UK General Election 2024: The Results & Aftermath

[The Ham]

Official figures for elected MPs have now been released

300 (46.1%) are existing MPs re-elected
15 (2.3%) former MPs returning (but not MPs in May 2024)
335 (51.5%) are completely new MPs

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10009/

Apparently (I've not checked) but the last time we had more than 50% of MP's who hadn't sat in the commons before was in 1653.

To put that in a wider context, that was during the reign of Charles II and shortly after the restoration of the Monarchy.

 

[Magdalia]

Apparently (I've not checked) but the last time we had more than 50% of MP's who hadn't sat in the commons before was in 1653.

To put that in a wider context, that was during the reign of Charles II and shortly after the restoration of the Monarchy.

In 1653 there was no King: the 1653 parliament established Cromwell as Lord Protector.

The restoration of the Monarchy was in 1660.

 

[DelW]

On the other hand, I haven't suffered any delays or cancellations on the Elizabeth line since the Labour Government was elected Clearly Labour Government works

In the first two days of the Labour government, we had England winning a penalty shootout, British drivers qualifying in the top three spots at the British grand prix, and then a British driver winning it.

Obviously a new sporting golden age is being ushered in under Keir Starmer!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

According to the latest official statistics in the HoC library, yes Hendon does. Not as big as Harrow East, but still significant. People did not vote for Webbe and Vaz simply because Leicester East voters were spoilt for choice, just look at how other Labour candidates in safe Labour areas with high Hindu or Muslim populations did, even in ones Labour held on to.

Not according to the ONS - it does relate to the total population but I doubt it will be skewed particularly with lots of older Hindu people making up more of the electorate



Interestingly, the other big Hindu seat is Brent North and that was held by Barry Gardiner. His vote was down but so was the Tories (but not as much).



It is clear that in areas with a strong Muslim population, the Gaza issue and Labour's position on it was a big problem as we saw with Blackburn, Perry Barr etc. You saw it in Ilford North with Wes Streeting nearly being ousted. However, in East Ham, another area with a high Muslim electorate, that impact was less. In Brent, Barry Gardiner held on but with 20% of the electorate being Muslim, that may again have been a factor.

For Leicester East, those 9000 votes for Webbe and Vaz will largely have been at the expense of Labour, and I suspect that splitting of the vote was crucial. TBF, I don't know what local allegiances either of those two have with the electorate but seemed to have worked.

 

[Howardh]

What's all this about "phantom" Reform candidates? If they genuinely didn't exist (unbelievable, I know...but...)
(1) it means it's easier to be a candidate than vote!! and
(2) aren't those that signed the nomination papers possibly guilty of election fraud?

Whatever, it all needs clearing up - I'm aware that one missing from the count was real and says he was ill; his photo was, let's say, subject to some CGI work but at least there was a remote resemblance! But assuming all is good and the candidates were just a little shy at the night and on social media etc; we need to look at how candidates are put forward, full ID, police checks etc so that these - let's say rumours - can't resurface next time?

 

[AlterEgo]

What's all this about "phantom" Reform candidates? If they genuinely didn't exist (unbelievable, I know...but...)
(1) it means it's easier to be a candidate than vote!! and
(2) aren't those that signed the nomination papers possibly guilty of election fraud?

Whatever, it all needs clearing up - I'm aware that one missing from the count was real and says he was ill; his photo was, let's say, subject to some CGI work but at least there was a remote resemblance! But assuming all is good and the candidates were just a little shy at the night and on social media etc; we need to look at how candidates are put forward, full ID, police checks etc so that these - let's say rumours - can't resurface next time?

Paper candidates aren't anything new. Why would we have police checks?

 

[birchesgreen]

Its an interesting story though i know people (and not all oldies either) who've never used social media so it doesn't necessarily mean someone doesn't exist...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

What's all this about "phantom" Reform candidates? If they genuinely didn't exist (unbelievable, I know...but...)
(1) it means it's easier to be a candidate than vote!! and
(2) aren't those that signed the nomination papers possibly guilty of election fraud?

Precisely zero evidence has turned of any wrongdoing in this regard. The answer to your question, 'what's all this about phantom Reform candidates' is, it's largely about people spreading false/malicious rumours online.

Whatever, it all needs clearing up

The only thing that needs clearing up here is the way too many people make unfounded claims and spread this kind of disinformation online.

 

[Howardh]

Paper candidates aren't anything new. Why would we have police checks

To prevent ex-cons from representing us? Remember these MP's have to visit schools, hospitals, prisons etc, we would be subject to checks so they should to.

