LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
The beginnings of our democracy? You mean since 1928, when we finally stopped discriminating against women in elections?
That was only because the Tories saw electoral advantage in widening the franchise, much as Starmer does with 16-18 year olds.
You’re comparing 16-18 year old getting the vote with women getting the vote?!
I’m teasing you, but you maybe need to be slightly more judicious on how you frame that.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
The beginnings of our democracy? You mean since 1928, when we finally stopped discriminating against women in elections?
I often have this discussion with people. The glass half full version of British history is that England* was, unquestionably, ahead of much of Western Europe in representative government from at least the middle of the seventeenth century. The glass half empty version is that we didn't become a democracy until 1928.
*The relative power and influence of the pre-1707 Parliament of Scotland is a matter of controversy that I'm not touching with a barge pole on here. I guess I'm not a Scotch Expert after all.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
The beginnings of our democracy? You mean since 1928, when we finally stopped discriminating against women in elections?
2024 surely, when suffrage is extended to 16 year olds.
This is ridiculous. Just elect whoever Miss Universe wants in charge and be done with it.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
If the seat totals end up very close between LD and CON, could the Speaker perhaps reallocate some of the questions between LOTO and 3rd party (4 and 4 rather than current 6 and 2 for example)? The existing PMQs format only came into place in 1997 after all so it can be changed.
I'm sure if the shoe were on the other foot - which let's face it, it will be - sharing wouldn't happen.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
The beginnings of our democracy? You mean since 1928, when we finally stopped discriminating against women in elections?
2024 surely, when suffrage is extended to 16 year olds.
Why not just go the whole hog in 2028 and extend it to newborns. It would make as much sense.
Lab 512 LD 57 Con 31 SNP 21 Ref 4 PC 4 Green 2 Others 19
Edit: With no tactical voting
That result leads to a really worrying situation for democracy.
You'd have the Lib Dems as the official opposition, and just 35 seats for Con and RefUK combined, despite their winning 36% of the national vote share combined.
I was dismissive last week of Cleitophon's concern of a 'January 6th style event' and to be honest I still am. But I could easily see how a Faragist insurgency spends the next five years whipping up discontent on the basis of 'the right wing were just 7% behind Labour in this election, but have virtually no representation in our Parliamentary system.'
I know that is how FPTP works, but it's not healthy for democracy when a large number of people no longer think the system is working for them, or adequately representing their voices in Parliament. You could see how a result like this could drive a small but not insignificant number of discontents into the arms of the 'democracy has failed us' far right types.
Hilarious how the Right was perfectly happy with Liberal voters being effectively disenfranchised for the last century or so, but the instant it starts working to their disadvantage it becomes "a really worrying situation for democracy".
Yes and now, all of a sudden, the voting system is an affront to democracy.
If you didn’t want to be staring heavy defeat in the face you shouldn’t have run such a bloody sh*tshow these past 5 years.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
If the seat totals end up very close between LD and CON, could the Speaker perhaps reallocate some of the questions between LOTO and 3rd party (4 and 4 rather than current 6 and 2 for example)? The existing PMQs format only came into place in 1997 after all so it can be changed.
The Leader of the Opposition is a formal role within the Westminster system. I don't think it would be shared between parties.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
The beginnings of our democracy? You mean since 1928, when we finally stopped discriminating against women in elections?
2024 surely, when suffrage is extended to 16 year olds.
Why not just go the whole hog in 2028 and extend it to newborns. It would make as much sense.
Oh Richard, that’s not your best moment.
I know loads of people who think it’s great to open voting up to 16 yr olds and I thoroughly support it.
We need young people as engaged as possible, not disenfranchised.
Really, truly, the Conservative Party have shown little or no interest in the young.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
The beginnings of our democracy? You mean since 1928, when we finally stopped discriminating against women in elections?
2024 surely, when suffrage is extended to 16 year olds.
Why not just go the whole hog in 2028 and extend it to newborns. It would make as much sense.
Bit of a silly post from you. Many 16 year olds are capable of complex, rational thought and emotional intelligence. No infant is. If there's an argument to be had for not extending the vote to 16 year olds in England (and there is), yours isn't it.
@Geri_E_L_Scott Excl: A Reform candidate described Adolf Hitler as “brilliant” and “able to inspire people to action” as part of a pseudoscientific theory that promotes 16 personality types.
RefUK should just brush this all off and keep going. They need to be the antidote to polished politics with plastic candidates with no personality. It has worked for Trump. The one thing I think they are doing wrong is trying to cancel the 'woke' left, they should rise above it and just say they believe in free speech, second chances, that kind of thing.
Everyone has said something stupid in their lives. All posters on here who have ever made an interesting contribution has said something a bit dodgy that could be spun out of context, particularly given how the zeitgeist has changed over the last 20 years.
Let's be honest, we'd all priced in a bit of Adolf for Reform.
It's silly though. I don't think Farage or Tice are like that, and I don't like Farage.
They just hate foreigners a bit, but they wouldn't take it as far as Hitler did?
Silly comment.
My God - you don't think Farage hates foreigners?
Either way, that's something considerably worse than "silly".
He married one, so his hating of them isn't going too well.
A reassuring LLG:RefCon score of 60 (=) to 36 (+1) after the earlier 41% RefCon in the JLP poll.
Can I ask why we are putting up with this nonsense of adding up different party shares to make spurious grand totals?
It’s almost as tedious as seeing FBPE after people’s social media handles.
It is an indication of the pool of tactical votes that might be available on the left and right.
See my answer.
‘Left and Right’ is too careless these days.
There are so many examples of this but I don’t see very much about Starmer’s Labour that I would call ‘Left’. In old fashioned terms it’s about as centrist as you could get.
I get that but as long as LLG stays at around 60% v 40% for RefCon tactical voting should see Starmer home comfortably.
LLG voters are quite familiar with using their votes tactically - I would vote Labour or Lib Dem depending on which is best placed to defeat the Tories. I think you have said the same yourself. I have Green voting friends who will vote that way as they are in safe Labour seat but their Green supporting kids have said they will vote Labour as they are in a marginal.
Tactical voting between Reform and Con voters will be much trickier as it is often not clear who is best placed to beat the opposition.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
The beginnings of our democracy? You mean since 1928, when we finally stopped discriminating against women in elections?
2024 surely, when suffrage is extended to 16 year olds.
Why not just go the whole hog in 2028 and extend it to newborns. It would make as much sense.
Bit of a silly post from you. Many 16 year olds are capable of complex, rational thought and emotional intelligence. No infant is. If there's an argument to be had for not extending the vote to 16 year olds in England (and there is), yours isn't it.
Don't you feel it is a bit incongruent that in Scotland 16/17 year olds are simultaneously mature enough to vote but immature to get mitigation in the criminal justice system which leads to shameful stuff like this?
I say this as somebody who is supportive of votes for 16/17 year olds.
Teenagers who abducted and beat up gay boy go free
Youngster was taken to a disused building, tied to a chair and hit with a stick
Lab 512 LD 57 Con 31 SNP 21 Ref 4 PC 4 Green 2 Others 19
Edit: With no tactical voting
That result leads to a really worrying situation for democracy.
You'd have the Lib Dems as the official opposition, and just 35 seats for Con and RefUK combined, despite their winning 36% of the national vote share combined.
I was dismissive last week of Cleitophon's concern of a 'January 6th style event' and to be honest I still am. But I could easily see how a Faragist insurgency spends the next five years whipping up discontent on the basis of 'the right wing were just 7% behind Labour in this election, but have virtually no representation in our Parliamentary system.'
I know that is how FPTP works, but it's not healthy for democracy when a large number of people no longer think the system is working for them, or adequately representing their voices in Parliament. You could see how a result like this could drive a small but not insignificant number of discontents into the arms of the 'democracy has failed us' far right types.
Hilarious how the Right was perfectly happy with Liberal voters being effectively disenfranchised for the last century or so, but the instant it starts working to their disadvantage it becomes "a really worrying situation for democracy".
At what point did I say I was happy with it?
As I said in my previous post, it was Cleitophon who originally raised the problem of a poor result this year becoming a recruiting sergeant for the far right.
Do you honestly think the Lib Dems being the official opposition on 12% of the vote, with the combined Conservative and RefUK vote of 36% landing them half the number of seats combined, is a healthy, functioning democracy?
It will be used for the next five years as a campaigning tool by the likes of Farage, who at least pretends to be interested in democracy. And by out and out fascists, who don't.
@Geri_E_L_Scott Excl: A Reform candidate described Adolf Hitler as “brilliant” and “able to inspire people to action” as part of a pseudoscientific theory that promotes 16 personality types.
RefUK should just brush this all off and keep going. They need to be the antidote to polished politics with plastic candidates with no personality. It has worked for Trump. The one thing I think they are doing wrong is trying to cancel the 'woke' left, they should rise above it and just say they believe in free speech, second chances, that kind of thing.
Everyone has said something stupid in their lives. All posters on here who have ever made an interesting contribution has said something a bit dodgy that could be spun out of context, particularly given how the zeitgeist has changed over the last 20 years.
Let's be honest, we'd all priced in a bit of Adolf for Reform.
It's silly though. I don't think Farage or Tice are like that, and I don't like Farage.
They just hate foreigners a bit, but they wouldn't take it as far as Hitler did?
Silly comment.
My God - you don't think Farage hates foreigners?
Either way, that's something considerably worse than "silly".
He married one, so his hating of them isn't going too well.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
The beginnings of our democracy? You mean since 1928, when we finally stopped discriminating against women in elections?
2024 surely, when suffrage is extended to 16 year olds.
Why not just go the whole hog in 2028 and extend it to newborns. It would make as much sense.
Oh Richard, that’s not your best moment.
I know loads of people who think it’s great to open voting up to 16 yr olds and I thoroughly support it.
