2024 UK general election - Place to watch and discuss just how fucked we are

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Judge Dredd said:
If Supermajority means something in US politics, please let me know.
Click to expand...
If you have 51-59 seats in the Senate you have a majority but every bill you try to pass can be filibustered endlessly by the opposition party which means they can prevent voting on it. The only type of bill that can't be filibustered is the budget reconciliation bill and you only get one of those a year.

If you have 60 seats or more then you can end the filibuster and force a vote on the bill you're proposing, so that's why having a supermajority is important. There have been many times where the Senate majority has to ram everything through in the yearly budget reconciliation bill because that's the only thing that can be voted on.

In the UK there's no relevance to it. Like, dissolving parliament requires a 2/3 vote but everyone votes for that anyway if the majority proposes it.
 
AWizard said:
I wonder if we're going to end up in the position of the americunts with two shades of the right wing as oppositional parties?
Click to expand...

Using "right-wing" to mean "not Communist" is stupid. The only politics we're allowed in America are evil-liberal and retard-liberal.
 
Judge Dredd said:
The other thing that's weird is this whole "supermajoirity" thing. It seems to be yet another American import and as far as I can tell, doesn't mean anything in UK politics. According to wikipedia, it refers to having more than 60% of the government. That's it. Though the specific number varies. It sounds like propaganda from those that are pro-labour to me. If Supermajority means something in US politics, please let me know.
Click to expand...
When the President, House, and >=60% of the Senate are of the same party, that party is considered to have a supermajority since it can circumvent filibusters, presidential vetoes, etc. It's very rare these days and when it happens it leads to things like Obamacare.
 
teriyakiburns said:
It's not about left and right and hasn't been for years. The big three are all different branches of the same paternalist, statist, pro-immigration, anti-privacy fuckheads, while the minnows are generally single-issue parties who broadly agree with the big three, and whose only real problem is that the majors don't autistically focus on their particular issue as much as they like. The only difference between tory, labour, and lib dem is how they justify any given common stance. For instance, the tories want more immigrants to reduce worker power and suppress wages, labour want more immigrants to pay for the ever-growing NHS and pensions/benefits promises they'll make, and the lib dems want more immigration to "correct historical wrongs". The net result is more pakis and west albanians piling in to the country no matter who is in charge. Pick any subject and you'll find that the colourful rosette is just window-dressing for the same fundamental policy.
Click to expand...
No political solution to you issues, many such cases, many such issues. We'll go to a comfy training camp somewhere and do the needful homie, don't even sweat it.

EDIT:
starhmgt.PNG
Young Kier Starmer looks completely fucking insufferable, holy shit.
 
Last edited:
Judge Dredd said:
According to wikipedia, it refers to having more than 60% of the government. That's it. Though the specific number varies. It sounds like propaganda from those that are pro-labour to me. If Supermajority means something in US politics, please let me know.
Click to expand...
I see others have pointed out that 60 votes in the Senate can override filibusters, but it's also used at other levels, like super-blue states (CA, OR, IL, MA) that have gone One Party enough to override whatever their protections against mob rule are. So it might be 2/3 of the legislature to end debate or block bill amendments or raise taxes without a referendum.

Or it might be 3/4 to override a governor's veto, which is relevant when a dysfunctional blue state like MA or NJ splits government with a Republican governor. With less than a supermajority, he can veto crazy bills and put the brakes on, but if the legislature is too far gone they just override him.
 
I'm curious to see what labour do with regards to immigration now.

Cause apparently they lost a whole bunch of seats to muslim independents, who now have the demographic power in certain constituencies to put independents who solely talks about Gaza.

If immigration and demographic change remains as it is, then they could lose a lot more seats in 2029 due to muslim independent candidates. I've even seen some people suggest that a "muslim alliance party" or something alike could be on the cards in the future, which would probably take a huge chunk out of their voting base, so much so I believe that if there was ever an earnest attempt to make a islam-centric party, you might see labour trying to block it by any means possible, and then internal strife as they are called islamaphobic for doing so.
 
AMS-2024-Election-Result.jpg
Here is what the results would of been like if GE was using the AMS system that Scotland and Wales currently use.

