in terms of absolute number of votes - since the 1923 general election, more than 100 years ago, before universal suffrage. The population as a whole was only 38 million then.
He’s a decent and capable man but a really bad politician. Osborne was spot on overnight. He got dealt a really tough hand but he needed to draw a line between him, Boris’s lies and Truss’s incompetence. Instead he focused on trying to keep a disparate party together and ended up with a completely incoherent platform as a result.
I feel quite sorry for Sunak. He's clearly smart, honest by political standards, seems to work hard, and has some decent ideas. Unfortunately he has almost no political skills at all, and he's leading a party full of people who frankly are nutters. He had no chance of winning, not that any incumbent government has much chance with the electorate post pandemic and the consequences of the war in Ukraine.
The result could have been much worse for the Conservatives but not much better.
If Starmer succeeds, then he will win comfortably in 2029.
However, there is an awful lot on his in tray and labours traditional solutions will make things worse.
Without being hyperbolic, Labours future rests principally on Rachel Reeves shoulders and Starmers willingness to let her do things that will have the left of the party and the Libdems, and even some "one nation" conservatives up in arms.
His large majority with losses of inner city seats and gains of places like Hitchin will help.
However, if Starmer bottles it like Blair did with Frank Field and neuters or removes her, then Farage will be hovering like a vulture in 2029.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Twas ever thus.
Its a far, far harder job to what Labour had in 1997.
In fact its an impossible job.
Collapsing UK-born working age population, which itself has much lower willingness to work due to tax rates, worse degrees, recreational drug use, etc. Solutions are (a) do nothing [L/C], (b) spend even more on the non working population somehow [LD, G, Islamic bloc], (c) expel much of the working age population [R].
So it's perfectly plausible that Labour do well in Government and get rewarded with more seats in 2028/9 than they got today (see 2015 as the perfect example of this).
Lib Dems now exceeded the exit poll. What a night for them.
I couldn’t understand why Curtice downgraded from 61 to 54 at the first adjustment. They had taken every possible seat at that point.
The first iteration had some absurd LibDem projected gains from Labour in it - such as Finchley, where a glance at the actual result shows how absurd it was. Cambridge, Bermondsey - these seats were never going to be LibDem gains from Labour. I think the second iteration dropped these out. I haven't worked through my target list from last night, yet, but the numbers show that the LibDems got a high proportion of the targets from the Tories and probably chalked up one or two surprises on top (although the excitement over Skipton & Ripon turned out to be a gross error by ITV, I think?). So the they overachieved slightly in the blue wall and the final iteration reflected that.
When you see the workings of the exit poll, we can see that it contains some nonsense predictions. But of course it's a model, and they rely on these cancelling out with similar balancing errors - which for Labour v Tory they tend to do, because there are so many such seats. This time there were many LibDem v Con battles and hence the errors there mostly cancelled out. Where that didn't work was for Reform, where there was the additional disadvantage of not having base data as they didn't stand last time. I expect they were using some combination of UKIP/Brexit Party as the base, and of course Brexit didn't stand in Tory seats last time. So their Reform forecast was always likely to be up the spout - as tbf Curtis did say right at the beginning.
How the heck did the Lib Dems get 70+ seats on that vote share? Must be some Reform knobbling of the Tories in some of those seats.
The Cons have a big problem. Chasing Reform will lose the reluctant loyalists in the centre, but it will look appealing when they start mentally adding their vote shares in lost seats. They need to win back some Lab and LD switchers and also some Reform switchers, but the only way to do that is not to go left or right but actually fins solutions for the people who have rightly given up on them. That won't be easy, so we're more likely to see a Reform chasing populist leader for now I guess.
The make up of the surviving Con MPs, given the leadership voting rules, is going to be critical here.
The big plus for Tories in 2028-9 is people won't be voting out the Tories. That will see many seats come back without doing anything.
On the other hand, we'll have children voting.
This is precisely the kind of post that tells me you’re out of power for a generation.
You really need to ditch the nastiness and sort yourselves out. Do NOT presume the electorate are just going to come rushing back into your arms unless you do.
It is quite remarkable that Sunak hasn't yet been to the Palace yet Labour have already lost the next election.
Starmer does need to play a bad economic and social cohesion hand well however. It is difficult to see him succeeding whilst GBNews, the Telegraph and the Mail are gaslighting their readers with no recourse. Free press my arse. He needs to clip their wings with formal regulation.
I am fascinated that there is much caressing of Farage's genitals whilst ignoring the equally pernicious (in my view) rise of the Corbyn/Gaza left.
That's cos the right wing press want a Reform+Con formal tie-up and then get the Singapore-on-Thames project back on track.
Very interesting percentages with only a few left to declare: Labour 34%, Tory 23.6%m Reform 14.3 % Lib Dem 12.2% Green 6.8%
The Labour vote is really low, certainly compared to the polling over the last month. But, as Maggie showed in the 1980s, if your opponent vote is split you can win very big.
Maggie always got over 40% with all her wins?
Yes, but her majorities were flattered by the split between the Alliance and Labour. The split between the Tories and Reform has made the Labour vote extremely efficient.
Labour's majority is flattered by the split between Tories and Reform.
And it got 33.9%. Soft as baby food.
