lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 6,022
|
Post by lidar2 on Jun 4, 2024 11:24:24 GMT
I pondered if I should create this, as a lot of the posters from the good old days of brexit have since left the forum, but then I thought , why not?
I'm expecting a Labour majority, the only question is how big.
In terms of what I'd like to see, I think a Labour win with a majority big enough so Starmer is not beholden to the loony left, but not too big. I sincerely hope Reform don't get a toehold in Clacton or anywhere else and I hope the SNP take a pounding (in other words I am your bog-standard centrist Dad).
|
|
|
Post by timleschild on Jun 4, 2024 11:32:47 GMT
Not as big a majority as they expect for Labour. Many don't see what Starmer has to offer other than a less right leaning Tory approach. This may result in more people looking to alternatives, Green party for example.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2024 19:02:30 GMT
No, it'll be a big majority. Maybe not 1997 but depending on how many Tories think "no point..." - it could be.
They'll be the majority party in Scotland again too.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Jun 4, 2024 19:13:54 GMT
I’ve been waiting for the tide in polls to break. It hasn’t, and now Farage is in the picture the Tories’ win back Reform voters strategy is completely dead. So I really wouldn’t bet against a very big Labour majority indeed.
|
|
|
Post by timleschild on Jun 4, 2024 20:05:35 GMT
Well I hope we get real change
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Jun 9, 2024 22:15:06 GMT
I’ve been waiting for the tide in polls to break. It hasn’t, and now Farage is in the picture the Tories’ win back Reform voters strategy is completely dead. So I really wouldn’t bet against a very big Labour majority indeed. Disagree. Not 'very big', but 'immense'.
Right now I'm the one vote for '151+' in the thread poll. Because there wasn't a larger majority number available. Like 200+, or 250+.
In more detail, I'd guesstimate Labour with a good but not astonishing winning vote share of the low 40s%. As did Thatcher (three times), Blair twice and Cameron, May and Boris (yes I still think of 'Johnson' as the late President, not him) once each. Winning parties in the UK usually get into the low 40s%. (Blair 2005 is the recent exception - 36% and 60+ majority, as I recall.)
But, those 40+% winners' majorities were anything from 170+ to a few seats short. Under first-past-the-post of course what matters is how the losers' votes stack up. Mostly for one other party (May, 2017) = small majority or none. Can't be bothered to vote + fragmented opposition = large to huge majority (Thatcher 1983/1987, Blair 1997/2001, Boris 2019.)
This time, I reckon on a large number of non-voting Conservatives and a remarkably, unprecedentedly fragmented non-Labour 57%-60% of the vote. Which would give Labour the biggest and yet least 'meaningful' landslide ever. A government with a colossal majority elected by an unusually small % of the total electorate. That's always true of any landslide winner under our system, but this time, to the max.
(I don't bet, ever. So I've nothing to lose if I'm totally wrong! )
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Jun 9, 2024 22:35:13 GMT
Having placed my predictive cards firmly on the thread, perhaps other posters to this thread would like to say which of the poll options they chose?
Just so we know who has bragging rights when the sun rises on July 5th and people ask 'were you up for X ?'
'It's a game, within a game...'
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 6,022
|
Post by lidar2 on Jun 10, 2024 7:50:24 GMT
Having placed my predictive cards firmly on the thread, perhaps other posters to this thread would like to say which of the poll options they chose?
Just so we know who has bragging rights when the sun rises on July 5th and people ask 'were you up for X ?'
'It's a game, within a game...' I opted for 51-100, by way of explanation that was when the Diane Abbott row was ongoing and the D-Day row had yet to happen. I felt that the Starmer operation was nowhere near as slick and well oiled as the Blair operation in 1997, nor can Starmer "walk on water" in the way Blair seemingly could in the 1994-7 period. Of course, the electoral system can exaggerate victories that are small in % terms and the number of stay-at-home Conservatives will likely increase after D-Day, so I could well be underestimating Labour's victory. One thing we do not hear much about, yet I think could be a factor, is anti-Farage tactical voting in favour of the Conservatives. But we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Jun 10, 2024 9:29:23 GMT
Having placed my predictive cards firmly on the thread, perhaps other posters to this thread would like to say which of the poll options they chose?
Just so we know who has bragging rights when the sun rises on July 5th and people ask 'were you up for X ?'
'It's a game, within a game...' I opted for 51-100, by way of explanation that was when the Diane Abbott row was ongoing and the D-Day row had yet to happen. I felt that the Starmer operation was nowhere near as slick and well oiled as the Blair operation in 1997, nor can Starmer "walk on water" in the way Blair seemingly could in the 1994-7 period. Of course, the electoral system can exaggerate victories that are small in % terms and the number of stay-at-home Conservatives will likely increase after D-Day, so I could well be underestimating Labour's victory. One thing we do not hear much about, yet I think could be a factor, is anti-Farage tactical voting in favour of the Conservatives. But we'll see. Thanks. I agree, he's no Blair (which may or may not be a compliment... ). I think it's interesting and accurate that you highlight two 'rows', because it seem to me that's what politics has become - 'rows', 'stunts', reporters trying to find 'gotchas' and old quotes or tweets and other things which in the long run are nothing more than trivia.
Thinking back to 1979 (the first GE I remember well, though I was too young to vote) there were certainly political 'stunts' (I seem to remember Mrs. T sorting chocolates in a factory and waving bags of shopping) but on the whole there was a serious policy debate and no doubt what the main parties stood for, which were two distinct and obvious visions of future UK. And so it was through the 80s and early 90s and most definitely in 2017 and 2019.
But this time (and I follow politics more closely than most) I really don't see major differences between the main parties. A few more of X here, a few more of Y there, in % terms it's just tinkering. I suspect the truth is they all know that after Covid and Putin's invasion of Ukraine the nation's money has well and truly been spent (overspent imo) on furlough and energy subsidies and we're going to be paying back that debt for a long time. So there really is (as the saying goes) 'no money left.' I'm expecting large tax rises of one sort or another, whoever wins and whatever they're promising not to do. And very little substantial change.
I think you may be right about some pro-Conservative tactical voting in some areas. They had lost my vote over the National Service nonsense, but with the return of - him - they may well get it back!
|
|
|
Post by timleschild on Jun 10, 2024 10:02:45 GMT
Surely tactical voting will go to Labour? How anyone can vote tory after the last 14 years is incredulous to me.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Jun 10, 2024 11:52:58 GMT
Surely tactical voting will go to Labour? How anyone can vote tory after the last 14 years is incredulous to me. From an alternative POV, how anyone could have voted Labour in 2010 or 1979 or 1983 or 1987 was incredible to me, yet millions did. How anyone could have voted Labour in 2017 or 2019 was much, much more incredible, but again, millions did including some on this forum.
Blanket tribalism and 'no-one can possibly vote for party X Y or Z' is the most incredible attitude of all and leads to US-style political & social division. I know perfectly good and decent people who are voters and even activists for parties I wouldn't vote for from choice (in a billion years, as they say.). One of my closest and oldest friends has voted Labour several times, but I don't hold it against them. (Teasing is allowed however! )
I think the tactical voting we were both referring to above was indicating the Conservatives are not the only party that people may dislike.
The last two times, I voted primarily to stop the far Left getting into power. This time, it's perfectly possible that in some places in Scotland, people will tactically vote Conservative to block the SNP from winning a seat. Or in parts of England, to stop Reform from winning a seat. Personally, I would tactically vote Labour (in their current form) to do either of those things, if that's what it would take - or to keep out a Green candidate, for example.
If we had PR, this sort of tactical voting would be less necessary, but we don't so under FPTP it's the only option.
|
|
|
Post by timleschild on Jun 10, 2024 12:03:31 GMT
Surely tactical voting will go to Labour? How anyone can vote tory after the last 14 years is incredulous to me. From an alternative POV, how anyone could have voted Labour in 2010 or 1979 or 1983 or 1987 was incredible to me, yet millions did. How anyone could have voted Labour in 2017 or 2019 was much, much more incredible, but again, millions did including some on this forum.
Blanket tribalism and 'no-one can possibly vote for party X Y or Z' is the most incredible attitude of all and leads to US-style political & social division. I know perfectly good and decent people who are voters and even activists for parties I wouldn't vote for in a billion years. One of my closest and oldest friends has voted Labour several times, but I don't hold it against them. (Teasing is allowed however! )
I think the tactical voting we were both referring to above was indicating the Conservatives are not the only party that people may dislike.
The last two times, I voted primarily to stop the far Left getting into power. This time, it's perfectly possible that in some places in Scotland, people will tactically vote Conservative to block the SNP from winning a seat. Or in parts of England, to stop Reform from winning a seat. Personally, I would tactically vote Labour (in their current form) to do either of those things, if that's what it would take - or to keep out a Green candidate, for example.
I agree about blanket tribalism. But for me the facts speak for themselves so it isn't an incredible attitude. 14 years of the tories. What has got better?
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Jun 10, 2024 12:11:31 GMT
From an alternative POV, how anyone could have voted Labour in 2010 or 1979 or 1983 or 1987 was incredible to me, yet millions did. How anyone could have voted Labour in 2017 or 2019 was much, much more incredible, but again, millions did including some on this forum.
