MAGA might be eating itself – politicalbetting.com

System

MAGA might be eating itself – politicalbetting.com

Wait. Why would Marjorie Taylor Greene calling to release the Epstein files be a betrayal to Donald Trump and the entire Republican Party? pic.twitter.com/i5reipF5v0

Read the full story here

dixiedean

First.

Foxy

It sounds like the Epstein files need a blow by blow analysis.

dixiedean

It was all so much fun for a while owning the libs, wasn't it?

Benpointer

MTG may well have more political nous than I for one would ever have credited.

bondegezou

Benpointer said:

MJG may well have more political nous than I for one would ever have credited.

She’s an immoral nutjob. The point is that even an immoral nutjob can see the problems with Donald Trump.

algarkirk

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlighenment?

bondegezou

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlighenment?

One obvious “solution” is that the electoral system will somewhat erratically turn those votes into a Commons with multiple parties having significant numbers of seats, but no-one with a majority. Some sort of coalition government will then be formed, which will probably piss off those who voted for the junior party(/ies) in that coalition who didn’t want the senior party to be in power. This will probably be fairly unstable and soon enough we’ll be back with another election. Repeat until the electorate can decide on something.

Another obvious solution is that the polling will change. Parties come and go in polling quickly these days.

TheScreamingEagles

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlighenment?

https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/11/06/the-reform-paradox-being-the-countrys-most-popular-and-unpopular-party/

Under FPTP I reckon at the next election we could see hundreds of seats that look very similar to the 1992 Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber result, with just 3.4% between the top four parties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverness,_Nairn_and_Lochaber_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_1990s

Benpointer

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlighenment?

I'm not sure your points 2 and 3 are correct. Opinion polls ask which party you intend to vote for but do they ever ask which is the one party you least want to see in power?

dixiedean

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlighenment?

There's almost always a majority who vote against the election winner.
It's not a conundrum. It's a cornerstone of FPTP.

viewcode

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlighenment?

Somebody after the election will form a government. FPTP forces that, although it may be a minority govt. If that government can't get a King's Speech/Throne Speech through then (I think) there'll be another election. And we keep going round until somebody can cobble together enough MPs to get one through.

(Sorry I thought I was answering the question, but it appears I was just restating it. Apologies.)

FF43

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlighenment?

Interesting point but I don't think it matters in the UK with FPTP, unlike the French system where the second ballot is decided on who you hate more - you vote for the other guy. That's how Macron won the presidency: voters despised him, but not as much as they loathed Le Pen.

Barnesian

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlighenment?

Is 3) correct?

It may be true that 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government, but they might not want a Reform government even more, and so in extremis many will vote Labour to keep Reform out.
I don't think that applies to 2). I can't see substantial tactical votes for Reform to keep Labour out. Some Tories maybe.

Three years out, I think a minority Labour Government is the most likely outcome.
But LDs, Greens, SNP, Plaid could easily have 150 seats between them, so interesting negotiations for C&S!

Nigelb

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

Special relationship update.

Bolduan: But when you have British intelligence saying they don't want to share anymore because they are they are concerned that it is illegal what is being done. That is a problem

Jennings: You think I give a rip what some country in Europe thinks…
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1989540329708818765

Hermer has fucked our relationship with the US to protect Venezuelan drug traffickers. It's playing very, very poorly in the US. One of the best things about getting rid of Starmer is that Hermer will get booted out with him.

Yes, shocking that we don't want to collaborate with extra-judicial killing.
Otherwise known as murder.

algarkirk

dixiedean said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlightenment?

There's almost always a majority who vote against the election winner.
It's not a conundrum. It's a cornerstone of FPTP.

Thanks. I take that point, but in the olden days to win on FPTP you needed plus or minus 40% to win and the two majoe parties were much less far apart - there was a reasonable degree of 'losers consent.

Now, on the polling, about 80% don't want to vote Labour, and they are intensely disliked. Fewer, 65%+ don't want Reform, but it is reasonable to expect that they feel quite or very strongly anti-Reform.

So, as things stand (obviously stuff will change) there are both large and strong populations who really don't want Labour, and really don't want Reform, to a degree different from the past.

bondegezou

Nigelb said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

Special relationship update.

Bolduan: But when you have British intelligence saying they don't want to share anymore because they are they are concerned that it is illegal what is being done. That is a problem

Jennings: You think I give a rip what some country in Europe thinks…
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1989540329708818765

Hermer has fucked our relationship with the US to protect Venezuelan drug traffickers. It's playing very, very poorly in the US. One of the best things about getting rid of Starmer is that Hermer will get booted out with him.

Yes, shocking that we don't want to collaborate with extra-judicial killing.
Otherwise known as murder.

I don’t think it’s that we don’t want to collaborate with extra-judicial killing. I think it’s that we don’t want to collaborate with extra-judicial killing, selling out Ukraine, wide scale corruption, threats being made against our NATO alilies, and possibly the biggest paedophile scandal ever.

rkrkrk

Barnesian said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlighenment?

Is 3) correct?

It may be true that 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government, but they might not want a Reform government even more, and so in extremis many will vote Labour to keep Reform out.
I don't think that applies to 2). I can't see substantial tactical votes for Reform to keep Labour out. Some Tories maybe.

Three years out, I think a minority Labour Government is the most likely outcome.
But LDs, Greens, SNP, Plaid could easily have 150 seats between them, so interesting negotiations for C&S!

I think Lib/Labour coalition tbh.
Twist Starmers arm on a new EU referendum.

bondegezou

algarkirk said:

dixiedean said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlightenment?

There's almost always a majority who vote against the election winner.
It's not a conundrum. It's a cornerstone of FPTP.

Thanks. I take that point, but in the olden days to win on FPTP you needed plus or minus 40% to win and the two majoe parties were much less far apart - there was a reasonable degree of 'losers consent.

Now, on the polling, about 80% don't want to vote Labour, and they are intensely disliked. Fewer, 65%+ don't want Reform, but it is reasonable to expect that they feel quite or very strongly anti-Reform.

So, as things stand (obviously stuff will change) there are both large and strong populations who really don't want Labour, and really don't want Reform, to a degree different from the past.

So the election happens how it happens, and a lot more people are upset and the end of it. So, there’s nothing wrong with your proposition (1). The problem is what happens next.

algarkirk

FF43 said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlightenment?

Interesting point but I don't think it matters in the UK with FPTP, unlike the French system where the second ballot is decided on who you hate more - you vote for the other guy. That's how Macron won the presidency: voters despised him, but not as much as they loathed Le Pen.

Thanks. It matters both in betting and political terms. It explains why I, being simple, am mystified as to how to guess the next general election and in particular who will lead the next government. For example, if I am right, might it mean that contrary to expectations, LDs or Greens get into real contention

SandyRentool

algarkirk said:

dixiedean said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlightenment?

There's almost always a majority who vote against the election winner.
It's not a conundrum. It's a cornerstone of FPTP.