Under our system the only thing that really matters is the seat majority, it will be 5 years now before anything can be done about it and 5 years is a long time in politics.
If the Tories had won a 160 seat majority with 33.8%, would you be happy about it?
I have been pro PR (STV) for years. So no, not happy with the way votes have been translated into seats.
However it's about the first time I can recall that FPTP has worked decisively in favour of the left.
It is no use people who have been happy to gain the electoral benefits for years crying foul now that it has worked against them.
Sympathies have to go to Bob Seely the outgoing MP for isle of Wight who stood in W and lost, while the Cons held E. Also Simon Jupp the E Devon MP who stood in Honiton and lost badly, while the Cons held the other part of his seat in Exmouth
Only 44% bothered to vote in Ed's constituency in Doncaster North, possibly because there wasn't a Ref candidate and a lot of them were hoping to vote for that party.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Twas ever thus.
Its a far, far harder job to what Labour had in 1997.
In fact its an impossible job.
That's what I said about Cameron in 2010. An election no one wants to win. A poisoned chalice! And here we are after 14 years of Conservative Governments.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Twas ever thus.
Its a far, far harder job to what Labour had in 1997.
In fact its an impossible job.
Collapsing UK-born working age population, which itself has much lower willingness to work due to tax rates, worse degrees, recreational drug use, etc. Solutions are (a) do nothing [L/C], (b) spend even more on the non working population somehow [LD, G, Islamic bloc], (c) expel much of the working age population [R].
The only way he will in 2029 is careful financial management combined with the sort of welfare state reforms Frank Field would have implemented had Gordon Brown not browbeat Blair into removing him.
Starmer is luckier than Blair in that he dosen't have to appoint as Chancellor and appease a micromanaging, phone hurling (allegedly) albatross.
They like a decisive win. We have 5 years of stable Gov’t and they won’t lose next time, so a solid 10 years.
Not so very certain about that - small swings would chop down swathes of those Labour seats.
My big concern is that there will be huge numbers of Labour MPs who will be extremely worried by change - especially building the needed housing. I suspect there will be a lot of conversions to NIMBYism.
There was a comment on an earlier thread - the classic question used by NIMBYs. "Would you like a factory next to you?".
I was in France the other week - Chablis. The place is a hive of development, in and around the old town and the surrounding villages. Mix of industrial and housing. The rapid filling in means that Chablis will absorb those outlying villages and grown into a city. This process is taking place with little or no opposition.
Would you mind living next to this? -
The LaRouche wine making plant - at least that is the cover. I strongly suspect it is a front for Mr Goldfinger.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.
They like a decisive win. We have 5 years of stable Gov’t and they won’t lose next time, so a solid 10 years.
Not so very certain about that - small swings would chop down swathes of those Labour seats.
My big concern is that there will be huge numbers of Labour MPs who will be extremely worried by change - especially building the needed housing. I suspect there will be a lot of conversions to NIMBYism.
There was a comment on an earlier thread - the classic question used by NIMBYs. "Would you like a factory next to you?".
I was in France the other week - Chablis. The place is a hive of development, in and around the old town and the surrounding villages. Mix of industrial and housing. The rapid filling in means that Chablis will absorb those outlying villages and grown into a city. This process is taking place with little or no opposition.
Would you mind living next to this? -
The LaRouche wine making plant - at least that is the cover. I strongly suspect it is a front for Mr Goldfinger.
I absolutely would not mind living next to a factory.
We need economic growth, having factories developed near us is good news not bad news.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Twas ever thus.
Its a far, far harder job to what Labour had in 1997.
In fact its an impossible job.
Collapsing UK-born working age population, which itself has much lower willingness to work due to tax rates, worse degrees, recreational drug use, etc. Solutions are (a) do nothing [L/C], (b) spend even more on the non working population somehow [LD, G, Islamic bloc], (c) expel much of the working age population [R].
This chart was posted to Twitter earlier. I think the commentary around it is spot on.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
If they do sort out our planning regime, unlock growth, then they can address many of the countries problems - and screw any anti-growth NIMBYs.
If they don't, they don't deserve sympathy, or to be re-elected.
A large number of those newly elected Labour MPs will shortly discover reasons why their seat should be exempt from building all the stuff that we have massive shortfalls of.
Reform was a straightforward head vs heart mistake. I backed them below 14% voteshare and expect to miss out on that by a smidge. Even though it was 14.3% which is non-trivial nevertheless I am glad it wasn't higher. bf had 18+% as favourite last night.
The Labour lead over Con is only 10%. How many polls came anywhere close to that?
The fact that the polls predicted a landslide and we got a landslide will mask some of this. But it was an absolute disaster for the pollsters. That can’t be stressed enough.
If the votes had fallen differently across the seats then this could easily have been a very slim Labour majority or even a HP. They’ve got lucky.
I expect the issue will be that despite the very large swing, it retained some element of non-proportionality (some residual UNS effect, if you will) which buggered up the MRP models that essentially contained assumptions that were purely proportional - as they will be, if you model voting behaviour by demographic. Yougov's advantage is in having a panel big enough to get about 100 voters from each seat, and I can only assume that the way they bring this local data together with their national modelling serves to remove some of the gross error.
