The best ever election night...

[MachoMadness]

...for the Greens. 4 seats. The exact same number as Reform.

Will they get the same amount of media coverage as Reform going forward?

[IDM]

They've had more on the BBC breakfast news that I've seen so far.  I saw one of the Green co-leaders being interviewed, but not Reform - unless that was when I was either making or parking my breakfast!

[albie]

The takeaway is the big difference between share of the vote, and number of seats won under FPTP;
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGRs9KLmXcAAwswD.png

Labour win 65% of the seats from a vote share of 34%.
Corbyn won far fewer from 40% of the votes in 2017.

The electoral system is just not fit for purpose.

[danumdon]

The takeaway is the big difference between share of the vote, and number of seats won under FPTP;
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGRs9KLmXcAAwswD.png

Labour win 65% of the seats from a vote share of 34%.
Corbyn won far fewer from 40% of the votes in 2017.

The electoral system is just not fit for purpose.

If these figures don't illicit some sort of discussion and debate about the current operating system then they never will.

Many have complained about previous percentages that have allowed certain parties to be in power virtually unchecked. Will the same individuals have the same opinions about this share of the vote and its legitimacy? i wonder.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The takeaway is the big difference between share of the vote, and number of seats won under FPTP;
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGRs9KLmXcAAwswD.png

Labour win 65% of the seats from a vote share of 34%.
Corbyn won far fewer from 40% of the votes in 2017.

The electoral system is just not fit for purpose.

And Corbyn's take on PR was?

I've been a long term supporter of PR and I'd be much more persuaded of other people's sincere support if they'd called for it when it didn't suit them.

[albie]

Corbyn's opinion on PR has nothing to do with this.

We are talking about the electoral system giving a result which in no way reflects the pattern of votes.
From where we stand today, we are seeing the voting pattern starting to fragment, with increasing support for parties outside the 2 party duopoly,

If the voting system cannot capture that change, it will be gamed by those who stand to benefit from the inequalities baked in.

This GE has seen a further fall in turnout, marking a trend of disengagement.
Business as usual will accelerate that disaffection.

[albie]

Look at the vote share graphic;
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGRs_KScWkAAT-yb.jpg

The combined vote of the big 2 is 57.6%.
In 2010 it was 65% - which was the lowest it had been for the 2 largest parties since 1918.

So turnout is about 57%, and Labour got around 35% of the vote, that means barely one in five eligible voters actually cast a vote for the Labour Party.

20% of the electorate delivers a 160 seat landslide?

[ncRover]

To be fair, most of the Reform coverage is because one of them has dropped themselves in it.

Give the Greens more coverage and their policies get torn apart.

The Green’s housing policy was hilarious.

Only build 150k (council) homes per year (less homes than are built now).

Then have a “world without borders”.

Then control the prices by allowing local authorities to introduce rent controls.

I don’t know if you guys are economics buffs or not but err…

[BillyStubbsTears]

Look at the vote share graphic;
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGRs_KScWkAAT-yb.jpg

The combined vote of the big 2 is 58.5%.
In 2010 it was 65% - which was the lowest it had been for the 2 largest parties since 1918.

So turnout is about 57%, and Labour got around 35% of the vote, that means barely one in five eligible voters actually cast a vote for the Labour Party.

20% of the electorate delivers a 160 seat landslide?

Like I say, I'd be a lot more open to hearing this line from the Left if they hadn't had a stance for decades that the only way to a strong Left Govt in the UK was to use the existing system to their advantage.

[albie]

Good summary article in the FT, by their data analyst John Burn-Murdoch;
https://archive.ph/S7SXL

Pitfalls to come.

[Colemans Left Hook]

REMEMBER THIS

Rovers  0  Morecambe 5

https://www.skysports.com/football/doncaster-rovers-vs-morecambe/484404

same thing only different

and I tore that page along with a few others out of the form book

[Donnywolf]

PR is a must for this Country so hopefully it ends extremism from anywhere

Another massive plus is those who say " my vote counts for nothing , or will change nothing" and subsequently won't Vote should be encouraged knowing their excuse has been eradicated

And let's face it if Conservatives get 30% of the Vote they should get 30% of the Seats.

Ditto Greens get 10% and it equates to 65 Seats

Then people nationwide might support them more and more and they prosper and possibly we as a Country become less extreme and also prosper

Plus if it's good enough for Belarus it's not good enough for us

[albie]

ncRover,

1)
"Only build 150k (council) homes per year (less homes than are built now)".
err..how many Council homes did the Tories build?
Are you comparing council homes with the total overall house building figure?
2)
"Then control the prices by allowing local authorities to introduce rent controls".
And how do you intend to control spiralling rental costs far outpacing inflation in the wider economy without rent controls?

Genuine questions.

