Search results for:

^ oof!

I understand that. But that's one data point (and my MP as it happens). There are 650 seats.

If you want to do it per constituency I'd start by looking at the increase in Labour vote (compared to 2019) minus the total Reform vote (2024) compared to 2019 Tory vote. That'll give you an idea of whether it was a move of votes from Tory to Labour, or Tory to Reform (it will be both obviously, but we can't know individual voter behaviour).

More could be done after that, but we'd have an idea of what was happening already with that information.

I'm sure this analysis will come out, but it's taking it's sweet ass time. (Unless I've missed it).

That comparison would be a bit hazy due to boundary changes for many constituencies.

Yup, but you can (and everyone has been) infer around these. Imperfect but the best we've got.

@hugo7

On the former point my understanding is that the evidence is Labour giving up/sacrificing vote share in safe seats (i.e. decreasing) in favour of focusing on converting seats.

I'm not sure there's evidence of that as much as reporting of that having been the plan. Whether the plan worked in practise (or the vote was just split between Tory/Reform in those seats) is what I want to see. I'm sure we'll see that both will have happened, tbf.

If there is evidence/analysis on this please link!

But key to this would be setting it against voter turnout. Which I'm not sure how you'd do.

I'm not sure about this. Voter turnout is voter behaviour. Not turning up is a vote for something in a sense. You could think of it as the equivalent of voting for a third-party in FPTP (assuming it's not down to an external factor like IDs).

There's definitely more interesting stuff you could do with it (where was it? was it in areas that were historically tory? labour? etc.), but those are different questions.

People seem to be taking up positions that the election was a labour masterclass or evidence that they've failed to achieve anything (or gone backwards), and reform are the real winners. The reality is probably a bit of both (although the SNP also needs to be considered). But I've still yet to see any actual data supporting either position.

Anyone know where I could get a CSV of the 2024 election results per constituency with change in vote from 2019?

oof. tempted.

Fair, but it's not a question of inner workings. It's what the vote distribution looks like. Their inner workings will be reflected in that.

Someone on TV last night/this morning was saying that the labour goal was seats, not vote share, and they were set to lose support in safe seats so the campaigning resource could be elsewhere.
I think in that respect, the plan worked really well.

Absolutely makes sense and was clearly the tactic not only in safe seats, but seats they deemed unwinnable, or usefully losable (Clacton, the libdem seats they decided to not campaign in).

But I haven't seen anything that shows this is what played out. I'm not saying it didn't, just want to see the analysis.

Edit: to add context why. If there is a remarkable shift in the distribution of votes at the constituency level, the impact of Reform on Labour's win could range from serendipitous to largely inconsequential.

Correct. Labour ran an efficient and effective campaign, the allocation of resources to exactly the right places was masterful.

Have you seen any analyses that bear this out? I haven't. A constituency-by-constituency comparison of 2019 and 2025 vote would be useful, but changes in borders could make this tricky.

It'll come with time as more detailed analyses emerge. It (Brexit party) also needs to be factored into Labour's win. From the broad view, this seems to be a repeat of their performance in 2019 (the difference being the split vote on the right). Farage won the election for the Tories in 2019, and cost them it this year.

I know there's a bit of anti-electoral reform reaction to the popular vote, but the idea of one man being able to do that should give everyone some thought. The electoral system needs to be reformed.

Do they mention what his dad did for work? Always been curious.

Then he should use that power to call out the sun for being the hateful, divisive, rag it is and say he doesn't want their support (of course he could also add something about being happy for their readers' support - whatever that is).

100% hard agree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mfSfekiZeE

Criticising people on the left who decide to vote for parties that represent them/their beliefs ignores the fact that labour chose to let those people leave. In many cases actively pushed them away. It calculated that those voters don't matter in the grand plan/arithmetic. It's the big brain electioneering everyone's been praising.

But win first, meaningful changes later.

Faith based politicking.

shrug

Fair enough. Pees.

Local councils (plural) are going bankrupt now so HE is going to have to get in the queue

Not sure bankruptcies work on a queuing basis, but yeah, another terrifying outcome if we continue with the status quo.

Thankfully the manifesto does talk about this to some extent, with "multi-year funding settlements" (and some other bits and bobs) for LAs (no idea if what they say is meaningful or not).

