2024 Election thread
Comments
-
That's enough in a first past the post election. Assuming 100% Reform go Conservative. Unlikely.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
The line from the Conservatives seems to be "there's no enthusiasm for Labour" without the unspoken bit which is "it's just that everyone really hates us".
0 -
The sudden suggestion that you haven't really won if you don't get over 50% of the vote is an interesting attempt at spin. Maybe the Tories are suddenly in favour of PR.
0 -
That only works on one side - you can't add the Lib Dem number to Labour to make it bigger than the Con+Reform number. That would be madness.
0 -
It also presupposes that in a low turn out election, the proportion of people who did vote represents those who will vote in a general election.
I would say that anyone rabid enough to vote reform is going to be camping next to a voting station, and so over represented in a low turnout.
Bit like the monster raving loony party always gets 3 votes or something like that.
0 -
I'd suspect Reform voters are more likely to vote Reform if they think the Conservatives are already lost.
These results are very bad for the Conservatives in every direction.
0 -
No, they are bad for Labour, didn't you hear?
0 -
-
It's the first time Reform have matched polling, isn't it?
0 -
If you are trying to use these by elections as a prediction you need to include Wellingborough as well (not withstanding that two data points is not much better than one) and Con + Ref were a long way short of Lab there.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
On getting rid of FPTP? I suspect the conservatives would rather have 1 or 2 Starmer terms than that.
0 -
I'm not.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Is it going to be popular with any main party? I can see Reform UK and fringe parties like the Lib Dems and Greens being keen on it though.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
No, Rwanda. A joke reference to the David Cameron's "hail Mary" referendum to gain votes and unite the party. Worked well. 🥶 No winning party wants PR, losers quite often do though. 😉
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Had the conservatives not had such a torrid time this parliament I could have seen Labour going for it. As it is, it looks like Starmer will probably get some sort of majority.
It feels like the "progressive" vote gets split across more parties, with the lib Dems, greens, labour and snp campaigning across reasonably similar lines at times. Whereas the conservative vote has tended to be split across a single party (UKIP brexit or reform).
I'd suggest the conservatives therefore have more to lose.
0 -
It feels like we're in a doom loop with Sunak, now he's just got three talking points:
"Our plan is beginning to work"
"Labour haven't got a plan"
"We'll cut benefits and other spending to fund tax cuts" (aka Trusslite)
Is there anything I've missed?
0 -
Rwanda.
0 -
-
This is apposite. Merely replace "Blair" with "Starmer", and it's pretty much where we are now.
0 -
-
Whilst amusing it does highlight the flaw in our FPTP system
0 -
It certainly does. The amusement of regularly incanting "400-seat majority" would wear as thin as, say, I dunno, "80-seat majority", and would not be good for holding Labour to account. Little did I realise quite how much I underplayed my warnings about the dangers of the Tories' majority and the lack of meaningful opposition.
0 -
Can you imagine the sort of nutcases would be among 527 MPs
Absolutely no party could vet that sort of candidate selection
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
My ideal is a 1 seat majority. 527 scares me but isn't going to happen. No chance.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I'm not sure on the ideal size...May's narrow (then non existent) majority saw her stuck with having to listen to the nutters. But Boris's 80 seats doesn't seem to have helped much this time around.
0 -
the tory party was teeming with brexiter nutters, they drown everything else out as they wreak destruction
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
A one seat majority means you can't do anything that your most extreme mp disagrees with.
0 -
You also can't do anything your most compassionate MP disagrees with. (Other virtues are available)
0 -
I'm still a bit in awe of what Major achieved (not least, staying in power) with his wafer-thin majority.
0 -
I think there are a number of reasons for that, including the impossible task of 'getting Brexit done' in any way that wasn't a car crash, and Johnson being a lazy incompetent liar, and thus anyone with any principles or pragmatism walked away. You've only got to look to the US and how Trumps GOP House of Representatives actually is doing no governing at all to see just how wrong things can go when a party gets usurped by someone with no interest in governing for the benefit of everyone.
tl;dr An 80-seat majority doesn't necessarily lead to disaster - see Blair and Thatcher... whatever your views on their policies, they were competent governments that got stuff done.
0