[ncRover]

ncRover,

1)
"Only build 150k (council) homes per year (less homes than are built now)".
err..how many Council homes did the Tories build?
Are you comparing council homes with the total overall house building figure?
2)
"Then control the prices by allowing local authorities to introduce rent controls".
And how do you intend to control spiralling rental costs far outpacing inflation in the wider economy without rent controls?

Genuine questions.

1) 150k homes is the total amount of homes per year the Greens pledged to build. No detail on anything else. They said they would all be social housing. That isn’t anywhere near enough with their proposed open borders and would lead to rapid rent / house price inflation.

2) Rent controls would lead to even further inflation as its unintended consequences lead to less housing being available.

“landlords substituted to other types of real estate (such as properties exempt from rent control). This lowered the housing supply and shifted it towards less affordable types of housing, leading to rents rising at an even higher rate.”

There’s this and more consequences here

https://www.economicsobservatory.com/does-rent-control-work

You could try and ultimately fail at working around all these stipulations raised in the research on this topic or you could just follow the basic economic principle of supply and demand.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The Green manifesto wasn't in any way realistic.

But it didn't have to be. There was never any remote possibility of:
a) It ever being put into practice.
b) It's failings putting off people who had decided to vote for them.

[River Don]

To be fair to the Greens, they actually want to try and make a difference.

Starmer, I voted for him, only offers growth, growth, growth..  which means emissions, emissions, emissions.

It's the short-termist of solutions but it's all the opposition offers too...

Except the Greens who aren't realistic about wealth creation

[SydneyRover]

To be fair to the Greens, they actually want to try and make a difference.

Starmer, I voted for him, only offers growth, growth, growth..  which means emissions, emissions, emissions.

It's the short-termist of solutions but it's all the opposition offers too...

Except the Greens who aren't realistic about wealth creation

A slow down in consumerism would be good although growth is need to lift people out of poverty.

Scandiland seems to be a much less driven society, people accept services that are not perfect but provide for all. I don't have a clue atm whether people want or would accept major change, It's fairly obvious they have not been happy with what has been going on. My hope is that if a Starmer led government can show enough progress in the rebuild being talked about he'll get a much needed second term and may also keep the far right at bay.

muchly amended

[albie]

ncRover,

I think that your post 13 has misunderstood the proposal.

1)
There is no overall housebuilding target set by the Greens.
https://greenparty.org.uk/about/our-manifesto/providing-fairer-greener-homes-for-all/

You seem to think that the social housing commitment is a ceiling on all homebuilding, but it is not in any way an upper limit.
Commercial interests would still be able to apply for consent for their own projects. They have shown no interest in building for social rent.

The Greens promised to campaign to build 150,000 homes a year for social rent in England, and end Right to Buy.
Building that number of social homes has not been achieved for decades; between 2019 and 2023 for instance, just 30,000 homes for social rent were built across England.

How they intend to do that is unclear, but they could use public money to incentivise the social housing provision. Housing Associations could have a big role.
The Green Party also proposed fiscal reforms like replacing Council Tax with a Land Value Tax. This policy goes hand in glove with the new social housing program.

Ending Right to Buy is fundamental to rebuilding the stock of social housing available for rent, which has depleted down the years.
2 million social homes were lost under Right to Buy, and the current waiting list for social housing is at least 1.3 million.

The housing problem in the UK is made worse by housebuilders choosing to maximise profits by building larger properties, with garden and garage, for sale to buyers with sufficient income.
I think the Greens were looking to a baseline provision of starter homes at social rent, the sector disregarded by the main suppliers.

2)
Greens say councils should to be allowed to impose rent controls as well as banning no-fault evictions.
Empowering local authorities to introduce rent controls is not the same as mandating....local authorities would be free to decide what is best for their own area.
This is crucial where private rents are escalating, like in London.

Rent controls are common in other countries, with ongoing debate about how best to implement these measures, and new models of rent control being proposed;
https://neweconomics.org/2019/07/rent-control

In Scotland, the SNP/Scottish Greens coalition introduced a 3% rent cap for private tenancies and a moratorium on evictions, with limited exceptions.
The impact of the policy may be different in the private rented sector than in public social housing.
Greens planned to introduce Private Residential Tenancy Boards, to provide an informal, cheap and speedy forum for resolving disputes.

I suspect many renters facing above inflation increases in rent would disagree with your assessment.
Inflation in the rented housing sector has been a significant contributor to headline inflation, and poverty caused by the cost of living crisis.
https://news.sky.com/story/election-last-chance-to-fix-broken-renting-system-as-leaders-urged-to-make-serious-policy-offer-13155154

As BST says, Greens are not the government, so it does not matter other than as a promoter of debate....the issues rumble on!

[ncRover]

To be fair to the Greens, they actually want to try and make a difference.