So far you've offered criticism but not actual discussion yourself.

Is the problem that I'm not offering my own policies? Because what I'm critical of is that they're failing to present real policies on key issues.

I'll touch on HE because I'm a bit more caught up on details there.

What's wrong with their education policy?

I said universities which is different. But assuming that's what you mean by education, the answer is easy: they don't have one. Which is horrifying. Universities are a huge part of the UK economy (directly and indirectly) and one of the main contributors to UK soft power which, post Brexit in particular, is not something that should be ignored.

This is the entirety of what they say on the topic:

Labour will continue to support the aspiration of every person who meets the requirements and wants to go to university.

We recognise that UK higher education creates opportunity, is a world-leading sector in our economy, and supports local communities. To better integrate further and higher education, and ensure high-quality teaching, Labour’s post-16 skills strategy will set out the role for different providers, and how students can move between institutions, as well as strengthening regulation. We will act to improve access to universities and raise teaching standards.

The current higher education funding settlement does not work for the taxpayer, universities, staff, or students. Labour will act to create a secure future for higher education and the opportunities it creates across the UK. We will work with universities to deliver for students and our economy.

That's not a policy (and much of the manifesto reads like this).

THE has just said the "manifesto ducks detail in addressing sector funding crisis." The reality is that there will very likely be universities (plural) going bankrupt very shortly. These will mostly be regional universities who are major employers. Being regional also means that it will be very hard on the students caught up in such a situation. Not to mention the current funding model is pretty unfair to a lot of students.

At least the tories are honest about what they'll do: shut down programmes. Something I don't support, but you know where you stand. Labour are burying their heads in the sand. I mean, being political geniuses.

Whoa - I'm not sure I claimed or insinuated I'd been cancelled. I think you might be reading my tone a bit wrong. I was responding to this:

Complaining about the style of potential victory, after years of no fucking hope of victory, strikes me as, well, lacking an understanding the game being played. As the Tories have demonstrated for quite some time, it's the achieving of results, not the style of achieving the results, that is more important bit. Get past this part, then ramp up the manifesto stuff later.

That is, the position that the policies are not important, and to treat them as such is to misunderstand "the game being played." I think the policies are important.

Edit: ahhh. is it because I used the word "space" and that had connotations with "safe space" or something? "Space" in this context was a reference to this being the GE thread. If you can't discuss manifestos and policies and politics here, what "space" can you?

Is there any space where you're allowed to criticise Starmer or lament about their proposed policies for the next five years? I thought the centre was supposed to be where the "adults" do politics. But how can that be possible if we're not allowed to talk politics.

It all has a bit of the right complaining about remainers "talking down Britain."

Even the support for Palestinian statehood seems to have been watered down from what was leaked last week.

We are committed to recognising a Palestinian state as a contribution to a renewed peace process which results in a two-state solution with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.

I've never seen the word committed actually mean so little.

And I definitely get that. I do think that a centrist labour government will be better than the tories. I can imagine a lot of areas that could get better (the UK's relationship with the EU, for example). But the status quo is unsustainable on many fronts. Inequality won't go down simply because we have a government laser focused on "growth." The environment isn't going to get better because of a new (nationalised) provider. Higher education will continue to fall apart in the UK so long as the current funding model continues.

Ha, tbf, I think 5 minutes of that poor man with cancer may have taken the wind out of it for me.

The 10/15 minutes of banal cliches following it didn't get me going either.

Was really hoping there'd be something to hope for (awkward, but you know what I mean).

This manifesto launch is dire. No policies to really give people hope in the manifesto and no charisma on stage.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/13/labour-candidates-campaigning-too-much-held-seats

I think (and hope!) labour will win the election, but there could be a storm brewing where talk of a massive majority falters as labour's core walk away.

The policy is the policy. I mean, that's not really what will win or lose an election. Although, as @hugo7 mentions, one may want to reflect on how officious Starmer may be on these things - especially when it comes to youth criminalisation. But that wasn't really my point.

I guess I'm an outlier, but it hurt my soul to watch. Hopefully we'll have some real policies on Thursday. Also hopefully they won't be introduced in a PhoneShop-esque sketch.

Almost certainly. Most are probably children.