With all the MRPs, we'd be better off just seeing the overall prediction, and not the workings. The workings look like a local poll when in reality the seats are just the elements of a national model, and looking at the workings is too tempting and the data too sexy when essentially it doesn't work at individual seat level.
The fascinating thing about UNS is that, really, no-one fully understands why it happens; a fact I spotted as a student and despite a lot of reading in the decades since, remains essentially unsolved. Kellner's attempt at an explanation last year was so inadequate that it simply served to underline what a mystery it is.
Not sure if anyone has pointed it out yet but it is quite ironic/amusing to find the Lib dems to be the key beneficiary of the first past the post system!
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
If they do sort out our planning regime, unlock growth, then they can address many of the countries problems - and screw any anti-growth NIMBYs.
If they don't, they don't deserve sympathy, or to be re-elected.
A large number of those newly elected Labour MPs will shortly discover reasons why their seat should be exempt from building all the stuff that we have massive shortfalls of.
I think Reeves/Starmer are going to steamroller them. Maybe that’s the hope talking, but I think the Labour leadership might genuinely get it.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.
Just tax all land like they do in Japan, that works really well at getting unused land at valuable sites into productive use.
We’re a moderate nation and the only dog-whistling we follow is with our canine friends.
I will pick you up on this again. I am sorry we have Reform MPs but your continual downplaying of their results is disingenuous and simply wrong. It is also dangerously blase.
Reform beat both the Lib Dems and Greens in vote share - they gained more than twice as many votes as the Greens. Downplaying that result helps no one because it gives everyone an excuse to simply ignore concerns of a significant section of the electorate. Do that and next time you will see even more Reform seats (or whatever their equivalent is in 5 years)
All the parties need to learn the right lessons of this election - especially Labour who will now have the power to do something about it.
Not sure if anyone has pointed it out yet but it is quite ironic/amusing to find the Lib dems to be the key beneficiary of the first past the post system!
Isn’t their seat count pretty proportional to their vote share?
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
If they do sort out our planning regime, unlock growth, then they can address many of the countries problems - and screw any anti-growth NIMBYs.
If they don't, they don't deserve sympathy, or to be re-elected.
A large number of those newly elected Labour MPs will shortly discover reasons why their seat should be exempt from building all the stuff that we have massive shortfalls of.
If they do, they deserve to lose.
Reeves has a window of opportunity to implement serious, credible reform here.
Removing from local politicians and NIMBYs the right to block people investing in their own land would remove the handbrake on growth and unlock economic growth. Pander to the NIMBYs and growth will not materialise.
Not sure if anyone has pointed it out yet but it is quite ironic/amusing to find the Lib dems to be the key beneficiary of the first past the post system!
Aren’t they just pretty much where their vote share ought to place them? About 11% of seats (so if anything still slightly under!).
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I'm sorry, but while this manifesto may help, it is part of the problem - not the solution - to say that simply more construction will return growth to 1990s levels. It's opting out of all those difficult questions about labour supply, who will do the work and where they will come from and how they will fund the growing cohort outside the work force, which have been animating every election since 2015.
Is Davey going to get roughly the same vote share as Swinson, in a low turnout election, and end up with 70 seats?
I regret that politics nowadays only gives you one shot and you're out. Swinson made some mistakes, but she was young and could have learnt from them. It's a loss to politics when young people have to leave after they have failed once.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
If they do sort out our planning regime, unlock growth, then they can address many of the countries problems - and screw any anti-growth NIMBYs.
If they don't, they don't deserve sympathy, or to be re-elected.
It's the infrastructure stupid.
It's perfectly possible to build a modern transport, water and energy system with enough political will. Thames Water weren't always (pumping out) shit. Go read up on Bazalgette, the London Ring Main. Read Dominic Davies' book on infrastructure.
I love how some on here still feel the Truss / Tufton Street extreme neoliberalism should still be given a chance, and we'll just magically get infrastructure. We all stand higher and taller on properly built infrastructure platforms, and that's the basis of sustained growth.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.
Just tax all land like they do in Japan, that works really well at getting unused land at valuable sites into productive use.
Georgists of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your ... green belt? parking lots?
They like a decisive win. We have 5 years of stable Gov’t and they won’t lose next time, so a solid 10 years.
33 percent of the vote assured 10 years. I'll have what you're smoking.
The Tories have an even greater problem than Labour.
How do they attract the 13% of Reform voters without alienating even more of the 23% they already hold?
Voting patterns and coalitions are all over the place. I could see Labour and the Tories getting washed away in a future election. Or one, or the other doing well. But thinking Labour will get 10 years based on their showing at this election is mental.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.
Just tax all land like they do in Japan, that works really well at getting unused land at valuable sites into productive use.
Combined with Japan removing our planning style system and changing the law, nationally, so that people have a right to build on their own land without seeking consent first.
We could and should learn a lot from Japan. Who have far worse demographics than us, but good living standards.
Just to say that you heard about Tewkesbury first from Peter the Punter and I. Only had £10 on Cameron Thomas winning. Came out positive on my bets so happy for that plus as a Lib Dem just wow!
What an amazing election! in many ways, far more fascinating and surprising than 1997, wouldn't you agree?
I think it is - by far - the most fascinating election since the war. If we can avoid the same tyranny of hyperinfated expectations that we call out in the electorate.
