General Election 2024

this electoral system is broken

Agreed, but it's no more broken than it's been since 1707 or thereabouts.

Agreed, but it's no more broken than it's been since 1707 or thereabouts.

This is the logic that supports the right to bare arms in the US. Things change.

the people I am talking to declare themselves “true conservatives” and “centre right”

✅ Maintaining status quo; monarchy, military, environment, service, institutions generally, etc.
✅ family unity, marriage and children
✅ Upholding rule of law, rather than making more laws
✅ Financial prudence / stability
✅ A "balance" of regulation and free market (ymmv)
✅ Helping the poor via wealth generation and charity
✅ The Laffer Curve
✅ Stiff upper lip
✅ Manners

❌ Fucking everything up because we need a change, and for the lolz
❌ Worrying about bathrooms
❌ Breaking the law for your own ends
❌ Risky financial decisions and ignoring established institutions
❌ Zero regulations
❌ The Hunger Games
❌ Zero tax
❌ Wetting the bed when you don't get your way/people disagree
❌ Rudeness

I think Ken Clarke is a pretty solid e.g. of a true centre right small and big-C conservative. Tbh I think a "would Ken smile politely while thinking you're a cunt" test is pretty solid.

Tempted to do a bare arms joke but will leave that for someone else.

Yes, things change but because many people will use the argument that it's been like this since Christ was a lad, often they don't change.

I do think Blair has a reasonable point; it isn't hard to understand FPTP and if you want to do a protest vote that's cool, but you'll get what you get.

Tempted to do a bare arms joke but will leave that for someone else.

lol. oops.

Yes, things change but because many people will use the argument to that it's been like this since Christ was a lad, often they don't change.

I'm not sure I follow this.

I do think Blair has a reasonable point; it isn't hard to understand FPTP and if you want to do a protest vote that's cool, but you'll get what you get.

I'm not sure this is about protest votes. It's the position that any vote that isn't for an expected winner (the presumed knowledge of which is already a democratically problematic premise) is also an implicit vote for the winner. It's intellectual gymnastics to support Labour's mandate.

I'm not sure I follow this.

Apologies, I wasn't really making a point, just a sideways glance at the gun control debate in the US which doesn't seem to be a good example of "things change".

I'm not sure this is about protest votes.

Perhaps I've misunderstood Blair's point. In many constituencies, there is a genuine run off between two candidates. If you choose to vote for someone else, you are likely to end up favouring one of the other two candidates.

I genuinely don't think there are any mental gymnastics required to support Labour's mandate. It's as valid as any other majority govt we have had, and you could argue considerably more valid than those govts which changed leader and direction within their term.

A mandate is a very fluffy concept, so I'll say Labour absolutely have the legitimate right to govern (obviously legally, but also in terms of having a mandate from the people). They won (thankfully!). But I think it's problematic to claim that the size of their win is, in actual fact, representative of the wishes of the electorate because they knew that their votes wouldn't be counted, and therefore, are de facto votes for Labour. I don't think that's, strictly speaking, a particularly democratic perspective.

Upholding rule of law, rather than making more laws

If this was ever true, it hasn't been for a long time. It's a bit like censorship, where left and right parties claim the other is more censorial because they call theirs "common sense" or "common decency" and the other's censorship.

The Thatcher government distrusted the legal system so much that laws telling judges what sentences they could apply to specific crimes became a major activity; more recent Tory governments have simply decided that the legal system is their enemy. Privatisation also meant that primary legislation was required to set standards and governance rules for things that had previously simply been governed.

It's certainly a massive stretch to imply that Reform votes were de facto votes for Labour, for sure.

I guess what I took from it was "well we all know how the system works, the Tories played the any vote not for us is a vote for Labour card and look where that got them, ha ha!"

Fuck what ever Tony Blair says he's a cunt.

The chat about Labour’s supposed lack of a mandate to govern really amuses me.

Ok, let’s suppose they don’t have a mandate. Who does, then? Because it’s got to be someone.

Yeah, it wasn't the last two chancers either (Lettuce Truss and Rishi Sandwich), who didn't even win an election as PM.

Labour already seeing the threat from reform in 2029 and planning to take it on from the get go
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/how-labour-celebrated-election-success-and-why-theyre-now-targeting-reform-b2f7rcpqr

Jonathan Reynolds did the morning tv round today, and his summary of Reform, which I thought would cut through, was to say they had the foreign policy of Vladimir Putin and the economic policy of Liz Truss.

Byline Times - Reform UK’s Invisible Candidates: Who Are They Hiding?

Surely this is an AI generated image based on Elon Musk's face?

Nah, it's Clapham and Brixton Hill, everyone who lives there looks this polished.

I take you're point about the Conservative Party's policies irl, but I still maintain that upholding the rule of law is a true conservative value.

They included it in their 5 British values. It is often cited as one of the positives of Empire. It has facilitated trade, commerce and underpins capitalism.

Imo it is a fantastic indicator of how unconservative Johnson's government was. It was pure right of might.

I'd also go so far as to say it is one of the clearest demarcations of the line between centre right and beyond. When you legislate to change facts to achieve a policy aim, that is firmly over the line.

its quite a rabbit hole: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1dwoz1b/why_is_no_one_talking_about_reforms_ai_generated/

Isn't it the shift from conservatism to populism?

Seems more likely it's a load of paper candidates who don't necessarily want to fully be linked with to reform.

I can't believe there isn't any checking done throughout the whole election process.

I mean, not our election but fucking shoutout France.
“ After the National Rally did well in the first round last week, left or centrist candidates in many places withdrew from the race - a tactical move to allow anti-RN votes to be concentrated on one contender”

Seems to have worked. Suck it Le Pen!

And in 6 months the population will be revolting and there will be another election

Edit: not a fan of the right wing. Just saying that seems to be how french politics works.

The same happened at the last french election.

Can’t remember who said it, but there’s the adage that Conservatism is only one thing — a belief that there should be an in group that the law protects and does not bind, and an out group that the law binds but does not protect.

Wow - that's a powerful distillation. I'm going to try and keep that in mind to see how well it stands up.