Labour landslide win 412 - Conservative second largest party 121 - Lib Dem 3rd 72 - Nigel Farage in parliament but only 5 seats for far right Reform UK - Rishi Sunak conceded
- Jeremy Corbyn as Independent relected
These are the final results now. There is one seat left to declare, Skye, Inverness and Rossshire but SNP have already conceded that one to LibDem.
RESULTS AND COMPARISION WITH PREDICTIONS AND 2019 RESULTS
Results as a map and for each seat here: UK election results 2024 | Constituency map
Comparision with the Electoral Calculus prediction which also gives the 2019 numbers
As you see from the graphic, Labour have 412+ and the opposition excluding Sinn Fenn is 229+
The main opposition party is Conservatives. The leader of the Conservative party leads the questions for the prime minister in parliamentary questions so plays an important role keeping the government to account.
Sinn Fenn don’t vote. Then the speaker and three deputies don’t vote either by tradition.
The Speaker chairs debates in the Commons and has to e strictly non partisan in his or her rulings. This role is chosen from the winning party. The Deputy chairman of ways and means is selected from the opposition party and can stand in for the speaker if he is sick or can’t attend. Then the first deputy chairman of ways and means is selected from the opposiiton party and the second deputy chairman of ways and means from the winning party. These can stad in if none of the others are able to act as speaker. See:deputy-speakers
There is one seat still to declare, Inverness, Skye and West Rossshire because of vote count irregularities. However, SNP has conceded even though the recount is still delayed. So I’ve counted that one as LibDem.
. SNP candidate concedes final UK constituency as LibDems expected to win
These are good results for Lib Dems, low for Reform UK compared to the predictions, and a very dissapointing night for SNP.
It is an excellent night for Greens as they only contested 4 seats seriously. They didn’t have the funding to contest more than 4.
Conservatives have lost over 200 seats, nevertheless it’s not as bad as the forecasts suggested for them. They will remain the opposition party and towards the high end of the predicted votes.
Labour didn’t do as well as most forecasts suggested, but have a majority of 160.
Labour has one surprising loss. John Ashworth, Shadow Paymaster General, lost his seat to an independent pro Gaza palestinian rights candidate. Shockat Adam
. Labour Shadow Cabinet member Jonathan Ashworth loses seat to pro-Gaza independent in shock result
The conservatives lost several cabinet members and well known figures:
Liz Truss (former prime minister)
Jacob Rees Mogg (former leader of house of commons under Boris Johnson)
Grant Shapps (former Defence secretary)
Alex Chalk (former Justice secretary)
Gillian Keegan (former Education secretary)
Simon Hart (former chief whip)
Johnny Mercer (former veterans minister)
Penny Morduant (former leader of the House of Commons and former contendor for prime minister after Boris Johnson)
Lucy Frazer (former Culture secretary)
Mark Harper (former Transport secretary)
With such a large majority the Labour party can be expected to pass laws they want to pass unless they have deep internal divisions about them.
Labour is similar to Conservatives on most policies that the people I help worry about. This is much more to do with the idea it is time for a change than major difference in policies.
For those who worry about such things
Labour and Conservative have identical policies on Ukraine
As for conservatives, Labour's commitment to NATO is unshakeable Keir Starmer
Labour and Conservative identical policies on nuclear deterrent
BLOG: How nuclear deterrents work - like a bodyguard - their job is to prevent fightsVery similar on Gaza Strip but Labour is somewhat stronger on Palestinian rights. Labour however has to be careful to distance itself from antisemitism because of allegations that some of its members in the past were antisemitic, so it ends up similar to Conservatives because it moderates its pro palestinian rights policies by concern about seeming anti-semitic
Both strongly support net Zero but Labour is more strongly in favour of renewables, Conservatives favour nuclear power more
Labour is stronger on trans rights than Conservative - both want to move to more recognition of equality but Labour would move faster.
Labour will scrap the Ruanda deportation plan for illegal immigrant
Other differences are mainly to do with finance
Grant Shapps the defence secretary has lost his seat. But this will make no difference to Ukraine policy
We have a higher than usual proportion of scared people who are trans amongst those you help. Still small numbers but more than you’d expect if it was a similar proportion to the general public. So I often write articles to help trans people with their fears.
On trans rights in more detail:
In its manifesto, Labour has pledged to ban conversion therapy, and would include transgender people in that ban.
It has also pledged to remove the “indignities” from the process of applying for a gender recognition certificate, which allows a person to change their legal sex.
It pledged to "modify, simplify and reform" the process, while keeping the requirement for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria
. What are the parties saying about women's rights and gender identity?
On the conservative’s proposed ban on teaching about gender identity, Labour’s shadow defense secretary said she would look carefully at the guidance and that trans people need to be recognized and that it is a case of looking in detail at the suggestions and listening to everyone.
So they wouldn’t scrap it outright but look at it closely to see if schools need guidance on this topic and if so in what way.
Despite the headlines Bridget Phillipson doesn’t seem evasive to me, just she needs to be able to look at it in detail first to answer. Not that they have a hidden agenda that they aren’t disclosing. Rather that they will listen to everyone and then decide.