They like a decisive win. We have 5 years of stable Gov’t and they won’t lose next time, so a solid 10 years.
33 percent of the vote assured 10 years. I'll have what you're smoking.
The Tories have an even greater problem than Labour.
How do they attract the 13% of Reform voters without alienating even more of the 23% they already hold?
I don't think they can. Not least because those 15% (not 13%) of Reform voters are not necessarily natural Tory voters. Many of them came from Labour and if they are to be pealed away from Reform it will be down to Labour to achieve that.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I'm sorry, but while this manifesto may help, it is part of the problem - not the solution - to say that simply more construction will return growth to 1990s levels. It's opting out of all those difficult questions about labour supply, who will do the work and where they will come from and how they will fund the growing cohort outside the work force, which have been animating every election since 2015.
There is no difficult question - allow investment and allow productivity to rise.
Productive jobs will pay more and get labour.
Unproductive jobs won't be able to afford higher wages and will go unfilled and die.
Investment and productivity is the solution, not growing the unskilled workforce to avoid the need to invest.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.
Just tax all land like they do in Japan, that works really well at getting unused land at valuable sites into productive use.
Georgists of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your ... green belt? parking lots?
You don't even lose the parking lots! In Tokyo, pretty much any site that's empty for a few months waiting for construction to start immediately sprouts a parking lot.
We’re a moderate nation and the only dog-whistling we follow is with our canine friends.
I will pick you up on this again. I am sorry we have Reform MPs but your continual downplaying of their results is disingenuous and simply wrong. It is also dangerously blase.
Reform beat both the Lib Dems and Greens in vote share - they gained more than twice as many votes as the Greens. Downplaying that result helps no one because it gives everyone an excuse to simply ignore concerns of a significant section of the electorate. Do that and next time you will see even more Reform seats (or whatever their equivalent is in 5 years)
All the parties need to learn the right lessons of this election - especially Labour who will now have the power to do something about it.
Problem is there is utterly no way labour will entertain voting reform. They would be throwing away power.
They like a decisive win. We have 5 years of stable Gov’t and they won’t lose next time, so a solid 10 years.
33 percent of the vote assured 10 years. I'll have what you're smoking.
Not assured, but still quite likely.
Con currently on 119 seats, so more than 200 gains needed for a majority. Thats an even bigger task than the task Starmer faced yesterday.
You can't simply add Con and Ref vote shares together, but even if you did the combined party would have to come up with more than "stop the boats" and unfunded tax cuts to have a credible alternative government.
And there are potentially some favourable winds. The economy is recovering, NHS waiting lists are dropping, immigration is falling, inflation has flattened. Without doing a lot, the country could be in a much better place in 5 years time.
They like a decisive win. We have 5 years of stable Gov’t and they won’t lose next time, so a solid 10 years.
Not so very certain about that - small swings would chop down swathes of those Labour seats.
My big concern is that there will be huge numbers of Labour MPs who will be extremely worried by change - especially building the needed housing. I suspect there will be a lot of conversions to NIMBYism.
There was a comment on an earlier thread - the classic question used by NIMBYs. "Would you like a factory next to you?".
I was in France the other week - Chablis. The place is a hive of development, in and around the old town and the surrounding villages. Mix of industrial and housing. The rapid filling in means that Chablis will absorb those outlying villages and grown into a city. This process is taking place with little or no opposition.
Would you mind living next to this? -
The LaRouche wine making plant - at least that is the cover. I strongly suspect it is a front for Mr Goldfinger.
I absolutely would not mind living next to a factory.
We need economic growth, having factories developed near us is good news not bad news.
Part of the problem is that people think of noisy, dark, satanic mills, belching black clouds.
Most modern factories are tidy boxes, utterly silent. IIRC in Chablis, they have to make some concessions to looking tidy - hence the stainless steel cladding, which is practically self cleaning.
You can draw a straight line from 1987 to 2024 tracing declining support for the three major parties.
2017 and 2019 were Brexit elections, which united disparate coalitions of voters, giving a false sense of stability.
This year we’re seeing the chaos that was always lurking.....
People are growing thoroughly fed up of a system that they don’t think is working, and increasingly opting for populist parties (or not voting at all).
This is not funny. Countries only do this when they’re in extreme distress.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
If they do sort out our planning regime, unlock growth, then they can address many of the countries problems - and screw any anti-growth NIMBYs.
If they don't, they don't deserve sympathy, or to be re-elected.
It's the infrastructure stupid.
It's perfectly possible to build a modern transport, water and energy system with enough political will. Thames Water weren't always (pumping out) shit. Go read up on Bazalgette, the London Ring Main. Read Dominic Davies' book on infrastructure.
I love how some on here still feel the Truss / Tufton Street extreme neoliberalism should still be given a chance, and we'll just magically get infrastructure. We all stand higher and taller on properly built infrastructure platforms, and that's the basis of sustained growth.
Infrastructure spending requires both money and time.
Whereas people want money spent on themselves and they want it now.
They like a decisive win. We have 5 years of stable Gov’t and they won’t lose next time, so a solid 10 years.
33 percent of the vote assured 10 years. I'll have what you're smoking.
34% but hey.
