Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jul 5 2024 02:46pm)
It's not totally irrelevant imho. First, because the underlying support level plays a role in determining how much of a mandate a government does or does not have. For example, say Labour wanted to use its big majority to pass really radical and sweeping reforms, then I would expect a ton of backlash because two thirds of the electorate would say "this is not what we signed up for". Not that Keir Starmer would ever do anything radical or bold, but still.
And second, because the vote share determines how close or far away a party is from gaining seats in the next election. For example, the SNP in Scotland would only need to recover by some 5 to 8-ish percent to win back two dozen seats. If the Tories gained a similar amount in terms of vote share, they would still fall well short of defeating Labour. Likewise, the LibDems and Reform are at a level where small gains or losses in their vote share would translate to disproportionate changes in their seat count.
The non-linear way the popular vote translates into seats in a FPTP system also informs the correct strategy for party leadership. Sometimes, it's more rational to play to the electorate to squeeze out a few more percentage points which yield a large number of additional seats, at other times, it's more rational to focus on the long-term branding and health of the party.
Not even remotely. Once a party has a majority in parliament. Which they do. Laws will be passed wether the public like it or not; as long those party MPs fall in line with the vote.
Your describing something akin to proportional representation but this is precisely the opposite.
As I said the vote share is great for hypothesising but in terms of actual meaningful and practical process. It is irrelevant.
Labour have a mandate now for upto 5 years to pass whatever laws the want.
The only possible impact on their majority would be by elections or party defections.
Not saying I agree with it, but that is how the system works.
The outcome tends to lead to functioning majority governments as opposed to coalitions.
It also means as you pointed out that a majority of voters in terms of overall vote share don't get the party they voted for.
As a Scot that is nothing new whatsoever.
Due to the first past the post constituency system, Scotland could and have previously elected almost unanimously SNP MPs but still only ever been an opposition party.
Due to how many seats are in Scotland and how many are elsewhere not contested by SNP candidates.
It's an irony that English voters en masse now experience this kind of constitutional inadequacy to this extent.
Whether opposition parties will push for proportional representation I think is unlikely. The lib dems have gained so many seats they could legitimately feel they could become the second largest party in an election.
Reform and the Tories are very likely to thrash out some kind of reforming of the centre right of British politics, so worrying about representation for smaller parties will not be a priority.
The public are in general apathetic and disengaged with the British political system to the point where meaningful pressure to reform the system is unlikely.
Unless of course Farage resists a merger with Tories and pushes for some kind of national front style populist takeover of the mainstream agenda. Which is entirely possible.
This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Jul 5 2024 08:18am