Climate skeptic Nigel Farage has established a beachhead in British politics, at the cost of delivering a supermajority to the green socialist Labour party.
Labour leader Keir Starmer is now Britain’s Prime Minister. But nobody knows what will happen next.
British Labour, which champions hard green policies, except on days when they don’t, has won a landslide victory in today’s British national election, but only because climate Skeptic Nigel Farage split the Conservative vote.
This election has upended British politics. A strange new landscape is revealed
Rafael Behr
Fri 5 Jul 2024 13.47 AESTTribal loyalties and political certainties are falling away, but the Conservatives have been felled by a determined coalition
Elections do not change countries overnight. They reveal changes that were hidden – or visible but neglected – beneath layers of political complacency and cultural habit. The seismic event that has delivered Labour a vast haul of seats tells of tectonic pressure that started building long before Rishi Sunak’s rain-sodden campaign launch six weeks ago, in what already feels like a distant land.
Although opinion polls made a Conservative defeat look inevitable, there is a difference between forecasting regime change and waking up in a Britain that has dispatched scores of Tory MPs to political oblivion and chosen Keir Starmer to be prime minister with a commanding majority.
To what extent the results express a positive endorsement of Labour and its leader is hard to measure. The imperative to punish the Tories for years of political malpractice was palpable on the campaign trail in a way that exultant Starmer fandom was not. But contempt for an incumbent government and enthusiasm for the only available replacement are never exactly matched. The volume of Liberal Democrat gains in some former Conservative strongholds is partly an endorsement of Ed Davey’s party, but swing voters in those constituencies knew that evicting the local Tory would help propel Starmer into Downing Street. They were happy to take that chance.
…
The same cultural faultline shows up in the handful of seats that Reform has won and many more where Nigel Farage’s party has pushed the Tories into third place. On terrain prepared by the 2016 leave vote, Reform has embedded itself as the natural repository for dissatisfaction with the status quo. Farage himself, finally achieving penetration of the Commons after seven failed attempts, will act as a beacon of anti-Westminster, anti-immigration, nationalist reaction. He will exploit his new parliamentary berth much as he used the platform he had as a member of the European parliament, sabotaging the institution from within, feasting on the privileges it affords him while denouncing the whole system as rotten.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/05/election-results-labour-conservatives-upended-british-politics
Obviously there were many other issues at play than climate policy, though cost of living rises caused by failed Conservative green energy policies were a significant factor.
But let’s focus on climate policy. What are Keir Starmer’s plans for Britain?
OK, Starmer is not keen on climate policy. Or is he?
Seems pretty keen on climate change right? Or is he?
Whatever Starmer does, he has to restore growth, provide lots of factory jobs for the unions, implement the Woke agenda, without upsetting some of his more socially conservative supporters, and provide lots of subsidies for energy and jobs, without creating a debt blowout which could collapse the British economy.
Meanwhile Farage, who took 14% of the national vote and threatens a real political breakout in the next election, will be doing what Farage does best, calling out every mistake and misstep, reminding voters why his is the party of lower energy bills, and an end to wasteful government spending.
This is going to be an interesting five years in British politics.
In keeping with the famous Winston Churchhill quote:
I would paraphrase slightly as:
At least with our two party system system in the US, a party and its leadership that gets less than 40% of the vote doesn’t usually win an election, such that we get minority rule. Which is what you get with parliamentary systems.
Because our population of voters is so evenly divided, if one party manages to win everything – President, House and Senate – in an election they will inevitably screw it all up, go overboard and energize the opposition, and then get shellacked by the voters just two years later … putting the kibosh on any further governing shenanigans. But with multiple parties it’s rare that any one party ever actually gets a majority of the vote, and a minority government can pretty much do whatever they want as long as the don’t hold a confidence vote.
Note that Adolph Hitler came to power in 1933 despite his Nazi party getting only 33% of the German popular vote. Once in, they couldn’t get him out short of the destruction of Germany and the bloodiest war in world history.
Good comment.
Our Founding Fathers were wise but didn’t envision a “party” system when the Constitution was written.
They quickly realized that and changed how the President and Vice President were selected. They introduced the “party ticket” rather just 1st and 2nd place of the individuals running.
The Senate was to represent each states’ Government (with each State’s Government selecting its Senators) equally in the Federal Government. Each voters’ voice was in the House of Representatives. (A bad Amendment made the selection of each states’ Senator being via a popular vote thus removing each State Government’s voice in Federal affairs.)
The Electoral College to select the “Ticket” was to be a blend of both.
A good system.
The ONLY change I would be in favor of would be, if the winning ticket got less than 50% of the popular vote (because 3rd party votes), then the top two tickets would have a runoff a month later.