Precisely zero evidence has turned of any wrongdoing in this regard. The answer to your question, 'what's all this about phantom Reform candidates' is, it's largely about people spreading false/malicious rumours online.

The only thing that needs clearing up here is the way too many people make unfounded claims and spread this kind of disinformation online.

If it were cleared up then there would be no unfounded claims! All they have to do is present their candidates, even the "paper" ones, and the story would go away. Simple!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If it were cleared up then there would be no unfounded claims! All they have to do is present their candidates, even the "paper" ones, and the story would go away. Simple!

I think maybe you're not familiar with how unfounded online claims work. The people who make and spread them often do not care if there is solid proof that their claims are unfounded, or verifiably false - those claims frequently tend to spread anyway.

As another unrelated example, on one of my social media feeds, a few days ago someone queried why their house is no longer in the same constituency they used to be - the answer of course being the recent boundary changes. That one question triggered a flood of responses claiming that MPs had deliberately changed the boundaries in order to give themselves higher majorities. Anyone familiar with the boundary revision process would know that's obvious nonsense, but that didn't stop all those people making those claims.

 

[AlterEgo]

To prevent ex-cons from representing us?

But that is not illegal.

 

[Howardh]

I think maybe you're not familiar with how unfounded online claims work. The people who make and spread them often do not care if there is solid proof that their claims are unfounded, or verifiably false - those claims frequently tend to spread anyway.

As another unrelated example, on one of my social media feeds, a few days ago someone queried why their house is no longer in the same constituency they used to be - the answer of course being the recent boundary changes. That one question triggered a flood of responses claiming that MPs had deliberately changed the boundaries in order to give themselves higher majorities. Anyone familiar with the boundary revision process would know that's obvious nonsense, but that didn't stop all those people making those claims.

Widely known that the boundary changes helped the Tories, although by default not changing them would have helped Labour!

But in Reforms' case, why not simply show the candidates, then all this would simply go away? Angela Rayner had to clear her name after unfounded allegations, Reform should be the good guys and clear the matter up once and for all.

BTW at a LD meeting last year, those of us in a room were asked if anyone wished to be a "paper" candidate for the forthcoming locals - I declined and my excuse was "I might win..." but even as a paper candidate I would expect my details to be available to the general public. And as I rarely use my real name on social media, yes, information about me would be scarce, so I understand that angle!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

But in Reforms' case, why not simply show the candidates, then all this would simply go away?

Have you ever heard of the phrase, 'innocent until proven guilty'?

 

[Howardh]

Have you ever heard of the phrase, 'innocent until proven guilty'?

My plea to those "other parties" is to put up or shut up. If there's something they feel's amiss, go to the electoral commission or directly to the police. But if this were the LD's and not Reform, I'd absolutely clear this up now and move on.

 

[Magdalia]

Widely known that the boundary changes helped the Tories, although by default not changing them would have helped Labour!

This is an outdated assumption.

Boundary reviews aim to roughly equalise the size of constituencies. Areas with a shrinking population have constituencies with small electorates and lose constituencies in the review, areas with a growing population have constituencies with large electorates and gain constituencies in the review.

The assumption that labour seats are concentrated in areas with shrinking population and conservative seats concentrated in areas with growing population is what makes people think that boundary reviews benefit the conservatives. But it is an assumption that is much less applicable in the recent review than in the past.

 

[takno]

To prevent ex-cons from representing us? Remember these MP's have to visit schools, hospitals, prisons etc, we would be subject to checks so they should to.

A significant proportion of society has been convicted of a crime, and quite a few have been to jail. Unless we are to completely abandon the concept of rehabilitation then it's important that these people are able to be represented in society.

Non-checked adults visit schools and hospitals every day. Prisons are inevitably a bit more locked down, but they also receive a whole range of adult visitors. If checks are required, they can be done for MPs as required in exactly the same way as they are done for other visitors.

 

[Howardh]

A significant proportion of society has been convicted of a crime,

A significant number have committed a crime whilst in parliament representing us (no names!). I agree with most of what you say, but surely there are some crimes for which no-one should be allowed to represent us? Eg most sexual crimes? If agreed, then disclosure for all would be necessary.

 

[takno]

This is an outdated assumption.

Boundary reviews aim to roughly equalise the size of constituencies. Areas with a shrinking population have constituencies with small electorates and lose constituencies in the review, areas with a growing population have constituencies with large electorates and gain constituencies in the review.

