The Reformation 2025

[Stephanie]

Perhaps because most Green voters should know - currently there is minimal prospect of the Green party significantly expanding the number of MPs they have. Whereas there is a genuine risk of a landslide towards Reform right now.

Current MRP polling (LAB 23%, CON 23%, LIB 12%, REFORM 25%, GREEN 9%) would put Reform as the largest party with 223 seats.

With the Greens still stuck on 4 seats as in 2024.

And do you believe the best way of encouraging these voters to commit to Labour is to scold them?

No I don't think Labour should be scolding them. But I'm happy to scold them myself!

E.g. if we get a Reform government - because people voted Green for reasons like this...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -of-reform

Do you not think it odd that your instinct is to scold people for not voting for the party of your choice? It's fascinating to me that Green voters are simultaneously to blame for a potential far right government but also not deemed important enough to appeal to.

[Woodchopper]

Do you not think it odd that your instinct is to scold people for not voting for the party of your choice? It's fascinating to me that Green voters are simultaneously to blame for a potential far right government but also not deemed important enough to appeal to.

I wonder whether Labour could appeal to people who want to support the Green Party without alienating the people who are more interested in the Lib Dems, Tories or Reform.

If we look at people who voted Labour in the last general election, according to YouGov about a week ago:

61% still support Labour, and the following have switched support to: 13% Lib Dems, 8% Greens, 8% Reform, 5% Conservatives.

If we assume that previous Labour voters see the Greens as being a more left wing alternative, then far more of the ones who say they'd vote differently want to either switch to another centrist party or are attracted to the two much more right wing parties.

Source: https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/d ... 0428_w.pdf

[Stephanie]

I think this is what I find interesting. There is an expectation that Labour *should* have votes from Green party voters, despite the party not doing much to appeal to them. "You'll make things worse" is hardly a winning message.

[Chris Preston]

I think this is what I find interesting. There is an expectation that Labour *should* have votes from Green party voters, despite the party not doing much to appeal to them. "You'll make things worse" is hardly a winning message.

Indeed.

We have a different system with preferential voting. The Liberal/National party coalition, which was in opposition, was trounced losing many seats including that of their leader. The commentary from some remaining members was the party needs to have more Trump and Farage like policies in the future. Obviously, these people have not looked at the results. LNP got 30% of the vote, with parties further right getting another 10% between them. In contrast, Labour, the Teals (centrist independents largely campaigning on social policies and addressing climate change) and the Greens received 54% of the vote. The problem with the LNP was not that they were not far right enough, but that right wing policy offerings were not appealing to the electorate. The LNP came to my conclusion last time they lost an election and then decided to ignore the evidence they had collected and that a step to the right was the correct response. Fortunately, the LNP seems intent on doing that again.

[nekomatic]

I think this is what I find interesting. There is an expectation that Labour *should* have votes from Green party voters, despite the party not doing much to appeal to them. "You'll make things worse" is hardly a winning message.

Assuming that would-be Green voters would still reluctantly prefer Labour in power than Conservatives or Reform, then that’s the logic that first-past-the-post leads you to - you can piss left wingers off right up to just short of the point where that breaks down.

This works as long as most marginal seats are two-way contests. It really doesn’t if four-way marginals become standard.

[TopBadger]

Of course - with an overwhelming majority in parliament, Labour could bring about PR and then we'd have a parliament that accurately reflects the will of the people and the oddities of FPTP would go away.

[discovolante]

I think this is what I find interesting. There is an expectation that Labour *should* have votes from Green party voters, despite the party not doing much to appeal to them. "You'll make things worse" is hardly a winning message.

Assuming that would-be Green voters would still reluctantly prefer Labour in power than Conservatives or Reform, then that’s the logic that first-past-the-post leads you to - you can piss left wingers off right up to just short of the point where that breaks down.

This works as long as most marginal seats are two-way contests. It really doesn’t if four-way marginals become standard.

Then there's what you think a large group of people should do, and what they actually do. This is asking Green voters as a group to be pragmatic but not expecting Labour to do the same.

[IvanV]

Of course - with an overwhelming majority in parliament, Labour could bring about PR and then we'd have a parliament that accurately reflects the will of the people and the oddities of FPTP would go away.

Whichever party is in power tends to think, we do rather well out of FPTP. Indeed both Labour and Conservative most of the time have a higher proportion of seats than their proportion of vote. Indeed Labour did better out of FPTP in terms of seats %age vs vote %age than ever before in the last election.

Reform have been banging on about PR - until recently - because so far they have done very badly out of FPTP. But if current vote shares are maintained, they'll do very well out of it. And Labour will do badly. So now Reform have shut up about it. And Labour will have to be very forward thinking to admit that, as things are going, they might need PR to avoid being annihilated.

[Woodchopper]

I think this is what I find interesting. There is an expectation that Labour *should* have votes from Green party voters, despite the party not doing much to appeal to them. "You'll make things worse" is hardly a winning message.

Assuming that would-be Green voters would still reluctantly prefer Labour in power than Conservatives or Reform, then that’s the logic that first-past-the-post leads you to - you can piss left wingers off right up to just short of the point where that breaks down.

This works as long as most marginal seats are two-way contests. It really doesn’t if four-way marginals become standard.

That shouldn't work with people who are committed to Green politics because they don't lie on the traditional left-right spectrum. Both Labour and Conservatives are committed to economic growth and their goal is that the UK population should get more stuff, be it products, services, energy etc. Labour want a bit more redistribution and the Conservatives want a bit less regulation.

People who are serious about Green politics don't base their politics on the objective of the population getting richer year on year. It may well be that this is a long term way to be better off by avoiding a environmental catastrophe, but its a fundamentally different approach to life.