Thanks. I take that point, but in the olden days to win on FPTP you needed plus or minus 40% to win and the two majoe parties were much less far apart - there was a reasonable degree of 'losers consent.

Now, on the polling, about 80% don't want to vote Labour, and they are intensely disliked. Fewer, 65%+ don't want Reform, but it is reasonable to expect that they feel quite or very strongly anti-Reform.

So, as things stand (obviously stuff will change) there are both large and strong populations who really don't want Labour, and really don't want Reform, to a degree different from the past.

60% didn't want Thatcher. We got Thatcher anyway. FPTP is shite.

TheValiant

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlighenment?

You can win a General Election with less than than 35% of the vote, and indeed secure a landslide (ref: 2024 GE). Therefore (2) leads to a majority Reform government if 35% of the electorate vote reform and the remaining 65% split between Con, Lab, LD, Green (and nationalist).

There is nothing wrong with your three statements. Indeed, if accurate it simply suggests either a Reform majority government or (At 'worst' for them) Reform as largest party in a hung parliament.

Barnesian

algarkirk said:

dixiedean said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlightenment?

There's almost always a majority who vote against the election winner.
It's not a conundrum. It's a cornerstone of FPTP.

Thanks. I take that point, but in the olden days to win on FPTP you needed plus or minus 40% to win and the two majoe parties were much less far apart - there was a reasonable degree of 'losers consent.

Now, on the polling, about 80% don't want to vote Labour, and they are intensely disliked. Fewer, 65%+ don't want Reform, but it is reasonable to expect that they feel quite or very strongly anti-Reform.

So, as things stand (obviously stuff will change) there are both large and strong populations who really don't want Labour, and really don't want Reform, to a degree different from the past.

Good point.

But a minority Labour Government dependent on the support of a multitude of smaller parties with a combined vote share of around 33% (13+15+3+2) might be acceptable.

Nothing much will get done of course as every piece of legislation will need the support of many parties.

It will be a Daoist government doing NOTHING and succeeding brilliantly in enabling us all to get on with it.

algarkirk

Benpointer said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlighenment?

I'm not sure your points 2 and 3 are correct. Opinion polls ask which party you intend to vote for but do they ever ask which is the one party you least want to see in power?

Completely fair point. My question is based on my guesswork (known as intuition) that actually the people who won't vote Reform (I am one of them) really don't want to see them in; and the people who don't like the current Labour government, really want to see them out but (mostly) not Reform in.

dixiedean

algarkirk said:

dixiedean said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlightenment?

There's almost always a majority who vote against the election winner.
It's not a conundrum. It's a cornerstone of FPTP.

Thanks. I take that point, but in the olden days to win on FPTP you needed plus or minus 40% to win and the two majoe parties were much less far apart - there was a reasonable degree of 'losers consent.

Now, on the polling, about 80% don't want to vote Labour, and they are intensely disliked. Fewer, 65%+ don't want Reform, but it is reasonable to expect that they feel quite or very strongly anti-Reform.

So, as things stand (obviously stuff will change) there are both large and strong populations who really don't want Labour, and really don't want Reform, to a degree different from the past.

The majority didn't want Margaret Thatcher.
She was intensely disliked.
She won three times.

FPTP forces choices.

MarqueeMark

SandyRentool said:

algarkirk said:

dixiedean said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlightenment?

There's almost always a majority who vote against the election winner.
It's not a conundrum. It's a cornerstone of FPTP.

Thanks. I take that point, but in the olden days to win on FPTP you needed plus or minus 40% to win and the two majoe parties were much less far apart - there was a reasonable degree of 'losers consent.

Now, on the polling, about 80% don't want to vote Labour, and they are intensely disliked. Fewer, 65%+ don't want Reform, but it is reasonable to expect that they feel quite or very strongly anti-Reform.

So, as things stand (obviously stuff will change) there are both large and strong populations who really don't want Labour, and really don't want Reform, to a degree different from the past.

60% didn't want Thatcher. We got Thatcher anyway. FPTP is shite.

Israel shows PR is shite.

Mexicanpete

Foxy said:

It sounds like the Epstein files need a blow by blow analysis.

Whatever comes out of the Epstein files, for better or for worse, Trump will just have to suck it up.

BartholomewRoberts

Barnesian said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlighenment?

Is 3) correct?

It may be true that 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government, but they might not want a Reform government even more, and so in extremis many will vote Labour to keep Reform out.
I don't think that applies to 2). I can't see substantial tactical votes for Reform to keep Labour out. Some Tories maybe.

Three years out, I think a minority Labour Government is the most likely outcome.
But LDs, Greens, SNP, Plaid could easily have 150 seats between them, so interesting negotiations for C&S!

There are still nearly 4 years until the next election, so the idea we know how anyone will vote next time is ludicrous.

For context, 4 years before Johnson won his landslide victory, David Cameron was still PM.

Whether people will or won't vote tactically against the government depends upon how it performs between now and then.

The past year has not been a good foundation for them.

Barnesian

rkrkrk said:

Barnesian said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlighenment?

Is 3) correct?

It may be true that 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government, but they might not want a Reform government even more, and so in extremis many will vote Labour to keep Reform out.
I don't think that applies to 2). I can't see substantial tactical votes for Reform to keep Labour out. Some Tories maybe.

Three years out, I think a minority Labour Government is the most likely outcome.
But LDs, Greens, SNP, Plaid could easily have 150 seats between them, so interesting negotiations for C&S!

I think Lib/Labour coalition tbh.
Twist Starmers arm on a new EU referendum.

A C&S rather than a coalition I hope. Gives much more power to the junior partner. But you don't get the chauffeured cars and red boxes that attracted Nick Clegg et al.

BartholomewRoberts

Mexicanpete said:

Foxy said:

It sounds like the Epstein files need a blow by blow analysis.

Whatever comes out of the Epstein files, for better or for worse, Trump will just have to suck it up.

He might like that.

RochdalePioneers

Remember - a Reform government would rapidly lose its majority. MPs quitting - I didn’t know I’d have to go to London. Others thrown out for shockingly being unveiled as massive racists. Others thrown out for squabbling with the boss.

LostPassword

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlighenment?

In a FPTP system where the vote is split multiple ways all sorts of unexpected results can occur, because the winning vote share in large numbers of seats can be very low.

What's likely to happen in this case is that tactical voting is likely to be inefficient and ineffective, and Britain will end up with a government with a very low level of support and a very high level of opposition.

There will likely be a record number of seats represented by MPs who received less than one-third of the vote. Will this lead to a crisis of confidence in FPTP as a fair voting system among the wider public?

Barnesian

MarqueeMark said:

SandyRentool said:

algarkirk said:

dixiedean said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlightenment?

There's almost always a majority who vote against the election winner.
It's not a conundrum. It's a cornerstone of FPTP.

Thanks. I take that point, but in the olden days to win on FPTP you needed plus or minus 40% to win and the two majoe parties were much less far apart - there was a reasonable degree of 'losers consent.