We need young people as engaged as possible, not disenfranchised.
Really, truly, the Conservative Party have shown little or no interest in the young.
The only arguments I have heard against 16 year olds voting are based on experience, cognitive ability, and the fact they lean left. Few advocate taking the vote away from over 75s based on cognitive ability and the fact they they lean right. Which leaves us with experience.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
The beginnings of our democracy? You mean since 1928, when we finally stopped discriminating against women in elections?
2024 surely, when suffrage is extended to 16 year olds.
Why not just go the whole hog in 2028 and extend it to newborns. It would make as much sense.
That's my policy. Whichever parent claims child benefit for the child exercises their vote by proxy until they apply for it in their own right. Children of all ages should have their interests represented in Parliament.
It would help to balance the influence of the growing pensioner vote.
@Geri_E_L_Scott Excl: A Reform candidate described Adolf Hitler as “brilliant” and “able to inspire people to action” as part of a pseudoscientific theory that promotes 16 personality types.
RefUK should just brush this all off and keep going. They need to be the antidote to polished politics with plastic candidates with no personality. It has worked for Trump. The one thing I think they are doing wrong is trying to cancel the 'woke' left, they should rise above it and just say they believe in free speech, second chances, that kind of thing.
Everyone has said something stupid in their lives. All posters on here who have ever made an interesting contribution has said something a bit dodgy that could be spun out of context, particularly given how the zeitgeist has changed over the last 20 years.
Let's be honest, we'd all priced in a bit of Adolf for Reform.
It's silly though. I don't think Farage or Tice are like that, and I don't like Farage.
They just hate foreigners a bit, but they wouldn't take it as far as Hitler did?
Silly comment.
My God - you don't think Farage hates foreigners?
Either way, that's something considerably worse than "silly".
He married one, so his hating of them isn't going too well.
I went to Ullapool this one time, and it was blue skies and scorching hot. Therefore, it's never cold and rainy in Ullapool.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
The beginnings of our democracy? You mean since 1928, when we finally stopped discriminating against women in elections?
That was only because the Tories saw electoral advantage in widening the franchise, much as Starmer does with 16-18 year olds.
You’re comparing 16-18 year old getting the vote with women getting the vote?!
I’m teasing you, but you maybe need to be slightly more judicious on how you frame that.
No, just the reason for them actually getting it when they did (base politics) :-)
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
The beginnings of our democracy? You mean since 1928, when we finally stopped discriminating against women in elections?
2024 surely, when suffrage is extended to 16 year olds.
Why not just go the whole hog in 2028 and extend it to newborns. It would make as much sense.
Bit of a silly post from you. Many 16 year olds are capable of complex, rational thought and emotional intelligence. No infant is. If there's an argument to be had for not extending the vote to 16 year olds in England (and there is), yours isn't it.
Don't you feel it is a bit incongruent that in Scotland 16/17 year olds are simultaneously mature enough to vote but immature to get mitigation in the criminal justice system which leads to shameful stuff like this?
I say this as somebody who is supportive of votes for 16/17 year olds.
Teenagers who abducted and beat up gay boy go free
Youngster was taken to a disused building, tied to a chair and hit with a stick
Yes, possibly. But no infant has ever abducted someone and tied them to a chair, so I still maintain that newborns and teenagers are separate categories and can rationally act and be treated differently.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
The beginnings of our democracy? You mean since 1928, when we finally stopped discriminating against women in elections?
2024 surely, when suffrage is extended to 16 year olds.
Why not just go the whole hog in 2028 and extend it to newborns. It would make as much sense.
And expand the alleged practice in some places of the head of the household filling out the postal votes..
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
The beginnings of our democracy? You mean since 1928, when we finally stopped discriminating against women in elections?
2024 surely, when suffrage is extended to 16 year olds.
Why not just go the whole hog in 2028 and extend it to newborns. It would make as much sense.
Oh Richard, that’s not your best moment.
I know loads of people who think it’s great to open voting up to 16 yr olds and I thoroughly support it.
We need young people as engaged as possible, not disenfranchised.
Really, truly, the Conservative Party have shown little or no interest in the young.
The only arguments I have heard against 16 year olds voting are based on experience, cognitive ability, and the fact they lean left. Few advocate taking the vote away from over 75s based on cognitive ability and the fact they they lean right. Which leaves us with experience.
We have a bit of a hodgepodge of different ages for the transition between child and adult.
You can't buy alcohol until 18. You can't drive until 18. You can consent to sex at 16. You need your parent's consent to marry before age 18. Most of these ages are ending up as 28 now that I write them out.
So you can make the case that voting should stay with most of the others, at 18.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
The beginnings of our democracy? You mean since 1928, when we finally stopped discriminating against women in elections?
2024 surely, when suffrage is extended to 16 year olds.
Why not just go the whole hog in 2028 and extend it to newborns. It would make as much sense.
That's my policy. Whichever parent claims child benefit for the child exercises their vote by proxy until they apply for it in their own right. Children of all ages should have their interests represented in Parliament.
It would help to balance the influence of the growing pensioner vote.
It's an interesting idea which would also be pro-natal (though only among the seriously politically nerdish). A sort of democratic regency. Would immediately be challenged on the not unreasonable basis that many grandparents take an active role in bringing up children, though.
A reassuring LLG:RefCon score of 60 (=) to 36 (+1) after the earlier 41% RefCon in the JLP poll.
Can I ask why we are putting up with this nonsense of adding up different party shares to make spurious grand totals?
It’s almost as tedious as seeing FBPE after people’s social media handles.
It is an indication of the pool of tactical votes that might be available on the left and right.
See my answer.
‘Left and Right’ is too careless these days.
There are so many examples of this but I don’t see very much about Starmer’s Labour that I would call ‘Left’. In old fashioned terms it’s about as centrist as you could get.
I get that but as long as LLG stays at around 60% v 40% for RefCon tactical voting should see Starmer home comfortably.
LLG voters are quite familiar with using their votes tactically - I would vote Labour or Lib Dem depending on which is best placed to defeat the Tories. I think you have said the same yourself. I have Green voting friends who will vote that way as they are in safe Labour seat but their Green supporting kids have said they will vote Labour as they are in a marginal.
Tactical voting between Reform and Con voters will be much trickier as it is often not clear who is best placed to beat the opposition.
Besides, you can only do tactical voting between two parties that (at least sort of) see eye-to-eye on things. See LibLab now, or in 1997, but not in 1983 or 2019.
Right now, Reform and Conservative parties hate each other.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
The beginnings of our democracy? You mean since 1928, when we finally stopped discriminating against women in elections?
2024 surely, when suffrage is extended to 16 year olds.
Why not just go the whole hog in 2028 and extend it to newborns. It would make as much sense.
Oh Richard, that’s not your best moment.
I know loads of people who think it’s great to open voting up to 16 yr olds and I thoroughly support it.
We need young people as engaged as possible, not disenfranchised.
Really, truly, the Conservative Party have shown little or no interest in the young.
The only arguments I have heard against 16 year olds voting are based on experience, cognitive ability, and the fact they lean left. Few advocate taking the vote away from over 75s based on cognitive ability and the fact they they lean right. Which leaves us with experience.
We have a bit of a hodgepodge of different ages for the transition between child and adult.
You can't buy alcohol until 18. You can't drive until 18. You can consent to sex at 16. You need your parent's consent to marry before age 18. Most of these ages are ending up as 28 now that I write them out.
So you can make the case that voting should stay with most of the others, at 18.
Driving has always been 17, marriage under 18 was abolished a couple of years ago
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
The beginnings of our democracy? You mean since 1928, when we finally stopped discriminating against women in elections?
2024 surely, when suffrage is extended to 16 year olds.
Why not just go the whole hog in 2028 and extend it to newborns. It would make as much sense.
Bit of a silly post from you. Many 16 year olds are capable of complex, rational thought and emotional intelligence. No infant is. If there's an argument to be had for not extending the vote to 16 year olds in England (and there is), yours isn't it.
Don't you feel it is a bit incongruent that in Scotland 16/17 year olds are simultaneously mature enough to vote but immature to get mitigation in the criminal justice system which leads to shameful stuff like this?
I say this as somebody who is supportive of votes for 16/17 year olds.
Teenagers who abducted and beat up gay boy go free
Youngster was taken to a disused building, tied to a chair and hit with a stick
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
The beginnings of our democracy? You mean since 1928, when we finally stopped discriminating against women in elections?
2024 surely, when suffrage is extended to 16 year olds.
Why not just go the whole hog in 2028 and extend it to newborns. It would make as much sense.
Oh Richard, that’s not your best moment.
I know loads of people who think it’s great to open voting up to 16 yr olds and I thoroughly support it.
We need young people as engaged as possible, not disenfranchised.
Really, truly, the Conservative Party have shown little or no interest in the young.
The only arguments I have heard against 16 year olds voting are based on experience, cognitive ability, and the fact they lean left. Few advocate taking the vote away from over 75s based on cognitive ability and the fact they they lean right. Which leaves us with experience.
We have a bit of a hodgepodge of different ages for the transition between child and adult.
You can't buy alcohol until 18. You can't drive until 18. You can consent to sex at 16. You need your parent's consent to marry before age 18. Most of these ages are ending up as 28 now that I write them out.
So you can make the case that voting should stay with most of the others, at 18.
I'm not sure why I got involved as I'm not really that fussed. But I don't get the extreme opposition.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
The beginnings of our democracy? You mean since 1928, when we finally stopped discriminating against women in elections?
I often have this discussion with people. The glass half full version of British history is that England* was, unquestionably, ahead of much of Western Europe in representative government from at least the middle of the seventeenth century. The glass half empty version is that we didn't become a democracy until 1928.
