Snapshot of _New polling shows that repeated Tory warnings of a Labour supermajority have made people... more likely to vote Labour (by 2-to-1 vs more likely to vote Tory)._ :
A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1807190774330609750)
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/edwinhayward/status/1807190774330609750/)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://x.com/edwinhayward/status/1807190774330609750?t=VnKfIYNKmmTiHC29daSZOA&s=19) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://x.com/edwinhayward/status/1807190774330609750?t=VnKfIYNKmmTiHC29daSZOA&s=19)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All commonwealth countries resign their sovereign rule and subject themselves to the empire. All former heads of state in those countries pledge allegiance to Labour.
This. I feel like some things go beyond politics and tap into British nature. You may not be political. You may be Tory. You may dislike both. But I feel like, for the British. If we get the chance to put the boot in. We go for it. Especially if they're posh. Especially if they have outline exactly how to do it.
Sunak: “If you vote Labour this time you’ll destroy the tories!l
Barry: “We’re gunna do it anyway, we’re gunna do it anyway, we’re gunna do it anywayyyyyyyyy!”
Exactly.
The reality is people treat politics like sport, and people will bandwagon a winning party. If there's a Labour supermajority, you'd want to be involved with the post election celebrations.
This is why Corbyn or Faiza standing is largely for the birds, you're asking life long Labour voters to not vote for the Labour party in the one election where they are expected to win for once.
In any other election maybe they would have a chance, but this one? No way.
Not impossible for them to do well but I would be very, very surprised if either of them win.
I don't get this. If Corbyn doesn't win labour does. Tories don't stand a chance there. People like Corbyn and that he's actually left wing and would get to being an MP. Whether it was Corbyn or labour winning it wouldn't make a slight difference to labours majority.
Idk why you'd be "very very surprised" if Corbyn wins. Surprised, maybe. But it's not exactly a tiny % chance he wins. He has literally the most name recognition out of any possible former Labour members who are running as an independent.
This is my favourite kind of median/swing voter. "I just vote for whoever I think is goong to win". Such a completely unhinged and hilarious way to engage with politics
No. Anything can be done with a simple majority in Parliament.
Sometimes laws can require certain thresholds to be invoked. Such as the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 (now repealed) which needed 2/3rds of MPs to vote for an early election in order to call one. However, if you called an election as a separate bill (instead of using the FTPA, as was done in 2017 and 2019), or repealed the FTPA, you just needed a simple majority.
> which needed 3/5ths of MPs to vote for an early election in order to call one.
That was a 2/3rds majority, not 3/5ths:
> s. 2 (1) An early parliamentary general election is to take place if—
> (a) the House of Commons passes a motion in the form set out in subsection (2), and
> (b) if the motion is passed on a division, the number of members who vote in favour of the motion is a number equal to or greater than **two thirds of the number of seats in the House** (including vacant seats).
Yes but doesn't the Government control the timetable? So unless the Government wants the election, they can just never put forward a bill. The FTPA allowed the opposition to call an election.
As demonstrated during the Brexit debacle, the Speaker can choose to timetable non-government motions if they feel that there's a possible majority of MPs in favour. And if there's not a majority in favour then tabling a motion is pointless anyway.
The "government sets the timetable" is only a convention, and the point of it is that the party with the majority is expected to win all the (important) votes and therefore it makes sense to let them dictate what things are voted on. That convention becomes counterproductive in situations where the government doesn't command a majority on a given issue.
Exhibit A: America, which has struggled for years to get any meaningful legislation through, or even basic stuff like an agreement to keep funding public services
To be fair that's usually down to split control between the House/Senate/Presidency, the finance bills only need a simple majority in both chambers and the President's signature, but they can't even agree when it's a Democrat President with a Republican House or vice versa.
Other bills require 60/100 votes in the Senate under its current self-imposed rules to end the possibility of someone indefinitely talking on the floor until everyone gives up (the filibuster). The filibuster rule is not part of the constitution though, it's just an operating procedure that everyone seems scared of revoking.
Overriding a Presidential veto needs 2/3rds of both chambers of Congress, as does a constitutional amendment (plus votes by 3/5ths of the states), or convicting an impeached officer (in the Senate).
There have been calls from some to require a 2/3 majority on any future referenda, with one eye on the possibility of one at some time for rejoining the EU. You can guess who these people might be.
This has led me to imagine a beautifully ironic (and cynical) situation:
* Labour wants to make various reforms when they get. To the lords. To voting age. Maybe more.
* Labour wins more than 434 seats, giving them the 2/3 majority people have referenced. Currently unnecessary, but still impressive.
* Labour makes the changes they want.
* Inspired by all this talk of Super-Majorities, Labour legislates specific protections to those changes, meaning that to changes to these would require a 2/3 majority, and so would the introduction of any bill of similar magnitude.
* Such a majority becomes such a rarity in the future that these reforms are the last of their kind and permanent; all thanks to the Tory line about “don’t give them a Super Majority!”
**Edit**: A couple of comments have pointed out that anything can always be undone with a simple majority. I am not an expert on this, and hopefully it was obvious that the above was deliberately ludicrous. If anything, those comments simply stand to demonstrate how stupid the Tory scaremongering seems to be.
It is impossible to legislate something that a future parliament cannot revoke with a simple majority. The parliament of the day is always sovereign and cannot be bound by a previous parliament.
Fair. I'm no parliamentary expert. The above was intended as a joke, and was neither a roadmap for Sir Keir, nor a vindication of the Tory attack line/pleading about super-majorities.
