Labour had less people vote for them in 2024 than in 2019.

How is it possible they got a landslide victory, not a landslide defeat?

Firstly, the maths. Lanour's vote share went up from 32% to 34% but the overall election turnout was much lower this time (60% vrs 68%). So more people did vote labour in. 2019. The said election result was widely reported as a disaster for labour.

The real story, is of course, the total collapse in the Tory vote. Much of their base stayed at home or voted for Reform. The depth of anti-toryism in the country also meant a lot of tactical voting. 'Anti-tories' didn't care whether it was a Lib Dem or Labour candidate as long as team blue got a kicking. Also, the SNP (deeply affected by their own crisis) suffered to Lanour's gain.

This just shows the real absurdity of our electoral system that you can get a landslide victory and a dominant house majority from a third of the vote.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

All the parties knew the system in advance. Labour managed to navigate it most successfully.

But at the end of the day, we vote local politicians who decide how best their constituency should be represented in parliament. Despite popular belief and collusion of the media, it is not supposed to be a popularity contest for a party or prime minister. I think this misunderstanding accounts for a lot of the subsequent disillusionment.

If we adopt PR, the whole parliamentary and electoral system will have to be redrawn. However flawed the current system, I am today personally very grateful that the party which obtained the third largest share of the vote has only obtained four seats.