Starmer, I voted for him, only offers growth, growth, growth..  which means emissions, emissions, emissions.

It's the short-termist of solutions but it's all the opposition offers too...

Except the Greens who aren't realistic about wealth creation

Western countries have decoupled growth from carbon emissions in a very short space of time. They can do this because they are rich. They are rich because they industrialised.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-gdp-decoupling

[ncRover]

ncRover,

I think that your post 13 has misunderstood the proposal.

1)
There is no overall housebuilding target set by the Greens.
https://greenparty.org.uk/about/our-manifesto/providing-fairer-greener-homes-for-all/

You seem to think that the social housing commitment is a ceiling on all homebuilding, but it is not in any way an upper limit.
Commercial interests would still be able to apply for consent for their own projects. They have shown no interest in building for social rent.

The Greens promised to campaign to build 150,000 homes a year for social rent in England, and end Right to Buy.
Building that number of social homes has not been achieved for decades; between 2019 and 2023 for instance, just 30,000 homes for social rent were built across England.

How they intend to do that is unclear, but they could use public money to incentivise the social housing provision. Housing Associations could have a big role.
The Green Party also proposed fiscal reforms like replacing Council Tax with a Land Value Tax. This policy goes hand in glove with the new social housing program.

Ending Right to Buy is fundamental to rebuilding the stock of social housing available for rent, which has depleted down the years.
2 million social homes were lost under Right to Buy, and the current waiting list for social housing is at least 1.3 million.

The housing problem in the UK is made worse by housebuilders choosing to maximise profits by building larger properties, with garden and garage, for sale to buyers with sufficient income.
I think the Greens were looking to a baseline provision of starter homes at social rent, the sector disregarded by the main suppliers.

2)
Greens say councils should to be allowed to impose rent controls as well as banning no-fault evictions.
Empowering local authorities to introduce rent controls is not the same as mandating....local authorities would be free to decide what is best for their own area.
This is crucial where private rents are escalating, like in London.

Rent controls are common in other countries, with ongoing debate about how best to implement these measures, and new models of rent control being proposed;
https://neweconomics.org/2019/07/rent-control

In Scotland, the SNP/Scottish Greens coalition introduced a 3% rent cap for private tenancies and a moratorium on evictions, with limited exceptions.
The impact of the policy may be different in the private rented sector than in public social housing.
Greens planned to introduce Private Residential Tenancy Boards, to provide an informal, cheap and speedy forum for resolving disputes.

I suspect many renters facing above inflation increases in rent would disagree with your assessment.
Inflation in the rented housing sector has been a significant contributor to headline inflation, and poverty caused by the cost of living crisis.
https://news.sky.com/story/election-last-chance-to-fix-broken-renting-system-as-leaders-urged-to-make-serious-policy-offer-13155154

As BST says, Greens are not the government, so it does not matter other than as a promoter of debate....the issues rumble on!

Thanks albie I’ll have a read.

I couldn’t see a country ran by the greens as one that fostered an environment that would allow home building companies to crack on with building. There would be a lot of regulation on where they could build, and then how they could build.

We need less nimbysim and more of Labour’s approach.

[drfchound]

Everyone should know that the Greens could promise anything they want to, knowing full well that they would never have to provide it.

[ncRover]

A beautiful example of “Green” NIMBYism a few days in…

“Green MP opposes 100-mile corridor of wind farm pylons in his Suffolk constituency”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/07/06/net-zero-green-mp-adrian-ramsay-opposing-government-plans/

[roverstillidie91]

Labour votes by election are actually falling.

It's only FPTP with PR they'd have been close to a hung parliament.

Expect there to be calls for PR especially by Reform and Greens.

[ncRover]

Labour votes by election are actually falling.

It's only FPTP with PR they'd have been close to a hung parliament.

Expect there to be calls for PR especially by Reform and Greens.

The popular vote in England was split across 2 parties in 2019. It was essentially Cons + brexit voters vs Corbyn’s Labour.

This year, the popular vote in England was split across 4 parties. With sectarian voting in demographically Muslim majority seats electing independents based on a single foreign policy issue.

Hence the lower %. It’s not rocket science.

Luke Tryl showed fieldwork that suggested Corbyn would have lost this election too. You might find this interesting.

https://x.com/luketryl/status/1808124302874620219?s=46

[BobG]

Re Farage demanding PR as the current system is soo unfair.

He is, clearly, advocating the result of the 2011 national referendum on PR be overturned. It was the price the LibDems extracted from Cameron at the time for their support of his government. The result, on a low turnout, by a resounding majority, was 'No'.

The point, of course, is that if the result of a national referendum can be overturned as easily as Farage is insisting, what's his view on reviewing and maybe overturning the result of another, much, much closer referendum result...?

The man is a fool.

BobG