*The relative power and influence of the pre-1707 Parliament of Scotland is a matter of controversy that I'm not touching with a barge pole on here. I guess I'm not a Scotch Expert after all.
And some folk had more than one vote. PLural voting existed till 1950.
When replying to posts there seems to be some kind of error saying that I'm 1 character too short to post.
On @Casino_Royale's position that the Labour lead is soft:
Labour's lead has eroded slightly - but I think there is a clear environment where even many Tory voters want to punish the party. For many people that just means not voting or voting Labour.
I know betting wise this isn't going to be very interesting, but I am interested to see if Labour gets a bigger % than 2017, and a bigger total number of votes. It's hilarious and stupid that we have a system where the current Labour party may get a Baathist majority on similar vote shares / total votes than 2017.
And the other thing is I think this is soft support for Labour's governing - not winning. I think the support to kill the Tory party is strong. The desire to see Starmerism, not so much.
I don't think the country is keen for any "ism" at this juncture. This is one reason for the coming SKS landslide.
But the thing is once he is in government there will be an ism. There is no such thing as "common sense" "non ideological" governance.
There can be (largely) non ideological governance (for better or worse) if the decision makers are not particularly ideological. Not completely but relatively, as compared to being driven by some grand, overarching, world-explaining belief system.
"Common sense" though, lol, yes that's a red flag in politics. It usually means trite and simplistic.
Ideology is simply unavoidable. The stuff of common ground we take for granted - free NHS, a welfare state, expensive defence, pensions, free education of a certain sort to 18, free(ish) speech, no religious compulsion, minimise animal cruelty, consent is essential in sexual relations, slavery is always wrong, as is torture, same sex relationships lawful - are all profoundly ideological. This is not thought so for the same reasons that fish are unaware of water.
None exist in our form in all places at all times.
Yes. But some political leaders are more driven by ideology than others. By which I mean their actions are driven by a coherent (to them) intellectual framework and belief system. Bad news, usually. I much prefer politicians (and indeed people generally) with the insight and wisdom to realize they have little clue how the world works.
These too are ideologies, the details of which can be worked out from their choices. However pragmatic (a term which gives rise a range of philosophical ideas, mostly from across the pond) and agnostic (this too is an ideology) they are, it is still the case that to govern is to choose. If you chose by the flip of a coin, this too would be explicable in ideological terms.
And inaction is action etc. But you know what I mean. Ideology as in overarching theories to explain the micro and macro behaviour of human beings. My ideology is to consider them all probably wrong.
A "hierarchy of values" is what makes more sense to me. And an awareness of trade offs. That's what you need to guide your opinions on politics.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
The beginnings of our democracy? You mean since 1928, when we finally stopped discriminating against women in elections?
2024 surely, when suffrage is extended to 16 year olds.
Why not just go the whole hog in 2028 and extend it to newborns. It would make as much sense.
That's my policy. Whichever parent claims child benefit for the child exercises their vote by proxy until they apply for it in their own right. Children of all ages should have their interests represented in Parliament.
It would help to balance the influence of the growing pensioner vote.
It's an interesting idea which would also be pro-natal (though only among the seriously politically nerdish). A sort of democratic regency. Would immediately be challenged on the not unreasonable basis that many grandparents take an active role in bringing up children, though.
Some grandparents are guardians of their grandchildren, and would take on the proxy voting responsibility as a consequence.
I don't think anyone would have a child solely to gain an extra vote for a few general elections, but I like it as a neat way to get rid of the arbitrary age threshold that currently exists.
A reassuring LLG:RefCon score of 60 (=) to 36 (+1) after the earlier 41% RefCon in the JLP poll.
Can I ask why we are putting up with this nonsense of adding up different party shares to make spurious grand totals?
It’s almost as tedious as seeing FBPE after people’s social media handles.
Because it tells us about the available tactical vote pools. The thinking is LLG could switch reasonably well between each other and RC can do the same. It papers over some nuance, but it's additive, not subtractive, to our understanding.
It ignores the fact that probably a quarter to a third of LDs wouldn't necessarily put Lab as 2nd pref.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
The beginnings of our democracy? You mean since 1928, when we finally stopped discriminating against women in elections?
2024 surely, when suffrage is extended to 16 year olds.
Why not just go the whole hog in 2028 and extend it to newborns. It would make as much sense.
That's my policy. Whichever parent claims child benefit for the child exercises their vote by proxy until they apply for it in their own right. Children of all ages should have their interests represented in Parliament.
It would help to balance the influence of the growing pensioner vote.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
The beginnings of our democracy? You mean since 1928, when we finally stopped discriminating against women in elections?
2024 surely, when suffrage is extended to 16 year olds.
Why not just go the whole hog in 2028 and extend it to newborns. It would make as much sense.
That's my policy. Whichever parent claims child benefit for the child exercises their vote by proxy until they apply for it in their own right. Children of all ages should have their interests represented in Parliament.
It would help to balance the influence of the growing pensioner vote.
One unintended consequence might be that more men switch the benefit into their name.
I suspect, that the families where the father wants to exercise that control, are the ones where the mother is most in need of the child benefit directly.
Lab 512 LD 57 Con 31 SNP 21 Ref 4 PC 4 Green 2 Others 19
Edit: With no tactical voting
That result leads to a really worrying situation for democracy.
You'd have the Lib Dems as the official opposition, and just 35 seats for Con and RefUK combined, despite their winning 36% of the national vote share combined.
I was dismissive last week of Cleitophon's concern of a 'January 6th style event' and to be honest I still am. But I could easily see how a Faragist insurgency spends the next five years whipping up discontent on the basis of 'the right wing were just 7% behind Labour in this election, but have virtually no representation in our Parliamentary system.'
I know that is how FPTP works, but it's not healthy for democracy when a large number of people no longer think the system is working for them, or adequately representing their voices in Parliament. You could see how a result like this could drive a small but not insignificant number of discontents into the arms of the 'democracy has failed us' far right types.
Luckily for everyone (or unluckily for ELE fans), it's not going to happen. Reform will slip back just like Clegg did in 2010, Tories will be mid to high 20s or even 30+, and it'll be a comfortable majority for Labour but not a wipeout. I have £50 riding on it with Leon.
Why do you have £50 riding on it with Leon for what I presume is evens, when BF Exchange for Tory vote percentage is…
Lab 512 LD 57 Con 31 SNP 21 Ref 4 PC 4 Green 2 Others 19
Edit: With no tactical voting
That result leads to a really worrying situation for democracy.
You'd have the Lib Dems as the official opposition, and just 35 seats for Con and RefUK combined, despite their winning 36% of the national vote share combined.
I was dismissive last week of Cleitophon's concern of a 'January 6th style event' and to be honest I still am. But I could easily see how a Faragist insurgency spends the next five years whipping up discontent on the basis of 'the right wing were just 7% behind Labour in this election, but have virtually no representation in our Parliamentary system.'
I know that is how FPTP works, but it's not healthy for democracy when a large number of people no longer think the system is working for them, or adequately representing their voices in Parliament. You could see how a result like this could drive a small but not insignificant number of discontents into the arms of the 'democracy has failed us' far right types.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
FPTP is a cruel mistress but it is absolutely healthy for democracy - as well as putting to death the lie about "safe seats" - the only seats that are safe are if people are willing to continue voting for the incumbent.
The notion that all parties should be entitled to representation without earning it is pure hubris. If you lose, you lose, should have won more votes.
Not calling your manifesto a manifesto doesn’t make it not a manifesto, Nigel.
“Britain needs Reform and Reform UK needs you” – pretty good line.
Country worse off from Labour and Tories, mass immigration is bad, woke ideology is bad, transgender indoctrination is harming children.
Housing crisis, benefits crisis, record crime, record NHS waiting lists, energy costs high (because of Net Zero)
Tories broke Britain, Labour will bankrupt it. Reform will freeze immigration, restore law and order, repair public services, unlease reach economic growth.
Still no hyperlinked contents, but at least this manifesto is short and digestible. Headings are clear and proposals are straightforward to see not plastered with text.
Has 100 day proposals and longer term plans, which is probably unfeasible, but a decent way of focusing attention
Pictures of leader – 8 (but a similar number for Tice as well)
Core Pledges
Freeze ‘non-essential’ immigration to boost wages, protect public services, end housing crisis, cut crime.
Illegal migrants detailed and deported. Boats taken back to France.
Office waste cut to spend on frontline (note – really? That’s all it will take?), tax breaks for doctors and nurses.
Income tax threshold to 20k, 7 million out of income tax
Scrap energy levies and Net Zero, unlock oil and gas
Immigration
Stop boats – leave ECHR, 0 illegal immigrants able to settle, new department of immigration (note – new body in a manifesto alert), take boats back to France
Those entering from safe country barred from asylum claims or citizenship, no legal aid for non citizens. Deport foreign criminals immediately. Withdraw citizenship from immigrants who commit crime (except for some misdemeanor offences), 5 years residency and employment to claim benefits. National Insurance 20% for foreign workers.
Slash Government Waste
BoE must stop paying interest to commercial banks on QE reserves to save 35 bn a year
Save £5 in every £100 on departmental spending, saving £50bn a year (note – if it was so easy why hasn’t it been done?)
Cut EU regulations. Cut foreign aid by 50% (note – interesting it is not 100%)
Improve HMRC competence, failure was due to understaffing (Note – yet will they propose to slash numbers of civil servants? We shall see)
Reform UK Manifesto 2024 Part 2 Slash Government Waste
BoE must stop paying interest to commercial banks on QE reserves to save 35 bn a year
Save £5 in every £100 on departmental spending, saving £50bn a year (note – if it was so easy why hasn’t it been done?)
