4 ms·
The point really is that Labour could very easily find themselves with a vote share in the low 20s next time around if they’re not careful. The other point is
by dave4420 2y ago
The point really is that Labour could very easily find themselves with a vote share in the low 20s next time around if they’re not careful.
The other point is that Parliament is not representative of the people: Labour has close to two thirds of the seats but got barely a third of our votes. This sort of thing has happened before, of course, but this is a particularly blatant example.
- mytailorisrich 2y agoYes. I think I read they got about 34% share of the vote yesterday, which is less than when Thatcher was elected in 1979 and only 5 percentage points more than when Cameron was elected in 2010 (29%) [not exactly impressive after "14 years of Tory nightmare"]. So there is almost no relation between share of vote and outcome in seats at this point... The spin by Starmer and the Guardian is that they are claiming the people have given Labour an overwhelming mandate, but they really haven't. What they've done is to tell the Tories to eff off, which is very different. On a related note, Reform UK has got a larger share of the vote than the Lib Dems and end up with 4 MPs vs 71 for the Lib Dems...
- ZeroGravitas 2y agoAs long as they do things that the Lib Dems, SNP, Plaid, Greens and long tail of "left/progressive" candidates agree with then they have the support of a majority of votes (they only need Lib-Dem and Green for over 50%) and will get an overwhelming number of MPs supporting their motions. They don't need to do that, due to the flawed system, but it seems likely in most cases.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]