Now, on the polling, about 80% don't want to vote Labour, and they are intensely disliked. Fewer, 65%+ don't want Reform, but it is reasonable to expect that they feel quite or very strongly anti-Reform.

So, as things stand (obviously stuff will change) there are both large and strong populations who really don't want Labour, and really don't want Reform, to a degree different from the past.

60% didn't want Thatcher. We got Thatcher anyway. FPTP is shite.

Israel shows PR is shite.

UK shows FPTP is shite.

Ireland shows that PR (STV) works well.

isam

TheScreamingEagles said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlighenment?

https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/11/06/the-reform-paradox-being-the-countrys-most-popular-and-unpopular-party/

Under FPTP I reckon at the next election we could see hundreds of seats that look very similar to the 1992 Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber result, with just 3.4% between the top four parties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverness,_Nairn_and_Lochaber_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_1990s

Interesting graphic from some analysis of the 2024 GE. It will probably be even tighter next time. You can see where Corbyn’s Labour piled up huge majorities to no good effect nationally

Benpointer

Mexicanpete said:

Foxy said:

It sounds like the Epstein files need a blow by blow analysis.

Whatever comes out of the Epstein files, for better or for worse, Trump will just have to suck it up.

He will when he's going down.

BartholomewRoberts

Barnesian said:

MarqueeMark said:

SandyRentool said:

algarkirk said:

dixiedean said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlightenment?

There's almost always a majority who vote against the election winner.
It's not a conundrum. It's a cornerstone of FPTP.

Thanks. I take that point, but in the olden days to win on FPTP you needed plus or minus 40% to win and the two majoe parties were much less far apart - there was a reasonable degree of 'losers consent.

Now, on the polling, about 80% don't want to vote Labour, and they are intensely disliked. Fewer, 65%+ don't want Reform, but it is reasonable to expect that they feel quite or very strongly anti-Reform.

So, as things stand (obviously stuff will change) there are both large and strong populations who really don't want Labour, and really don't want Reform, to a degree different from the past.

60% didn't want Thatcher. We got Thatcher anyway. FPTP is shite.

Israel shows PR is shite.

UK shows FPTP is shite.

Ireland shows that PR (STV) works well.

Ireland shows that low tax rates generate higher revenues.

If only we could come up with a term for that, it would be worth a Laffer.

SandyRentool

MarqueeMark said:

SandyRentool said:

algarkirk said:

dixiedean said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlightenment?

There's almost always a majority who vote against the election winner.
It's not a conundrum. It's a cornerstone of FPTP.

Thanks. I take that point, but in the olden days to win on FPTP you needed plus or minus 40% to win and the two majoe parties were much less far apart - there was a reasonable degree of 'losers consent.

Now, on the polling, about 80% don't want to vote Labour, and they are intensely disliked. Fewer, 65%+ don't want Reform, but it is reasonable to expect that they feel quite or very strongly anti-Reform.

So, as things stand (obviously stuff will change) there are both large and strong populations who really don't want Labour, and really don't want Reform, to a degree different from the past.

60% didn't want Thatcher. We got Thatcher anyway. FPTP is shite.

Israel shows PR is shite.

Netanyahu would still be PM under FPTP.

Nigelb

Follow up to our reporting last week that GOP lawmakers have been warned via DOJ/FBI contacts the Epstein files contain worse materials for Trump than publicly alleged… Rep Pete Session (R-TX) said on CNN there are 1000’s of hours of bedroom tapes.

To be clear, not 1000’s of hours of bedroom tapes of Trump. But in those many files, does Trump make an appearance? And is it bad for Trump? Many GOP lawmakers fear the worst and thus will vote to release all the files to get ahead politically of what may (or TBF may not) be coming...

https://x.com/DavidShuster/status/1989675471794012236

bondegezou

MarqueeMark said:

SandyRentool said:

algarkirk said:

dixiedean said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlightenment?

There's almost always a majority who vote against the election winner.
It's not a conundrum. It's a cornerstone of FPTP.

Thanks. I take that point, but in the olden days to win on FPTP you needed plus or minus 40% to win and the two majoe parties were much less far apart - there was a reasonable degree of 'losers consent.

Now, on the polling, about 80% don't want to vote Labour, and they are intensely disliked. Fewer, 65%+ don't want Reform, but it is reasonable to expect that they feel quite or very strongly anti-Reform.

So, as things stand (obviously stuff will change) there are both large and strong populations who really don't want Labour, and really don't want Reform, to a degree different from the past.

60% didn't want Thatcher. We got Thatcher anyway. FPTP is shite.

Israel shows PR is shite.

The vast majority of countries in the world have PR. Countries that top the world on happiness indices use PR. Countries with successful economies use PR. Israel does not prove PR is shite.

Israel has a form of PR with a very low electoral threshold and no expression of preferences (between or within parties). Those are choices: other forms of PR are possible. More tellingly, the problem with PR in Israel is not PR, but Israel. Israel has a very divided society: Tel Aviv liberals, ultra-Orthodox, recent Russian immigrants, settlers on occupied land, Palestinians (a.k.a. Israeli Arabs), etc. It’s difficult to find agreement between these groups. If Israel switched to FPTP, it would be equally difficult.

LostPassword

dixiedean said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlighenment?

There's almost always a majority who vote against the election winner.
It's not a conundrum. It's a cornerstone of FPTP.

That's more true across the country as a whole than it is in each constituency. Considering each individual MP you can have a government majority that consists of MPs who each received more than 50% of the vote in their constituency, but where the party as a whole doesn't receive 50% of the vote across the country.

What's different now, and will probably be more so at the next election, is that the MPs being elected have pretty weak mandates themselves in their constituencies.

scampi25

bondegezou said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlighenment?

One obvious “solution” is that the electoral system will somewhat erratically turn those votes into a Commons with multiple parties having significant numbers of seats, but no-one with a majority. Some sort of coalition government will then be formed, which will probably piss off those who voted for the junior party(/ies) in that coalition who didn’t want the senior party to be in power. This will probably be fairly unstable and soon enough we’ll be back with another election. Repeat until the electorate can decide on something.

Another obvious solution is that the polling will change. Parties come and go in polling quickly these days.

The party in government seems to suffer the most dramatic and rapid falls. The people have no patience and who can blame them.

RobD

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlighenment?

https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/11/06/the-reform-paradox-being-the-countrys-most-popular-and-unpopular-party/

Under FPTP I reckon at the next election we could see hundreds of seats that look very similar to the 1992 Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber result, with just 3.4% between the top four parties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverness,_Nairn_and_Lochaber_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_1990s

Interesting graphic from some analysis of the 2024 GE. It will probably be even tighter next time. You can see where Corbyn’s Labour piled up huge majorities to no good effect nationally

I love this graphic. No safe seats for any party at the moment.

BartholomewRoberts

bondegezou said:

MarqueeMark said:

SandyRentool said:

algarkirk said:

dixiedean said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlightenment?