. Labour avoids saying it will scrap proposed gender lessons ban
On women’s only spaces he woudn’t change anything. Trans people can be excluded in some circumstances under the equalities act.
Sir Keir Starmer defended his position on single-sex spaces in Wednesday's debate.
"It's very important that we protect female-only spaces," he said, adding that he treats transgender people "as I treat all human beings - with dignity and respect".
He referred to guidance around the existing Equality Act, which says that a trans person with a Gender Recognition Certificate could be prevented from using a single-sex service in some circumstances.
. What are the parties saying about women's rights and gender identity?
So it’s a good night for trans legislation in the UK.
For those who don’t know, this whole idea about sex = biological sex doesn’t make scientific sense because biological sex is nowhere near as clear as people think. For many people it is simple but there are a few in the middle and there it gets very confused with XX males, XY females, intersex, and yes, people whose brains are clearly out of sync with their bodies so that they identify as the opposite sex to their physical sex for biological reasons. And all this isn’t fixed at birth either, for instance some have sexual organs that change gender as they mature.
Some of this has bee known for decades but the science of some of this has only become very clear in the last few years.
The main issue is that this knowledge hasn’t yet percolated down to much of the general public.
I expect that a decade or two from now this is close to universally accepted knowledge.
SHORT EXPLANATION OF UK POLITICS FOR US READERS
In UK politics, Labour are center-left. There is no far left political party in the UK that gets seats.
For American readers, in terms of US politics even our Conservatives are liberal left on many topics like universe public health care, and gun rights are not an issue here, everyone supports gun control to the extent it is very rare for anyone to own guns.
Also all our parties also support the monarchy (which is symbolic in the UK, has no political power) so in that sense they might be seen as right in the USA.
Reform UK, which only got 4+ seats, are far right in UK politics but are not at all like the US far right. Their main focus is on immigration, scrapping net zero and the economy see Reform UK - our contract with you), and they distanceg themselves as far as possible from the more far right policies which they leave to individual members and say are not party policy. Most who vote for them voted on immigration.
QUOTE The Reform Party believes that social and cultural issues (i.e., abortion, gay marriage, end-of-life decisions, and similar topics) should not be our focus as a party. Reform Party members and candidates may hold their own positions, with the understanding that they do not speak for the party on these issues.
. Social and Cultural Issues - Reform Party National Committee
Reform UK’s only remaining extreme policy in the manifesto is to do with gender identity.
Ban Transgender Ideology in Primary and Secondary Schools
No gender questioning, social transitioning or pronoun swapping. Inform parents of under 16s about their children’s life decisions. Schools must have single sex facilities.
However many of those who voted for them didn’t vote for this policy which is tucked away and not very prominent in their manifesto and hardly mentioned in their campaigning.
The DUP which got 5 seats is also far right. When they took part in the Conservative / DUP coalition government however, as a minor party partner the only influence they had was on Brexit negotations and their insistence on no trade barrier in the sea between England and Northern Ireland.
All our parties, even the far right, fully support UK democracy. We don’t have anything here corresponding to the US idea of “stolen elections”. Nor do any of the European parties in the countries with free and fair democratic elections, even the far right.
All of them regard UK election results as free and fair. It is rare to have even minor allegations of voting irregularities. We just have issues sometimes with vote counts and need for a recount. Also our politicians are always respectful of their opponents who win against them, and make gracious speeches congratulating them on their success and wishing them every success.
We also have a tradition of silly parties, including the Monster Raving Loony party and Count Binface. They only ever get a few votes in the general election but are treated with respect as representing the right for anyone to stand for election in parliament.
LOW TURNOUT - THIS IS NOT SURPRISING WHEN THE RESULT SEEMS A FOREGONE CONCLUSION
When the outcome seems a foregone conclusion people are less likely to vote.
Right up to election day everyone was saying it will be a landslide with no chance of a conservative win. Only real reason to vote was out of wanting to support a local candidate, or because you are someone who always turns out to vote if you can.
Probably almost nobody voted thinking their vote might be crucial for deciding who wins.
Kier Starmer won with just 700,000 votes more than Corbyn in 2019. But that doesn’t mean much given the low turnout this time around.
The Daily Telegraph title is of course click bait but they have some good figures:
. Labour election result most distorted in history
HISTORIC LOW PROPORTION OF THE TOTAL VOTE FOR CONSERVATIVES
HOW IT WOULD HAVE LOOKED UNER PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION - AND BENEFITS OF FIRST PAST THE POST
The Telegraph also have a good comparision of first past the post with what the same vote share would mean with proportional representation:
. Labour election result most distorted in history
Labour would still be the largest party but would need to partner with Lib Dems and Greens to reach 50%.
That is assuming that everyone voted the same way which of course they wouldn’t. Especially for small parties lke Greens, people would vote very differently if they were voting according to proportional representation.
From:
. Labour election result most distorted in history
There are good points though in first past the post. Here are some of them:
It means that the MPs represent a local district and are often known to the people who elect them
It increases the potential for an outstanding candidate to be elected whatever their party
Many people live in cities and may be out of touch with issues that affect the countryside which have larger constituencies often with lower numbers of voters.