The assumption that labour seats are concentrated in areas with shrinking population and conservative seats concentrated in areas with growing population is what makes people think that boundary reviews benefit the conservatives. But it is an assumption that is much less applicable in the recent review than in the past.

In various areas representations were made by all parties about the specific shape of the boundaries which would on paper have benefitted them. Historically Labour have been slightly better at this process.

Overall though, the size of this year's swing would have rendered most gerrymandering counter-productive. The perfect gerrymander for the Tories for example would have been to distribute their seats better so that they got more seats with 10k majorities. This removes the "waste" of piling up votes in a 20k+ majority, and turns nearby marginal seats into "safe" majorities. If they'd done that thought, the swing in this year's election would have led them to lose both seats instead of just the one.

 

[ainsworth74]

A significant number have committed a crime whilst in parliament representing us (no names!). I agree with most of what you say, but surely there are some crimes for which no-one should be allowed to represent us? Eg most sexual crimes? If agreed, then disclosure for all would be necessary.

Should that not be a matter for the electorate to decide? It is there representative after all.

 

[takno]

A significant number have committed a crime whilst in parliament representing us (no names!). I agree with most of what you say, but surely there are some crimes for which no-one should be allowed to represent us? Eg most sexual crimes? If agreed, then disclosure for all would be necessary.

I'm not a particular fan of nominating sexual crimes as a particular disqualifying class tbh. You've really got to look more sensibly at the actual reoffending risk, and the actual threat posed to people around them.

Ultimately criminal checks are not required for the majority of jobs, and aren't required for the majority of tasks an MP performs. It makes more sense to simply not assume that MPs have been checked, and require a check to be in place if they become involved in a specific activity which does require checks.

They certainly isn't any case for performing checks for all the thousands of candidates before you even allow them on the ballot paper.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Should that not be a matter for the electorate to decide? It is there representative after all.

Indeed it should. It does though bring about a rather amusing circularity if the thing the electorate are trying to decide is which people should be part of the electorate

 

[Busaholic]

Perhaps it should have a separate thread, but the succession to Rishi Sunak needs attention. There seems to be a growing feeling among the remaining Tory MPs that, ideally, the contest isn't rushed. In that case, if Sunak wanted to stand down in six weeks time, say, a temporary Prime Minister would need appointing, and the surprise name I keep hearing for that eventuality is IDS. Oliver Dowden, the main promoter of an early election, is now seen as discredited.

The main contenders would appear to be
Kemi Badenoch
Suella Braverman
Tom Tugenhadt
Pritti Patel
Victoria Atkins
Robert Jenrick
James Cleverly (possibly)

If Cleverly did stand, I think he'd get elected. Danny Kruger has come out in favour of Jenrick, while Braverman is in Washington DC, which doesn't impress her colleagues. Patel put in a surprise appearance at Tugenhadt's birthday party (i.e. rally ) yesterday, leading to speculation that she might be offered a plum job like Foreign Secretary should he win the leadership.

Thoughts?

 

[Gloster]

Perhaps it should have a separate thread, but the succession to Rishi Sunak needs attention. There seems to be a growing feeling among the remaining Tory MPs that, ideally, the contest isn't rushed. In that case, if Sunak wanted to stand down in six weeks time, say, a temporary Prime Minister would need appointing, and the surprise name I keep hearing for that eventuality is IDS. Oliver Dowden, the main promoter of an early election, is now seen as discredited.

The main contenders would appear to be
Kemi Badenoch
Suella Braverman
Tom Tugenhadt
Pritti Patel
Victoria Atkins
Robert Jenrick
James Cleverly (possibly)

If Cleverly did stand, I think he'd get elected. Danny Kruger has come out in favour of Jenrick, while Braverman is in Washington DC, which doesn't impress her colleagues. Patel put in a surprise appearance at Tugenhadt's birthday party (i.e. rally ) yesterday, leading to speculation that she might be offered a plum job like Foreign Secretary should he win the leadership.

Thoughts?

I presume that you mean Leader of the Opposition. Or has the last week been a dream?

 

[Cloud Strife]

And that presumably includes non-EU/Schengen countries like Albania, Serbia and Montenegro, not just other EU/Schengen countries.

Yup, valid in all of them. It's even valid in Turkey, although this doesn't apply to all EU citizens. In general, although I take my British passport when I go outside the EU to collect stamps, I could quite easily roam around without it.

If they'd been free rather than costing 30 quid, and didn't require an in-person appointment to collect excessive biometrics then they'd have been more popular.