There's almost always a majority who vote against the election winner.
It's not a conundrum. It's a cornerstone of FPTP.

Thanks. I take that point, but in the olden days to win on FPTP you needed plus or minus 40% to win and the two majoe parties were much less far apart - there was a reasonable degree of 'losers consent.

Now, on the polling, about 80% don't want to vote Labour, and they are intensely disliked. Fewer, 65%+ don't want Reform, but it is reasonable to expect that they feel quite or very strongly anti-Reform.

So, as things stand (obviously stuff will change) there are both large and strong populations who really don't want Labour, and really don't want Reform, to a degree different from the past.

60% didn't want Thatcher. We got Thatcher anyway. FPTP is shite.

Israel shows PR is shite.

The vast majority of countries in the world have PR. Countries that top the world on happiness indices use PR. Countries with successful economies use PR. Israel does not prove PR is shite.

Israel has a form of PR with a very low electoral threshold and no expression of preferences (between or within parties). Those are choices: other forms of PR are possible. More tellingly, the problem with PR in Israel is not PR, but Israel. Israel has a very divided society: Tel Aviv liberals, ultra-Orthodox, recent Russian immigrants, settlers on occupied land, Palestinians (a.k.a. Israeli Arabs), etc. It’s difficult to find agreement between these groups. If Israel switched to FPTP, it would be equally difficult.

By FPTP the vast majority of the democratic world has PR.
By PR the vast majority of the democratic world has FPTP.

SandyRentool

Barnesian said:

MarqueeMark said:

SandyRentool said:

algarkirk said:

dixiedean said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlightenment?

There's almost always a majority who vote against the election winner.
It's not a conundrum. It's a cornerstone of FPTP.

Thanks. I take that point, but in the olden days to win on FPTP you needed plus or minus 40% to win and the two majoe parties were much less far apart - there was a reasonable degree of 'losers consent.

Now, on the polling, about 80% don't want to vote Labour, and they are intensely disliked. Fewer, 65%+ don't want Reform, but it is reasonable to expect that they feel quite or very strongly anti-Reform.

So, as things stand (obviously stuff will change) there are both large and strong populations who really don't want Labour, and really don't want Reform, to a degree different from the past.

60% didn't want Thatcher. We got Thatcher anyway. FPTP is shite.

Israel shows PR is shite.

UK shows FPTP is shite.

Ireland shows that PR (STV) works well.

PR, yes.

STV, no.

DavidL

Scotland, it's the hope that kills you.

Scott_xP

Benpointer said:

Mexicanpete said:

Foxy said:

It sounds like the Epstein files need a blow by blow analysis.

Whatever comes out of the Epstein files, for better or for worse, Trump will just have to suck it up.

He will when he's going down.

Don't watch this

https://bsky.app/profile/miketaddow.bsky.social/post/3m5oh4hyn6s2t

scampi25

rkrkrk said:

Barnesian said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlighenment?

Is 3) correct?

It may be true that 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government, but they might not want a Reform government even more, and so in extremis many will vote Labour to keep Reform out.
I don't think that applies to 2). I can't see substantial tactical votes for Reform to keep Labour out. Some Tories maybe.

Three years out, I think a minority Labour Government is the most likely outcome.
But LDs, Greens, SNP, Plaid could easily have 150 seats between them, so interesting negotiations for C&S!

I think Lib/Labour coalition tbh.
Twist Starmers arm on a new EU referendum.

Possible but unsustainable - rats in the sack in weeks.

scampi25

SandyRentool said:

algarkirk said:

dixiedean said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlightenment?

There's almost always a majority who vote against the election winner.
It's not a conundrum. It's a cornerstone of FPTP.

Thanks. I take that point, but in the olden days to win on FPTP you needed plus or minus 40% to win and the two majoe parties were much less far apart - there was a reasonable degree of 'losers consent.

Now, on the polling, about 80% don't want to vote Labour, and they are intensely disliked. Fewer, 65%+ don't want Reform, but it is reasonable to expect that they feel quite or very strongly anti-Reform.

So, as things stand (obviously stuff will change) there are both large and strong populations who really don't want Labour, and really don't want Reform, to a degree different from the past.

60% didn't want Thatcher. We got Thatcher anyway. FPTP is shite.

More didn't want Starmer - that's why he's screwed

TimS

PR is just democracy. Each voter has the same influence as another. Sometimes it might produce good governance, sometimes shit. But it’s just democracy.

FPTP survived for so long because it worked in a largely two-party + regional milieu. It doesn’t work in a multi-party world.

TimS

RobD said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlighenment?

https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/11/06/the-reform-paradox-being-the-countrys-most-popular-and-unpopular-party/

Under FPTP I reckon at the next election we could see hundreds of seats that look very similar to the 1992 Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber result, with just 3.4% between the top four parties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverness,_Nairn_and_Lochaber_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_1990s

Interesting graphic from some analysis of the 2024 GE. It will probably be even tighter next time. You can see where Corbyn’s Labour piled up huge majorities to no good effect nationally

I love this graphic. No safe seats for any party at the moment.

A lot of the largest majorities are amber-coloured.

scampi25

RochdalePioneers said:

Remember - a Reform government would rapidly lose its majority. MPs quitting - I didn’t know I’d have to go to London. Others thrown out for shockingly being unveiled as massive racists. Others thrown out for squabbling with the boss.

How many Labour MPs have already ditched him/been thrown out? This idea that there's a big difference between Reform and the rest is so stupid.

scampi25

LostPassword said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlighenment?

In a FPTP system where the vote is split multiple ways all sorts of unexpected results can occur, because the winning vote share in large numbers of seats can be very low.

What's likely to happen in this case is that tactical voting is likely to be inefficient and ineffective, and Britain will end up with a government with a very low level of support and a very high level of opposition.

There will likely be a record number of seats represented by MPs who received less than one-third of the vote. Will this lead to a crisis of confidence in FPTP as a fair voting system among the wider public?

Just like now and...yes!

Eabhal

Wow, Scotland could be onto some insane result here - and Belarus are beating Denmark!

Mexicanpete

scampi25 said:

SandyRentool said:

algarkirk said:

dixiedean said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlightenment?

There's almost always a majority who vote against the election winner.
It's not a conundrum. It's a cornerstone of FPTP.

Thanks. I take that point, but in the olden days to win on FPTP you needed plus or minus 40% to win and the two majoe parties were much less far apart - there was a reasonable degree of 'losers consent.

Now, on the polling, about 80% don't want to vote Labour, and they are intensely disliked. Fewer, 65%+ don't want Reform, but it is reasonable to expect that they feel quite or very strongly anti-Reform.

So, as things stand (obviously stuff will change) there are both large and strong populations who really don't want Labour, and really don't want Reform, to a degree different from the past.

60% didn't want Thatcher. We got Thatcher anyway. FPTP is shite.

More didn't want Starmer - that's why he's screwed

I suspect it has more to do with him being useless.

