Are we happy with the general election result?

I see that after voting to implement Proportional Representation in 2022, Labour have now pushed the idea off until after the next election

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/17/labour-divided-over-calls-to-scrap-first-past-the-post-after-landslide-win

his [Starmers[ leadership team have dismissed any chance of action [on implementing PR], saying people would be “kidding themselves” if they believed it would find any bandwidth within a first term of government.

It sounds like they are not even supporting their own policies now they have a supermajority.

Snouts are firmly in the trough with their curly tails waving at the electorate. Who could have predicted it?

Conference motions are non-binding and that one didn't make it into the manifesto two years later. So it's a bit rich to claim it's "their own policy" because lots of conference resolutions didn't make it in. And "supermajority" is not a thing in the UK, it's just a majority. If you can look at the first two weeks of Labour's raft of progressive policies and call them pigs with "snouts in the trough" then I don't know what you are watching, GB News maybe?

Conference motions are non-binding and that one didn't make it into the manifesto two years later. So it's a bit rich to claim it's "their own policy" because lots of conference resolutions didn't make it in. And "supermajority" is not a thing in the UK, it's just a majority. If you can look at the first two weeks of Labour's raft of progressive policies and call them pigs with "snouts in the trough" then I don't know what you are watching, GB News maybe?

LateToTheParty said:

Supermajority already has a meaning in other jurisdictions, so you ant just start using it to mean something else in the UK. 

You just DON'T want to open that "can of worms"!

(That can of worms being the misuse or redefining of words one....) 

LateToTheParty said:

Supermajority already has a meaning in other jurisdictions, so you ant just start using it to mean something else in the UK. 

I have to disagree with this - the word can be taken into another field and used however it is used, There are no grammar police to dictate how a word can and cannot be used in a new environment and even if there were, society is always, like, changing how words are used (see what I did there?).

LateToTheParty said:

That article says the exact opposite of what you claim...

It says the word has no official meaning. Yet. But still it is used - that is how languages evolve and grow,

To say is means something opposite is disingenuous.

LateToTheParty said:

A supermajority in the US means two thirds of the seats

The US has a different electoral system completely to the USA so you are comparing apples and oranges.

If you want to get technical with the term then I refer you to Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority

A supermajority is a requirement for a proposal to gain a specified level of support which is greater than the threshold of more than one-half used for a simple majority.

So that puts it at 75%. Labour currently have 63% of seats which is closer to the 66% you suggest, so how do you chose a measure to meet the criteria which are not yet defined?

I don't see the point in arguing further as there are no concrete facts to mark as goalposts here and the journalists were creating new vocabulary around the fact Labour now have unchallengable levels of power based on only 34% of the vote.

That article says the exact opposite of what you claim...

Nicholas Allen, professor of politics at Royal Holloway, University of London told the i newspaper the term “supermajority” is meaningless in the UK parliamentary system. As there are 650 seats, to have an overall majority one political party must win over half, or 326 seats.

Supermajority already has a meaning in other jurisdictions, so you ant just start using it to mean something else in the UK. 

A supermajority in the US means two thirds of the seats, needed to impeach a president, or pass an amendment to the constitution. Labours majority gives them no more powers than the Tories previous 80 seat majority. It was a scaremongering term thrown about by the desperate Tories. 

LateToTheParty said:

And "supermajority" is not a thing in the UK, it's just a majority.

Supermajority is a new word and was coined for the current election.

It has no dictionary definition as yet but it is intended to refer to a "massive majority" which is what Labour clearly have.

Background to the term is here: https://fullfact.org/election-2024/supermajority-parliament-explained/

Just because it is not "official" does not mean it lacks meaning as is the case with most new words.

A game of "Bait and Switch", anyone?

LateToTheParty said:

I don't know what you are watching, GB News maybe?

I follow no newsfeed from the UK and lack the right wing leaning you are implying.

My point is not just about Labour but all politicians. Labour are just the flavour of the day because they highlight the case so clearly.

LateToTheParty said:

Conference motions are non-binding and that one didn't make it into the manifesto two years later

My uderstanding is that the rank and file voted for it but the manifesto created by the leaders left it out - then they refused to talk about it until after they got into power again (and guess it it won't be kicked down the line again if that happens).

My point here is that the leaders are effectively ignoring what their own party voted on because it is inconvenient for them - they have been corrupted by power already hence the snouts in the trough description.

It is the same every election for as long as I can remember and I'm, like, prehistoric. Never trust a career politician.