To want Elon Musk to stay the fuck out of U.K. politics?

[Birdscratch]

And German politics and just focus on the President he’s already paid for and turning X into a toxic wasteland.

I’m pretty sure what this poster is talking about is a majority based on parliamentary rules and whether Labour have a majority based on the popular vote.

Cetain groups, particularly the Lib Dens have been discussing the issues round our parliamentary system for years, favouring proportional representation, ie more reflecting the popular vote. News coverage of elections often talks about both the number of seats and percentage of the votes received. Comparing the two is increasingly seen as how representative the number of seats obtained by a party is if the views of the Nation. This is a legitimate way to analyse the results and undertaken by all analysts.

The results mean that Labour is representing 33.7% of people who voted.

This measure is being seen as increasingly important as urban areas are often over represented in Parliamentary majorities vs the popular vote.

You would assume this common comparison and discussion that has been going on for at least the past 40 years would?3 well known so it should have been clear to most what that poster meant.

Please read up about parliamentary process and educate yourself - spouting short media populist sound bites without understanding the democratic system the country operates within makes you sound rather dim (at best).

Don't be daft. This poster, when people were saying that this Labour government isn't precarious because it has a huge majority, said that Labour having a huge majority was 'an obvious lie'.

This idiotic statement could only have come about if the person doesn't know what people mean when they say a government has a huge majority and what it means for the stability of the government.

On reflection : Musk sticking his beak into British or EU politics might work out ok in the long run. He has already naused off most of the MAGA mob. Because he wants policies that help his companies - not the mugs who voted Trump. He's already at daggers drawn with the likes of Bannon. Seeing the resultant chaos might give people pause for thought.

But I don’t think it was an “idiotic statement” when you look at the different definition ms of a majority, Labour clearly don’t have a huge majority when it comes to the popular vote.. They have the most number of MPs which gives them the majority of seats in the commons. Whether or not this gives them a clear mandate given they only received a third of votes is a matter of opinion. I don’t think that view is “daft” it is an opinion that has been put forward for years by all sides of the political spectrum at various times and, indeed, in various countries.

Given the massive changes in the way people live now and the spread of parties and indeed changes to eligibility to vote compared to when the parliamentary system was established many intelligent people have called repeatedly for the system to be revisited, happen to agree with them.

But I don’t think it was an “idiotic statement” when you look at the different definition ms of a majority

It's definitely an idiotic statement to say it is an obvious lie that Labour have a huge majority when Labour do, in fact, have a huge majority.

Saying "oh, I didn't mean that definition of a huge majority, but some other definition of a huge majority that wasn't actually the one being used here' is also stupid.

It’s interesting isn’t it? Labour themselves have had many members calling for electoral reform. Are they “also stupid” for looking into different definitions of “majority” and what gives a party a mandate from the electorate. Starmer has been fairly vocal in the past about whether a party with the most MPs has a clear mandate from the British people. Whilst it is incorrect to say that Labour is currently the party with the most MPs in Parliament, it is neither “idiotic” nor “stupid” to point out that they have not received the “majority” ie over 50%-of the votes cast or to query whether this gives them a mandate from the British people. As I said, none of this is new, it’s a very valid point, and one that has, at various points been raised throughout politics

"Different definitions of a majority". "Alternative fact". Quoting Dennis Thatcher, 'better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it'.

The only time in modern history a majority of over 50% was achieved led to the greatest act of catastrophic political self harm this country’s ever seen. It’s not a good recommendation for changing our voting system and I say that as someone who’s effectively disenfranchised by living in a safe seat, one of the handful the Tories held on to last year.

It is idiotic and stupid to say something is an obvious lie when it isn't, particularly when the definition of 'huge majority' being used in the discussion is blatantly obvious because we are talking about whether the Labour government are on the brink of collapse.

The idea that a vote of no confidence could get through parliament was floated. Which definition of 'huge majority' do you think is important to consider there?

No idea why you are trying to defend someone who clearly didn't know what they are talking about.

But different definitions of majority are used all the time, “simple majority”, “qualified majority”, “Parliamentary majority” “popular majority” and so on…

Yes many people would do well to heed Mark Twain/Abrahsm Lincoln’s advice (although most likely neither said it), luckily I’m not one of them😀

The fact that the Labour government isn't on the brink of collapse and a general election can't be forced by e.g. Reform with their 5 MPs is why the suggestion was retweeted by international mastermind Elon Musk that 'King Charles should step in and dissolve Parliament'

A suggestion that is met by raucous laughter by anyone who actually lives in Britain.

It was over regulated. If anyone spoke up over things (like grooming gangs) they'd be silenced.

Do you disagree with democracy then? I’m unclear why you think a country following the wishes of a simple majority of voters is catastrophic? It depends how you view it, short, medium or long term? What is the measurement of “harm”

IMO a country following a simple majority of voters will always win because straightforward democracy has won.

Because, to most, it was very obvious what that poster meant. I didn’t like the pile on from certain other posters calling them stupid in order to try and undermine the very true point they were making that Labour only have 33.7% of the votes which is not a majority of votes cast.

I dislike such disingenuous posting and prefer the truth be told. Do you have a particular issue with the truth?

Gaslighting now.

lol. How terribly predictable - can we stick to discussing the point. You asked why I would want to defend another poster, I told you why. If you don’t like the honest answer, that is not my fault

This isn't twitter, it's Mumsnet, and it is super easy to go back and see what was written. Trying to tell me something happened that didn't isn't going to wash,

I don't remember there ever being arguments on MN about claims that the Tories won a large majority in 2019. Funny that, eh?

Has any political party ever achieved 51% or more of the votes cast in a General Election?

All that twisting around must be making you feel very dizzy.

Oh I’m pretty sure there were. It happens every election no matter who wins. I can’t categorically say such conversations happened on Mumsnet without checking but I’d be surprised if they didn’t given the general trend. I mean let’s face it, even where simple majorities do happen , eg Brexit, there’s plenty of posters questioning the results.

The UK public had the chance to adopt a different approach, but a large majority rejected the idea.

Economically Brexit has done untold damage. You don’t live here, do you?

Overseas residents or citizens should not get involved on another Nations government or policies. That said, the government which they are criticizing should not allow the circumstances which cause this to occur.

I don’t find giving straightforward answers on the different established definitions of voting particularly disorientating, but thanks for your concern.

Would it be of help if I offered definitions of each, because I am confused why you would think setting out common definitions of majority used in connection with voting across a broad range of situations is “twisting” anything Therefore, I can only assume I haven’t made myself clear. So happy to clarify for you if you need me to.