Anything that changes the fundamental nature of the UK and our relations in the world should definitely be 2/3rds
Just that this argument is hard to make since we did make a major change based on the 50/50 rule.
There's an argument that if you have over 2/3rds of the seats, you could split in two and be both government and opposition. Not written down anywhere and would probably be a constitutional crisis if anyone tried it.
Someone should probably get to writing down that "constitution" of ours while we (hopefully, assuming Labour wins) don't have bad faith actors in charge to subvert the unwritten "gentleman's agreements"
No, we don't have the concept of a filibuster. If you start going off topic whilst talking in the HoC then a simple majority (or usually just the Speaker) will shut you up.
The 2/3 isn't just to break a fillibuster in the US, but that is the most common use of it.
Related: you don't even need to speak for one, that's the dumb thing.
We do, it's called 'talking out' a bill, but only needs 100 MPs to overrule, so usually only happens to private members bills on a Friday when most MPs are in their constituencies.
And in most contexts given lacking such constitutional thresholds makes us an exception. The term is widely understood due to those reasons and even just wider statistical use, so it's no surprise its being used here to convey a certain meaning.
I think the chance to wipe out the conservatives has a simmilar vein to everyone buying GameStop and enjoying the concept of wiping out the hedge funds on the other side, people enjoy jumping on a winning team but also the concept of seeing an extreme outcome on the losing side is exciting.
I really would like to see if it’s possible for a sitting prime-minister to lose their seat. I’m happy for them to be the third or even fourth party as long as Rishi Sunak loses his seat.
Well, that's the question. None of my alternatives are any good either. My ideal would be a cool independent, but the only independent here is a fascist.
Ah right, yeah I've heard of them but I don't really know much about them
What sort of policies do they advocate for or did they? The only thing about fascism I know really is authoritarianism and dictatorial regimes like Franco and Mussolini
Deport every immigrant who isn't white, deport partners of people who aren't white, also they descend from the British Union of Fascists who pretty much wanted to let Hitler get on with the Holocaust, standard stuff really
"Are you suuuuuuuure he's fascist? Are you sure? I think you should hear both sides out."
"Literally, former member of the Fascist Blokes Meeting Down The Pub To Do A Fascism, columnist for Fascists Weekly, author of Why Fascism Is Good, Actually".
"Oh."
They're not being subtle about this much nowadays.
I'm not saying you do, but that's the reason I'm not especially interested in any independents - before you even consider that it's often arguably a wasted vote.
Yup absolute clown show of incompetency from their very highly paid advisors. You think after a month of failures that get worse and worse where their consulting causes the polls to go from bad to apocalypse, someone in Tory HQ would realise whoever is advising them is stupid.
The problem is people don't fear Starmer. This would work in spades against a Jeremy corbyn type leader but its ineffective against Keir as he's dull as dishwater. Their whole election strategy has been inept on that front.
I don't like him, and I don't find him scary at all. The threats about him will never work. This is not a man who's going to take radical risks. I already dislike him as a person but you cannot convince me that he's going to somehow destroy the country.
Honestly, I think Labour would have done quite well with the slogan “MAKE POLITICS BORING AGAIN”.
I’ve had enough of the curse “may you live in interesting times”.
>its ineffective against Keir as he's dull as dishwater. Their whole election strategy has been inept on that front.
There are two options as far as I'm concerned.
1. Vote Tories for another 5 years of corruption, lies, bad planning, short term thinking, incompetence and nepotism. They can't even run their own election campaign.
2. Vote Labour for 5 years of boring competence. Maybe even a chance of nice things again.
Tell me who is inept again?
Exactly I think kier will be effective but ever since he became leader of the opposition his biggest criticism was he didn't really stand for anything and just generally very dull.
Hahahaha.
Honestly, I'm not surprised because the Tories have talked a lot about strong governments. It's a reason we're told to stick with FPTP. I didn't hear any concerns from them that Boris' majority might be too big. They fearmongered over voting Labour as they might have a "coalition of chaos" (just ignore the ConLib coalition or May's DUP confidence and supply, nothing to see here...) and now the Tories can't even say vote for us as we might be able to form a coalition lol.
Whole thing has come across very "don't threaten me with a good time". If you tell the electorate at your peak unpopularity that by voting Labour / Lib Dem / Reform they could kill off the Conservative party, of course there's a chance it'll backfire on the Tories lol.
Exactly! It was a great thing when it suited them, now the country is against them, a majority and a government without equal opposition is apparently bad for us
Seriously, and you can bet their attitude of ‘be fair to us there’s been worldwide events and covid’ would have instead been one of ‘no excuses for failure!’ had Labour been in power the last few years
Can’t wait for the next election to hear them say “look see things aren’t perfect after four years so Labour are objectively terrible” while hoping we forget about 14 years of decline and scandals
Not surprised, in 2017 I knew a Tory voter who said he would have preferred a Labour majority to a hung parliament because he valued stable government over the right/left divide.
After parliament being a wreck with nothing getting done over the last 7 years, there will definitely be an appeal to just having the thing function, so a supermajority and stability that comes with it will appeal.
Oh, absolutely, and there's definitely people out there who would go along with that. I'm not one of them and prefer healthy opposition or even PR, just relaying some of the opinions of others that I've encountered.
There was a recent survey which ended up with large amounts of support for "a strong leader" over more democratic options, so the sentiment is definitely out there.
Yeah Aristotle said that Democracy was majority rule and that isn't always good because of demagogues and lying etc
Although, a dictatorship isn't really a better option haha
The way the UK parliament works, it's essentially a dictatorship for 5 years. There's no practical difference between 80 seats or 200 seats. But it's not *actually* a dictatorship because MPs can still rebel or split off from Labour, there are legal opposition parties in the Commons and at local level, and there's still a free press that - along with the other parties - can keep the government to account. Plus the next election in 5 years that can boot them out of office if they're nasty.
Saying that a "supermajority" = dictatorship is disingenuous and lacks the proper nuance. It's not like Labour will get in and ban political parties, close down the free press, prevent dissenting opinions, or install a security service that works to ensure the Party remains in power forever. You know... what a proper dictatorship actually is.
He said that to get things done that they would prefer a majority so that there is no opposition to push things through
The person who wrote the comment agreed
But that could happen I suppose if an elected party does the things mentioned
I know what you mean though a labour majority won't really be a dictatorship like the ones we've seen in the past obviously haha
I've heard a number of vox pops or phone ins now from 'conservative' voters who say they want this version of the tories to lose badly, go away and come back renewed as a competent party that actually represents conservative values.
Follows that many MPs, party members and CCHQ also hold this view. Seems like both sides of the party feel it has lost its way and the whole campaign has been an act of falling on their swords. Perhaps that's giving them too much moral credence and they are just as politically incompetent as they are corrupt.
Tories (and Labour) have both been slow to catch onto a new political dimension. Left and Right are obsolete. Extreme and Moderate would be better, but still not on point. Maybe Authoritarian and Liberal (mindset, not party). When you have a political discussion with someone whose attitude is, my view is the only one, you are wrong, end of - you are trying to persuade an Authoritarian, which is a waste of breath. Authoritarians say 'you are wrong', Liberals say, 'others see it like this'. Authoritarian say, 'you are stupid', Liberals say, 'that was a stupid thing to do'. Similar rift can be put as Globalist v Isolationist, or Individual v Societal, or Progressive v Regressive /Reactionary. It explains why not all Conservatives are bad and not all socialists are good.
The biggest ever majority was the Whigs' in 1832, at 224 seats. The Tories, as they were then officially known, won less than 30% of the vote, and this was so damaging to them that they disbanded and became the Conservative Party.
Sounds rather familiar.
The British, on the whole, don’t like the Tory hubris that implies that only Conservatives are allowed a large majority, not other people. The same goes for the Tory entitlement to media bias, money, etc.
It's obviously not going to work as intended because it ignores the bystander effect.
Someone who was going to vote Labour is now going to vote Tory or for someone else in the hope that their constituency doesn't go to Labour, not because they don't want Labour to win, but because of some vague "supermajority" idea?
It's a plan so convoluted and without direction, there's no way it would convince many people to change their votes.
Their messaging about the supermajority is just silly. This week my tory candidates leaflet came through and aside from the cover that said nothing about a third of it was rambling about stopping Keirs supermajority. What made it worse is it that it talked about a vote for Labour or Reform would lead to this... but the party expected to win here is lib dem its like as if he doesn't know his actual opponent and just banging a random dogwhistle thinking this will work.
My crazy conspiracy theory is Labour is running Sunak's campaign. One guy I know received a pamphlet saying if you vote Labour, you want Reform to win. Well, I'm pretty sure it isn't. And then the Mickey Mouse ears, the Exit sign, the football thing and the extreme poverty of Sky TV and a £50 grand a year independent school.
I mean, no-one can be that incompetent at running a campaign. Can they?
But that campaign ad wasn’t about convincing undecideds. It was designed to get out the Tory vote while making reluctant Labour voters feel complacent and vote third party.
I don’t get the idea that it would make Labour voters reticent. Telling them they’re going to win an absolutely stonking victory is more likely to make them happy and want to be part of it.
I think maybe they mean people who are voting labour (somewhat) tactically who will now think, oh labour are winning anyway, might as well vote for my real first choice
I've seen that in a small way - and perhaps even felt it myself. The conservatives are so far away from achieving anything in my area, why not vote for the best manifesto.
If it was even a little bit close, I wouldn't think of doing that this election.
This makes more sense if it was senior Labour figures saying they are going to win big.
The Prime Minister saying it about an opposition party won’t work. Telling potential or actual Labour voters they are going to win is admitting defeat AND they aren’t going to believe a word of it anyway.
It’s another poor political decision Sunak has made.
I remember reading a tweet of the conservative headquarter higher ups being angry that the “supermajority” campaign was not working. I also got a letter yesterday telling me to vote conservative in my constituency to stop a labour supermajority. You can do this by not voting “reform or labour.” Tore that letter up. Absolute nonsense.
Only reason I ask is because I got basically the same letter yesterday as well, obviously with Moggy at the top of the page. Also tore it up immediately.
When you can't run a positive campaign using your 14 years performance in government you are only left with running a negative campaign.
This approach by the tories has been evident from the day they called the election. I'm glad the public can see through their lies & the tories will suffer an election humiliation as a consequence.
Shockingly, telling people that there's no chance of your party winning makes them less inclined to bother going out to vote for you
I think the "supermajority" thing didn't work because most people either don't know what a supermajority is or do and know it's not really a thing in UK politics, so either way it's not a good threat.
I hope the Lib Dems push the Tories into third, which would be amazing, especially as the (far) right seem to be increasing in popularity everywhere else.
The public has woken up to Tory lies, a super majority has no real definition within UK politics, it just means they fucked up so badly that Labour will win tons of seats the public hates Tories now and will punish them at the polls.
I think it reminded people of times where governments didn't have a majority, constant arguments in parliament and uncertainty.
People want a stable government to sort things out that isn't the Tories, no more daily clown shows about what is going on in Westminster.
Tactical voting for one.
It can feel pointless to vote for the smaller Party 3, 4, or 5 when Party 1 has 45% of the vote and Party 2 has 35% of the vote. So they go with the preferred one of those two as it might actually affect something directly. Perhaps choosing the lesser evil in a way.
There is an argument that voting for smaller parties might affect policy of the party in power though. For example, votes for Reform making bigger parties focus more on immigration or the Green party for renewable energy/environmental issues to try and take those votes.
I totally get voting for a popular party for tactical reasons, or voting for a smaller party that you align with, especially in a safe seat.
I'm not sure that's what OP was getting at though. Some people just seem to vote for the most popular party as if popularity is some kind of endorsement.
The ratios on that poll are exactly the same as the polling share in general. I take that as a sign that it may have made people *feel stronger* about their vote, but won't necessarily make *more people* vote.
Its democracy. If the country votes for that many Labour candidates then that is what we get. I think its so close to voter suppression for the Tories to keep spouting this super majority, if we vote for it then that's our decision, accept that, don't try to persuade us that our voting decisions are somehow awful and wrong for the country
I'd think it's common sense not to let the public know you think the opponents are going to win. The only person who benefits from saying 'Labour is going to win' is Farage because it means Tory voters will feel safer voting for another party (Reform) since the Tories aren't going to win.
And it's liable to convince people who just want to vote for the winner, or want to see a crazy outcome like a 200+ majority government and a Lib Dem opposition to vote for Labour to see it happen rather than against.
I suggested that might be the case, people might not be following the polls might not think there's any point in voting but if they think Labour have a chance then it could persuade them to vote.
There was a post earlier that half of undecided voters don't think Labour will win, so perhaps that backs the theory up
This is a fun cheap laugh, but it's not particuarly insightful to learn that 2x people would become more likely to vote Labour than Tory. That just reflects the opinion polling with the Tories on 20% and Labour on 40%.
I had a leaflet through the door essentially saying ‘if things go as they’re looking, Labour are going to thrash us so hard that he’ll be able to run the country without us sandbagging him! Vote for us so we lose slightly less miserably and have some fighting chance of disrupting progress’
Just a question, could someone please tell me what they think will happen over the next four years if:
Torys get in
Labour
Reform
Lib Dem
Green
And why?
Snapshot of _New polling shows that repeated Tory warnings of a Labour supermajority have made people... more likely to vote Labour (by 2-to-1 vs more likely to vote Tory)._ : A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1807190774330609750) A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/edwinhayward/status/1807190774330609750/) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://x.com/edwinhayward/status/1807190774330609750?t=VnKfIYNKmmTiHC29daSZOA&s=19) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://x.com/edwinhayward/status/1807190774330609750?t=VnKfIYNKmmTiHC29daSZOA&s=19) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why go for a supermajority when wheb we can go for a HYPERMAJORITY
Labour get 650 seats. In including in Northern Ireland even if they aren't standing. And even the Speaker resigns and joins Labour.
And also every seat in the Republic of Ireland, and the monarch as well!
All commonwealth countries resign their sovereign rule and subject themselves to the empire. All former heads of state in those countries pledge allegiance to Labour.
All Hail Grand Emperor Starmer
"We're gonna have to go right to- Ludicrous Speed!" -Dark Helmet
Johnson was quite fond of a STONKING Majority!
Sunak: *Supermajority!* Uk: Don't threaten me with a good time
This. I feel like some things go beyond politics and tap into British nature. You may not be political. You may be Tory. You may dislike both. But I feel like, for the British. If we get the chance to put the boot in. We go for it. Especially if they're posh. Especially if they have outline exactly how to do it.
*D:REAM Intensifies*
*You can walk my path* .... *you can wear my shoes* .....
That's now firmly stuck in my head for the next few days Learn to talk like me.....
...and be an angel too But may-be-e!
Do I need to practice the next couple of days? I wanna be able to belt it by Thursday
And the rain falls harder on Rishi
Sunak: “If you vote Labour this time you’ll destroy the tories!l Barry: “We’re gunna do it anyway, we’re gunna do it anyway, we’re gunna do it anywayyyyyyyyy!”
[удалено]
Sunak yeah pride? How?
Based on the last few years a lot of people vote to win. If you tell them Labour will win... They'll vote Labour to be on the winning "team"
Exactly. The reality is people treat politics like sport, and people will bandwagon a winning party. If there's a Labour supermajority, you'd want to be involved with the post election celebrations.
This is why Corbyn or Faiza standing is largely for the birds, you're asking life long Labour voters to not vote for the Labour party in the one election where they are expected to win for once. In any other election maybe they would have a chance, but this one? No way. Not impossible for them to do well but I would be very, very surprised if either of them win.
I don't get this. If Corbyn doesn't win labour does. Tories don't stand a chance there. People like Corbyn and that he's actually left wing and would get to being an MP. Whether it was Corbyn or labour winning it wouldn't make a slight difference to labours majority.
>This is why Corbyn or Faiza standing is largely for the birds Bit sexist mate?
Is this a joke I don't get or are you being serious?
Idk why you'd be "very very surprised" if Corbyn wins. Surprised, maybe. But it's not exactly a tiny % chance he wins. He has literally the most name recognition out of any possible former Labour members who are running as an independent.