DavidL

Eabhal said:

Wow, Scotland could be onto some insane result here - and Belarus are beating Denmark!

Eabhal said:

Wow, Scotland could be onto some insane result here - and Belarus are beating Denmark!

I refer to my earlier comment. It's the hope that kills you.

Eabhal

RobD said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlighenment?

https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/11/06/the-reform-paradox-being-the-countrys-most-popular-and-unpopular-party/

Under FPTP I reckon at the next election we could see hundreds of seats that look very similar to the 1992 Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber result, with just 3.4% between the top four parties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverness,_Nairn_and_Lochaber_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_1990s

Interesting graphic from some analysis of the 2024 GE. It will probably be even tighter next time. You can see where Corbyn’s Labour piled up huge majorities to no good effect nationally

I love this graphic. No safe seats for any party at the moment.

... the Conservatives really were close to an extinction event. So many seats within 5,000.

HYUFD

I doubt MTG has enough support to challenge Trump amongst Maga but his reaction to her shows his concerns over release of the Epstein files

Pulpstar

Massie is amongst the best in Congress

rottenborough

The last few days have been the best in a very very long time for all of us who want an end to Trump and his minions.

Just one meltdown after another while the polling numbers sink like a stone and his voters wake up and check their grocery bill prices.

LostPassword

TimS said:

PR is just democracy. Each voter has the same influence as another. Sometimes it might produce good governance, sometimes shit. But it’s just democracy.

FPTP survived for so long because it worked in a largely two-party + regional milieu. It doesn’t work in a multi-party world.

I think it's a mistake to talk about PR as a monolith as though it's one electoral system in opposition to FPTP. There are lots of different PR systems.

Some of them, such as national closed party lists with a low threshold, are very different to a system like STV. I'd be pretty disappointed if Britain ended up with a party list system like it used for the European elections.

Eabhal

The Edinburgh of the South echoing to Flower of Scotland

fuck me how did they not score there

Nigelb

Was Selzer just way too early ?

Change Research poll | 10/23-10/27 LV

Iowa’s 3rd congressional district
🟦Sarah Trone Garriott 53%
🟥Zach Nunn 40% (incumbent)

(Trump +4 in 2024)

(Sarah Trone Garriott internal)
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/1989490083754373595

Iowa - 3rd House Polling:

🔵 Konfrst: 50%
🔴 Nunn: 42%*

Change Research / Oct 27, 2025

(Konfrst internal)
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1989482694963614049

TheScreamingEagles

Eabhal said:

The Edinburgh of the South echoing to Flower of Scotland

fuck me how did they not score there

I know, it should be 3-3.

TimS

BartholomewRoberts said:

Barnesian said:

MarqueeMark said:

SandyRentool said:

algarkirk said:

dixiedean said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlightenment?

There's almost always a majority who vote against the election winner.
It's not a conundrum. It's a cornerstone of FPTP.

Thanks. I take that point, but in the olden days to win on FPTP you needed plus or minus 40% to win and the two majoe parties were much less far apart - there was a reasonable degree of 'losers consent.

Now, on the polling, about 80% don't want to vote Labour, and they are intensely disliked. Fewer, 65%+ don't want Reform, but it is reasonable to expect that they feel quite or very strongly anti-Reform.

So, as things stand (obviously stuff will change) there are both large and strong populations who really don't want Labour, and really don't want Reform, to a degree different from the past.

60% didn't want Thatcher. We got Thatcher anyway. FPTP is shite.

Israel shows PR is shite.

UK shows FPTP is shite.

Ireland shows that PR (STV) works well.

Ireland shows that low tax rates generate higher revenues.

If only we could come up with a term for that, it would be worth a Laffer.

In the right context. Bulgaria has a 10% corporate tax rate. Iraq has a 15% corporate tax rate.

Being English speaking, culturally familiar to Americans, democratic and relatively well governed, and easy to reach from NYC, SF, Boston and London helps enormously too. But being small, not having a proper hub airport and possessing a limited depth of talent pool hold it back.

The estimation of my US tax friends is that the UK would break even with Ireland on attractiveness if our rate was 17 or 18%. We should do it.

bondegezou

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

MarqueeMark said:

SandyRentool said:

algarkirk said:

dixiedean said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlightenment?

There's almost always a majority who vote against the election winner.
It's not a conundrum. It's a cornerstone of FPTP.

Thanks. I take that point, but in the olden days to win on FPTP you needed plus or minus 40% to win and the two majoe parties were much less far apart - there was a reasonable degree of 'losers consent.

Now, on the polling, about 80% don't want to vote Labour, and they are intensely disliked. Fewer, 65%+ don't want Reform, but it is reasonable to expect that they feel quite or very strongly anti-Reform.

So, as things stand (obviously stuff will change) there are both large and strong populations who really don't want Labour, and really don't want Reform, to a degree different from the past.

60% didn't want Thatcher. We got Thatcher anyway. FPTP is shite.

Israel shows PR is shite.

The vast majority of countries in the world have PR. Countries that top the world on happiness indices use PR. Countries with successful economies use PR. Israel does not prove PR is shite.

Israel has a form of PR with a very low electoral threshold and no expression of preferences (between or within parties). Those are choices: other forms of PR are possible. More tellingly, the problem with PR in Israel is not PR, but Israel. Israel has a very divided society: Tel Aviv liberals, ultra-Orthodox, recent Russian immigrants, settlers on occupied land, Palestinians (a.k.a. Israeli Arabs), etc. It’s difficult to find agreement between these groups. If Israel switched to FPTP, it would be equally difficult.

By FPTP the vast majority of the democratic world has PR.
By PR the vast majority of the democratic world has FPTP.

As I said, the vast majority of countries in the world have PR.

Two large democracies, India and the US, mostly use FPTP. I don’t think the US right now is a great advert for FPTP. For that matter, India isn’t much better.

HYUFD

SandyRentool said:

algarkirk said:

dixiedean said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlightenment?

There's almost always a majority who vote against the election winner.
It's not a conundrum. It's a cornerstone of FPTP.

Thanks. I take that point, but in the olden days to win on FPTP you needed plus or minus 40% to win and the two majoe parties were much less far apart - there was a reasonable degree of 'losers consent.

Now, on the polling, about 80% don't want to vote Labour, and they are intensely disliked. Fewer, 65%+ don't want Reform, but it is reasonable to expect that they feel quite or very strongly anti-Reform.

So, as things stand (obviously stuff will change) there are both large and strong populations who really don't want Labour, and really don't want Reform, to a degree different from the past.

60% didn't want Thatcher. We got Thatcher anyway. FPTP is shite.

Polls showed voters preferred Thatcher to Foot and Kinnock until 1990, although Callaghan would likely have beaten Thatcher head to head in a direct PM vote but the Conservatives still won most MPs

glw

Nigelb said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

Special relationship update.