Cut EU regulations. Cut foreign aid by 50% (note – interesting it is not 100%)
Improve HMRC competence, failure was due to understaffing (Note – yet will they propose to slash numbers of civil servants? We shall see)
Economy – personal
Lower fuel duty by 20p per litre, scrap VAT on energy bills and environmental levy
Cut residential stamp duty to 0% below 750k, 2% from 750k, 4% from 1.5m.
Abolish VAT tourist tax. Abolish inheritance tax for estates under 2m.
Economy – business
1.2 million small and medium sized businesses from corporation tax – minimum profit threshold to 100k, reduce corporate tax to 20% then 15% from year 3.
Lift VAT threshold to 150k
Fast track new housing on brownfield (note – oh gods, not this again)
Reform the tax system – more simplification is needed (note – no details).
NHS
NHS needs reform despite record extra funding.
Frontline staff to pay zero basic rate tax for 3 years to aid retention.
Tax relief of 20% on all private healthcare
Operating theatres open on weekends, nail down better prices, review all Private finance contacts, charge those who fail to attend medical appointments without notice, abolish NHS race and health observatory.
Public inquiry into excess deaths and vaccine harms
Net zero
Ditching net zero to save £30 bn a year. Scrap renewable energy subsidies.
Fast track licences of north sea has and oil
Support small modular nuclear reactors.
Policing
40k new officers in 5 years.
Increase stop and search
Drug dealing and trafficking mandatory life imprisonment
Sack chief constables who allow two tier policing (note – I don’t know what that means)
More bobbies on the beat (note – literally how it is described)
Scrap diversity equality and inclusion roles
De politicise college of policing
Justice
Second violent or serious office mandatory life sentences - a two strikes law (note – where will the prisons go? I don’t think 10k extra places will be enough)
Increase criminal justice budget by 2bn (note – sounds good)
Change definition of Hate crime, built 10,000 new detention places
Intensity training camps for young offenders
Education
A patriotic curriculum – any teaching of European imperialism must be paired with a non-european example
No trans ideology in schools
Tax relief for private schools
Cut university funding if free speech undermined (note – meaning what?)
Lab 512 LD 57 Con 31 SNP 21 Ref 4 PC 4 Green 2 Others 19
Edit: With no tactical voting
That result leads to a really worrying situation for democracy.
You'd have the Lib Dems as the official opposition, and just 35 seats for Con and RefUK combined, despite their winning 36% of the national vote share combined.
I was dismissive last week of Cleitophon's concern of a 'January 6th style event' and to be honest I still am. But I could easily see how a Faragist insurgency spends the next five years whipping up discontent on the basis of 'the right wing were just 7% behind Labour in this election, but have virtually no representation in our Parliamentary system.'
I know that is how FPTP works, but it's not healthy for democracy when a large number of people no longer think the system is working for them, or adequately representing their voices in Parliament. You could see how a result like this could drive a small but not insignificant number of discontents into the arms of the 'democracy has failed us' far right types.
Luckily for everyone (or unluckily for ELE fans), it's not going to happen. Reform will slip back just like Clegg did in 2010, Tories will be mid to high 20s or even 30+, and it'll be a comfortable majority for Labour but not a wipeout. I have £50 riding on it with Leon.
Why do you have £50 riding on it with Leon for what I presume is evens, when BF Exchange for Tory vote percentage is…
Because he proposed it, and our cutoff number is +/- 26%.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
I know we don't have a crystal ball, but 31 seats ends the Tories, doesn't it? But then there is a vacuum on the centre right and right, which must be filled. By whom ? Not Farage he's too polarising.
31 Tory seats probably leaves only Barclay and Tugendhat from what could be called top names. A phoenix arising from the ashes ('Conservative' would be a nice name for it) led by Mr Hat would be one of the better outcomes from this epochal election.
Lab 512 LD 57 Con 31 SNP 21 Ref 4 PC 4 Green 2 Others 19
Edit: With no tactical voting
That result leads to a really worrying situation for democracy.
You'd have the Lib Dems as the official opposition, and just 35 seats for Con and RefUK combined, despite their winning 36% of the national vote share combined.
I was dismissive last week of Cleitophon's concern of a 'January 6th style event' and to be honest I still am. But I could easily see how a Faragist insurgency spends the next five years whipping up discontent on the basis of 'the right wing were just 7% behind Labour in this election, but have virtually no representation in our Parliamentary system.'
I know that is how FPTP works, but it's not healthy for democracy when a large number of people no longer think the system is working for them, or adequately representing their voices in Parliament. You could see how a result like this could drive a small but not insignificant number of discontents into the arms of the 'democracy has failed us' far right types.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
FPTP is a cruel mistress but it is absolutely healthy for democracy - as well as putting to death the lie about "safe seats" - the only seats that are safe are if people are willing to continue voting for the incumbent.
The notion that all parties should be entitled to representation without earning it is pure hubris. If you lose, you lose, should have won more votes.
In PR you earn representation via the novel method of, you know, being voted for.
Freeze ‘non-essential’ immigration to boost wages, protect public services, end housing crisis, cut crime.
What a load of crap.
You could cut net migration to zero today and the housing crisis will remain every bit as acute as everyone in here already will still need a house.
The only way to end the housing crisis is to construct massively more housing.
Migration adds to the amount of new housing needed, but new housing is needed either way.
That's numerically false. If you have zero net migration and a below replacement fertility rate, the amount of available housing per person would go up even without any building.
Lab 512 LD 57 Con 31 SNP 21 Ref 4 PC 4 Green 2 Others 19
Edit: With no tactical voting
That result leads to a really worrying situation for democracy.
You'd have the Lib Dems as the official opposition, and just 35 seats for Con and RefUK combined, despite their winning 36% of the national vote share combined.
I was dismissive last week of Cleitophon's concern of a 'January 6th style event' and to be honest I still am. But I could easily see how a Faragist insurgency spends the next five years whipping up discontent on the basis of 'the right wing were just 7% behind Labour in this election, but have virtually no representation in our Parliamentary system.'
I know that is how FPTP works, but it's not healthy for democracy when a large number of people no longer think the system is working for them, or adequately representing their voices in Parliament. You could see how a result like this could drive a small but not insignificant number of discontents into the arms of the 'democracy has failed us' far right types.
Hilarious how the Right was perfectly happy with Liberal voters being effectively disenfranchised for the last century or so, but the instant it starts working to their disadvantage it becomes "a really worrying situation for democracy".
At what point did I say I was happy with it?
As I said in my previous post, it was Cleitophon who originally raised the problem of a poor result this year becoming a recruiting sergeant for the far right.
Do you honestly think the Lib Dems being the official opposition on 12% of the vote, with the combined Conservative and RefUK vote of 36% landing them half the number of seats combined, is a healthy, functioning democracy?
It will be used for the next five years as a campaigning tool by the likes of Farage, who at least pretends to be interested in democracy. And by out and out fascists, who don't.
Hilarious.
Please don't try to get self-righteous on top of the hypocrisy.
@Geri_E_L_Scott Excl: A Reform candidate described Adolf Hitler as “brilliant” and “able to inspire people to action” as part of a pseudoscientific theory that promotes 16 personality types.
RefUK should just brush this all off and keep going. They need to be the antidote to polished politics with plastic candidates with no personality. It has worked for Trump. The one thing I think they are doing wrong is trying to cancel the 'woke' left, they should rise above it and just say they believe in free speech, second chances, that kind of thing.
Everyone has said something stupid in their lives. All posters on here who have ever made an interesting contribution has said something a bit dodgy that could be spun out of context, particularly given how the zeitgeist has changed over the last 20 years.
Let's be honest, we'd all priced in a bit of Adolf for Reform.
It's silly though. I don't think Farage or Tice are like that, and I don't like Farage.
They just hate foreigners a bit, but they wouldn't take it as far as Hitler did?
Silly comment.
My God - you don't think Farage hates foreigners?
Either way, that's something considerably worse than "silly".
He married one, so his hating of them isn't going too well.
His marrying of them doesn't seem to have been going too well, either.
When replying to posts there seems to be some kind of error saying that I'm 1 character too short to post.
On @Casino_Royale's position that the Labour lead is soft:
Labour's lead has eroded slightly - but I think there is a clear environment where even many Tory voters want to punish the party. For many people that just means not voting or voting Labour.
I know betting wise this isn't going to be very interesting, but I am interested to see if Labour gets a bigger % than 2017, and a bigger total number of votes. It's hilarious and stupid that we have a system where the current Labour party may get a Baathist majority on similar vote shares / total votes than 2017.
And the other thing is I think this is soft support for Labour's governing - not winning. I think the support to kill the Tory party is strong. The desire to see Starmerism, not so much.
I don't think the country is keen for any "ism" at this juncture. This is one reason for the coming SKS landslide.
But the thing is once he is in government there will be an ism. There is no such thing as "common sense" "non ideological" governance.
There can be (largely) non ideological governance (for better or worse) if the decision makers are not particularly ideological. Not completely but relatively, as compared to being driven by some grand, overarching, world-explaining belief system.
"Common sense" though, lol, yes that's a red flag in politics. It usually means trite and simplistic.
Ideology is simply unavoidable. The stuff of common ground we take for granted - free NHS, a welfare state, expensive defence, pensions, free education of a certain sort to 18, free(ish) speech, no religious compulsion, minimise animal cruelty, consent is essential in sexual relations, slavery is always wrong, as is torture, same sex relationships lawful - are all profoundly ideological. This is not thought so for the same reasons that fish are unaware of water.
None exist in our form in all places at all times.
Yes. But some political leaders are more driven by ideology than others. By which I mean their actions are driven by a coherent (to them) intellectual framework and belief system. Bad news, usually. I much prefer politicians (and indeed people generally) with the insight and wisdom to realize they have little clue how the world works.