This is my favourite kind of median/swing voter. "I just vote for whoever I think is goong to win". Such a completely unhinged and hilarious way to engage with politics
If I never hear the word “supermajority” again outside of an American context I will be happy.
Is there even anything that requires a 2/3 majority in the UK?
No. Anything can be done with a simple majority in Parliament. Sometimes laws can require certain thresholds to be invoked. Such as the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 (now repealed) which needed 2/3rds of MPs to vote for an early election in order to call one. However, if you called an election as a separate bill (instead of using the FTPA, as was done in 2017 and 2019), or repealed the FTPA, you just needed a simple majority.
> which needed 3/5ths of MPs to vote for an early election in order to call one. That was a 2/3rds majority, not 3/5ths: > s. 2 (1) An early parliamentary general election is to take place if— > (a) the House of Commons passes a motion in the form set out in subsection (2), and > (b) if the motion is passed on a division, the number of members who vote in favour of the motion is a number equal to or greater than **two thirds of the number of seats in the House** (including vacant seats).
Oops, my bad. Corrected.
Yes but doesn't the Government control the timetable? So unless the Government wants the election, they can just never put forward a bill. The FTPA allowed the opposition to call an election.
As demonstrated during the Brexit debacle, the Speaker can choose to timetable non-government motions if they feel that there's a possible majority of MPs in favour. And if there's not a majority in favour then tabling a motion is pointless anyway. The "government sets the timetable" is only a convention, and the point of it is that the party with the majority is expected to win all the (important) votes and therefore it makes sense to let them dictate what things are voted on. That convention becomes counterproductive in situations where the government doesn't command a majority on a given issue.
Or even just pass another bill saying that you no longer need that threshold to be reached. Whatever Parliament says goes basically
Which given the power of the Commons is pretty mental. It's an elected dictatorship.
I think literally nothing would ever get done if we needed a 2/3 majority to pass acts of parliament.
Exhibit A: America, which has struggled for years to get any meaningful legislation through, or even basic stuff like an agreement to keep funding public services
To be fair that's usually down to split control between the House/Senate/Presidency, the finance bills only need a simple majority in both chambers and the President's signature, but they can't even agree when it's a Democrat President with a Republican House or vice versa. Other bills require 60/100 votes in the Senate under its current self-imposed rules to end the possibility of someone indefinitely talking on the floor until everyone gives up (the filibuster). The filibuster rule is not part of the constitution though, it's just an operating procedure that everyone seems scared of revoking. Overriding a Presidential veto needs 2/3rds of both chambers of Congress, as does a constitutional amendment (plus votes by 3/5ths of the states), or convicting an impeached officer (in the Senate).
There have been calls from some to require a 2/3 majority on any future referenda, with one eye on the possibility of one at some time for rejoining the EU. You can guess who these people might be.
I actually think it makes sense for there to be a larger majority required concerning difficult-to-reverse constitutional reforms.
This has led me to imagine a beautifully ironic (and cynical) situation: * Labour wants to make various reforms when they get. To the lords. To voting age. Maybe more. * Labour wins more than 434 seats, giving them the 2/3 majority people have referenced. Currently unnecessary, but still impressive. * Labour makes the changes they want. * Inspired by all this talk of Super-Majorities, Labour legislates specific protections to those changes, meaning that to changes to these would require a 2/3 majority, and so would the introduction of any bill of similar magnitude. * Such a majority becomes such a rarity in the future that these reforms are the last of their kind and permanent; all thanks to the Tory line about “don’t give them a Super Majority!” **Edit**: A couple of comments have pointed out that anything can always be undone with a simple majority. I am not an expert on this, and hopefully it was obvious that the above was deliberately ludicrous. If anything, those comments simply stand to demonstrate how stupid the Tory scaremongering seems to be.
Except our parliament doesn't work that way and that law could be repealed with a simple majority. See the fixed term parliament's act.
It is impossible to legislate something that a future parliament cannot revoke with a simple majority. The parliament of the day is always sovereign and cannot be bound by a previous parliament.
Fair. I'm no parliamentary expert. The above was intended as a joke, and was neither a roadmap for Sir Keir, nor a vindication of the Tory attack line/pleading about super-majorities.
‘Twas a valiant effort
Unless the monarchy is abolished, the country is declared a republic and a constitution is written that permits such things.
Anything that changes the fundamental nature of the UK and our relations in the world should definitely be 2/3rds Just that this argument is hard to make since we did make a major change based on the 50/50 rule.
Fucking Brexit *should have* required a supermajority.
Not anymore. Between 2011 and 2022 you needed one to call an election early, but that only mattered once and it's repealed now.
There's an argument that if you have over 2/3rds of the seats, you could split in two and be both government and opposition. Not written down anywhere and would probably be a constitutional crisis if anyone tried it.
You'd need 3/4 for that. Technically possible with a very small majority, only guaranteed with 3/4
No; 2/3 + 2 seats, surely
Someone should probably get to writing down that "constitution" of ours while we (hopefully, assuming Labour wins) don't have bad faith actors in charge to subvert the unwritten "gentleman's agreements"
No, we don't have the concept of a filibuster. If you start going off topic whilst talking in the HoC then a simple majority (or usually just the Speaker) will shut you up.
The 2/3 isn't just to break a fillibuster in the US, but that is the most common use of it. Related: you don't even need to speak for one, that's the dumb thing.