Bolduan: But when you have British intelligence saying they don't want to share anymore because they are they are concerned that it is illegal what is being done. That is a problem

Jennings: You think I give a rip what some country in Europe thinks…
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1989540329708818765

Hermer has fucked our relationship with the US to protect Venezuelan drug traffickers. It's playing very, very poorly in the US. One of the best things about getting rid of Starmer is that Hermer will get booted out with him.

Yes, shocking that we don't want to collaborate with extra-judicial killing.
Otherwise known as murder.

The day will come when essentially nobody will admit that they ever supported Trump. But anyone who does is marked for life, never trust such people.

LostPassword

TimS said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Barnesian said:

MarqueeMark said:

SandyRentool said:

algarkirk said:

dixiedean said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlightenment?

There's almost always a majority who vote against the election winner.
It's not a conundrum. It's a cornerstone of FPTP.

Thanks. I take that point, but in the olden days to win on FPTP you needed plus or minus 40% to win and the two majoe parties were much less far apart - there was a reasonable degree of 'losers consent.

Now, on the polling, about 80% don't want to vote Labour, and they are intensely disliked. Fewer, 65%+ don't want Reform, but it is reasonable to expect that they feel quite or very strongly anti-Reform.

So, as things stand (obviously stuff will change) there are both large and strong populations who really don't want Labour, and really don't want Reform, to a degree different from the past.

60% didn't want Thatcher. We got Thatcher anyway. FPTP is shite.

Israel shows PR is shite.

UK shows FPTP is shite.

Ireland shows that PR (STV) works well.

Ireland shows that low tax rates generate higher revenues.

If only we could come up with a term for that, it would be worth a Laffer.

In the right context. Bulgaria has a 10% corporate tax rate. Iraq has a 15% corporate tax rate.

Being English speaking, culturally familiar to Americans, democratic and relatively well governed, and easy to reach from NYC, SF, Boston and London helps enormously too. But being small, not having a proper hub airport and possessing a limited depth of talent pool hold it back.

The estimation of my US tax friends is that the Uk would break even with Ireland on attractiveness if our rate was 17 or 18%. We should do it.

Ireland has a better education system than Britain and notably better European language skills, which have also helped it become the EU base for many American companies.

TimS

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

PR is just democracy. Each voter has the same influence as another. Sometimes it might produce good governance, sometimes shit. But it’s just democracy.

FPTP survived for so long because it worked in a largely two-party + regional milieu. It doesn’t work in a multi-party world.

I think it's a mistake to talk about PR as a monolith as though it's one electoral system in opposition to FPTP. There are lots of different PR systems.

Some of them, such as national closed party lists with a low threshold, are very different to a system like STV. I'd be pretty disappointed if Britain ended up with a party list system like it used for the European elections.

If we ever get PR in Britain it will be STV with multi member constituencies: the truly British PR system. And pretty hard to fault.

TheScreamingEagles

It should be 3-3, again.

How the fuck did the goalie save that?

kle4

10 years too late.

TheScreamingEagles

I am emotionally spent watching this match so I cannot imagine what Scots are feeling at the moment.

Eabhal

TheScreamingEagles said:

It should be 3-3, again.

How the fuck the goalie save that?

Upstairs neighbour definitely just smashed something

solarflare

TheScreamingEagles said:

I am emotionally spent watching this match so I cannot imagine what Scots are feeling at the moment.

It's kind of always like this, somehow.

bondegezou

scampi25 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Remember - a Reform government would rapidly lose its majority. MPs quitting - I didn’t know I’d have to go to London. Others thrown out for shockingly being unveiled as massive racists. Others thrown out for squabbling with the boss.

How many Labour MPs have already ditched him/been thrown out? This idea that there's a big difference between Reform and the rest is so stupid.

6 Labour MPs have gone, out of 411 elected, so 1.5%.

It’s 2 out of 5 for Reform UK, so 40%.

It’s 2 out of 121 for the Conservatives, and none for other parties.

LostPassword

TimS said:

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

PR is just democracy. Each voter has the same influence as another. Sometimes it might produce good governance, sometimes shit. But it’s just democracy.

FPTP survived for so long because it worked in a largely two-party + regional milieu. It doesn’t work in a multi-party world.

I think it's a mistake to talk about PR as a monolith as though it's one electoral system in opposition to FPTP. There are lots of different PR systems.

Some of them, such as national closed party lists with a low threshold, are very different to a system like STV. I'd be pretty disappointed if Britain ended up with a party list system like it used for the European elections.

If we ever get PR in Britain it will be STV with multi member constituencies: the truly British PR system. And pretty hard to fault.

Labour introduced a wide variety of different voting systems under Blair that weren't FPTP and STV was only introduced in Northern Ireland - where Labour didn't contest elections.

I am not so confident about the victory of British PR.

BartholomewRoberts

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

MarqueeMark said:

SandyRentool said:

algarkirk said:

dixiedean said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlightenment?

There's almost always a majority who vote against the election winner.
It's not a conundrum. It's a cornerstone of FPTP.

Thanks. I take that point, but in the olden days to win on FPTP you needed plus or minus 40% to win and the two majoe parties were much less far apart - there was a reasonable degree of 'losers consent.

Now, on the polling, about 80% don't want to vote Labour, and they are intensely disliked. Fewer, 65%+ don't want Reform, but it is reasonable to expect that they feel quite or very strongly anti-Reform.

So, as things stand (obviously stuff will change) there are both large and strong populations who really don't want Labour, and really don't want Reform, to a degree different from the past.

60% didn't want Thatcher. We got Thatcher anyway. FPTP is shite.

Israel shows PR is shite.

The vast majority of countries in the world have PR. Countries that top the world on happiness indices use PR. Countries with successful economies use PR. Israel does not prove PR is shite.

Israel has a form of PR with a very low electoral threshold and no expression of preferences (between or within parties). Those are choices: other forms of PR are possible. More tellingly, the problem with PR in Israel is not PR, but Israel. Israel has a very divided society: Tel Aviv liberals, ultra-Orthodox, recent Russian immigrants, settlers on occupied land, Palestinians (a.k.a. Israeli Arabs), etc. It’s difficult to find agreement between these groups. If Israel switched to FPTP, it would be equally difficult.

By FPTP the vast majority of the democratic world has PR.
By PR the vast majority of the democratic world has FPTP.

As I said, the vast majority of countries in the world have PR.

Two large democracies, India and the US, mostly use FPTP. I don’t think the US right now is a great advert for FPTP. For that matter, India isn’t much better.

It is ironic you choose to measure by countries, not by population, which is a very FPTP way of looking at the world.

America is not a great advert for FPTP.

Europe is not a great advert for PR.

On very different scales currently.

Jim_Miller

AnneJGP - You mentioned recently being surprised by naked bicycle rides. They have been a thing in Seattle for "more than 30 years":

More than 30 years ago, a few naked bicyclists crashed the Fremont Solstice Parade — an unsanctioned stunt that has grown into one of Seattle's signature summer spectacles.