These too are ideologies, the details of which can be worked out from their choices. However pragmatic (a term which gives rise a range of philosophical ideas, mostly from across the pond) and agnostic (this too is an ideology) they are, it is still the case that to govern is to choose. If you chose by the flip of a coin, this too would be explicable in ideological terms.
And inaction is action etc. But you know what I mean. Ideology as in overarching theories to explain the micro and macro behaviour of human beings. My ideology is to consider them all probably wrong.
A "hierarchy of values" is what makes more sense to me. And an awareness of trade offs. That's what you need to guide your opinions on politics.
A 'hierarchy of values' is, of course, a text book case of an ideology. Trade offs arise from the former and also from decisions that have to be made between options and priorities. Generally not difficult to discern the underlying principles or ideologies at play.
A reassuring LLG:RefCon score of 60 (=) to 36 (+1) after the earlier 41% RefCon in the JLP poll.
Can I ask why we are putting up with this nonsense of adding up different party shares to make spurious grand totals?
It’s almost as tedious as seeing FBPE after people’s social media handles.
It is an indication of the pool of tactical votes that might be available on the left and right.
See my answer.
‘Left and Right’ is too careless these days.
There are so many examples of this but I don’t see very much about Starmer’s Labour that I would call ‘Left’. In old fashioned terms it’s about as centrist as you could get.
I get that but as long as LLG stays at around 60% v 40% for RefCon tactical voting should see Starmer home comfortably.
LLG voters are quite familiar with using their votes tactically - I would vote Labour or Lib Dem depending on which is best placed to defeat the Tories. I think you have said the same yourself. I have Green voting friends who will vote that way as they are in safe Labour seat but their Green supporting kids have said they will vote Labour as they are in a marginal.
Tactical voting between Reform and Con voters will be much trickier as it is often not clear who is best placed to beat the opposition.
Besides, you can only do tactical voting between two parties that (at least sort of) see eye-to-eye on things. See LibLab now, or in 1997, but not in 1983 or 2019.
Right now, Reform and Conservative parties hate each other.
That's why Heathener's point about Labour being centrist is actually a plus when it comes to pulling in Lib Dem tactical votes in particular.
Corbyn and Foot were the least transfer-friendly Labour leaders of the last 50 years which contributed to them taking Labour down to their biggest defeats.
I agree that there is no love lost between Reform and the Cons but even if that were not the case it would difficult to know which was the best placed tactically in most areas.
Having said that I am expecting the Cons to increase by 5% by polling day at the expense of Reform although this could well be the election that turns the conventional wisdom on its head!
🚨New Voting Intention🚨 Labour lead by 27 points in our latest poll. Con 19% (-2) Lab 46% (-) Lib Dem 10% (+1) Reform 16% (+4) SNP 2% (-2) Green 5% (-) Other 1% (-1) Fieldwork: 14th - 17th June 2024 Sample: 1,383 GB adults (Changes from 6th - 8th June 2024)
Lab 512 LD 57 Con 31 SNP 21 Ref 4 PC 4 Green 2 Others 19
Edit: With no tactical voting
That result leads to a really worrying situation for democracy.
You'd have the Lib Dems as the official opposition, and just 35 seats for Con and RefUK combined, despite their winning 36% of the national vote share combined.
I was dismissive last week of Cleitophon's concern of a 'January 6th style event' and to be honest I still am. But I could easily see how a Faragist insurgency spends the next five years whipping up discontent on the basis of 'the right wing were just 7% behind Labour in this election, but have virtually no representation in our Parliamentary system.'
I know that is how FPTP works, but it's not healthy for democracy when a large number of people no longer think the system is working for them, or adequately representing their voices in Parliament. You could see how a result like this could drive a small but not insignificant number of discontents into the arms of the 'democracy has failed us' far right types.
Hilarious how the Right was perfectly happy with Liberal voters being effectively disenfranchised for the last century or so, but the instant it starts working to their disadvantage it becomes "a really worrying situation for democracy".
At what point did I say I was happy with it?
As I said in my previous post, it was Cleitophon who originally raised the problem of a poor result this year becoming a recruiting sergeant for the far right.
Do you honestly think the Lib Dems being the official opposition on 12% of the vote, with the combined Conservative and RefUK vote of 36% landing them half the number of seats combined, is a healthy, functioning democracy?
It will be used for the next five years as a campaigning tool by the likes of Farage, who at least pretends to be interested in democracy. And by out and out fascists, who don't.
Hilarious.
Please don't try to get self-righteous on top of the hypocrisy.
Please engage with the argument instead of the ad hominem.
Tax relief for businesses that undertake apprenticeships
Benefits withdrawn if those fit to work do not find work in 4 months, or refuse 2 offers.
Life income tax start point to 20k
Work capability assessment must be face to face
Save 15bn
Brexit
Scrap EU laws with immediate effect, abandon Windsor Framework
withdraw from EU Horizon programme
renegotiate trade and cooperation agreement with EU
Defence
Increase to 2.5% by 3rd year, then 3% in 6 years (note – given Nigel’s views on things like Ukraine and NATO, not sure why they support increase defence spending, what would it be for?)
Protect personnel from human rights lawyers
New department for veterans (note- new body alert 2)
National service not the answer, increase army by 30k full time.
Reform procurement (note – everyone has said this)
Housing
Prioritse local people for social housing.
Scrap section 24 for landlords
Abolish the renters’ (reform) bill (note – if it is only a bill does it need abolishing?)
Incentivize new construction techniques
Children and families
Support marriage through the tax system. No tax on first 25k of income for either spouse.
Frontload child benefit system to encourage more mums to be able to choose to stay at home more.
Mandate single sex public toilets.
Review online safety bill (note – no detail – not to scrap? Just says social media giants push transgender ideology should have no role in regulating free speech)
Transport and utilities infrastructure
Scrap HS2 and save 25bn
Stop the war on drivers, ban clean air zones, scrap most 20mph zones
Improve rail and road links in coastal regions, wales, the north, and the midlands (note – how? Also, these are target areas for Reform, what a coincidence)
50% each utility into public ownership, the rest owned by UK pension funds
🚨New Voting Intention🚨 Labour lead by 27 points in our latest poll. Con 19% (-2) Lab 46% (-) Lib Dem 10% (+1) Reform 16% (+4) SNP 2% (-2) Green 5% (-) Other 1% (-1) Fieldwork: 14th - 17th June 2024 Sample: 1,383 GB adults (Changes from 6th - 8th June 2024)
Still widening rather than shortening in some polls.
Reform UK Manifesto 2024 Part 2 Slash Government Waste
BoE must stop paying interest to commercial banks on QE reserves to save 35 bn a year
Save £5 in every £100 on departmental spending, saving £50bn a year (note – if it was so easy why hasn’t it been done?)
Cut EU regulations. Cut foreign aid by 50% (note – interesting it is not 100%)
Improve HMRC competence, failure was due to understaffing (Note – yet will they propose to slash numbers of civil servants? We shall see)
Economy – personal
Lower fuel duty by 20p per litre, scrap VAT on energy bills and environmental levy
Cut residential stamp duty to 0% below 750k, 2% from 750k, 4% from 1.5m.
Abolish VAT tourist tax. Abolish inheritance tax for estates under 2m.
Economy – business
1.2 million small and medium sized businesses from corporation tax – minimum profit threshold to 100k, reduce corporate tax to 20% then 15% from year 3.
Lift VAT threshold to 150k
Fast track new housing on brownfield (note – oh gods, not this again)
Reform the tax system – more simplification is needed (note – no details).
NHS
NHS needs reform despite record extra funding.
Frontline staff to pay zero basic rate tax for 3 years to aid retention.
Tax relief of 20% on all private healthcare
Operating theatres open on weekends, nail down better prices, review all Private finance contacts, charge those who fail to attend medical appointments without notice, abolish NHS race and health observatory.
Public inquiry into excess deaths and vaccine harms
Net zero
Ditching net zero to save £30 bn a year. Scrap renewable energy subsidies.
Fast track licences of north sea has and oil
Support small modular nuclear reactors.
Policing
40k new officers in 5 years.
Increase stop and search
Drug dealing and trafficking mandatory life imprisonment
Sack chief constables who allow two tier policing (note – I don’t know what that means)
More bobbies on the beat (note – literally how it is described)
Scrap diversity equality and inclusion roles
De politicise college of policing
Justice
Second violent or serious office mandatory life sentences - a two strikes law (note – where will the prisons go? I don’t think 10k extra places will be enough)
Increase criminal justice budget by 2bn (note – sounds good)
Change definition of Hate crime, built 10,000 new detention places
Intensity training camps for young offenders
Education
A patriotic curriculum – any teaching of European imperialism must be paired with a non-european example
No trans ideology in schools
Tax relief for private schools
Cut university funding if free speech undermined (note – meaning what?)
Lab 512 LD 57 Con 31 SNP 21 Ref 4 PC 4 Green 2 Others 19
Edit: With no tactical voting
That result leads to a really worrying situation for democracy.
You'd have the Lib Dems as the official opposition, and just 35 seats for Con and RefUK combined, despite their winning 36% of the national vote share combined.
I was dismissive last week of Cleitophon's concern of a 'January 6th style event' and to be honest I still am. But I could easily see how a Faragist insurgency spends the next five years whipping up discontent on the basis of 'the right wing were just 7% behind Labour in this election, but have virtually no representation in our Parliamentary system.'
I know that is how FPTP works, but it's not healthy for democracy when a large number of people no longer think the system is working for them, or adequately representing their voices in Parliament. You could see how a result like this could drive a small but not insignificant number of discontents into the arms of the 'democracy has failed us' far right types.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
FPTP is a cruel mistress but it is absolutely healthy for democracy - as well as putting to death the lie about "safe seats" - the only seats that are safe are if people are willing to continue voting for the incumbent.
The notion that all parties should be entitled to representation without earning it is pure hubris. If you lose, you lose, should have won more votes.