They ran a deliberately very efficient campaign. Very smart. Don’t underestimate this new Labour political machine.
There seems to be an assumption in the Tory camp that next time you can just add the Tory and RefUK votes together and tada - NOM territory.
It seems at least as likely that what was tactical voting last time round becomes incumbency voting next time for Lab/Lib voters; and *more* 3rd party voting in near-miss marginals.
What will make people *less* likely to vote RefUK if they still feel disenfranchised in 2029?
It doesn't happen _by default_ it needs the Conservatives to do something to win those votes back. And they are probably going to spend (at least) a few years arguing about it rather than doing it.
We’re a moderate nation and the only dog-whistling we follow is with our canine friends.
I will pick you up on this again. I am sorry we have Reform MPs but your continual downplaying of their results is disingenuous and simply wrong. It is also dangerously blase.
Reform beat both the Lib Dems and Greens in vote share - they gained more than twice as many votes as the Greens. Downplaying that result helps no one because it gives everyone an excuse to simply ignore concerns of a significant section of the electorate. Do that and next time you will see even more Reform seats (or whatever their equivalent is in 5 years)
All the parties need to learn the right lessons of this election - especially Labour who will now have the power to do something about it.
But of course they won't.
Another issue is that although directly analogous to the UKIP 4m votes/13% voteshare/one seat (a defector), nevertheless we, and the parties, and David Cameron, knew what UKIP wanted, namely an EU referendum.
Suppose a PM assembled all Reform voters together and asked them what they want, what would the answer be? Something on immigration (one in one out? Send them back?) which would not be possible to accept and...what else?
Reform is all about what it is against, not what it is for. It is against this general backdrop of frustration that the major parties operate. And all of them believe they are offering such people a real option.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
If they do sort out our planning regime, unlock growth, then they can address many of the countries problems - and screw any anti-growth NIMBYs.
If they don't, they don't deserve sympathy, or to be re-elected.
It's the infrastructure stupid.
It's perfectly possible to build a modern transport, water and energy system with enough political will. Thames Water weren't always (pumping out) shit. Go read up on Bazalgette, the London Ring Main. Read Dominic Davies' book on infrastructure.
I love how some on here still feel the Truss / Tufton Street extreme neoliberalism should still be given a chance, and we'll just magically get infrastructure. We all stand higher and taller on properly built infrastructure platforms, and that's the basis of sustained growth.
Not in five years it isn't. Even if you get rid of the bureaucratic hurdles, find the money and can buy the land, there is still the materials to obtain and the need to find and train a vast army of skilled workers to do it.
My estimate for Workers Party votes - 225,000 Actual - 210,000 They were within a few votes in Rochdale, Yardley and Hodge Hill. They come away empty handed
They like a decisive win. We have 5 years of stable Gov’t and they won’t lose next time, so a solid 10 years.
33 percent of the vote assured 10 years. I'll have what you're smoking.
The Tories have an even greater problem than Labour.
How do they attract the 13% of Reform voters without alienating even more of the 23% they already hold?
Voting patterns and coalitions are all over the place. I could see Labour and the Tories getting washed away in a future election. Or one, or the other doing well. But thinking Labour will get 10 years based on their showing at this election is mental.
I'm not disagreeing, we just don't know at this stage. Who knows what the political landscape will look like in 5 years time
I am just pointing out that the Tories have big problems too. The idea that you can simply combine the Tory and Reform voters into one party is a fantasy.
You can draw a straight line from 1987 to 2024 tracing declining support for the three major parties.
2017 and 2019 were Brexit elections, which united disparate coalitions of voters, giving a false sense of stability.
This year we’re seeing the chaos that was always lurking.....
People are growing thoroughly fed up of a system that they don’t think is working, and increasingly opting for populist parties (or not voting at all).
This is not funny. Countries only do this when they’re in extreme distress.
It's more that we have fallen into a consensus. And one which guards itself as a *moral issue*. So the repeated chorus is "Nothing can change. And you are evil for asking."
The answer to the populist questions is to come up with liberal, sensible *answers*. Not scream "THE QUESTION DOESN'T EXIST".
They like a decisive win. We have 5 years of stable Gov’t and they won’t lose next time, so a solid 10 years.
33 percent of the vote assured 10 years. I'll have what you're smoking.
The Tories have an even greater problem than Labour.
How do they attract the 13% of Reform voters without alienating even more of the 23% they already hold?
I don't think they can. Not least because those 15% (not 13%) of Reform voters are not necessarily natural Tory voters. Many of them came from Labour and if they are to be pealed away from Reform it will be down to Labour to achieve that.
This last point is very important. People are forgetting that excellent FT visual that showed the complexity of the party affiliation shifts that belie the simplicity of the Tories down, RefUK up "swing".
I think that, in essence, the tories essentially need to rediscover the formula that they had in 2019 and probably come to a kind of pact with Reform. I don't see the 'centrist' path being one that will work for them - they may win some seats back from the lib dems... but that isn't going to get them anywhere near back to where they need to be, and they will just lose more and more voters to Reform - which is Nigel's strategy. On the other hand there seem to be many seats where labour won because the tory/reform vote was split... and there are labour voters that can be won over by a coherant right wing party.