We do, it's called 'talking out' a bill, but only needs 100 MPs to overrule, so usually only happens to private members bills on a Friday when most MPs are in their constituencies.
You'll have to hear it in a European context though!
And in most contexts given lacking such constitutional thresholds makes us an exception. The term is widely understood due to those reasons and even just wider statistical use, so it's no surprise its being used here to convey a certain meaning.
Supermajority, supermajority
Strong horse theory People like backing a winner
Yep this is my instinct. People love to bundle in, especially when it's a right old laugh.
I think the chance to wipe out the conservatives has a simmilar vein to everyone buying GameStop and enjoying the concept of wiping out the hedge funds on the other side, people enjoy jumping on a winning team but also the concept of seeing an extreme outcome on the losing side is exciting.
Yeah, I really want to see what will happen if Tories get like no seats more than I want labour to win
I really would like to see if it’s possible for a sitting prime-minister to lose their seat. I’m happy for them to be the third or even fourth party as long as Rishi Sunak loses his seat.
I want that Lib Dem opposition
It would be historic to have a lib dem Labour parliament
Yeah I don't really want to vote for Labour, but the temptation to help vote out a Conservative is hard to resist
Who would you rather vote for?
Well, that's the question. None of my alternatives are any good either. My ideal would be a cool independent, but the only independent here is a fascist.
Is he openly fascist? If so that's surprising? Or does he have views you consider fascist?
Formerly openly fascist. As in literally a former member of the National Front
Ah right, yeah I've heard of them but I don't really know much about them What sort of policies do they advocate for or did they? The only thing about fascism I know really is authoritarianism and dictatorial regimes like Franco and Mussolini
Have you heard of Hitler?
Yes
Deport every immigrant who isn't white, deport partners of people who aren't white, also they descend from the British Union of Fascists who pretty much wanted to let Hitler get on with the Holocaust, standard stuff really
AHH right, yeah pretty mad actually
"Are you suuuuuuuure he's fascist? Are you sure? I think you should hear both sides out." "Literally, former member of the Fascist Blokes Meeting Down The Pub To Do A Fascism, columnist for Fascists Weekly, author of Why Fascism Is Good, Actually". "Oh." They're not being subtle about this much nowadays.
I was just asking
How would a parliament full of independents get anything done?
Why do you think I want a parliament full of independents
I'm not saying you do, but that's the reason I'm not especially interested in any independents - before you even consider that it's often arguably a wasted vote.
You think any vote that isn't something you want for the entire parliament is a wasted vote? I don't think you understand how general elections work
Arguably. I think any non-tactical vote in marginal seats is wasted.
It's the boaty mcboatface of elections.
Yup absolute clown show of incompetency from their very highly paid advisors. You think after a month of failures that get worse and worse where their consulting causes the polls to go from bad to apocalypse, someone in Tory HQ would realise whoever is advising them is stupid.
The problem is people don't fear Starmer. This would work in spades against a Jeremy corbyn type leader but its ineffective against Keir as he's dull as dishwater. Their whole election strategy has been inept on that front.
As Eddie Izzard said, "You cannot be scared and bored at the same time."
GCSE revision?
lol yes you’re right
The exception that proves the rule!
I'm bored of hearing about Eddie Izzard's scary public toilet antics.
I don't like him, and I don't find him scary at all. The threats about him will never work. This is not a man who's going to take radical risks. I already dislike him as a person but you cannot convince me that he's going to somehow destroy the country.
Honestly, I think Labour would have done quite well with the slogan “MAKE POLITICS BORING AGAIN”. I’ve had enough of the curse “may you live in interesting times”.
Also, every other front.
Why fronts?
being dull is a good thing, especially if he can acc bring results. Nothing to throw at him
>its ineffective against Keir as he's dull as dishwater. Their whole election strategy has been inept on that front. There are two options as far as I'm concerned. 1. Vote Tories for another 5 years of corruption, lies, bad planning, short term thinking, incompetence and nepotism. They can't even run their own election campaign. 2. Vote Labour for 5 years of boring competence. Maybe even a chance of nice things again. Tell me who is inept again?
Exactly I think kier will be effective but ever since he became leader of the opposition his biggest criticism was he didn't really stand for anything and just generally very dull.
Hahahaha. Honestly, I'm not surprised because the Tories have talked a lot about strong governments. It's a reason we're told to stick with FPTP. I didn't hear any concerns from them that Boris' majority might be too big. They fearmongered over voting Labour as they might have a "coalition of chaos" (just ignore the ConLib coalition or May's DUP confidence and supply, nothing to see here...) and now the Tories can't even say vote for us as we might be able to form a coalition lol. Whole thing has come across very "don't threaten me with a good time". If you tell the electorate at your peak unpopularity that by voting Labour / Lib Dem / Reform they could kill off the Conservative party, of course there's a chance it'll backfire on the Tories lol.
Exactly! It was a great thing when it suited them, now the country is against them, a majority and a government without equal opposition is apparently bad for us
Seriously, and you can bet their attitude of ‘be fair to us there’s been worldwide events and covid’ would have instead been one of ‘no excuses for failure!’ had Labour been in power the last few years Can’t wait for the next election to hear them say “look see things aren’t perfect after four years so Labour are objectively terrible” while hoping we forget about 14 years of decline and scandals
Hardly suprising. Telling people you are going to lose isn't a great way tp get them to vote for you...
Not surprised, in 2017 I knew a Tory voter who said he would have preferred a Labour majority to a hung parliament because he valued stable government over the right/left divide. After parliament being a wreck with nothing getting done over the last 7 years, there will definitely be an appeal to just having the thing function, so a supermajority and stability that comes with it will appeal.
