welshbairn Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Fullerene said: Labour's massive majority on such a small percentage of potential voters makes it almost pot luck who can get a majority. Reform only got 5 seats for 4 million votes but people would not be so happy if they got an overblown representation for the exact same voter share. It's not pot luck, you have to get more votes than anyone else in an individual constituency to vote for you to be allowed to represent them. It might not seem fair to village idiots trying to collectivise their voices across the nation, but it works for local democracy, and you don't get total arseholes getting in on a party list whom nobody has voted for. Edited July 9 by welshbairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fullerene Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 1 hour ago, welshbairn said: It's not pot luck, you have to get more votes than anyone else in an individual constituency to vote for you to be allowed to represent them. It might not seem fair to village idiots trying to collectivise their voices across the nation, but it works for local democracy, and you don't get total arseholes getting in on a party list whom nobody has voted for. I am not saying pot luck for an individual seat, I am saying for the whole parliament. If Labour win a majority on 42% then somebody else could win similar on a totally different 42%. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonS Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 26 minutes ago, Fullerene said: I am not saying pot luck for an individual seat, I am saying for the whole parliament. If Labour win a majority on 42% then somebody else could win similar on a totally different 42%. Labour got nowhere near 42%, obviously. They got 33.7%. They'd likely have still had a healthy majority if they'd got less than 30%. I'd say the pot luck comes in because constituencies are arbitrary geographical units. If you have very localised support, like the Lib Dems, it works well. If your support is spread around the country, like Green or Reform, it kills you. It's completely arbitrary. The SNP went down to 9 seats off 30% for the same reason they got 48 seats off 45% - their vote is fairly evenly spread around the country. The Lib Dems got 6 seats from less than a third of the SNP vote. Calling it pot luck is fair IMO. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 5 minutes ago, GordonS said: Labour got nowhere near 42%, obviously. They got 33.7%. They'd likely have still had a healthy majority if they'd got less than 30%. I'd say the pot luck comes in because constituencies are arbitrary geographical units. If you have very localised support, like the Lib Dems, it works well. If your support is spread around the country, like Green or Reform, it kills you. It's completely arbitrary. The SNP went down to 9 seats off 30% for the same reason they got 48 seats off 45% - their vote is fairly evenly spread around the country. The Lib Dems got 6 seats from less than a third of the SNP vote. Calling it pot luck is fair IMO. Yeah, anyone who thinks that any party getting an overwhelming majority on 33.7% vote is democratic obviously doesn’t understand the word. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fullerene Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 (edited) 13 minutes ago, GordonS said: Labour got nowhere near 42%, obviously. They got 33.7%. They'd likely have still had a healthy majority if they'd got less than 30%. I'd say the pot luck comes in because constituencies are arbitrary geographical units. If you have very localised support, like the Lib Dems, it works well. If your support is spread around the country, like Green or Reform, it kills you. It's completely arbitrary. The SNP went down to 9 seats off 30% for the same reason they got 48 seats off 45% - their vote is fairly evenly spread around the country. The Lib Dems got 6 seats from less than a third of the SNP vote. Calling it pot luck is fair IMO. Fine. I accept the numbers you say. My point is that Labour got a massive majority with a well focused 33.7% . You could argue Lib Dems or Reform would never have a majority with a well focused 33.7% but if they did then it would not require any overlap with those who voted Labour this time. That seems pretty scary to me (and I don't mean the Lib Dem vote). Edited July 9 by Fullerene 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonS Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 1 hour ago, Fullerene said: Fine. I accept the numbers you say. My point is that Labour got a massive majority with a well focused 33.7% . You could argue Lib Dems or Reform would never have a majority with a well focused 33.7% but if they did then it would not require any overlap with those who voted Labour this time. That seems pretty scary to me (and I don't mean the Lib Dem vote). I don't think Labour "focussed" their vote, I think that's just how the chips fell. They fought to maximise their vote, did badly, got over half a million fewer votes than in 2019 when they got hammered and more than 3.2 million below 2017, but won seat after seat as the largest minority purely because the Tory vote collapsed, presumably to Reform and abstentions. To give some examples, Labour won Liz Truss' seat with 26.7% of the vote; it's pure luck that 11,847 votes was enough, they can't have aimed for that. They gained Darlington with their lowest number of votes since 1931 and lowest share since 1983. They gained Nuneaton with their second-lowest number of votes since 1924. Leaders usually do well in their own constituency but Starmer's vote fell by half, losing 18,000 votes. Their mandate is a mile wide and an inch deep, and they could easily get turned over at the next election. This is unlike any landslide we've ever had. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freedom Farter Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 (edited) Edited July 11 by Freedom Farter 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee-Bey Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 14 minutes ago, Cheese said: If I couldn’t be as rich as Berlusconi I’d settle for being as rich as his plastic surgeon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee-Bey Posted July 18 Share Posted July 18 Lol 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MazzyStar Posted July 18 Share Posted July 18 7 hours ago, Cheese said: Lol Bad news for the wolves. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkmenbashi Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 (edited) On 08/07/2024 at 19:17, Granny Danger said: I don’t know much about the geography of France, but I saw this graphic on the BBC website which suggests incredible geographic polarisation of support for the fascists. ETA particularly is the South East of the country. Any explanation/clarification from people itk and not just Googleists would be appreciated. The South east includes a lot of white people who had to leave Algeria after independence, and these people are very fash. The North East is the old mining areas which are bit like the brexity red wall areas. Edited July 19 by Turkmenbashi 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 3 hours ago, Turkmenbashi said: The South east includes a lot of white people who had to leave Algeria after independence, and these people are very fash. The North East is the old mining areas which are bit like the brexity red wall areas. Had a wee quick Google of that; really interesting. Will look at it in more detail over the days to come as it seems a fascinating story. So basically displaced colonials and their offspring? Who’d have thought they’d support far-right politics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerthewitness Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 7 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: So basically displaced colonials and their offspring? Who’d have thought they’d support far-right politics. Have you ever met anyone who returned to Scotland after Apartheid? Absolute worstcunts. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 2 minutes ago, badgerthewitness said: Have you ever met anyone who returned to Scotland after Apartheid? Absolute worstcunts. I returned in 1992. I didn't realise you'd had apartheid while i was away. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 4 minutes ago, badgerthewitness said: Have you ever met anyone who returned to Scotland after Apartheid? Absolute worstcunts. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlipperyP Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 (edited) 14 hours ago, badgerthewitness said: Have you ever met anyone who returned to Scotland after Apartheid? Absolute worstcunts. Yes, my two cousins (male). I couldn't agree more. One became a police officer, then CID in Coatbridge, the other returned to SA, as he was going to be killed/murdered as he pissed off a lot of people. eta - forgot why I was here...Thailand court has set a date of 7th August to disband the MFP (Move Forward Party). The biggest party in the house and most popular leader with 46% rating. The prime minister has 12%. It could all kick off again soon. Edited July 20 by SlipperyP 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 On 19/07/2024 at 11:49, badgerthewitness said: Have you ever met anyone who returned to Scotland after Apartheid? Absolute worstcunts. Jim Murphy 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MazzyStar Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 9 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: Jim Murphy I thought his politics would largely be similar to yours? Except on independence of course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 (edited) 3 hours ago, MazzyStar said: I thought his politics would largely be similar to yours? Except on independence of course. When I first met him he was linked to Militant - then was recruited to Labour Students by the then NUS Scotland President Donna McKinnon. I actually stood against him in the Scottish Labour Students selection - we were both selected - polar opposites in terms of our views on Scottish Democracy. As soon as he was elected to be NUS Scotland President, his politics suddenly changed - Blairite and influenced by the UJS and, later, Labour Friends of Israel. A political opportunist of the worst kind and someone who pays lip service to democratic procedures. The only thing about his politics that didn't changed was Scottish Democracy - he'd happily abolish the Scottish Parliament if he could get away with it. Edited July 21 by DeeTillEhDeh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.