My estimate for Workers Party votes - 225,000 Actual - 210,000 They were within a few votes in Rochdale, Yardley and Hodge Hill. They come away empty handed
If you lump in the five "Gaza" independents with them the picture changes a little. I suspect they will be forming a party before too long, possibly led by Corbyn, which will be a "Reform" style headache for labour on their left flank.
I think that, in essence, the tories essentially need to rediscover the formula that they had in 2019 and probably come to a kind of pact with Reform. I don't see the 'centrist' path being one that will work for them - they may win some seats back from the lib dems... but that isn't going to get them anywhere near back to where they need to be, and they will just lose more and more voters to Reform - which is Nigel's strategy. On the other hand there seem to be many seats where labour won because the tory/reform vote was split... and there are labour voters that can be won over by a coherant right wing party.
The Tories need 326 seats to get into Downing Street. Either on their own, or with allies.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I'm sorry, but while this manifesto may help, it is part of the problem - not the solution - to say that simply more construction will return growth to 1990s levels. It's opting out of all those difficult questions about labour supply, who will do the work and where they will come from and how they will fund the growing cohort outside the work force, which have been animating every election since 2015.
There is no difficult question - allow investment and allow productivity to rise.
Productive jobs will pay more and get labour.
Unproductive jobs won't be able to afford higher wages and will go unfilled and die.
Investment and productivity is the solution, not growing the unskilled workforce to avoid the need to invest.
The history of the 2010s was, yes we had the productive jobs, but we didn't destroy the unproductive jobs, we just had more immigration, and lots of voters hate that! One reason being that "unproductive" by this definition means low-wage, so including lots of social care and good vibes jobs in hospitality. Voters love those! Oops...
What an amazing election! in many ways, far more fascinating and surprising than 1997, wouldn't you agree?
Good morning. What on earth happened in Ilford North? I thought Wes was going to win easily.
A lot of people are fed up with the major parties, which they see as ignoring them. Or, worse, hearing them and then deliberately going another way.
The Tories have made more people fed up than Labour, by a long way. So the next step is to see if Labour can actually do something (in the style of Biden) to actually answer some questions. Otherwise, their turn will come.
They like a decisive win. We have 5 years of stable Gov’t and they won’t lose next time, so a solid 10 years.
33 percent of the vote assured 10 years. I'll have what you're smoking.
Not assured, but still quite likely.
Con currently on 119 seats, so more than 200 gains needed for a majority. Thats an even bigger task than the task Starmer faced yesterday.
You can't simply add Con and Ref vote shares together, but even if you did the combined party would have to come up with more than "stop the boats" and unfunded tax cuts to have a credible alternative government.
And there are potentially some favourable winds. The economy is recovering, NHS waiting lists are dropping, immigration is falling, inflation has flattened. Without doing a lot, the country could be in a much better place in 5 years time.
Yes. You put it well. For the record, I think I'd go 4/6 on Starmer getting a second term as PM - as it stands, right now.
We’re a moderate nation and the only dog-whistling we follow is with our canine friends.
I will pick you up on this again. I am sorry we have Reform MPs but your continual downplaying of their results is disingenuous and simply wrong. It is also dangerously blase.
Reform beat both the Lib Dems and Greens in vote share - they gained more than twice as many votes as the Greens. Downplaying that result helps no one because it gives everyone an excuse to simply ignore concerns of a significant section of the electorate. Do that and next time you will see even more Reform seats (or whatever their equivalent is in 5 years)
All the parties need to learn the right lessons of this election - especially Labour who will now have the power to do something about it.
Problem is there is utterly no way labour will entertain voting reform. They would be throwing away power.
No but they might well entertain Frank Fieldite welfare reforms which will attract reform voters and repel some of their core.
The Tories could do a lot worse than choose Hunt as their new leader.
Did you hear his speech BR? Well worth catching it if you can on bbc replay.
A super speech. Very honest, very gracious.
I think the tories should appoint him leader for at least 12 months and spend some time analysing properly what went wrong and why.
I fear, however, that the party will listen to the likes of Leon on the Far Right and head further down the rabbit hole out there with people like Badenoch or Braverman.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
If they do sort out our planning regime, unlock growth, then they can address many of the countries problems - and screw any anti-growth NIMBYs.
If they don't, they don't deserve sympathy, or to be re-elected.
It's the infrastructure stupid.
It's perfectly possible to build a modern transport, water and energy system with enough political will. Thames Water weren't always (pumping out) shit. Go read up on Bazalgette, the London Ring Main. Read Dominic Davies' book on infrastructure.
I love how some on here still feel the Truss / Tufton Street extreme neoliberalism should still be given a chance, and we'll just magically get infrastructure. We all stand higher and taller on properly built infrastructure platforms, and that's the basis of sustained growth.
Not in five years it isn't. Even if you get rid of the bureaucratic hurdles, find the money and can buy the land, there is still the materials to obtain and the need to find and train a vast army of skilled workers to do it.
Yes, but with that attitude we'd neve start anything. It's like Lucas and nuclear power: saying it was pointless because it won't be ready for x years, then in x years when it would have come in handy, still saying it's pointless because it won't be ready for x years...