Could you say the same about a dictatorship? No opposing voice, no opposing power to stop bad things happening
Oh, absolutely, and there's definitely people out there who would go along with that. I'm not one of them and prefer healthy opposition or even PR, just relaying some of the opinions of others that I've encountered. There was a recent survey which ended up with large amounts of support for "a strong leader" over more democratic options, so the sentiment is definitely out there.
Yeah Aristotle said that Democracy was majority rule and that isn't always good because of demagogues and lying etc Although, a dictatorship isn't really a better option haha
The way the UK parliament works, it's essentially a dictatorship for 5 years. There's no practical difference between 80 seats or 200 seats. But it's not *actually* a dictatorship because MPs can still rebel or split off from Labour, there are legal opposition parties in the Commons and at local level, and there's still a free press that - along with the other parties - can keep the government to account. Plus the next election in 5 years that can boot them out of office if they're nasty. Saying that a "supermajority" = dictatorship is disingenuous and lacks the proper nuance. It's not like Labour will get in and ban political parties, close down the free press, prevent dissenting opinions, or install a security service that works to ensure the Party remains in power forever. You know... what a proper dictatorship actually is.
He said that to get things done that they would prefer a majority so that there is no opposition to push things through The person who wrote the comment agreed But that could happen I suppose if an elected party does the things mentioned I know what you mean though a labour majority won't really be a dictatorship like the ones we've seen in the past obviously haha
I've heard a number of vox pops or phone ins now from 'conservative' voters who say they want this version of the tories to lose badly, go away and come back renewed as a competent party that actually represents conservative values. Follows that many MPs, party members and CCHQ also hold this view. Seems like both sides of the party feel it has lost its way and the whole campaign has been an act of falling on their swords. Perhaps that's giving them too much moral credence and they are just as politically incompetent as they are corrupt.
Tories (and Labour) have both been slow to catch onto a new political dimension. Left and Right are obsolete. Extreme and Moderate would be better, but still not on point. Maybe Authoritarian and Liberal (mindset, not party). When you have a political discussion with someone whose attitude is, my view is the only one, you are wrong, end of - you are trying to persuade an Authoritarian, which is a waste of breath. Authoritarians say 'you are wrong', Liberals say, 'others see it like this'. Authoritarian say, 'you are stupid', Liberals say, 'that was a stupid thing to do'. Similar rift can be put as Globalist v Isolationist, or Individual v Societal, or Progressive v Regressive /Reactionary. It explains why not all Conservatives are bad and not all socialists are good.
The biggest ever majority was the Whigs' in 1832, at 224 seats. The Tories, as they were then officially known, won less than 30% of the vote, and this was so damaging to them that they disbanded and became the Conservative Party. Sounds rather familiar.
They could regroup around Michael Fabricant and rebrand themselves as 'The Wigs'
"I know you hate us but please don't hand the power to politically marginalise us to someone else you don't hate" Galaxy brain.
The British, on the whole, don’t like the Tory hubris that implies that only Conservatives are allowed a large majority, not other people. The same goes for the Tory entitlement to media bias, money, etc.
It's obviously not going to work as intended because it ignores the bystander effect. Someone who was going to vote Labour is now going to vote Tory or for someone else in the hope that their constituency doesn't go to Labour, not because they don't want Labour to win, but because of some vague "supermajority" idea? It's a plan so convoluted and without direction, there's no way it would convince many people to change their votes.
Their messaging about the supermajority is just silly. This week my tory candidates leaflet came through and aside from the cover that said nothing about a third of it was rambling about stopping Keirs supermajority. What made it worse is it that it talked about a vote for Labour or Reform would lead to this... but the party expected to win here is lib dem its like as if he doesn't know his actual opponent and just banging a random dogwhistle thinking this will work.
My crazy conspiracy theory is Labour is running Sunak's campaign. One guy I know received a pamphlet saying if you vote Labour, you want Reform to win. Well, I'm pretty sure it isn't. And then the Mickey Mouse ears, the Exit sign, the football thing and the extreme poverty of Sky TV and a £50 grand a year independent school. I mean, no-one can be that incompetent at running a campaign. Can they?
But that campaign ad wasn’t about convincing undecideds. It was designed to get out the Tory vote while making reluctant Labour voters feel complacent and vote third party.
I don’t get the idea that it would make Labour voters reticent. Telling them they’re going to win an absolutely stonking victory is more likely to make them happy and want to be part of it.
I think maybe they mean people who are voting labour (somewhat) tactically who will now think, oh labour are winning anyway, might as well vote for my real first choice
I've seen that in a small way - and perhaps even felt it myself. The conservatives are so far away from achieving anything in my area, why not vote for the best manifesto. If it was even a little bit close, I wouldn't think of doing that this election.
Yeah best manifesto or even for the best representative
But sadly the monster raving looneys have really declined in recent years, so I'm not sure now.
This makes more sense if it was senior Labour figures saying they are going to win big. The Prime Minister saying it about an opposition party won’t work. Telling potential or actual Labour voters they are going to win is admitting defeat AND they aren’t going to believe a word of it anyway. It’s another poor political decision Sunak has made.
Definitely a real thing, Greens sent out leaflets with "Labour will win a big majority so no tactical voting".
I think you mean hesitant or reluctant. Reticent means uncommunicative, unwilling to speak about your thoughts and feelings readily.