Why it matters: The body-painted riders are a symbol of the city's expressive, offbeat spirit, kicking off a summer parade known for giant puppets, dancers and DIY art.

source: https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2025/06/18/seattle-naked-cyclists-fremont-history

This year, I Iearned that a public park in Seattle had become nude, optional, and at least a few visiters were going further. (There were legal complaints from families who lived near by. I think they were resolved temporarily by splitting the park.)

I have never felt the need to cover these events, personally.

TheScreamingEagles

Unlucky for the Hellenes there as they are reduced to 10 men.

SandyRentool

HYUFD said:

SandyRentool said:

algarkirk said:

dixiedean said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlightenment?

There's almost always a majority who vote against the election winner.
It's not a conundrum. It's a cornerstone of FPTP.

Thanks. I take that point, but in the olden days to win on FPTP you needed plus or minus 40% to win and the two majoe parties were much less far apart - there was a reasonable degree of 'losers consent.

Now, on the polling, about 80% don't want to vote Labour, and they are intensely disliked. Fewer, 65%+ don't want Reform, but it is reasonable to expect that they feel quite or very strongly anti-Reform.

So, as things stand (obviously stuff will change) there are both large and strong populations who really don't want Labour, and really don't want Reform, to a degree different from the past.

60% didn't want Thatcher. We got Thatcher anyway. FPTP is shite.

Polls showed voters preferred Thatcher to Foot and Kinnock until 1990, although Callaghan would likely have beaten Thatcher head to head in a direct PM vote but the Conservatives still won most MPs

Never mind opinion pols, look at votes cast. The Conservatives under Thatcher always fell well short of 50% vote share.

I don't think any party should have a majority in parliament, let alone a landslide, on less than half of the vote.

LostPassword

TimS said:

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

PR is just democracy. Each voter has the same influence as another. Sometimes it might produce good governance, sometimes shit. But it’s just democracy.

FPTP survived for so long because it worked in a largely two-party + regional milieu. It doesn’t work in a multi-party world.

I think it's a mistake to talk about PR as a monolith as though it's one electoral system in opposition to FPTP. There are lots of different PR systems.

Some of them, such as national closed party lists with a low threshold, are very different to a system like STV. I'd be pretty disappointed if Britain ended up with a party list system like it used for the European elections.

If we ever get PR in Britain it will be STV with multi member constituencies: the truly British PR system. And pretty hard to fault.

I like STV (aka "British PR"), but if you want it rather than some other system chosen to favour the government of the day, then I'd suggest advising for it specifically, rather than talking about PR in a general way.

Otherwise you will likely end up with some other PR system, and you will be frustrated to have missed out on British PR.

Barnesian

Jim_Miller said:

AnneJGP - You mentioned recently being surprised by naked bicycle rides. They have been a thing in Seattle for "more than 30 years":

More than 30 years ago, a few naked bicyclists crashed the Fremont Solstice Parade — an unsanctioned stunt that has grown into one of Seattle's signature summer spectacles.

Why it matters: The body-painted riders are a symbol of the city's expressive, offbeat spirit, kicking off a summer parade known for giant puppets, dancers and DIY art.

source: https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2025/06/18/seattle-naked-cyclists-fremont-history

This year, I Iearned that a public park in Seattle had become nude, optional, and at least a few visiters were going further. (There were legal complaints from families who lived near by. I think they were resolved temporarily by splitting the park.)

I have never felt the need to cover these events, personally.

_________________________________________________________________
I find nudity on a bike icky.
On a horse is a different matter.

DavidL

TheScreamingEagles said:

I am emotionally spent watching this match so I cannot imagine what Scots are feeling at the moment.

It's tough. My deep pessimism is getting the upper hand but we can still hope.

SandyRentool

TimS said:

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

PR is just democracy. Each voter has the same influence as another. Sometimes it might produce good governance, sometimes shit. But it’s just democracy.

FPTP survived for so long because it worked in a largely two-party + regional milieu. It doesn’t work in a multi-party world.

I think it's a mistake to talk about PR as a monolith as though it's one electoral system in opposition to FPTP. There are lots of different PR systems.

Some of them, such as national closed party lists with a low threshold, are very different to a system like STV. I'd be pretty disappointed if Britain ended up with a party list system like it used for the European elections.

If we ever get PR in Britain it will be STV with multi member constituencies: the truly British PR system. And pretty hard to fault.

D’Hondt with multi member seats for me please.

TheScreamingEagles

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I am emotionally spent watching this match so I cannot imagine what Scots are feeling at the moment.

It's tough. My deep pessimism is getting the upper hand but we can still hope.

Hopefully the Sheffield lad George Hirst will score here.

scampi25

bondegezou said:

scampi25 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Remember - a Reform government would rapidly lose its majority. MPs quitting - I didn’t know I’d have to go to London. Others thrown out for shockingly being unveiled as massive racists. Others thrown out for squabbling with the boss.

How many Labour MPs have already ditched him/been thrown out? This idea that there's a big difference between Reform and the rest is so stupid.

6 Labour MPs have gone, out of 411 elected, so 1.5%.

It’s 2 out of 5 for Reform UK, so 40%.

It’s 2 out of 121 for the Conservatives, and none for other parties.

Apples and Oranges - doesn't prove a thing. Enjoy your blanket.

TheScreamingEagles

It is Hellenes and not Hellenics, am I right?

rottenborough

Nigelb said:

Was Selzer just way too early ?

Change Research poll | 10/23-10/27 LV

Iowa’s 3rd congressional district
🟦Sarah Trone Garriott 53%
🟥Zach Nunn 40% (incumbent)

(Trump +4 in 2024)

(Sarah Trone Garriott internal)
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/1989490083754373595

Iowa - 3rd House Polling:

🔵 Konfrst: 50%
🔴 Nunn: 42%*

Change Research / Oct 27, 2025

(Konfrst internal)
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1989482694963614049

What happened to her being sued? I've lost track.

rottenborough

HYUFD said:

I doubt MTG has enough support to challenge Trump amongst Maga but his reaction to her shows his concerns over release of the Epstein files

The thing is she has clearly massively switched in recent weeks and so the question is whether she is sniffing the wind of change amongst her grassroots supporters concerning Trump?

Nigelb

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:

Was Selzer just way too early ?

Change Research poll | 10/23-10/27 LV

Iowa’s 3rd congressional district
🟦Sarah Trone Garriott 53%
🟥Zach Nunn 40% (incumbent)

(Trump +4 in 2024)

(Sarah Trone Garriott internal)
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/1989490083754373595

Iowa - 3rd House Polling:

🔵 Konfrst: 50%
🔴 Nunn: 42%*

Change Research / Oct 27, 2025

(Konfrst internal)
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1989482694963614049

What happened to her being sued? I've lost track.

Suit dismissed, with prejudice.
https://www.thefire.org/news/victory-federal-district-court-dismisses-class-action-suit-against-pollster-j-ann-selzer

The usual Trump bollocks.
BBC take note.

tlg86

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I am emotionally spent watching this match so I cannot imagine what Scots are feeling at the moment.