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I'm sorry, but while this manifesto may help, it is part of the problem - not the solution - to say that simply more construction will return growth to 1990s levels. It's opting out of all those difficult questions about labour supply, who will do the work and where they will come from and how they will fund the growing cohort outside the work force, which have been animating every election since 2015.
There is no difficult question - allow investment and allow productivity to rise.
Productive jobs will pay more and get labour.
Unproductive jobs won't be able to afford higher wages and will go unfilled and die.
Investment and productivity is the solution, not growing the unskilled workforce to avoid the need to invest.
The history of the 2010s was, yes we had the productive jobs, but we didn't destroy the unproductive jobs, we just had more immigration, and lots of voters hate that! One reason being that "unproductive" by this definition means low-wage, so including lots of social care and good vibes jobs in hospitality. Voters love those! Oops...
Allow the unproductive jobs to die. See less spent on in-work benefits.
Neither the voters nor employers have a divine right for minimum wage serfs to serve them.
Comments
Change is easy; the consequences of change are difficult.
What is hugely in their favour is that they start from such low expectations.
This time, things really can only get better.
I suspect the Labour vote share will jump in 2029.
If they don't, they don't deserve sympathy, or to be re-elected.
Starmer does need to play a bad economic and social cohesion hand well however. It is difficult to see him succeeding whilst GBNews, the Telegraph and the Mail are gaslighting their readers with no recourse. Free press my arse. He needs to clip their wings with formal regulation.
I am fascinated that there is much caressing of Farage's genitals whilst ignoring the equally pernicious (in my view) rise of the Corbyn/Gaza left.
@peterfrankopan
PM Cameron in Witney - no longer a Conservative seat
PM May in Maidenhead - no longer a Conservative seat
PM Johnson in Uxbridge & Ruislip - no longer a Conservative seat
PM Truss in SW Norfolk - no longer a Conservative seat
Astonishing. The most telling stat of the night
In large parts of the country they are now the opposition to Labour. They are here to stay for the foreseeable and they will have a large impact on how the opposition behaves in the next parliament.
We need SKS to deliver a good government if we are to see the back of Reform. This isn’t a sturdy majority, and he needs to firm it up pronto.
They ran a deliberately very efficient campaign. Very smart. Don’t underestimate this new Labour political machine.
However, there is an awful lot on his in tray and labours traditional solutions will make things worse.
Without being hyperbolic, Labours future rests principally on Rachel Reeves shoulders and Starmers willingness to let her do things that will have the left of the party and the Libdems, and even some "one nation" conservatives up in arms.
His large majority with losses of inner city seats and gains of places like Hitchin will help.
However, if Starmer bottles it like Blair did with Frank Field and neuters or removes her, then Farage will be hovering like a vulture in 2029.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
So it's perfectly plausible that Labour do well in Government and get rewarded with more seats in 2028/9 than they got today (see 2015 as the perfect example of this).
When you see the workings of the exit poll, we can see that it contains some nonsense predictions. But of course it's a model, and they rely on these cancelling out with similar balancing errors - which for Labour v Tory they tend to do, because there are so many such seats. This time there were many LibDem v Con battles and hence the errors there mostly cancelled out. Where that didn't work was for Reform, where there was the additional disadvantage of not having base data as they didn't stand last time. I expect they were using some combination of UKIP/Brexit Party as the base, and of course Brexit didn't stand in Tory seats last time. So their Reform forecast was always likely to be up the spout - as tbf Curtis did say right at the beginning.
And if you think things cannot get worse then you're much mistaken.
However it's about the first time I can recall that FPTP has worked decisively in favour of the left.
It is no use people who have been happy to gain the electoral benefits for years crying foul now that it has worked against them.
And many who would have voted Labour, just because they wanted to get rid of the tories, felt they were released to vote for LD/indy etc. etc.
I'd guess there was genuine voter churn in the last week of the campaign, with the "Supermajority" framing responsible for a lot of it.
Mel Stride's media round saved dozens of tory seats, imo, including his own.
Vote Shares: L 34% / C 24% / R14% (C share change 44% -> 24%)
MPs: L 64% / R, G and PC: all 4 (number)
summary: Cons down on all fours
Accuracy not guaranteed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001200
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
Starmer is luckier than Blair in that he dosen't have to appoint as Chancellor and appease a micromanaging, phone hurling (allegedly) albatross.
My big concern is that there will be huge numbers of Labour MPs who will be extremely worried by change - especially building the needed housing. I suspect there will be a lot of conversions to NIMBYism.
There was a comment on an earlier thread - the classic question used by NIMBYs. "Would you like a factory next to you?".
I was in France the other week - Chablis. The place is a hive of development, in and around the old town and the surrounding villages. Mix of industrial and housing. The rapid filling in means that Chablis will absorb those outlying villages and grown into a city. This process is taking place with little or no opposition.
Would you mind living next to this? -
The LaRouche wine making plant - at least that is the cover. I strongly suspect it is a front for Mr Goldfinger.
We need economic growth, having factories developed near us is good news not bad news.
This was my prediction. Lib Dems & Reform did better than I expected (results so far).
Lab: Me: 419 - Actual: 411
Cons: Me: 121 - Actual: 119
LibDems: Me: 63 - Actual: 71
Reform: Me 1 - Actual: 4
Reform was a straightforward head vs heart mistake. I backed them below 14% voteshare and expect to miss out on that by a smidge. Even though it was 14.3% which is non-trivial nevertheless I am glad it wasn't higher. bf had 18+% as favourite last night.
