Labour Super Majority Scare Stories

[Hymie]

Now that the right wing press has realised that the Tories are about to get their comeuppance for their complete mismanagement of the UK economy over the last 14 years, they are trying to scare voters that Labour having a super majority in the House of Commons would be very bad for the UK – which is complete nonsense.

 

Once a party has a reasonable majority, [e.g. as Boris got in 2019 (80 seat majority)], they are able to do what they want in parliament.  The Tories having a 200 seat majority would have given them no more power than having an 80 seat majority – the same is true of a large Labour majority, 50, 100, 150, 200 it makes no difference to them, being able to vote through their legislative agenda.

[newmodarmy]

Much more people get their news and politics stories/adverts (left and right) off TikTok, Facebook, etc than from newspapers, especially right wing papers. And people take what their newspaper says with a pinch of salt anyway and make their own mind up

[sandyRoe]

A super majority might present unexpected problems.  The effective opposition could come from within Labour ranks.

[ToraToraTora]

"The Tories having a 200 seat majority would have given them no more power than having an 80 seat majority " - i don't know why I am surprised at your breathtaking ignorance but that is hogwash. It means you can do extreme stuff and still override a rebellion in your own party. Eg with 80 seat majority you can be stopped if 40 of your MPs vote with the opposition. With 200 seats it's 100. With extremism comes opposition within your own ranks if you have enough in the bank you can legally override that. It is a real danger.

[newmodarmy]

The Tories had an 80 seat majority but still made a pig's ear of things and the party was beset with internal squabbles that resulted in 3 PMs in a short space of time and a lack of direction. They struggled to get things through like Rwanda

[Hopkirk]

If Boris hadn't had a big majority he couldn't have prorogued parliament.

[Hymie]

TTT – Ever heard of the three line whip in the House of Commons?

[ToraToraTora]

yes, ever heard that MPs can ignore the whip and vote with their conscience on controversial issues?

[Hopkirk]

Ever heard of rebellious MP's?

[Hymie]

The Wilson/Callahan Labour government of the 1970s managed on less than 320 seats in a 635 seat HoC – if 40 of your own MPs think your proposals are rubbish, then you don’t deserve to govern.

[ToraToraTora]

" if 40 of your own MPs think your proposals are rubbish, then you don’t deserve to govern." - again your ignorance is breathtaking. On day to day matters you can rely on your MPs. Even on whipped votes you mostly can but the sort of things that people are worried about can be a free vote or in effect a free for all when everyone ignores the whip. That happens on things that would usually be unimplementable with anything other than a super majority. That is what people are worried about. What if Sir Beer wanted to make all parties other than Labour illegal? He could effectively abolish democracy. Now as much as many of them would go along with that a lot would not. With a super majority the rebellion may not be enough to prevent that. Remind you of anything?

[Hymie]

I’m willing to bet during the entire next Labour government term, that never do more than 25 Labour MPs defy a three line whip.

 

Why would any parliamentary law require a super majority; any law can be passed with only a majority of one?

 

How many MPs of any political party, would vote to make all other political parties illegal – none.

[Gromit]

Governments with a very large majority are often arrogant. It happened to Thatcher and Blair and to a certain extent, to Boris Johnson too.   
I'm pretty certain Starmer will be in a rush, and wills wipe aside any disenting voices.