(That would have spared us Woodrow Wilson and both of Bill Clinton’s terms.)
America is a Constitutional Republic. It’s not a Democracy.
That’s a common fallacy amongst conservatives, but no, the US most certainly IS a democracy. The correct description of the US Federal government is that we have a constitutional democratic republic. All three terms apply, and all three terms are keys to how our government functions.
The governing persons in the USA are not appointed, they are elected by the voters, either directly or indirectly. Senators and House members are elected directly (though for much of our history Senators were elected by state legislatures), and the President is elected by individual state slates of electors, who are in fact elected by democratic votes conducted in each state.
A non-democratic republic would be one where a governing class simply appoints its members to rule without any vote by the public, and therefore conducts no contested elections (they may claim they hold elections, but voters are only allowed to vote for the governing party). That was the case, for instance, with all of the communist dictatorships that called themselves “republics”, but in which there was no democracy involved.
Democracy is simply that the majority shall decide and the minority shall accept and that the decisions apply to all. All else electoral method.
Nope – democracy is simply that the government is elected by vote of the people rather than appointed by a governing person or clique (i.e., a dictatorship).
You left out limits on Government and the separation of powers (Each Branch’s limited authority) laid out in The Constitution and The Bill of Rights.
The Execution Branch HAS appointed unelected officials with the power to enact regulations that have the effect of Law with no real limits.
The current Dems are using all their power (not authority) to make the US a “non-democratic republic”, as you put it.
Definitions of words.
TYPO!
“The Execution Branch HAS appointed unelected officials with the power to enact regulations that have the effect of Law with no real limits.”
Should be:
“The Executive Branch HAS appointed unelected officials with the power to enact regulations that have the effect of Law with no real limits.”
But, then again, given today’s politics in the US, maybe I was right the first time?
Ask Hillary.
PS If Joe doesn’t agree to step down … will he die of natural causes?
(I know that was dark. Sorry.)
I didn’t get into a long winded discussion of all the nuances and theories of our Federal government and how it works vs. how it is intended to work. I simply corrected the wrong statement that the USA is not a democracy, which of course it is. As is the UK, and most other republics. Those republics that are not democratic, or are democratic in name only, are dictatorships … like say the “Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea”, otherwise known as “North Korea”.
I’m not a conservative.
A constitutional democratic republic is not a democracy.
A democracy is rule by majority vote, which does not describe US governance,
For example, A majority of US citizens may vote to impose an unconstitutional law. That law would be invalidated by the Supreme Court (properly functioning). That fact alone obviates applying “a democracy” description to the US.
Appointment of legislators by a ruling class does not exhaust the meaning of “non-democratic republic.”
Legislators may be chosen by lottery, for example. Or qualification to vote may be restricted to military service. Or to AGW skeptics — i.e., to rational people.
“Non” in the case of the US, would have to include ‘non-Constitutional,’ as well as ‘non-democratic.’ Your discussion ignored the former.
‘That law would be invalidated by the Supreme Court (properly functioning).’
A ‘properly functioning’ SCOTUS has proven to be a very thin reed at many times during the history of our Republic. Fortunately, the ultimate redoubt against Federal tyranny lies with the peoples of the individual states, who were then, and are now, sovereign entities pursuant to their original execution of separate peace treaties with Great Britain in 1783.
Dude – you could not be more wrong. The Constitution abolished the former confederacy of individual states. The states gave up their sovereignty in matters of national concern when they ratified the Constitution. The Federal government, as provided in the Constitution, determines where powers, rights, and responsibilities reside. A state only has the powers, rights, and responsibilities granted to it by the Constitution.
Look it up.
“The Federal government, as provided in the Constitution, determines where powers, rights, and responsibilities reside.”
No, it does not. The Constitution describes the limited powers granted to the Federal Government by the people. The Federal Government operates within those limits. The Feds determine no rights, no powers, no responsibilities except within the purview of its own Constitutionally limited scope.
Other rights are given to the states, by the people, within the scope of state constitutions.
You are completely wrong. All republics that utilize votes of the people to appoint their representatives are democratic, period, no ifs, ands, or buts.
Democracy only means that the representatives who govern a republic are elected by votes of the people, either directly, or indirectly.
Democracy does not require “majority rule”. It is up to the founders and later on the voters to determine the powers and rights of the majority vs. the powers and rights of minorities. As I pointed out above, in parliamentary systems the majority does not rule at all, only the party or parties that manage to put together a coalition that forms an often temporary majority in parliament. It’s still democratic .
Non-democratic means the ruling group appoints itself, without regard to what voters determine.
Nevertheless democracy is stupid.
“democratic,” is an adjective denoting a quality. It does not indicate governance as a Democracy, per se.
