5 ms·

The people in charge are largely hated by the electorate. They won by default effectively due to a quirk of how UK elections work (which was less of a problem w

The people in charge are largely hated by the electorate. They won by default effectively due to a quirk of how UK elections work (which was less of a problem when the monarch/aristocracy was still involved to counter balance things like this, but now that that's gone the state is effectively out of control.) Unless by "democracy" you mean "sleepwalking administration everyone hates" the current UK government is unusually undemocratic.

4ndrewl 1y ago
Tell me about this "quirk" and winning by "default" (and how this never applied to other recent elections).
- mathiaspoint 1y ago
  Less than 30% of the electorate voted labour. The problem is that the opposing party consistently ran as opposition but then executed on labour's policies instead so most people just didn't vote because they didn't see anyone running to vote for. The electorate legitimately did not want these people or their policies, they effectively weren't given a choice. To call that democracy delegtimizes democratic elections.
  - Symbiote 1y ago
    Everyone also had the choice to vote Green or Liberal Democrat. I believe both promise electoral reform.
    - incone123 1y ago
      They can promise whatever they like knowing there's very little chance they will be put to the test. The last time the Lib Dems got a taste of power in 2010 it was by going into coalition with the Tories at the cost of dumping key election pledges. Next election they were dumped by the public and their leader Nick Clegg was hired by Meta - presumably for his connections as he has no particular talent to sell.
      - Symbiote 1y ago
        The Lib Dems made a referendum on a fairer voting method a condition of the coalition, and they got their referendum. I see no reason to doubt they'd implement electoral reform if elected.
  - 4ndrewl 1y ago
    That's how our representative democracy works though. Even if just one person votes in each constituency. I say that those who didn't vote knew it was a foregone conclusion and would have voted in the same proportion as those who did vote.
  - lawlessone 1y ago
    >The electorate legitimately did not want these people or their policies > so most people just didn't vote because they didn't see anyone running to vote for. Probably shoulda voted then
  - 4ndrewl 1y ago
    You say they weren't given a choice, but there are now more parties represented in parliament now than before. What percent of the electorate voting for the biggest party would be acceptable to you?
- incone123 1y ago
  It was a win under the rules but a memorably shallow one. Labour won a big majority of seats in 2024 on fewer votes (grand total) than when they lost handsomely in 2019.
pyb 1y ago
The paradox of politics : are hated whilst actually doing what the majority wants. As we saw in the case of the Winter fuel Payments : if a policy is unpopular with voters, it is abandoned. The Online Safety Act is popular, so it will stay.
- rapidaneurism 1y ago
  Being unpopular is not the opposite of popular. The winter fuel payments were very unpopular with a very vocal part of the population, while any benefits were very thinly distributed on the rest of the electorate. The cost of the online safety act is very small and almost invisible distributed across everyone. Any major effects (leaking of personal data) can be blamed on the victims (most people assume that only perverts will have to verify their age). Another effect where security conscious people will be excluded from online discussions is probably in invisible (if not a benefit) to most people.
lostlogin 1y ago
> They won by default effectively due to a quirk of how UK elections work (which was less of a problem when the monarch/aristocracy was still involved to counter balance things like this, but now that that's gone the state is effectively out of control.) I’m reading this as you saying that the system is worse now that the monarchy and aristocracy have less power. Is that correct? If so, how do these unelected groups make it better?
- mathiaspoint 1y ago
  You have misread (in a very common way for, I believe, a very common reason.) I said it's less democratic. That's not necessarily less bad unless you believe democracy is the ultimate measure of fitness for a state.
hdgvhicv 1y ago
No post war U.K. government aside from the 2010-15 coalition had a majority of voters voting for the parties in power. 1951 came close I think. However opinion polls consistently put support for the “anti porn” bill up high amongst multiple demographics. The cause for this is a lack of computer literacy, in both government and the population, but that doesn’t really matter.
- Amezarak 1y ago
  Opinion polling is largely bunk. In addition to the problem with getting a good polling sample today, questions are carefully crafted to achieve the desired results. Opinion polls are for shaping consensus, not reporting it. Consider how badly off "will you vote R or D in 7 days" polling is in the US, even with the top national experts on the problem. Opinion polls are much, much more troublesome.
charlieyu1 1y ago
The electorate hated the politicians, then they still vote for the same guys. The general public doesn't care about politics, those who cared treats it like tribalism and don't want to learn what are actually happening, they don't want to think they only want to be told whatever feeding their brain chemistry.