Labour: AMS - 236, FPTP - 411
Lib Dems: AMS - 77, FPTP - 71
Green: AMS - 42, FPTP - 4
SNP: AMS - 18, FPTP - 9
Plaid Cymru: AMS - 4, FPTP - 4
Reform: AMS - 94, FPTP - 5
Conservative: AMS - 157, FPTP - 121
Northern Ireland Parties: AMS - 18, FPTP - 18
Other (including speaker): AMS - 4, FPTP - 6
 
std::string said:
It's true though.

And I'm sure Labour isn't exactly pleased with the fact that Wes Streeting nearly lost his seat because the Muslims turned against him. So now they have to worry about the Islamists getting feisty in some of their supposed safe seats and picking them off.
Click to expand...

Not only is it true, you’re also a retard if you think this election outcome is a result of the people crying out for centrist/leftist policies.

Labour got fewer votes than they did under Starmer.

Conservatives and everyone who had voted for them in 2019 just didn’t show up. Why?

Because Britain is in such a shit state and they didn’t keep their promises.

1: Get Brexit done, the tories cucked out at any opportunity.

2: Lower immigration, it’s higher than ever, because the tories are cunts and cucks and didn’t want to risk angering some ragout European human rights court.
 
George Lucas said:
Have you chaps considered adopting a republican system of government instead of this questionable parliamentary system that doesn’t even have a real constitution?
Click to expand...
Imagine how cucked a constitution written in 2025 would be.
Judge Dredd said:
If Supermajority means something in US politics, please let me know.
Click to expand...
Congress can override a presidential veto with a 2/3s majority. If one party has 290 seats, they can buttfuck the president. They can also propose constitutional amendments without bipartisan support with a supermajority. Less critically, treaties require 2/3s of the Senate. With a President and 67 senators in one party, you can get partisan control of foreign policy.


This is a very high bar, of course. That's a feature, not a bug.
 
UK should go the Israeli route and use plurality along with a parliament system rather than electorate system with parliament, so that non major parties have an actual foothold rather than be removed by boomers and pakis.
 
I'm not british, but I just want to say, the picture of Jacob Rees-Mogg standing next to the dude in the baked beans baclava while learning he lost his own constituency is too funny.
1720296884798.png
 
The Bri’ish have long periods where one party rules: conservatives (1979-1997), Labour (1997-2010), and conservatives (2010-2024). This likely means it’ll be 2035-2040 or thereabouts until it goes back to the Tories.

There’s discussion about who will lead the Tories now and it’s all shitskins except instead of just jeets, we now have a totally baste negress from Nigeria. The Tories are fucking clueless and are preparing to be losers through the 2030s.
 
Welsh Catgirl Enjoyer said:
I'm curious to see what labour do with regards to immigration now.

Cause apparently they lost a whole bunch of seats to muslim independents, who now have the demographic power in certain constituencies to put independents who solely talks about Gaza.

If immigration and demographic change remains as it is, then they could lose a lot more seats in 2029 due to muslim independent candidates. I've even seen some people suggest that a "muslim alliance party" or something alike could be on the cards in the future, which would probably take a huge chunk out of their voting base, so much so I believe that if there was ever an earnest attempt to make a islam-centric party, you might see labour trying to block it by any means possible, and then internal strife as they are called islamaphobic for doing so.
Click to expand...
They have already tried.
They tried to register "The Party of Islam" as a political entity. It was refused by the Electoral Commission in Oct 2023.
Those proposing the new Party of Islam all became independents on Free Palestine of Gaza Free platforms and 5 or 6 of them are now newly elected MPs.

 
HairyBadger said:
They tried to register "The Party of Islam" as a political entity. It was refused by the Electoral Commission in Oct 2023.
Click to expand...
Seems like they just fucked up the paperwork?

With an overall low turnout for Labour especially in safe seats, they could've done some damage if they wanted to.

Ilford North, where they only lost to Wes Streeting by 500 votes, is 30.5% Muslim. There are 19 constituencies with a higher % of Muslims of that. Those are probably all up for grabs.

(then of course you also have shit like whatever went down in Birmingham Hall Green & Moseley where LAB won because too many Gaza guys were running so it's not really that simple, but I'm sure they could've got more seats if they organized.)
 
std::string said:
With an overall low turnout for Labour especially in safe seats, they could've done some damage if they wanted to.
Click to expand...
And yet people look at this and say "it's the system working". After all, they're participating in the democratic process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom