The General Election in the UK, 2024

[Stavros]

The Sutton Trust has analysed the education background of the House of Commons, which this election has produced its most diverse cohort in history.

Sutton Trust analysis reveals historic sea change in the education background of the party of government - Sutton Trust

UK elects most diverse parliament in history | Reuters

As to the university backgrounds-

Sir Keir Starmer -Law- University of Leeds, post-graduate degree in Law from Oxford. Note that before University Starmer was a student at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama where he studied violin, recorder, piano and flute.

Angela Rayner (Deputy Prime Minister) -Stockport College, Sign Language, NVQ in Social Care.

Rachel Reeves (Chancellor of the Exchequer) - PPE from Oxford, graduate degree in Economics from the LSE.

David Lammy (Foreign Secretary) -Law- School of Oriental and African Studies, London. Graduate degree in Law from Harvard.

Yvette Cooper (Home Secretary) PPE from Oxford, graduate degree in Economics from the LSE -spent a year at Harvard on a Kennedy Scholarship.

Wes Streeting (Health Secretary) -History, Cambridge. (Note: I believe has the most direct connections to convicted criminals of any previous Cabinet member
Wes Streeting - Wikipedia

Bridget Phillipson (Education Secretary) -Modern History and Modern Languages, Oxford

Ed Miliband (Energy and Net Zero Secretary- PPE, Oxford. Graduate degree in Economics from the LSE.

Pat McFadden (Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) -Politics, University of Edinburgh.
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Shabana Mahmood (Justice Secretary) - Law, Oxford.

Jonathan Reynolds (Business and Trade Secretary) -Politics and Modern History, University of Manchester.

Liz Kendall (Work and Pensions Secretary) -History, Cambridge.

John Healey (Defence Secretary) -Social and Political Sciences, Cambridge.

Louise Haigh (Transport Secretary) -Politics, University of Nottingham.

Steve Reed (Environment Secretary) - English, University of Sheffield.

Peter Kyle (Science, Innovation and Technology Secretary) -Geography, International Development and Environmental Studies, University of Sussex (also has PhD in Community Development, also from Sussex).

Hilary Benn (Northern Ireland Secretary) -Russian and Eastern European Studies, University of Sussex.

Ian Murray (Scottish Secretary) -Social Policy and Law, University of Edinburgh (also worked in a Fish 'n Chip shop)...

Jo Stevens (Welsh Secretary) -Law, University of Manchester.

Lisa Nandy (Culture Secretary) -Politics, University of Newcastle, graduate degree in Public Policy, University of London.

Darren Jones (Chief Secretary to the Treasury) -Human Bioscience, University of Plymouth, later Law, University of Bristol.

Lucy Powell (Leader of the House of Commons) -Chemistry, Oxford later University of London.

Sir Alan Campbell (Chief Whip, House of Commons) -Politics, University of Lancaster; PGCE from University of Leeds, and MA in History from Newcastle Polytechnic.

Angela Smith, Baroness Smith of Basildon (Leader, House of Lords) -Public Administration, Leicester Polytechnic.

[Stavros]

Some background on the more controversial aspects of the election, with regard to the so-called 'Muslim vote' and its challenge mostly to Labour re Gaza-

"Labour lost five seats to pro-Palestinian independent candidates during the course of the night, all in areas with significant Muslim populations."
Labour loses seats over Gaza stance (ft.com)

Strictly speaking, this refers not to any general feelings about Palestine among British Muslims, but a co-ordinated campaign by groups, the most prominent of which has been the 'Friends of Al-Aqsa' whose leader is Ismail Patel. FoA and Patel are linked by Ideology and perhaps some other links to the Muslim Brotherhood that was formed in Egypt in the 1920s, and was at one time devoted to Political Islam as both an armed and ideological struggle, which put it into direct conflict with, first the British administrators of Egypt, later with Gamal Abdul Nasser. The MB subsequently turned away from Armed Struggle to op for a 'Parliamentary' road to their Islamist utopia, which crashed and burned when they won the elections in Egypt, against the wishes of the Egyptian (Military) elite and their supporters in the US and Europe. Whatever. There is no doubt about their Islamist credentials, though their 'intellectuals', such as Abdullah Azzam, Sayid Qutb, and Osama bin Laden found the MB too tame and opted for more rather than less violence.

Ismail Patel thus represents a purely Islamist view of the Gaza conflict, not as an issue in Human Rights, because though humans were victims on October the 7th in Israel, and since then in Gaza and the West Bank, Patel's 'devotion' to the Palestinian cause does not extend to Palestinian Christians, who are as irrelevant to him as they are to HAMAS -which he defends without criticism- and Israel. As for Jews, one doubts if Patel thinks they have any rights at all.

The election strategy may have worked, but I am assuming that it was done largely though postal votes, and that the men in the households filled out the forms on behalf of their women. I saw this in London when I was a Labour Party activist, and for what it's worth -quite a lot in Leicester- it happens with Hindus too, though their concerns are mostly with India rather than the Middle East.

