Corbyn may have motivated people to vote for him, but unfortunately he also motivated many people to vote against him - which is why although he got a higher vote share than Starmer, May and Johnson both got higher vote shares than him and he lost two elections. Motivation works both ways.
Exactly. Starmer doesn't scare the right enough to make them fall into line. Corbyn did. "Divide and conquer" is a perfectly valid electoral strategy, and Starmer has achieved it via moderation.
This is a plausible argument, that with a more aggressive Labour candidate, many Reform voters would not have felt safe splitting the vote.
However, this willingness to split the vote could just be explained by Tories being so bloody awful that not even the ardent reactionaries wanted them in power.
Yeah, elections are unrepeatable experiments. It's not possible to say how Corbyn would have done in 2024, or how Starmer would have done in 2017 /19. But one definitely can't just assume you can by comparing vote shares. The Labour vote share in an election is not independent of the Tory vote share, or any of the other transient factors - they can't be easily compared across elections.
Insane that you can have such different results when the vote share is so similar. What are even the benefits of FPTP? Just seems someone is always woefully unrepresented each election.
Corbyn was the first time I ever felt like a leader of a political party actually gave a shit about serving the general public. Unsurprised he won his constituency again
Reform got a bigger number of votes than Lib Dems, but fewer MPs.
Maybe there could be a system where 2/3rds of the MPs are elected in constituencies, the other 1/3rd are determined by d'Hondt to even up representation (as with the AMS system used in Scotland). But if this is done the electoral regions should be a *lot* bigger, to increase proportionality.
In general I am partial to the idea of larger parliaments, so maybe we could just double the number of seats and allocate all the new ones through proportional representation?
It would still maintain the feeling you can "write your MP" but also tautologically make the parliament closer to the vote shares
"We are often told that moderating in politics will bring electoral gains. For many months now, the usual flock has crowed, as proof, Starmer’s performance."
Starmer has won an overwhelming majority in Parliament, as Blair did before him.
It's all been very exciting and enervating, seen from this side of the pond. Can someone kindly explain to an American why we should be disillusioned instead of pleased?
Young people about three times as likely to vote Labour as 75+. So Starmer's improvement in votes over 2019 can be explained entirely by demographic replacement over five years.
Massive swings in seats mainly due to bizarre effects of FPTP. Left split in 2019, right in 2024
Corbyn may have motivated people to vote for him, but unfortunately he also motivated many people to vote against him - which is why although he got a higher vote share than Starmer, May and Johnson both got higher vote shares than him and he lost two elections. Motivation works both ways.
Exactly. Starmer doesn't scare the right enough to make them fall into line. Corbyn did. "Divide and conquer" is a perfectly valid electoral strategy, and Starmer has achieved it via moderation.
This is a plausible argument, that with a more aggressive Labour candidate, many Reform voters would not have felt safe splitting the vote.
However, this willingness to split the vote could just be explained by Tories being so bloody awful that not even the ardent reactionaries wanted them in power.
Unfortunately, it's really hard to disentangle
Yeah, elections are unrepeatable experiments. It's not possible to say how Corbyn would have done in 2024, or how Starmer would have done in 2017 /19. But one definitely can't just assume you can by comparing vote shares. The Labour vote share in an election is not independent of the Tory vote share, or any of the other transient factors - they can't be easily compared across elections.
Insane that you can have such different results when the vote share is so similar. What are even the benefits of FPTP? Just seems someone is always woefully unrepresented each election.
Corbyn was the first time I ever felt like a leader of a political party actually gave a shit about serving the general public. Unsurprised he won his constituency again
"What are even the benefits of FPTP"
BIGGA NUMBA VOTE MEAN WIN. WHY U HATE DEMUCRACY CONNAR 😡😡😡
Good point good point I'm so sorry
Reform got a bigger number of votes than Lib Dems, but fewer MPs.
Maybe there could be a system where 2/3rds of the MPs are elected in constituencies, the other 1/3rd are determined by d'Hondt to even up representation (as with the AMS system used in Scotland). But if this is done the electoral regions should be a *lot* bigger, to increase proportionality.
In general I am partial to the idea of larger parliaments, so maybe we could just double the number of seats and allocate all the new ones through proportional representation?
It would still maintain the feeling you can "write your MP" but also tautologically make the parliament closer to the vote shares
Your nine-point summary of swing voter positions is brilliant.
"We are often told that moderating in politics will bring electoral gains. For many months now, the usual flock has crowed, as proof, Starmer’s performance."
Starmer has won an overwhelming majority in Parliament, as Blair did before him.
And as Corbyn didn't.
It's all been very exciting and enervating, seen from this side of the pond. Can someone kindly explain to an American why we should be disillusioned instead of pleased?
Young people about three times as likely to vote Labour as 75+. So Starmer's improvement in votes over 2019 can be explained entirely by demographic replacement over five years.
Massive swings in seats mainly due to bizarre effects of FPTP. Left split in 2019, right in 2024
" Abolish immigration (this is an exaggeration, but only slightly).
Greatly increase NHS funding.
Cut taxes on people who earn as much as me.
Greatly increase taxes on people who earn more than me.
Greatly increase social spending.
Give people on benefits Stern Lectures on the importance of Work Ethics but don’t actually cut them off or let them starve to death.
Solve unemployment by directly creating a bunch of jobs.
Solve inflation by punishing profiteering.
Find the bad people and hurt them."
Sounds like a great party program for every country! For the "as much as me" and "more than me", aim for 5% over the median income.