Read a book. You don't automatically get representation under PR. You still have to win votes. You embarrass yourself with your lack of knowledge day after day on here but the idea that PR distributes seats to "all parties" without having to win votes reaches hitherto uncharted depths of ignorance. You're at the bottom of the Mariana Trench of incomprehension. It must take a lot of energy to be this ignorant.
🚨New Voting Intention🚨 Labour lead by 27 points in our latest poll. Con 19% (-2) Lab 46% (-) Lib Dem 10% (+1) Reform 16% (+4) SNP 2% (-2) Green 5% (-) Other 1% (-1) Fieldwork: 14th - 17th June 2024 Sample: 1,383 GB adults (Changes from 6th - 8th June 2024)
EXCLUSIVE: Gossip is flying round senior Tory circles that David Cameron is planning to return to the Commons in an early by-election in autumn or spring. And then he will become the "One Nation" group's next leadership contender ⬇️
🚨New Voting Intention🚨 Labour lead by 27 points in our latest poll. Con 19% (-2) Lab 46% (-) Lib Dem 10% (+1) Reform 16% (+4) SNP 2% (-2) Green 5% (-) Other 1% (-1) Fieldwork: 14th - 17th June 2024 Sample: 1,383 GB adults (Changes from 6th - 8th June 2024)
Still widening rather than shortening in some polls.
Extinction level event more likely than not now.
In the past 48 hours there have been two polls showing Labour's score increasing, and two showing it static.
EXCLUSIVE: Gossip is flying round senior Tory circles that David Cameron is planning to return to the Commons in an early by-election in autumn or spring. And then he will become the "One Nation" group's next leadership contender ⬇️
EXCLUSIVE: Leaked WhatsApps expose secret plot to disrupt Labour's private schools plan
A viral message being shared on WhatsApp and Facebook urges private school parents to create 'panic' by pretending they’re going to move their kids to a state school
EXCLUSIVE: Gossip is flying round senior Tory circles that David Cameron is planning to return to the Commons in an early by-election in autumn or spring. And then he will become the "One Nation" group's next leadership contender ⬇️
🚨New Voting Intention🚨 Labour lead by 27 points in our latest poll. Con 19% (-2) Lab 46% (-) Lib Dem 10% (+1) Reform 16% (+4) SNP 2% (-2) Green 5% (-) Other 1% (-1) Fieldwork: 14th - 17th June 2024 Sample: 1,383 GB adults (Changes from 6th - 8th June 2024)
Tories getting stepmomed.
But look at that SNP score. Ahem.
Perhaps the most worrying poll yet for the Tories. Labour over 45 with Cons sub 20, chunky reform vote. We know Reform will likely poll very badly in Scotland, and I'd guess probably London. So it makes sense that they're probably very slightly ahead in a chunky number of constituencies.
Question for PBers: Was Michael Green's 'don't give Labour a super-majority' gambit a good idea?
To my mind, it rather suggests that he thinks defeat is certain. And that's not a great look in an election campaign.
I posted on here a few months ago that the focus groups and private polling showed that there was a real desire to kick the Tories out but also not to give Starmer a huge majority.
I reckon it can harness reluctant Tories who were planning to sit the election and some Reformers to vote Tory.
(1) Use lethal force (2) Renegotiate the web of international treaties to legally deport en-masse (3) Offer anyone who wants to come a ride
Reform would never do (1) - worth noting the Greeks already seem to have been doing a bit of it though, on the sly - and the Conservatives aren't organised enough to do (2) and could never do (3). So what you get is bluster.
I expect Labour want to do (3) but will instead pretend they're doing (2), and also with a lot of bluster.
The problem will fester.
Make a crime of entering the country illegally. Five years in prison/youth institution.
A valid defence is any of the following: * Travelled on scheduled plane, train or ferry. * British (or Irish Citizen) or have leave to remain at time of journey * Travelled directly from country of persecution (and did not go via a safe country) and claiming Asylum.
Prison/Youth Detention centre for the purpose built on Falkland Islands.
The point is we need to move away from a general right to a proscribed right.
EXCLUSIVE: Gossip is flying round senior Tory circles that David Cameron is planning to return to the Commons in an early by-election in autumn or spring. And then he will become the "One Nation" group's next leadership contender ⬇️
When replying to posts there seems to be some kind of error saying that I'm 1 character too short to post.
On @Casino_Royale's position that the Labour lead is soft:
Labour's lead has eroded slightly - but I think there is a clear environment where even many Tory voters want to punish the party. For many people that just means not voting or voting Labour.
I know betting wise this isn't going to be very interesting, but I am interested to see if Labour gets a bigger % than 2017, and a bigger total number of votes. It's hilarious and stupid that we have a system where the current Labour party may get a Baathist majority on similar vote shares / total votes than 2017.
And the other thing is I think this is soft support for Labour's governing - not winning. I think the support to kill the Tory party is strong. The desire to see Starmerism, not so much.
I don't think the country is keen for any "ism" at this juncture. This is one reason for the coming SKS landslide.
But the thing is once he is in government there will be an ism. There is no such thing as "common sense" "non ideological" governance.
There can be (largely) non ideological governance (for better or worse) if the decision makers are not particularly ideological. Not completely but relatively, as compared to being driven by some grand, overarching, world-explaining belief system.
"Common sense" though, lol, yes that's a red flag in politics. It usually means trite and simplistic.
Ideology is simply unavoidable. The stuff of common ground we take for granted - free NHS, a welfare state, expensive defence, pensions, free education of a certain sort to 18, free(ish) speech, no religious compulsion, minimise animal cruelty, consent is essential in sexual relations, slavery is always wrong, as is torture, same sex relationships lawful - are all profoundly ideological. This is not thought so for the same reasons that fish are unaware of water.
None exist in our form in all places at all times.
Yes. But some political leaders are more driven by ideology than others. By which I mean their actions are driven by a coherent (to them) intellectual framework and belief system. Bad news, usually. I much prefer politicians (and indeed people generally) with the insight and wisdom to realize they have little clue how the world works.
These too are ideologies, the details of which can be worked out from their choices. However pragmatic (a term which gives rise a range of philosophical ideas, mostly from across the pond) and agnostic (this too is an ideology) they are, it is still the case that to govern is to choose. If you chose by the flip of a coin, this too would be explicable in ideological terms.
And inaction is action etc. But you know what I mean. Ideology as in overarching theories to explain the micro and macro behaviour of human beings. My ideology is to consider them all probably wrong.
A "hierarchy of values" is what makes more sense to me. And an awareness of trade offs. That's what you need to guide your opinions on politics.
A 'hierarchy of values' is, of course, a text book case of an ideology. Trade offs arise from the former and also from decisions that have to be made between options and priorities. Generally not difficult to discern the underlying principles or ideologies at play.
I think that's too broad a definition of what an ideology is. Something has to distinguish an ideology from just a collection of beliefs and opinions.
Eg an ideologue will strain for consistency and this will at times lead them into absurdity.
Freeze ‘non-essential’ immigration to boost wages, protect public services, end housing crisis, cut crime.
What a load of crap.
You could cut net migration to zero today and the housing crisis will remain every bit as acute as everyone in here already will still need a house.
The only way to end the housing crisis is to construct massively more housing.
Migration adds to the amount of new housing needed, but new housing is needed either way.
That's numerically false. If you have zero net migration and a below replacement fertility rate, the amount of available housing per person would go up even without any building.
Could not be more wrong.
Fertility rate is irrelevant for decades. Newborn babes live with their parents, they don't go into a home of their own.
If you have zero net migration and below replacement fertility rate you still need houses for the elderly that are living longer than before. You still need housing for children who grow up into young adults and need a home of their own. And you still need homes for any migrants who'd already arrived.
Demographically we need many more homes even without migration.
Taxpayer funded orgs should source 75% food from the UK
Fishing and coastal communities
Stop EU fishers taking UK quotas (note – time for a cod war?)
Expand navy overseas patrol squadron
Revitalize uk fishing fleet
Guarantee sustainable stocks through a dynamic management system
Pensions and Social Care
Royal commission into social care system.
End mineworkers pension scandal (note – Labour said this too)
Review pension provision (note – no detail)
Constitutional Reform
Leave ECHR
Replace House of Lords with smaller democratic chamber.
Immediate end of political appointees. But replace civil service leaders with professionals from provide sector who are political appointees.
Reform postal voting. Referendum on PR.
British bill of rights –(note - the explanation makes clear they believe this would have prevented the Covid Lockdown (which was based on ‘lies’) – not sure why they believe that would be the case, it would depend what was in it.
Reclaiming Britain
Reject influence of WEF, reject WHO Pandemic treaty
Replace equalities act (note – with what?)
Free Speech Bill
Scrap TV licence
Make st george’s day and st david’s day a public holiday
Anti corruption unit for Westminster
Funding page
Nearly all parties have done some version of this this time, which is different to most in previous election.
EXCLUSIVE: Gossip is flying round senior Tory circles that David Cameron is planning to return to the Commons in an early by-election in autumn or spring. And then he will become the "One Nation" group's next leadership contender ⬇️
EXCLUSIVE: Gossip is flying round senior Tory circles that David Cameron is planning to return to the Commons in an early by-election in autumn or spring. And then he will become the "One Nation" group's next leadership contender ⬇️
If that is a correct interpretation, then we can ignore any of these stories.
“A life peerage cannot be relinquished. However, the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 enables a life peer to resign from being a member of the House.
There are also limited circumstances where hereditary peerages can be ‘disclaimed’. The Peerage Act 1963 enables hereditary peers to renounce their titles for life. The 1963 act sets out requirements that must be met to do this”.
Apart from the SDP manifesto which was all over the place, the Reform manifesto is the most distinct from others (Green/LD/Lab/Con).