It's tough. My deep pessimism is getting the upper hand but we can still hope.

Hopefully the Sheffield lad George Hirst will score here.

Just had a look at how he qualifies. His father was good enough to play for England. Sadly, some clogger went through the back of him and he was to suffer from persistent injuries for the rest of his career.

HYUFD

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

SandyRentool said:

algarkirk said:

dixiedean said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlightenment?

There's almost always a majority who vote against the election winner.
It's not a conundrum. It's a cornerstone of FPTP.

Thanks. I take that point, but in the olden days to win on FPTP you needed plus or minus 40% to win and the two majoe parties were much less far apart - there was a reasonable degree of 'losers consent.

Now, on the polling, about 80% don't want to vote Labour, and they are intensely disliked. Fewer, 65%+ don't want Reform, but it is reasonable to expect that they feel quite or very strongly anti-Reform.

So, as things stand (obviously stuff will change) there are both large and strong populations who really don't want Labour, and really don't want Reform, to a degree different from the past.

60% didn't want Thatcher. We got Thatcher anyway. FPTP is shite.

Polls showed voters preferred Thatcher to Foot and Kinnock until 1990, although Callaghan would likely have beaten Thatcher head to head in a direct PM vote but the Conservatives still won most MPs

Never mind opinion pols, look at votes cast. The Conservatives under Thatcher always fell well short of 50% vote share.

I don't think any party should have a majority in parliament, let alone a landslide, on less than half of the vote.

That works both ways, also means Attlee would not have had a majority in 1945 for his nationalisations and welfare state and NHS nor Blair in 1997 for devolution and the minimum wage

TheScreamingEagles

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I am emotionally spent watching this match so I cannot imagine what Scots are feeling at the moment.

It's tough. My deep pessimism is getting the upper hand but we can still hope.

Hopefully the Sheffield lad George Hirst will score here.

Just had a look at how he qualifies. His father was good enough to play for England. Sadly, some clogger went through the back of him and he was to suffer from persistent injuries for the rest of his career.

The 80s and 90s were a different era, Marco van Basten had a similar experience.

David Hirst was Sir Alex Ferguson's first choice ahead of Eric Cantona.

Jim_Miller

Republican Bill Whalen thinks California Governor Gavin Newsom's record could be better:

With a year left in office, Newsom hasn’t made good on that ambitious agenda. California’s child poverty rate nearly tripled from 2021 to 2024. The goal of building 2.5 million homes by 2030 (downgraded from 3.5 million) won’t be reached at the current pace. After expanding Medi-Cal (the state’s Medicaid program) to include all Californians regardless of legal status, the latest state budget scaled back health care for undocumented immigrants — a shift that speaks to the Golden State’s fiscal woes and perhaps the governor’s presidential ambitions.
. . .
Will Democrats campaign across California as Newsom did in 2018, offering a menu of unattainable progressive ideals? Will a viable Democratic candidate dare to say that their party has contributed to California’s woes, including chronic homelessness, educational inequality and fiscal recklessness?

Many links omitted.

source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/11/11/california-governor-democrats-newsom-record/

nico67

More hysterical nonsense from the BBC hating Daily Mail .

Some bloke commissioned by the BBC gave a lecture and called Trump , Farage and Musk a bit fashy ! That’s it .

williamglenn

We’ve already had an experiment in being governed by PR when Cameron was prime minister and it didn’t end well.

SandyRentool

HYUFD said:

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

SandyRentool said:

algarkirk said:

dixiedean said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlightenment?

There's almost always a majority who vote against the election winner.
It's not a conundrum. It's a cornerstone of FPTP.

Thanks. I take that point, but in the olden days to win on FPTP you needed plus or minus 40% to win and the two majoe parties were much less far apart - there was a reasonable degree of 'losers consent.

Now, on the polling, about 80% don't want to vote Labour, and they are intensely disliked. Fewer, 65%+ don't want Reform, but it is reasonable to expect that they feel quite or very strongly anti-Reform.

So, as things stand (obviously stuff will change) there are both large and strong populations who really don't want Labour, and really don't want Reform, to a degree different from the past.

60% didn't want Thatcher. We got Thatcher anyway. FPTP is shite.

Polls showed voters preferred Thatcher to Foot and Kinnock until 1990, although Callaghan would likely have beaten Thatcher head to head in a direct PM vote but the Conservatives still won most MPs

Never mind opinion pols, look at votes cast. The Conservatives under Thatcher always fell well short of 50% vote share.

I don't think any party should have a majority in parliament, let alone a landslide, on less than half of the vote.

That works both ways, also means Attlee would not have had a majority in 1945 for his nationalisations and welfare state and NHS nor Blair in 1997 for devolution and the minimum wage

We'd have needed to rely on the Liberals/ LibDems. So be it.

TheScreamingEagles

It's still in Scotland's hands on Tuesday.

I'll wear a kilt and ginger wig on Tuesday to show my support.

kle4

nico67 said:

More hysterical nonsense from the BBC hating Daily Mail .

Some bloke commissioned by the BBC gave a lecture and called Trump , Farage and Musk a bit fashy ! That’s it .

Whilst plenty of people are unhinged in their hatred of Trump (even considering how awful I think he is), some others are weirdly over eager in his defence and basically suggest anyone who ever said anything bad about him is now beyond the pale.

DavidL

TheScreamingEagles said:

It's still in Scotland's hands on Tuesday.

I'll wear a kilt and ginger wig on Tuesday to show my support.

Thanks. I think.

HYUFD

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

SandyRentool said:

algarkirk said:

dixiedean said:

algarkirk said:

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlightenment?

There's almost always a majority who vote against the election winner.
It's not a conundrum. It's a cornerstone of FPTP.

Thanks. I take that point, but in the olden days to win on FPTP you needed plus or minus 40% to win and the two majoe parties were much less far apart - there was a reasonable degree of 'losers consent.

Now, on the polling, about 80% don't want to vote Labour, and they are intensely disliked. Fewer, 65%+ don't want Reform, but it is reasonable to expect that they feel quite or very strongly anti-Reform.

So, as things stand (obviously stuff will change) there are both large and strong populations who really don't want Labour, and really don't want Reform, to a degree different from the past.

60% didn't want Thatcher. We got Thatcher anyway. FPTP is shite.

Polls showed voters preferred Thatcher to Foot and Kinnock until 1990, although Callaghan would likely have beaten Thatcher head to head in a direct PM vote but the Conservatives still won most MPs

Never mind opinion pols, look at votes cast. The Conservatives under Thatcher always fell well short of 50% vote share.

I don't think any party should have a majority in parliament, let alone a landslide, on less than half of the vote.

That works both ways, also means Attlee would not have had a majority in 1945 for his nationalisations and welfare state and NHS nor Blair in 1997 for devolution and the minimum wage

We'd have needed to rely on the Liberals/ LibDems. So be it.

Who certainly in 1945 would have blocked some of the nationalisations and likely required more of an insurance model for the health service.