Incoming Labour supermajority

[SerendipityJane]

According to no less than that the many people that go to make up Grant Shapps.

Not really sure you are supposed to say the quiet bit out loud mate.

It's clear to me that the they are trying to scare people away from voting Labour by talking about how Labour will win and using terms like 'super majority' to make it sound ominous. And probably also trying to make potential Labour voters think it's not worth turning out, because it's already a 'done deal'.

A majority is a majority - something the Tories have had now for a while (and wasted). If this chart isn't a super majority I don't know what is!

Once a party has more MPs than all the others put together, they have little opposition unless its own MPs turn against it.

It's clear to me that the they are trying to scare people away from voting Labour by talking about how Labour will win and using terms like 'super majority' to make it sound ominous. And probably also trying to make potential Labour voters think it's not worth turning out, because it's already a 'done deal'.

I suspect there are a few Tories saying "Bring it on ..."

We don't have the concept of a supermajority in the UK parliament.

Large government majorities tend to result in polarised policy.

The last one was Boris Johnson in 2019.

Which is something to ponder if people think large majorities are a good idea.

We don't have the concept of a supermajority in the UK parliament.

Grant Shapps clearly does. And he's in government, so he should know.

Yes. He’s stirring up apathy.

Where is a supermajority an official thing @GasPanic? Just curious.

Which Grant Shapps?

Shaps and his various fake identities are really contemptible.

Depends on who has the majority though.

I think a Labour supermajority would be the best thing to happen.

well yeah, everyone things a massive majority by the party they support is a good thing but generally speaking, they're not. It's like if you play tennis against someone who is really bad, you play worse than if you play someone really good. A strong opposition is a good thing, and it's also good if the government can't pass laws with, say, one third of their own members rebelling, which is what could potentially happen- i.e. ruling party doesn't even need consensus within its own ranks.

You haven't really sold me on the disadvantages with that - the logic seems a bit scrambled.

If i was any good at tennis and played someone hopeless, I'd beat them, not play shite.

These people are up to something with this - they don't beleive in anything except themselves

The US definitely has it for certain things.

A lot of other states reserve it for certain constitution changes I think.

It is good and bad in the respect that often it makes constitutional changes pretty much impossible. Which some people might believe is good in areas such as human rights, and bad in areas like gun control.

Thanks, I suppose I have heard of the concept with regard to referendums if not legislatures.

If the UK had done the Brexit referendum properly, it would have required a supermajority - 2/3 of the votes rather than the 1/2 required for a simple majority.

The US Senate votes on a supermajority requirement. Hence the lack of batshitness from them compared to the House.

Nor me.

A Labour supermajority is Utopia to me.

I'm here for the supermajority. I remember 1997 - 2010.
One hopes Keir Starmer has learned from the Tories how not to handle parry discipline; he seems to have done well at culling his own batshit element, whereas the Tories are letting them run things.

One hopes Keir Starmer has learned from the Tories how not to handle parry discipline;

With a majority of - say 150 - discipline is a moot subject. You could have 25% of your MPs vote against you in any single vote and still win.

Whereas I think a labour supermajority would be a disaster.

In what way more of a disaster than a plain ol' majority ?

A lot of people seem to prefer PR where you have lots of small parties fighting each other and very little ever gets done.

So I guess a large majority is a disaster for them.

Because, even with a majority of 80, Boris Johnson still suffered a few defeats in the House of Commons.

If an incoming labour administration has a majority in the hundreds, a defeat is very unlikely and thats not good for the country.

I have spent 50 years being told by both parties how "strong government" in the form of non-PR obtained majorities are preferable to PR, even if PR is more democratic.

If there is something wrong with that, the time to do something was before a supermajority was a possibility.

A long since passed friend once said to me that if the UK insisted on persisting with FPTP, then the electorate would just go around it. It was the first thing that occurred to me in 2015.

Doesn't this depend on the policies being enacted?
Boris being defeated isn't automatically good or bad - what's important is what was being enacted (or not).

Well the message from the outgoing government has been "we have a majority, that's the will of the people, now fuck off"

So why should the next government change that ?

Ah pseudonym Shapps, I’m optimistic he won’t have a seat come July 5th.