The weakest on housing of all the parties so far, saying nothing whatsoever. Plenty of red meat to excite the target audience, on immigration, crime, wokeness, probably quite effective. Surprisingly little on Brexit.
Call it a B- : not appealing to me, but short, straightforward, and probably appealing to many disaffected Tories.
EXCLUSIVE: Gossip is flying round senior Tory circles that David Cameron is planning to return to the Commons in an early by-election in autumn or spring. And then he will become the "One Nation" group's next leadership contender ⬇️
Lab 512 LD 57 Con 31 SNP 21 Ref 4 PC 4 Green 2 Others 19
Edit: With no tactical voting
That result leads to a really worrying situation for democracy.
You'd have the Lib Dems as the official opposition, and just 35 seats for Con and RefUK combined, despite their winning 36% of the national vote share combined.
I was dismissive last week of Cleitophon's concern of a 'January 6th style event' and to be honest I still am. But I could easily see how a Faragist insurgency spends the next five years whipping up discontent on the basis of 'the right wing were just 7% behind Labour in this election, but have virtually no representation in our Parliamentary system.'
I know that is how FPTP works, but it's not healthy for democracy when a large number of people no longer think the system is working for them, or adequately representing their voices in Parliament. You could see how a result like this could drive a small but not insignificant number of discontents into the arms of the 'democracy has failed us' far right types.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
FPTP is a cruel mistress but it is absolutely healthy for democracy - as well as putting to death the lie about "safe seats" - the only seats that are safe are if people are willing to continue voting for the incumbent.
The notion that all parties should be entitled to representation without earning it is pure hubris. If you lose, you lose, should have won more votes.
Read a book. You don't automatically get representation under PR. You still have to win votes. You embarrass yourself with your lack of knowledge day after day on here but the idea that PR distributes seats to "all parties" without having to win votes reaches hitherto uncharted depths of ignorance. You're at the bottom of the Mariana Trench of incomprehension. It must take a lot of energy to be this ignorant.
Well no shit Sherlock, none of what you said responded to any of what I wrote.
If a racist Reform party gets 13% of the vote but wins no seats they deserve no seats, they don't deserve 13% of the seats.
Winning a few votes shouldn't be enough to get seats. If you want to win a seat, needing to win enough votes to beat the rivals for that seat is perfectly democratic.
Labour could get a 200 odd seat majority with 40% of the vote.
This is very worrying.
Supermajorities are what you get under FPTP with one large party and several tiddlers. See also: the GE in Scotland in 2015. Labour won't be complaining, of course.
EXCLUSIVE: Gossip is flying round senior Tory circles that David Cameron is planning to return to the Commons in an early by-election in autumn or spring. And then he will become the "One Nation" group's next leadership contender ⬇️
Are we assuming that Sunak will stay on to allow a lengthy period of reflection, during which a surviving Tory MP can discover a desperate urge to wear a faux cat poncho? Or that there'll be a succession of failed leaders, giving time for Cameron to join the race after Suella, Steve, Priti, Tom and Liz (second attempt) have all had a go?
From the excellent Beyond Topline on the strength of the Lib Dem Tactical Vote
“@OwenWntr: Interesting some polling data I'm looking at has Lib Dem retention from 2019 at 78% in seats where they came 1st or 2nd, and 44% where they didn't”
This *strongly* suggests the Lib Dem bump is due to tactical voting.
If this is replicated in a general election, this implies *much* stronger tactical voting than 1997.
In 1997, Lib Dems retained ~64.5% of their 1992 vote where they were 2nd, ~50% where Labour was.
I have been extremely bullish on Lib Dem seat totals because of the above - the increased prevalence of tactical voting websites COMBINED with the fact that unlike in 2019, it’s A. Starmer instead of Corbyn, and B. Brexit being ‘done’ - makes it much much easier for Lib Dem and Labour voters to vote ‘for the other one’
So the incredible amazing superb “Beyond Topline” has woken up to the DUTCH SALUTE …two years after it was explained and predicted on PB? oh - Whoopee flipping doo. 🤮
They only had to go into PB, search on Dutch Salute, the promise of the current late Lab > LibDem drift as TVs firm up leading to 16% LibDem PV was all there - and prior to vote day, that declining Labour vote in the last weeks, days and on the day, even closing Tory to Lab gap (if Sunak hadn’t been utterly shit) getting (some, the dumb ones) Tories ever so excited at shrinking Lab share, even though it actually means they are on a beach excited about the sea recede away to nothing in front of them, so it means these ignorant idiots actually excited about a bizarre occurrence going on in front of them, that’s about to wipe them out.
And all those of everyone who went gangbusters, laughing and laughing at MoonRabbit and wetting themselves, when I posted TWO YEARS ago now, Thangham Debonaire will lose to a Green - have collective amnesia that they should have been first on ahead of the rest and on at the best odds. Because they were flipping told.
So one thing that's pretty clear is that the Farage-gasm is not subsiding yet, next week or so is crucial for the Tories to avoid Reform doing to them what Reform did to the Conservatives at Canada '93. When are we due another Yougov?
🚨New Voting Intention🚨 Labour lead by 27 points in our latest poll. Con 19% (-2) Lab 46% (-) Lib Dem 10% (+1) Reform 16% (+4) SNP 2% (-2) Green 5% (-) Other 1% (-1) Fieldwork: 14th - 17th June 2024 Sample: 1,383 GB adults (Changes from 6th - 8th June 2024)
EXCLUSIVE: Gossip is flying round senior Tory circles that David Cameron is planning to return to the Commons in an early by-election in autumn or spring. And then he will become the "One Nation" group's next leadership contender ⬇️
Going backwards is not the answer, he would not be popular enough with the base, he wouldn't have taken a peerage if he was planning on coming back as MP even if he can leave the HoL, and many more reasons.
Comments
etc etc.
Brogues just pinch my feet.
Loafers are the best for me.
I’m teasing you, but you maybe need to be slightly more judicious on how you frame that.
*The relative power and influence of the pre-1707 Parliament of Scotland is a matter of controversy that I'm not touching with a barge pole on here. I guess I'm not a Scotch Expert after all.
I call this, Universe-al Suffrage.
4-4-0-3.
If you didn’t want to be staring heavy defeat in the face you shouldn’t have run such a bloody sh*tshow these past 5 years.
Suggests their fall has levelled off, rather than continuing to plunge new depths. Which is something. But not the swingback many expected.
And postal votes are starting to be submitted. Time is very much running out.
I know loads of people who think it’s great to open voting up to 16 yr olds and I thoroughly support it.
We need young people as engaged as possible, not disenfranchised.
Really, truly, the Conservative Party have shown little or no interest in the young.
Many 16 year olds are capable of complex, rational thought and emotional intelligence. No infant is.
If there's an argument to be had for not extending the vote to 16 year olds in England (and there is), yours isn't it.
Is the solution
Working on Rocko’s down/stay commands our pre-existing Cavachon, Pixie, decided to show up for some refresher training.
LLG voters are quite familiar with using their votes tactically - I would vote Labour or Lib Dem depending on which is best placed to defeat the Tories. I think you have said the same yourself. I have Green voting friends who will vote that way as they are in safe Labour seat but their Green supporting kids have said they will vote Labour as they are in a marginal.
Tactical voting between Reform and Con voters will be much trickier as it is often not clear who is best placed to beat the opposition.
I say this as somebody who is supportive of votes for 16/17 year olds.
Teenagers who abducted and beat up gay boy go free
Youngster was taken to a disused building, tied to a chair and hit with a stick
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/teenagers-who-abducted-and-beat-up-gay-boy-go-free-wqmxtl0nh
As I said in my previous post, it was Cleitophon who originally raised the problem of a poor result this year becoming a recruiting sergeant for the far right.
Do you honestly think the Lib Dems being the official opposition on 12% of the vote, with the combined Conservative and RefUK vote of 36% landing them half the number of seats combined, is a healthy, functioning democracy?
It will be used for the next five years as a campaigning tool by the likes of Farage, who at least pretends to be interested in democracy. And by out and out fascists, who don't.
Hilarious.
Soz.
It would help to balance the influence of the growing pensioner vote.
Not that I am cynical or anything.
Really useful @Quincel .
You can't buy alcohol until 18. You can't drive until 18. You can consent to sex at 16. You need your parent's consent to marry before age 18. Most of these ages are ending up as 28 now that I write them out.
So you can make the case that voting should stay with most of the others, at 18.
Right now, Reform and Conservative parties hate each other.
A "hierarchy of values" is what makes more sense to me. And an awareness of trade offs. That's what you need to guide your opinions on politics.
I don't think anyone would have a child solely to gain an extra vote for a few general elections, but I like it as a neat way to get rid of the arbitrary age threshold that currently exists.
I suspect, that the families where the father wants to exercise that control, are the ones where the mother is most in need of the child benefit directly.
FPTP is a cruel mistress but it is absolutely healthy for democracy - as well as putting to death the lie about "safe seats" - the only seats that are safe are if people are willing to continue voting for the incumbent.
The notion that all parties should be entitled to representation without earning it is pure hubris. If you lose, you lose, should have won more votes.
- Not calling your manifesto a manifesto doesn’t make it not a manifesto, Nigel.
- “Britain needs Reform and Reform UK needs you” – pretty good line.
- Country worse off from Labour and Tories, mass immigration is bad, woke ideology is bad, transgender indoctrination is harming children.
- Housing crisis, benefits crisis, record crime, record NHS waiting lists, energy costs high (because of Net Zero)
- Tories broke Britain, Labour will bankrupt it. Reform will freeze immigration, restore law and order, repair public services, unlease reach economic growth.
- Still no hyperlinked contents, but at least this manifesto is short and digestible. Headings are clear and proposals are straightforward to see not plastered with text.