In the end, Labour didn't need those votes, and I don't know it can happen again, though a lot depends on what happens in Gaza, but the key point for me is that organizations like FoA are not truly concerned with peace between Israel and the Palestinians, they are wedded to a religious politics that in reality most British people reject, and quite a lot of Muslims too. It just shows how a well organized, if small group, can have an impact at the local level.

see also
Pro-Gaza candidates dent Labour's UK election victory | Reuters

Leaders of groups behind London pro-Palestinian march have links to Hamas - The Jewish Chronicle (thejc.com)

Who are “Friends of Al-Aqsa”? | Workers' Liberty (workersliberty.org)

[filghy2]

But a) Single Member Simple Plurality does give the Govt the secure base in the Commons on which to pass legislation; and b) PR would benefit extremist parties like Reform UK though again, the outcome depends on the system.

Those are not the only alternatives. There are also preferential (or ranked choice) systems, as used in Australia for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting

Under this system, the least popular candidates are eliminated and their votes distributed to the next preference until someone gets over 50%.

It's still very hard for minor parties to win unless their support is concentrated geographically, as they need to finish in the top two on primary votes or very close to it. This means minority governments are rare - it's happened only once since 1940. The main right-wing populist party in Australia has never won a House of Reps seat.

The big advantage of the system is that the winning normally requires at least half the voters to choose you as 1st or 2nd (or sometimes 3rd) preference. You can't win a seat if more than half the voters dislike you. If a party can't reach that threshold I don't see why it should be able to impose its program.

[Stavros]

Those are not the only alternatives. There are also preferential (or ranked choice) systems, as used in Australia for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting

Under this system, the least popular candidates are eliminated and their votes distributed to the next preference until someone gets over 50%.

It's still very hard for minor parties to win unless their support is concentrated geographically, as they need to finish in the top two on primary votes or very close to it. This means minority governments are rare - it's happened only once since 1940. The main right-wing populist party in Australia has never won a House of Reps seat.

The big advantage of the system is that the winning normally requires at least half the voters to choose you as 1st or 2nd (or sometimes 3rd) preference. You can't win a seat if more than half the voters dislike you. If a party can't reach that threshold I don't see why it should be able to impose its program.

I can see how Australia has a better system -voting on Saturdays, compulsory voting, and in general the results -what I don't know is if you have the same political culture that in this country means there has -at least since the early 20th century- been a hard core vote for Racists and pro-Dictatorship politics. It is also the case that although Socialism between the 17th and 20th centuries had a lot of influence from non-established Christian churches and communities, where the Church of England was once described as 'the Conservative Party at prayer', I don't know if religion has played any role in Australian politics, though I am aware that the former Tennis player Margaret Court is an extremist on these matters and I think her brand of politics has some traction in Western Australia.

I also think that the UK will in time decide to change the system to something closer to what Australia has, but I don't think there is enough demand for it right now, but that is also because a lot of the debate is either too technical for people, or just boring. If Reform UK survive, which I doubt, the issue of PR will be caught up in the fractious politics of extremism.

[filghy2]

I can see how Australia has a better system -voting on Saturdays, compulsory voting, and in general the results -what I don't know is if you have the same political culture that in this country means there has -at least since the early 20th century- been a hard core vote for Racists and pro-Dictatorship politics.

We've had plenty of that. The White Australia immigration policy was abolished only in 1972. There's a long history or poor treatment of indigenous people. The Rwanda solution to asylum seekers was borrowed from Australia's Pacific solution.

We don't have any issue like Brexit and we're more protected by geography, but the two parties that are similar to Reform won 9% of the vote at the last election.

[Stavros]

Fun Fact time -The Starmer family live in Kentish Town, his nearest pub, his 'local' if you like is the Pineapple on Leverton Street. When I left home I moved into a bedsit round the corner from the Pineapple. I went there regularly in the days when I drank beer, but mostly when going there with a mate who lived in the basement. I stopped going when a barman in the early evening short changed me, and anyway I moved to Stoke Newington shortly after that.

Here is another fun fact: on another street round the corner from the Pineapple, Salman Rushdie lived and wrote his first published novel, Midnight's Children, and a bit weirder, because I was in the street up from his and at the back, I could see this guy writing and writing, and it wasn't until some decades later I learned he lived on Countess Road.

There was quite a large Irish presence in that area in the early 1970s, it has changed a lot of course. The old pub closer to Kentish Town underground where we used to go for their Jazz every night- the Tally Ho- , has been demolished. There is a small branch library just down the high road from the underground, where one of the library assistants was a neighbour of mass murderer Dennis Nielsen.

Funny old world, innit?

Will the Starmers be the first prime ministerial family since the Wilsons not to live in Downing Street? (yahoo.com)