“Democracy only means that the representatives who govern a republic are elected by votes of the people, either directly, or indirectly.”
Democracy means directly governed by the people through a majority vote. Your sentence mixes representation and republicanism into a state democracy, where they do not belong.
A democratic republic is ruled by representatives of the people, not by the people themselves. Hence, a democratic republic is not a democracy.
Your entire discussion is confused mixing all sorts of different governing systems and calling them all a democracy.
‘Non-democratic’ merely means not ruled directly by the people through a majority vote. It provides no indication of how rulers attain the state of rule.
YES!
Not “mob rule” having the power of “THE GOVERMENT” over the minority opinions but limits placed on “THE GOVERMENT” to protect the rights of the Individual laid out in the “extended” preamble of The Declaration of Independence AND, AND The Bill of Rights.
Individuals vote for who will represent them in a Government with limited powers.
Democracy does not require any political party. Indeed, it requires the absence of political parties. Their inclusion into the democratic landscape is a consequence of the moral ineptitude of the voters who allow themselves to be bought by free ice cream on Sundays.
Completely agree. I believe Madison and Jefferson opposed formation of political parties.
Well, as I’ve said before on such topics, the problem is that there are “people” involved.
There will always be those who exploit any system of government or economics for their own gain (money or power) at the expense of the rest of us.
They are the ones we need to weed out from positions of authority.
Best method I know of at present is to look at what groups endorse them. Lots of the leadership of groups that were “good” have been highjacked by those … not so “good”.
Leaders of groups must constantly feed their followers with whatever crap it takes to keep control. Hence what we have.
No they did not. They formed and led parties.
Many of the founders opposed the factionalism of Britain’s Parliament which they believed did not properly represent the people in true democratic sense. Which was true, since most members of Parliament were rich guys who literally bought their seats in Parliament via “rotten borroughs” … which formed when most people out in the countryside moved to the cities to work in factories, yet their parliamentary seats remained out in the countryside. Because of that, the wealthy landowners who owned plantations and shares in government corporations like the East India Company got their way with government policies.
Americans were left out of Parliament, and thus had no say in how they were governed. In particular, the sugar planters in the Caribbean were very active in buying up rotten borroughs that in turn they used to suppress the 13 colonies with respect to trade. Most people don’t realize that in the latter part of the 18th century the biggest producers of rum, which of course required sugar, were in New England. The sugar planters in the Caribbean islands feared the growing commercial power of New England, hence they enacted the laws that eventually promulgated the American Revolution.
Hence, “Mob Rule”.
(Or, maybe, “Riot Rule”? A minority of the locals do a bunch of damage to innocent store owners but the MSM calls it a “peaceful protest”. Defund the Police!!!!)
Democracy does not “require” parties or “factions”, but democracy simply does not work without voters coming together as a block to elect members of the government to implement either candidates or policies that they support. Parties don’t need to be created – they are organically self-organized. Joe Blow does not get elected by the voters unless the voters know who he is and what he would do if elected. Communicating that message to enough voters to win an election requires organization and resources – which “parties” or “factions” deliver.
I believe that this can really be attributed to Boris Johnson and Princess Nut Nut.
The UK uses First Past The Post as its electoral system. FPTP has several advantages over proportional systems.
1) It is regional. An MP is elected for a specific area that can keep or sack them, personally. It means that special interests of an area are represented.
2) It allows people to vote against the idea they dislike most, by tactical voting. There are only two parties who can win, realistically. You can try to get rid of the one you don’t want. Of course, you can’t vote for a party that you do like, as they are big coalitions but… so what? If a party actually does represent your view, you are probably its founder. As no-one is ever satisfied with a politicians, it makes sense to have a system that punishes, rather than rewards, politicians.
3) The big parties are broad coalitions. Lots of special interest groups join together to make a right-wing group (Conservative) and a left-wing group (Labour). And then the people vote against the one they don’t want. Under proportional systems people vote for what they do want and then the coalition is formed. This time out, Labour lost the Islamist vote. Several high profile MPs lost their seats in formerly safe constituencies because of that. And in Bristol, Labour lost the Greens as well. Imagine being a pro-Palestine protester who voted Islamist to stop Starmer and then finds your party decides to jump back into bed with Labour. It would be theft of the vote. On the right, this time, the Conservative coalition split in two when the nationalists became Reform, leaving the free-marketeers, culture warriors and propertied classes on their own.
4) The effect of FPTP is that fringe ideas have to moderate through constantly being publicly tied to the mainstream views. The really loony ideas get nowhere. It’s not like proportional systems where the wacky ideas get their chance when the few who care about them get a lucky roll of the electoral dice. It keeps things stable.
So what does this mean?
It means that complaining about vote share is meaningless. That’s not how the system works. If it was, the parties would have fought different campaigns.