4ndrewl 1y ago

Tell me about this "quirk" and winning by "default" (and how this never applied to other recent elections).

mathiaspoint 1y ago
Less than 30% of the electorate voted labour. The problem is that the opposing party consistently ran as opposition but then executed on labour's policies instead so most people just didn't vote because they didn't see anyone running to vote for. The electorate legitimately did not want these people or their policies, they effectively weren't given a choice. To call that democracy delegtimizes democratic elections.
- Symbiote 1y ago
  Everyone also had the choice to vote Green or Liberal Democrat. I believe both promise electoral reform.
  - incone123 1y ago
    They can promise whatever they like knowing there's very little chance they will be put to the test. The last time the Lib Dems got a taste of power in 2010 it was by going into coalition with the Tories at the cost of dumping key election pledges. Next election they were dumped by the public and their leader Nick Clegg was hired by Meta - presumably for his connections as he has no particular talent to sell.
    - Symbiote 1y ago
      The Lib Dems made a referendum on a fairer voting method a condition of the coalition, and they got their referendum. I see no reason to doubt they'd implement electoral reform if elected.
- 4ndrewl 1y ago
  That's how our representative democracy works though. Even if just one person votes in each constituency. I say that those who didn't vote knew it was a foregone conclusion and would have voted in the same proportion as those who did vote.
- lawlessone 1y ago
  >The electorate legitimately did not want these people or their policies > so most people just didn't vote because they didn't see anyone running to vote for. Probably shoulda voted then
- 4ndrewl 1y ago
  You say they weren't given a choice, but there are now more parties represented in parliament now than before. What percent of the electorate voting for the biggest party would be acceptable to you?
incone123 1y ago
It was a win under the rules but a memorably shallow one. Labour won a big majority of seats in 2024 on fewer votes (grand total) than when they lost handsomely in 2019.

pyb 1y ago

The paradox of politics : are hated whilst actually doing what the majority wants. As we saw in the case of the Winter fuel Payments : if a policy is unpopular with voters, it is abandoned. The Online Safety Act is popular, so it will stay.

rapidaneurism 1y ago
Being unpopular is not the opposite of popular. The winter fuel payments were very unpopular with a very vocal part of the population, while any benefits were very thinly distributed on the rest of the electorate. The cost of the online safety act is very small and almost invisible distributed across everyone. Any major effects (leaking of personal data) can be blamed on the victims (most people assume that only perverts will have to verify their age). Another effect where security conscious people will be excluded from online discussions is probably in invisible (if not a benefit) to most people.

lostlogin 1y ago

> They won by default effectively due to a quirk of how UK elections work (which was less of a problem when the monarch/aristocracy was still involved to counter balance things like this, but now that that's gone the state is effectively out of control.) I’m reading this as you saying that the system is worse now that the monarchy and aristocracy have less power. Is that correct? If so, how do these unelected groups make it better?

mathiaspoint 1y ago
You have misread (in a very common way for, I believe, a very common reason.) I said it's less democratic. That's not necessarily less bad unless you believe democracy is the ultimate measure of fitness for a state.

hdgvhicv 1y ago

No post war U.K. government aside from the 2010-15 coalition had a majority of voters voting for the parties in power. 1951 came close I think. However opinion polls consistently put support for the “anti porn” bill up high amongst multiple demographics. The cause for this is a lack of computer literacy, in both government and the population, but that doesn’t really matter.

Amezarak 1y ago
Opinion polling is largely bunk. In addition to the problem with getting a good polling sample today, questions are carefully crafted to achieve the desired results. Opinion polls are for shaping consensus, not reporting it. Consider how badly off "will you vote R or D in 7 days" polling is in the US, even with the top national experts on the problem. Opinion polls are much, much more troublesome.

charlieyu1 1y ago

The electorate hated the politicians, then they still vote for the same guys. The general public doesn't care about politics, those who cared treats it like tribalism and don't want to learn what are actually happening, they don't want to think they only want to be told whatever feeding their brain chemistry.