I think the biometrics issue is no longer an issue, but the method of issuing them was. They should have been free and issued at the local council, just as they are in most of the EU.

Labour badly botched their introduction by demanding large databases behind them, rather than simply introducing them with the bare minimum of data required to identify individuals. Further data could have been included later, but it simply wasn't needed at launch.

 

[Class 317]

My plea to those "other parties" is to put up or shut up. If there's something they feel's amiss, go to the electoral commission or directly to the police. But if this were the LD's and not Reform, I'd absolutely clear this up now and move on.

For me the use of an AI generated image of a candidate that makes them look younger and has the potential to change people's perception of what a candidate could be like has to plainly be wrong.
I'm not sure it's necessary illegal under existing electoral law but it's potentially very close to the boundary between what's lawful and illegal.
It also casts the party in a very bad light.

 

[Energy]

I think the biometrics issue is no longer an issue, but the method of issuing them was. They should have been free and issued at the local council, just as they are in most of the EU.

Labour badly botched their introduction by demanding large databases behind them, rather than simply introducing them with the bare minimum of data required to identify individuals. Further data could have been included later, but it simply wasn't needed at launch.

Nowadays even easier, the government already has the data so you could easily set it up that anyone with a driving licence or passport can quickly get one online.

 

[Howardh]

For me the use of an AI generated image of a candidate that makes them look younger and has the potential to change people's perception of what a candidate could be like has to plainly be wrong.
I'm not sure it's necessary illegal under existing electoral law but it's potentially very close to the boundary between what's lawful and illegal.
It also casts the party in a very bad light.

I can understand if you want to change the colour of the tie to match the party; but in any case if - for any reason - a photograph has been AI altered then that should be explained with a reason, and let the voters decide if it's relevant or not! I can't think of any reason why a candidate wouldn't want to show an up-to-date photo of themselves, save (eg) for medical reason eg recent facial surgery which will heal.

But I think for all parties there were candidates who had no photo whatsoever, not picking on one party, is it necessary to have the photo next to their literature anyway?

Thinking their photo isn't on the ballot paper?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2024 ==

Nowadays even easier, the government already has the data so you could easily set it up that anyone with a driving licence or passport can quickly get one online.

I recently had to update my driver's licence. Because they have it as my passport photo the two were linked. My passport when that was last renewed around 2016, when I was 58; so the photo on the licence will last until 2033, I'll be 75 using a photo of me at 58 as ID!!

Ok, at 70 I'll need to renew my DL if I want to carry on driving, using a later photo probably from renewing my passport, but if I stopped driving I think I could still use that card as legal ID. Thing is my passport isn't accepted at some e-gates as my facial structure has changed a little after gum surgery, so I'm stuck with that until I renew my passport and have a new mug shot!

 

[simonw]

I can understand if you want to change the colour of the tie to match the party; but in any case if - for any reason - a photograph has been AI altered then that should be explained with a reason, and let the voters decide if it's relevant or not! I can't think of any reason why a candidate wouldn't want to show an up-to-date photo of themselves, save (eg) for medical reason eg recent facial surgery which will heal.

But I think for all parties there were candidates who had no photo whatsoever, not picking on one party, is it necessary to have the photo next to their literature anyway?

Thinking their photo isn't on the ballot paper?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2024 ==


I recently had to update my driver's licence. Because they have it as my passport photo the two were linked. My passport when that was last renewed around 2016, when I was 58; so the photo on the licence will last until 2033, I'll be 75 using a photo of me at 58 as ID!!

Ok, at 70 I'll need to renew my DL if I want to carry on driving, using a later photo probably from renewing my passport, but if I stopped driving I think I could still use that card as legal ID. Thing is my passport isn't accepted at some e-gates as my facial structure has changed a little after gum surgery, so I'm stuck with that until I renew my passport and have a new mug shot!

I don't believe an expired driving licence counts as ID.

 

[Ediswan]

I can understand if you want to change the colour of the tie to match the party; but in any case if - for any reason - a photograph has been AI altered then that should be explained with a reason, and let the voters decide if it's relevant or not! I can't think of any reason why a candidate wouldn't want to show an up-to-date photo of themselves, save (eg) for medical reason eg recent facial surgery which will heal.

Photo manipulation has been around since at least the 1860s. I would be much more worried about AI generated audio and video.

 

[Busaholic]

I presume that you mean Leader of the Opposition. Or has the last week been a dream?

Indeed.