- Has 100 day proposals and longer term plans, which is probably unfeasible, but a decent way of focusing attention
- Pictures of leader – 8 (but a similar number for Tice as well)
Core Pledges- Freeze ‘non-essential’ immigration to boost wages, protect public services, end housing crisis, cut crime.
- Illegal migrants detailed and deported. Boats taken back to France.
- Office waste cut to spend on frontline (note – really? That’s all it will take?), tax breaks for doctors and nurses.
- Income tax threshold to 20k, 7 million out of income tax
- Scrap energy levies and Net Zero, unlock oil and gas
ImmigrationSlash Government Waste
- BoE must stop paying interest to commercial banks on QE reserves to save 35 bn a year
- Save £5 in every £100 on departmental spending, saving £50bn a year (note – if it was so easy why hasn’t it been done?)
- Cut EU regulations. Cut foreign aid by 50% (note – interesting it is not 100%)
- Improve HMRC competence, failure was due to understaffing (Note – yet will they propose to slash numbers of civil servants? We shall see)
Economy – personal- Lower fuel duty by 20p per litre, scrap VAT on energy bills and environmental levy
- Cut residential stamp duty to 0% below 750k, 2% from 750k, 4% from 1.5m.
- Abolish VAT tourist tax. Abolish inheritance tax for estates under 2m.
Economy – business- 1.2 million small and medium sized businesses from corporation tax – minimum profit threshold to 100k, reduce corporate tax to 20% then 15% from year 3.
- Lift VAT threshold to 150k
- Fast track new housing on brownfield (note – oh gods, not this again)
- Reform the tax system – more simplification is needed (note – no details).
NHS- NHS needs reform despite record extra funding.
- Frontline staff to pay zero basic rate tax for 3 years to aid retention.
- Tax relief of 20% on all private healthcare
- Operating theatres open on weekends, nail down better prices, review all Private finance contacts, charge those who fail to attend medical appointments without notice, abolish NHS race and health observatory.
- Public inquiry into excess deaths and vaccine harms
Net zero- Ditching net zero to save £30 bn a year. Scrap renewable energy subsidies.
- Fast track licences of north sea has and oil
- Support small modular nuclear reactors.
Policing- 40k new officers in 5 years.
- Increase stop and search
- Drug dealing and trafficking mandatory life imprisonment
- Sack chief constables who allow two tier policing (note – I don’t know what that means)
- More bobbies on the beat (note – literally how it is described)
- Scrap diversity equality and inclusion roles
- De politicise college of policing
Justice- Second violent or serious office mandatory life sentences - a two strikes law (note – where will the prisons go? I don’t think 10k extra places will be enough)
- Increase criminal justice budget by 2bn (note – sounds good)
- Change definition of Hate crime, built 10,000 new detention places
- Intensity training camps for young offenders
EducationYou could cut net migration to zero today and the housing crisis will remain every bit as acute as everyone in here already will still need a house.
The only way to end the housing crisis is to construct massively more housing.
Migration adds to the amount of new housing needed, but new housing is needed either way.
"Some of my best wives have been foreign"?
Corbyn and Foot were the least transfer-friendly Labour leaders of the last 50 years which contributed to them taking Labour down to their biggest defeats.
I agree that there is no love lost between Reform and the Cons but even if that were not the case it would difficult to know which was the best placed tactically in most areas.
Having said that I am expecting the Cons to increase by 5% by polling day at the expense of Reform although this could well be the election that turns the conventional wisdom on its head!
The Party must be better than this.
27 point lead, ouch!
🚨New Voting Intention🚨
Labour lead by 27 points in our latest poll.
Con 19% (-2)
Lab 46% (-)
Lib Dem 10% (+1)
Reform 16% (+4)
SNP 2% (-2)
Green 5% (-)
Other 1% (-1)
Fieldwork: 14th - 17th June 2024
Sample: 1,383 GB adults
(Changes from 6th - 8th June 2024)
Benefits
- Tax relief for businesses that undertake apprenticeships
- Benefits withdrawn if those fit to work do not find work in 4 months, or refuse 2 offers.
- Life income tax start point to 20k
- Work capability assessment must be face to face
- Save 15bn
Brexit- Scrap EU laws with immediate effect, abandon Windsor Framework
- withdraw from EU Horizon programme
- renegotiate trade and cooperation agreement with EU
Defence- Increase to 2.5% by 3rd year, then 3% in 6 years (note – given Nigel’s views on things like Ukraine and NATO, not sure why they support increase defence spending, what would it be for?)
- Protect personnel from human rights lawyers
- New department for veterans (note- new body alert 2)
- National service not the answer, increase army by 30k full time.
- Reform procurement (note – everyone has said this)
Housing- Prioritse local people for social housing.
- Scrap section 24 for landlords
- Abolish the renters’ (reform) bill (note – if it is only a bill does it need abolishing?)
- Incentivize new construction techniques
Children and families- Support marriage through the tax system. No tax on first 25k of income for either spouse.
- Frontload child benefit system to encourage more mums to be able to choose to stay at home more.
- Mandate single sex public toilets.
- Review online safety bill (note – no detail – not to scrap? Just says social media giants push transgender ideology should have no role in regulating free speech)
Transport and utilities infrastructureExtinction level event more likely than not now.
But look at that SNP score. Ahem.
https://x.com/oflynnsocial/status/1802737560055144795
This is very worrying.
A viral message being shared on WhatsApp and Facebook urges private school parents to create 'panic' by pretending they’re going to move their kids to a state school
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/leaked-whatsapps-expose-secret-plot-33037068
To my mind, it rather suggests that he thinks defeat is certain. And that's not a great look in an election campaign.
I reckon it can harness reluctant Tories who were planning to sit the election and some Reformers to vote Tory.
The rest is idealism.
LD 50
SNP 21
Con 19
RUK 4
Majority 416.
That's the Deltapoll Baxtered.
So no questions at most PMQ's.
3 letters needed for a leadership challenge.
Endless fun.
Eg an ideologue will strain for consistency and this will at times lead them into absurdity.
Fertility rate is irrelevant for decades. Newborn babes live with their parents, they don't go into a home of their own.
If you have zero net migration and below replacement fertility rate you still need houses for the elderly that are living longer than before. You still need housing for children who grow up into young adults and need a home of their own. And you still need homes for any migrants who'd already arrived.
Demographically we need many more homes even without migration.
Agriculture
- Increasing farming budget to 3bn.
- Protect ‘country sports’
- Stop supermarket price fixing
- Taxpayer funded orgs should source 75% food from the UK
Fishing and coastal communities- Stop EU fishers taking UK quotas (note – time for a cod war?)
- Expand navy overseas patrol squadron
- Revitalize uk fishing fleet
- Guarantee sustainable stocks through a dynamic management system
Pensions and Social Care- Royal commission into social care system.
- End mineworkers pension scandal (note – Labour said this too)
- Review pension provision (note – no detail)
Constitutional Reform- Leave ECHR
- Replace House of Lords with smaller democratic chamber.
- Immediate end of political appointees. But replace civil service leaders with professionals from provide sector who are political appointees.
- Reform postal voting. Referendum on PR.
- British bill of rights –(note - the explanation makes clear they believe this would have prevented the Covid Lockdown (which was based on ‘lies’) – not sure why they believe that would be the case, it would depend what was in it.
Reclaiming Britain- Reject influence of WEF, reject WHO Pandemic treaty
- Replace equalities act (note – with what?)
- Free Speech Bill
- Scrap TV licence
- Make st george’s day and st david’s day a public holiday
- Anti corruption unit for Westminster
Funding pageNo Overall Majority - 26.
Bless.
This suggests not, other than possibly by Act of Parliament. They are not in scope of the route a hereditary Peer can take.
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/peerages-can-they-be-removed/
If that is a correct interpretation, then we can ignore any of these stories.
“A life peerage cannot be relinquished. However, the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 enables a life peer to resign from being a member of the House.
There are also limited circumstances where hereditary peerages can be ‘disclaimed’. The Peerage Act 1963 enables hereditary peers to renounce their titles for life. The 1963 act sets out requirements that must be met to do this”.
Apart from the SDP manifesto which was all over the place, the Reform manifesto is the most distinct from others (Green/LD/Lab/Con).
The weakest on housing of all the parties so far, saying nothing whatsoever. Plenty of red meat to excite the target audience, on immigration, crime, wokeness, probably quite effective. Surprisingly little on Brexit.
Call it a B- : not appealing to me, but short, straightforward, and probably appealing to many disaffected Tories.
The savings/costs seem to be random.
If a racist Reform party gets 13% of the vote but wins no seats they deserve no seats, they don't deserve 13% of the seats.
Winning a few votes shouldn't be enough to get seats. If you want to win a seat, needing to win enough votes to beat the rivals for that seat is perfectly democratic.
They only had to go into PB, search on Dutch Salute, the promise of the current late Lab > LibDem drift as TVs firm up leading to 16% LibDem PV was all there - and prior to vote day, that declining Labour vote in the last weeks, days and on the day, even closing Tory to Lab gap (if Sunak hadn’t been utterly shit) getting (some, the dumb ones) Tories ever so excited at shrinking Lab share, even though it actually means they are on a beach excited about the sea recede away to nothing in front of them, so it means these ignorant idiots actually excited about a bizarre occurrence going on in front of them, that’s about to wipe them out.
And all those of everyone who went gangbusters, laughing and laughing at MoonRabbit and wetting themselves, when I posted TWO YEARS ago now, Thangham Debonaire will lose to a Green - have collective amnesia that they should have been first on ahead of the rest and on at the best odds. Because they were flipping told.
Enough now.
Going backwards is not the answer, he would not be popular enough with the base, he wouldn't have taken a peerage if he was planning on coming back as MP even if he can leave the HoL, and many more reasons.