With all the MRPs, we'd be better off just seeing the overall prediction, and not the workings. The workings look like a local poll when in reality the seats are just the elements of a national model, and looking at the workings is too tempting and the data too sexy when essentially it doesn't work at individual seat level.
The fascinating thing about UNS is that, really, no-one fully understands why it happens; a fact I spotted as a student and despite a lot of reading in the decades since, remains essentially unsolved. Kellner's attempt at an explanation last year was so inadequate that it simply served to underline what a mystery it is.
How do they attract the 13% of Reform voters without alienating even more of the 23% they already hold?
Reform beat both the Lib Dems and Greens in vote share - they gained more than twice as many votes as the Greens. Downplaying that result helps no one because it gives everyone an excuse to simply ignore concerns of a significant section of the electorate. Do that and next time you will see even more Reform seats (or whatever their equivalent is in 5 years)
All the parties need to learn the right lessons of this election - especially Labour who will now have the power to do something about it.
What an amazing election! in many ways, far more fascinating and surprising than 1997, wouldn't you agree?
Reeves has a window of opportunity to implement serious, credible reform here.
Removing from local politicians and NIMBYs the right to block people investing in their own land would remove the handbrake on growth and unlock economic growth. Pander to the NIMBYs and growth will not materialise.
It's perfectly possible to build a modern transport, water and energy system with enough political will. Thames Water weren't always (pumping out) shit. Go read up on Bazalgette, the London Ring Main. Read Dominic Davies' book on infrastructure.
I love how some on here still feel the Truss / Tufton Street extreme neoliberalism should still be given a chance, and we'll just magically get infrastructure. We all stand higher and taller on properly built infrastructure platforms, and that's the basis of sustained growth.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001279
We could and should learn a lot from Japan. Who have far worse demographics than us, but good living standards.
Please let it be so...
Productive jobs will pay more and get labour.
Unproductive jobs won't be able to afford higher wages and will go unfilled and die.
Investment and productivity is the solution, not growing the unskilled workforce to avoid the need to invest.
Con currently on 119 seats, so more than 200 gains needed for a majority. Thats an even bigger task than the task Starmer faced yesterday.
You can't simply add Con and Ref vote shares together, but even if you did the combined party would have to come up with more than "stop the boats" and unfunded tax cuts to have a credible alternative government.
And there are potentially some favourable winds. The economy is recovering, NHS waiting lists are dropping, immigration is falling, inflation has flattened. Without doing a lot, the country could be in a much better place in 5 years time.
Most modern factories are tidy boxes, utterly silent. IIRC in Chablis, they have to make some concessions to looking tidy - hence the stainless steel cladding, which is practically self cleaning.
2017 and 2019 were Brexit elections, which united disparate coalitions of voters, giving a false sense of stability.
This year we’re seeing the chaos that was always lurking.....
People are growing thoroughly fed up of a system that they don’t think is working, and increasingly opting for populist parties (or not voting at all).
This is not funny. Countries only do this when they’re in extreme distress.
https://x.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1809118002438099113
Whereas people want money spent on themselves and they want it now.
It seems at least as likely that what was tactical voting last time round becomes incumbency voting next time for Lab/Lib voters; and *more* 3rd party voting in near-miss marginals.
What will make people *less* likely to vote RefUK if they still feel disenfranchised in 2029?
It doesn't happen _by default_ it needs the Conservatives to do something to win those votes back. And they are probably going to spend (at least) a few years arguing about it rather than doing it.
Another issue is that although directly analogous to the UKIP 4m votes/13% voteshare/one seat (a defector), nevertheless we, and the parties, and David Cameron, knew what UKIP wanted, namely an EU referendum.
Suppose a PM assembled all Reform voters together and asked them what they want, what would the answer be? Something on immigration (one in one out? Send them back?) which would not be possible to accept and...what else?
Reform is all about what it is against, not what it is for. It is against this general backdrop of frustration that the major parties operate. And all of them believe they are offering such people a real option.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001087
Actual - 210,000
They were within a few votes in Rochdale, Yardley and Hodge Hill. They come away empty handed
I am just pointing out that the Tories have big problems too. The idea that you can simply combine the Tory and Reform voters into one party is a fantasy.
The answer to the populist questions is to come up with liberal, sensible *answers*. Not scream "THE QUESTION DOESN'T EXIST".
They aren't getting that from Reform.
And there was much rejoicing
The Tories have made more people fed up than Labour, by a long way. So the next step is to see if Labour can actually do something (in the style of Biden) to actually answer some questions. Otherwise, their turn will come.
A super speech. Very honest, very gracious.
I think the tories should appoint him leader for at least 12 months and spend some time analysing properly what went wrong and why.
I fear, however, that the party will listen to the likes of Leon on the Far Right and head further down the rabbit hole out there with people like Badenoch or Braverman.
The former City of Chester MP's daughter was elected with 19,905 votes"
https://www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/gyles-brandreths-daughter-aphra-wins-29479911
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001164
Neither the voters nor employers have a divine right for minimum wage serfs to serve them.