It’s like saying Tom Brady was rubbish because he never hit a Home Run.
Red Ed Milliband is now the Energy Secretary and can be described as fanatical regarding Net Zero. He wants the UK to lead the World in climate change technology especially Wind Turbines and Solar.
The British public may live to regret their choice of government (especially when, as I suspect, they will shortly raise fuel duty to pay for their climate lunacy).
It’s just the final nail in a coffin containing an entity that hasn’t led much of anything since Churchill stood up to the Germans. RIP, UK.
Starmer will keep the focus on his unwavering quest to eliminate Israel, joined once again by Jeremy Corbyn, who was elected as part of a large group of “independents” (far larger than Farage’s group) who don’t even hide that they represent Gaza rather than whatever corner of the UK they inhabit.
Their coalition will try and fund the Net Zero insanity with wealth taxes and inheritance taxes, forgetting the lesson the French learned a few years back.
The Conservatives have only themselves to blame. Much has been written about how they continually ignored the huge percentage of Brits who did not want to live under the Euroblob. How they decided to “settle” the issue with the Brexit vote, confident it would fail, and then had no idea what to do when it didn’t.
They betrayed their constituency, and this election was the inevitable result. By the time this gets sorted out, the UK will be a Iranian territory, completely dependent on outsiders just to keep the lights on and their homes heated in the winter.
And the Brits will be persecuted in Britain.
Labour lost several seats to independents who are really Islamist representatives.
That’s largely because Starmer supported Israel when Hamas attacked and because his wife and children are practising Jews.
Eric Worrall has too long hidden his light under a bushel .
The election results con firm him as the greatest hidden asset of the Labour & Left-Liberal parties of the English speaking world, eclipsing Not just Nigel Farage and Jacob Rees-Mogg, but James Delingpole, Viscount Monckton and even Nigel Lawson’s anointed GWPF successor , Lord Binhead of Sigma, who played a valiant role in the Climate Party’s defeat in Clacton on Sea
I don’t see how voting British Conservative would qualify as supporting the right.
A vote for British Conservatives would have been a vote for higher taxes, more illegal immigration, more wasteful government spending on green projects, and higher crime. They are no longer the party of Margaret Thatcher.
Get your meds adjusted !
You are talking hallucinogenic gibberish.
I wonder if President Trump will accept Net Zero refugees from the UK?
Entrepreneur types are already fleeing Britain, ever since the Conservative government tightened IR35. I don’t see the brain drain easing under Starmer.
Starmer and Labour have 63% of seats in Parliament. But he has the lowest share (34%) of the national vote of any Prime Minister since 1832. 1832 is the start of the modern era in British politics – the passage of the Great Reform Bill.
Its extraordinary. Corbyn lost by a landslide, worst performance for Labour since the mid 1930s. But Starmer, with a lower share of the vote than Corbyn, has won by this landslide the other way.
The left of the Conservative Party was Liberal Democrats light. Most of these people have lost their seats. Now one of two things will happen.
Model A is that the Conservatives will restructure and emerge as New Tories, rather as Blair restructured as New Labour, and take power again, maybe at the next election or the one after. This is probably about 70% likely.
Model B is that Reform really takes off, passes the critical level of votes needed to succeed in the FTPT system, and replaces them. This is probably around 20% chance.
Finally there is some chance, maybe 10%, that things will drift on as now, with a fragmented right unable to get enough seats to eject Labour.
Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party didn’t “split the Conservative vote”, it gave the people who were not going to vote Conservative anyway somebody to vote for instead of abstaining or writing rude words on the ballot paper. I consider myself a conservative (note the small “c”) the Conservative party has drifted so far to the left over the last 20 or 30 years that it isn’t conservative any more and no longer represents people like me.
Facts are awkward. Here’s Farage with some explanations.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1807687079918256358
Just to give the Labour ‘landslide’ some perspective – 4 out of 5 of the electorate did NOT vote for Labour. The turnout to vote was one of the lowest in recent times and some constituencies recorded less than half the voters turning out.
Climate Policy… who cares? Irrelevant. The Tories didn’t get the boot because of climate policy! Labour didn’t win because of climate policy! Farage didn’t get elected because of climate policy!
Farage is that vilest of creatures, unprincipled, no matter what he says, willing to hitch his wagon to any horse that will get his smarmy, grinning face in the news. Reform UK actually did much worse than the polls were predicting – predictions were for 13 seats, but they got four – and look at where they were successful. If you knew anything of the demographics of those areas, it makes sense. Aging, selfish, ignorant Little Englanders, still fighting the war, longing for the return of Spitfires and steam engines and Bobbies on bicycles. Farage, Tories, Trump, all right wing nationalists – a pox on all their houses.