Rural MPs help to safeguard the countryside and rural issues.
The lower population countries of the UK, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have more representation in parliament as do less populated areas such as Devon and Cornwall and the north of England.
It tends to lead to a more stable government because there are fewer minority parties
In countries with large numbers of small parties chosen by proportional representation there’s a lot of horse trading after the election, with the final coalition a result of an agreement between party leaders of smaller parties
with first past the post the general public are more directly invovled in the final outcome, giving a clear decision most times
So it’s not as simple as it seems. There are numerous benefits for proportional representation too, but those are easier to see.
Another possibility is some kind of a mixed system. Some seats selected by “first past the post” and some by proportional representation or other systems.
The Scottish Parliament uses a mixed system between first past the post and proportional representation. It has 76 first past the post constituency MPs and 51 proprotional representation regional MPs. With the ballot paper you get two votes, one for your constituency MP and one, by party, for the region.
For some of the pros and cons see: COMPARING THE ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES OF FIRST PAST THE POST [FPTP], ALTERNATIVE VOTING [AV], AND PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION [PR] ELECTORAL SYSTEMS (2016/08/31)
YOU CAN PROVE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE A PERFECT DEMOCRATIC VOTING SYSTEM - SO ANY SYSTEM INVOLVES COMPROMISES
Democracy isn't perfect indeed you can prove that it is impossible to have a perfect democratic voting system, it always has to be a compromise, you can't have a perfect way of working out the wishes of the people by voting.
QUOTE STARTS
Dr. Kenneth Arrow won a Nobel Prize for proving, in essence, that there's no such thing as a perfect voting system. What this means is that every voting system has flaws, and every voting system has strengths and weaknesses. This also means that for any voting system, it's possible to manufacture particular examples where a candidate wins who common sense suggests should not win.
The best voting system for a particular situation depends on what you value and what you are trying to accomplish, and not surprisingly, some people differ greatly in their assessments of this.
For example, plurality voting -- the most common voting system in the United States, in which the highest vote-getter wins, even if it's withs less than a majority -- only measures the amount of intense, core support a candidate has. Breadth of support is irrelevant.
On the other hand, another system, called Condorcet, only measures breadth of support and ignores how strong the support is. A Condorcet winner may not be the favorite candidate of any voter, but the person would have to compare favorably in head-to-head matchups with each of the other candidates.
Instant runoff voting is actually a compromise between these two extremes: it requires sufficient core support to avoid elimination and enough broad support to win a majority of the votes.
This is all to say that different voting systems achieve different goals, and since there are many possible goals that we seek to achieve through voting systems, it's not surprising that no one system is perfect for all of them.
An example is that you can set up a system where with three candidates A, B and C, that if only A and B are on the ballot, A is preferred to B. But B is preferred to C and C is preferred to A.
A is preferred over B which is preferred over C which is preferred over A.
. Condorcet paradox - Wikipedia
That is just an example for simple first past the post voting.
But Arrow also proved that ANY voting system of the type used in democracies can sometimes have paradoxes like that, you can never avoid them altogether no matter how the system is devised.
. Arrow's impossibility theorem - Wikipedia
As Churchill said,
‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’
There is no perfect way of doing this. Yet democracy does work very well, remarkably so. There is something freeing about setting on a system and then deciding by convention that whatever trhe result is, this is the people speaking, the will of the people.
Every vote does count also in the sense that if everyone said their vote doesn’t count we wouldn’t be able to use the democratic system. It is rare that the result is decided by a single vote but it does happen sometimes. But whether or not, you can look at the final results and you know that if you hadn’t voted that number would be one less in whatever column you voted for.
CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL THE BEST WAY TO CONTACT ME AS I DON’T GET NOTIFICATIONS FOR MANY COMMENTS ON MY POSTS
If you need to talk to me about something do contact me it is often far better to do so via private / direct messaging because Quora often fails to notify me of comment replies.
You can Direct Message my profile (then More >> messages).
Or better, email me at support@robertinventor.com
Or best of all Direct Message me on Facebook if you are okay joining Facebook. My Facebook profile is here:
I usually get those messages much faster than on the other platforms as I spend most of my day there.
FOR MORE HELP
To find a debunk see: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date
Scared and want a story debunked? Post to our Facebook group
Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly
Facebook group Doomsday Debunked
Also do join our facebook group if you can help with fact checking.
We also have many scared and panicking people use our group. If you can help as a first responder basically just to help people who are panicking to listen to them, help them to calm down a bit, find out what the issue is and so on it’s a great help as sometimes it’s some hours before someone can do a detailed debunk, whoever can help might be asleep or doing something else etc etc.. So that’s also a great help.
SHORT DEBUNKS (NEW)
I have just started a new page called “short debunks”. This has all the substantial debunks I do for the Facebook group. As you see I do many more of these, often ten a day, far too many to write them all up as blog posts., It only has the most recent short debunks, it would take ages to update it with older ones.
But if there is something scaring you in the news you may find I have debunked it here already.