The headline is cope, but it has abolsutley cost them seats and more importantly this is genuinely a victory of electoral-only, low-turnout, geneuinely unique (in terms of other parties) FPTP math. Labour's landslide isn't based on an increase of voters, nor popularity, and a ridiculous amount of even cabinet ministers wins were razor thin. The average margin of votes won by also more than halved. It's going to be a shitshow when the honeymoon is over.

Literally just nonsense, word salad, a strategy of anti-meaning. The perfect intelligence candidate for a moment they've manufactured to be devoid of meaning.

They did six days of debate prep at Camp David and that was still the result.

This again. You may be genuinely asking, but we get someone stumbling in here every day at the moment looking to repeat the same 'lesser evils' voting argument ad infinitum, so I hope you'll understand that I'm going to try to outline some of thr major points in brief and am not interested in a protracted debate about them.

• The point that is nearly always ignored is that for the most part people don't actually care if someone wants to vote for Biden for whatever reason, but the amount of time people dedicate to this argument and electoral politics in general would be better spent doing literally anything else. Organising, mutual aid, protest, 'lawfare', community defense, whatever.

• Perhaps most important is that the parameters of bourgeois electoral politics are set to ensure that no option outside of ruling class interests can be achieved. The spectacle of the campaigns are release valve for societal pressure, a way to sap and distract the energy of potential activists into something safe for the status quo.

And if we are going to engage with electoral politics...

• An electoral system that demands you vote for a singular candidate because they're the 'only one who can win' against a greater evil isn't a democracy and it's not a free vote. It's a hostage situation. If electoral politics is supposed to be a free vote, then people have to be able to vote their conscience. And if you do believe in the electoral system as a potential avenue for change, then some people are going to have to vote for third party candidates before the time that they'll win.

On 'lesser evil' voting...

• The mantra that is always repeated is that the lesser evil is always the tactical choice, that someone else 'would be worse' but that isn't necessarily the case, especially if you don't think electoral politics is the primary way to exercise power.

• If you feel that one issue is most important - the genocide in Gaza for example - and the lesser evil candidate is currently doing it, without any possibility of policy change, then any other candidate offers at least the potential for change. A possibility of change is logically better than the certainty of none.

• One could argue that in a political duopoly where both parties serve the same interest, they also each serve a specific purpose. With the further right party making regressive change and then the 'lesser evil' party protecting and solidifying those gains. Viewed like this, voting for the 'lesser evil' party isn't necessarily the most tactical choice. When the 'lesser evil' party commits atrocities or cements regressive policy there's less push back from the populace because their supporters excuse it rather than oppose it. Take the reaction to Biden's continuation of internment camps on the border for example; was there more opposition when Trump was doing it or Biden? Or for a UK example, the fact that both Labour and Tory politicians have said that only Labour has the 'good will' and 'credibility' to enact NHS reform (meaning deeply unpopular privatisation). It's too unpopular for the 'more evil' party to do openly, so the 'lesser evil' party will have to do it under false pretenses.

That's not a wrap. They just painted the panel gaps.

In all seriousness, there's going to be a shit load of disaffected, confused libs in a year or two as everything continues to decline. We need to be ready to offer them an explanation and ideally a radicalisation that no one except the fash will.

This is true, but that cement is weak and the foundation shaky.

Labour didn't meaningfully increase its vote share, turnout was the lowest in 20+ years, and and the average seat now is incredibly marginal - down from an average of 12k to 6k. The free ride is over, Labour have no answers, and no real bedrock of support.

There's an opportunity to organise, agitate, and exploit that weakness outside of electoral politics. There's about to be potentially millions of totally disaffected libs over the next few years who'll be looking to make sense of this shitshow and we shouldn't leave them to the far right.

Maybe one on the Zionist side.

Less than 1-in-5 people eligible to vote did so for Labour. This was the lowest voter turnout in 20+ years. Yet Labour won a massive victory with 400+ seats. FPTP voting is an absolute sham.