Of course some Green voters don't care about the philosophy behind the politics, eg ex-Tory NIMBYs, and they could probably be attracted by shiny policy commitments by any party.

[nekomatic]

This is asking Green voters as a group to be pragmatic but not expecting Labour to do the same.

I think Labour are being pragmatic in that so far this is what has worked for them electorally. I don’t think it’s what they should do morally, and as noted it may be about to stop working for them

[bob sterman]

Do you not think it odd that your instinct is to scold people for not voting for the party of your choice? It's fascinating to me that Green voters are simultaneously to blame for a potential far right government but also not deemed important enough to appeal to.

I didn't say I personally wouldn't scold Reform voters too!!

But my attitude towards Green voters stems from the fact that they tend be more educated, affluent, left-leaning, progressive-minded people - who should have a good understanding of FPTP and its implications.

People who should understand that if they reject Labour in many places over stuff like "swift bricks" - the consequences for many people much less fortunate than themselves will be absolutely dire.

[Stephanie]

Do you not think it odd that your instinct is to scold people for not voting for the party of your choice? It's fascinating to me that Green voters are simultaneously to blame for a potential far right government but also not deemed important enough to appeal to.

I didn't say I personally wouldn't scold Reform voters too!!

But my attitude towards Green voters stems from the fact that they tend be more educated, affluent, left-leaning, progressive-minded people - who should have a good understanding of FPTP and its implications.

People who should understand that if they reject Labour in many places over stuff like "swift bricks" - the consequences for many people much less fortunate than themselves will be absolutely dire.

I don't think swift bricks are why people are voting Green. I know a number of Green voters. They've mentioned rhetoric around refugees and asylum seekers, disability, poverty, LGBTQ rights, etc.

[Fishnut]

What's the problem with swift bricks? They cost about £40 and provide a habitat for a species that is suffering significant decline in part due to loss of nesting sites (though loss of food is a bigger issue). I get that they aren't a massive thing but given how minor they are the fact we can't even get them made part of building regs is incredibly depressing. How on earth can we get the government to do anything ambitious when it comes to improving housing standards when they can't even get a f.cking swift bricks as standard?

[discovolante]

This is asking Green voters as a group to be pragmatic but not expecting Labour to do the same.

I think Labour are being pragmatic in that so far this is what has worked for them electorally. I don’t think it’s what they should do morally, and as noted it may be about to stop working for them

Oh well let's hope they change tack then, I'm sure they will.

I'm being sarcastic because that's a surefire way to be proved wrong.

[dyqik]

Do you not think it odd that your instinct is to scold people for not voting for the party of your choice? It's fascinating to me that Green voters are simultaneously to blame for a potential far right government but also not deemed important enough to appeal to.

I didn't say I personally wouldn't scold Reform voters too!!

But my attitude towards Green voters stems from the fact that they tend be more educated, affluent, left-leaning, progressive-minded people - who should have a good understanding of FPTP and its implications.

People who should understand that if they reject Labour in many places over stuff like "swift bricks" - the consequences for many people much less fortunate than themselves will be absolutely dire.

I don't think swift bricks are why people are voting Green. I know a number of Green voters. They've mentioned rhetoric around refugees and asylum seekers, disability, poverty, LGBTQ rights, etc.

If I was in a Labour/Tory marginal, At the moment I'd be voting either Green or Lib Dem, whichever is most likely to displace both of them. I'm to the left of the current Labour leadership, so somewhere around the Lib Dems, and I will vote based on social liberty and economic and environmental justice. That makes the current Labour party almost as untenable a vote as the Tories.

I'm in a Lib Dem held seat, so obviously I'll keep voting for them, as they keep the Tories out. Although Reform will probably do that job in Oxford West.

[Stranger Mouse]

I’d like to think that when Reform are actually elected to anything rather than just shouting from the sidelines their demonstrable crapness would put people off voting for them ever again but then I remember who is President of the United States.

[TopBadger]

I’d like to think that when Reform are actually elected to anything rather than just shouting from the sidelines their demonstrable crapness would put people off voting for them ever again but then I remember who is President of the United States.

Yep - make everything shitter, then blame everyone else for it seems to be the playbook. The dumbtards that voted for it will believe it because, well, they're dumbtards.

[bjn]

Disgusted but unsurprised that Starmer is now chasing hard after the racist voters. Not only morally repugnant and wrong, but also politically stupid, as it lets Reform set the political agenda.

[TopBadger]

Recent evidence over what has happened to the Tories would suggest that aping Reform only benefits Reform.

I figured with a Labour government we'd be talking about taxing millionaires more to pay for the NHS, rental sector protections for renters, more housing, etc. Say what you like about Farage, but he is rather skilled at hijacking an agenda (aided by the media of course).

I bet the LD's and Greens would love to get half the coverage Reform get.

[discovolante]

Disgusted but unsurprised that Starmer is now chasing hard after the racist voters. Not only morally repugnant and wrong, but also politically stupid, as it lets Reform set the political agenda.

I saw this article the other day:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/ ... o-15bn-nao and the Home Office spokesperson quote:

“As this report shows we inherited an asylum system in chaos with tens of thousands stuck in a backlog, claims not being processed and disastrous contracts that were wasting millions in taxpayer money.

“We’ve taken immediate action to fix it – increasing asylum decision making by 52% and removing 24,000 people with no right to be here, meaning there are now fewer asylum hotels open than since the election. By restoring grip on the system and speeding up decision making we will end the use of hotels and are forecast to save the taxpayer £4bn by the end of 2026.”

The 24,000 figure is explained here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyw8jw11jwo

So any overlap with asylum seekers and the number of people who have left/been removed is basically coincidental. But the HO are conflating the two to make asylum seekers look like the problem. The rhetoric isn't as blatant as the Tories but it's still there, and misleading as well.