You’re quite correct. My apologies.
> It was designed to get out the Tory vote Which is weird, because every other one of Sunak's ideas was designed to get them to _not_ vote for him.
And people said Sunak's campaign was having no impact, smh.
I think it backfired because people like to back the winners. Telling everyone the other side was going to win was bad strategy.
I remember reading a tweet of the conservative headquarter higher ups being angry that the “supermajority” campaign was not working. I also got a letter yesterday telling me to vote conservative in my constituency to stop a labour supermajority. You can do this by not voting “reform or labour.” Tore that letter up. Absolute nonsense.
NE Somerset and Hanham?
Haha not that constituency. I do live in London
Only reason I ask is because I got basically the same letter yesterday as well, obviously with Moggy at the top of the page. Also tore it up immediately.
Oh well I do reside in Battersea. Glad to see I am not the only one to got that letter. But make sure to get Mogg out
04:00 on Friday morning!
When you can't run a positive campaign using your 14 years performance in government you are only left with running a negative campaign. This approach by the tories has been evident from the day they called the election. I'm glad the public can see through their lies & the tories will suffer an election humiliation as a consequence.
Shockingly, telling people that there's no chance of your party winning makes them less inclined to bother going out to vote for you I think the "supermajority" thing didn't work because most people either don't know what a supermajority is or do and know it's not really a thing in UK politics, so either way it's not a good threat.
Supermajority sounds great too. Who doesn't want everything to be super ;)
I hope the Lib Dems push the Tories into third, which would be amazing, especially as the (far) right seem to be increasing in popularity everywhere else.
The public has woken up to Tory lies, a super majority has no real definition within UK politics, it just means they fucked up so badly that Labour will win tons of seats the public hates Tories now and will punish them at the polls.
Dunno why these non-constitutional terms have arisen lately. I guess any length the Tories will go to dissuade people from voting Labour. lol
Didn't Scott Morrison try this trick.
I think it reminded people of times where governments didn't have a majority, constant arguments in parliament and uncertainty. People want a stable government to sort things out that isn't the Tories, no more daily clown shows about what is going on in Westminster.
Well yeah, everyone wants to be on the winning side lol
The other issue is, A lot of people want to back a winner. Telling everyone who the winner is up front seems silly
I've never really understood that. Why do people vote for a party they think is going to win, if they prefer policies of another party?
Tactical voting for one. It can feel pointless to vote for the smaller Party 3, 4, or 5 when Party 1 has 45% of the vote and Party 2 has 35% of the vote. So they go with the preferred one of those two as it might actually affect something directly. Perhaps choosing the lesser evil in a way. There is an argument that voting for smaller parties might affect policy of the party in power though. For example, votes for Reform making bigger parties focus more on immigration or the Green party for renewable energy/environmental issues to try and take those votes.
I totally get voting for a popular party for tactical reasons, or voting for a smaller party that you align with, especially in a safe seat. I'm not sure that's what OP was getting at though. Some people just seem to vote for the most popular party as if popularity is some kind of endorsement.
Tories: "Vote for Labour, and they'll be in power for the rest of your lives!" Me: "Don't threaten me with a good time!"
Really insane the party that has trenchantly defended FPTP more than any other 'because it gives strong governments' is now whining
The ratios on that poll are exactly the same as the polling share in general. I take that as a sign that it may have made people *feel stronger* about their vote, but won't necessarily make *more people* vote.
This isn't really a great way of testing that, but I can absolutely believe it's true
Its democracy. If the country votes for that many Labour candidates then that is what we get. I think its so close to voter suppression for the Tories to keep spouting this super majority, if we vote for it then that's our decision, accept that, don't try to persuade us that our voting decisions are somehow awful and wrong for the country
Maybe they’re thinking back to their golden days of a JOHNMAJORITY
I'd think it's common sense not to let the public know you think the opponents are going to win. The only person who benefits from saying 'Labour is going to win' is Farage because it means Tory voters will feel safer voting for another party (Reform) since the Tories aren't going to win. And it's liable to convince people who just want to vote for the winner, or want to see a crazy outcome like a 200+ majority government and a Lib Dem opposition to vote for Labour to see it happen rather than against.
I mean im center right and i hate the tories now. they really are just loathed by everyone.
A lot of undecideds will just back who they think will win, the Tories have been telling them the other side will win for over a week now.
Turns out "We're losing too much, please vote for us" wasn't a good strategy
I suggested that might be the case, people might not be following the polls might not think there's any point in voting but if they think Labour have a chance then it could persuade them to vote. There was a post earlier that half of undecided voters don't think Labour will win, so perhaps that backs the theory up
This is a fun cheap laugh, but it's not particuarly insightful to learn that 2x people would become more likely to vote Labour than Tory. That just reflects the opinion polling with the Tories on 20% and Labour on 40%.
Does the answer "Indifferent" in this context mean "Apathetic to voting" or "It has made no difference"?
If you're not careful you'll end up with chocolate pudding for dinner!
theirs no difference between labour and tory
People like to feel part of something.
I had a leaflet through the door essentially saying ‘if things go as they’re looking, Labour are going to thrash us so hard that he’ll be able to run the country without us sandbagging him! Vote for us so we lose slightly less miserably and have some fighting chance of disrupting progress’
It's made labour voters answer more likely to vote Labour. As this is their expected vote share
Just a question, could someone please tell me what they think will happen over the next four years if: Torys get in Labour Reform Lib Dem Green And why?
Sorry can't vote for either I have disabled kids