Blanket tribalism and 'no-one can possibly vote for party X Y or Z' is the most incredible attitude of all and leads to US-style political & social division. I know perfectly good and decent people who are voters and even activists for parties I wouldn't vote for in a billion years. One of my closest and oldest friends has voted Labour several times, but I don't hold it against them. (Teasing is allowed however! )
I think the tactical voting we were both referring to above was indicating the Conservatives are not the only party that people may dislike.
The last two times, I voted primarily to stop the far Left getting into power. This time, it's perfectly possible that in some places in Scotland, people will tactically vote Conservative to block the SNP from winning a seat. Or in parts of England, to stop Reform from winning a seat. Personally, I would tactically vote Labour (in their current form) to do either of those things, if that's what it would take - or to keep out a Green candidate, for example.
I agree about blanket tribalism. But for me the facts speak for themselves so it isn't an incredible attitude. 14 years of the tories. What has got better? I wasn't discussing policy, but voting tactics. Sorry I edited my post to add a line as you were replying, so here it is again:
If we had PR, this sort of tactical voting would be less necessary, but we don't so under FPTP it's the only option.
Labour (in their current form) aren't my 'last choice' party and the Conservatives also won't be the 'last choice' party for many people, if it comes to a tactical vote in their area to decide who wins the seat.
|
|
|
Post by timleschild on Jun 10, 2024 12:13:21 GMT
I agree about blanket tribalism. But for me the facts speak for themselves so it isn't an incredible attitude. 14 years of the tories. What has got better? I wasn't discussing policy, but voting tactics. Sorry I edited my post to add a line as you were replying, so here it is again:
If we had PR, this sort of tactical voting would be less necessary, but we don't so under FPTP it's the only option.
Labour (in their current form) aren't my 'last choice' party and the Conservatives also won't be the 'last choice' party for many people, if it comes to a tactical vote in their area to decide who wins the seat.
OK. I agree on PR.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Jun 10, 2024 12:15:33 GMT
I wasn't discussing policy, but voting tactics. Sorry I edited my post to add a line as you were replying, so here it is again:
If we had PR, this sort of tactical voting would be less necessary, but we don't so under FPTP it's the only option.
Labour (in their current form) aren't my 'last choice' party and the Conservatives also won't be the 'last choice' party for many people, if it comes to a tactical vote in their area to decide who wins the seat.
OK. I agree on PR. Comrade!
|
|
|
Post by timleschild on Jun 11, 2024 9:17:11 GMT
Comrade!
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Jun 11, 2024 13:13:20 GMT
Not so comradely as all that...
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Jun 13, 2024 22:56:15 GMT
Corks! A load of polls tonight showing Labour dipping close to or (just) below 40%, some with the Conservatives not far ahead of Reform and one with them just behind Reform. Generally, all the other parties up a bit at the expense of the (currently) big two.
Thanks to our FPTP voting system, political geography and a manifesto which to me looks reassuringly dull (but may make some radical left-wing voters think 'is that it?'), I stick to my earlier prediction of a super-colossal Labour majority on a relatively small vote share (small for the size of the majority / seats won.)
And the Conservatives still a very clear second in seat numbers (though way behind) even if they are only a low second in vote share (not that far ahead of third place I mean.) With the Lib Dems not doing as well as (maybe some) expected unless they have amazingly well targeted voting in just the right seats. And the other smaller parties in England winning almost or actually 0 seats despite relatively good vote shares.
Result: A super-huge majority, and so far as I can see, nothing that hugely different planned to do with it? Time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by timleschild on Jun 14, 2024 7:39:24 GMT
Yes! Wipe them out! But I fear there won't be much change.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 6,022
|
Post by lidar2 on Jun 14, 2024 8:42:05 GMT
Corks! A load of polls tonight showing Labour dipping close to or (just) below 40%, some with the Conservatives not far ahead of Reform and one with them just behind Reform. Generally, all the other parties up a bit at the expense of the (currently) big two.
Thanks to our FPTP voting system, political geography and a manifesto which to me looks reassuringly dull (but may make some radical left-wing voters think 'is that it?'), I stick to my earlier prediction of a super-colossal Labour majority on a relatively small vote share (small for the size of the majority / seats won.)
And the Conservatives still a very clear second in seat numbers (though way behind) even if they are only a low second in vote share (not that far ahead of third place I mean.) With the Lib Dems not doing as well as (maybe some) expected unless they have amazingly well targeted voting in just the right seats. And the other smaller parties in England winning almost or actually 0 seats despite relatively good vote shares.
Result: A super-huge majority, and so far as I can see, nothing that hugely different planned to do with it? Time will tell.
1997 all over again, in other words
|
|