Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

Astonishing win in terms of margin. I was surprised that the ex-Labour candidate polled as low as 8%, but I guess word spread about his removal and he was viewed, effectively, as another independent.

Even if he wasn't removed, I think Galloway still wins, so it was a stroke of luck for Starmer in that he can ignore this defeat.

I thought Galloway would be out when the GE rolls around; now I'm not 100% sure. The issue of Gaza is hurting Labour amongst its once almost guaranteed Muslim vote.

I think this result shows that an Islamic party, if led by a brilliant campaigner, is a very viable option for the future. They could stand in areas where the Muslim population is relatively high and maybe win a couple of dozen seats at a GE, being similar to the SNP in terms of insurgency.

lostinwales wrote:

Duty281 wrote:These local elections have been very depressing. The turnouts have been very low, indicating people want less politics, not more. But Labour will give us more devolution, unfortunately.

Look at the turnout in these mayoral elections. Below 28% in the East Midlands. Below 30% in Manchester. Below 25% in Liverpool. And on it goes. I think the highest turnout for a mayoral election was in London, with just over 40% of the vote. Some idiot, well a clever idiot actually, got tens of thousands of votes in the West Midlands election by campaigning on Gaza.

Really relevant.

Turnout for the PCC elections was even worse. Some places didn't even touch 20%.

We should ask whether these expensive mayoral and PCC positions are desired by the public (London excepted)?

I have to say I have no idea what PCC's do.

Mayors do seem to make more of a difference. I guess you can't instantly expect people to buy into changes to the system but voting numbers in anything other than the general elections have always been poor. Then again the 'no difference between Labour and Tory' propaganda does genuinely seem to be part of an active strategy to discourage voters who might otherwise put their cross for someone other than a representative of our current government.

Very little that's demonstrable? I expect Doots is correct in the implication that the public doesn't really want them, nor can recollect being asked if they want them. It doesn't help that there's not really any easy way to judge what a candidate standing for re-election has achieved (and I don't count self-serving leaflets from the candidates themselves as worth the paper they're printed on) and I'm not sure many believe promises of new candidates. Similar problems at all elections.

Duty281 wrote:Downing Street has shelved plans for a general election this summer, The Telegraph understands, with an autumn vote now widely expected after Tory local election defeats.

Rishi Sunak is said by allies to hope that an improving economic picture and the Rwanda deportation flights expected this summer can improve his re-election chances in the autumn.

Number 10 sources had suggested that if a plot to oust the Prime Minister had materialised after the local election results, it could have triggered an election in June or July.

But Tory rebels are understood to have given up on changing the party’s leader before the general election and senior figures working on the Tory campaign now believe it is “80 to 90 per cent likely” Mr Sunak will reject a summer election, instead calling one for October or November.

Wouldn't be surprised if he holds on until January. The way things are going the Tories could be the third biggest party by vote share by then.

Kind of tells you all you need to know about the Tories and their altruism re. the country. They aren't interested in anyone but themselves. It won't happen, but I hope they're utterly wiped out for a generation (or more than one, ideally) come whenever the next GE is.

As I've seen pointed out, squatting for a November/December election feels counter productive when the Tories are reliant on older voters/volunteers

They're putting so much faith in flights to Rwanda magically reviving their fortunes, but 'Fly planes to Rwanda' wasn't the pledge. Unless they call a snap election when the first flight takes off, all they're going to do is prove that it won't work as a deterrent.

Very much overestimating how much the ordinary person cares about Rwanda I think

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

A 2/3 majority would have made obvious sense for something of such magnitude. As it was, we got the 52-48 rubbish, with all the blight that's caused. TBH, it wouldn't have mattered that much as seen by recent issues re. Rwanda etc. The dialogue/debate over the rights/wrongs of the EU was puerile in the extreme - another example of just how poor our politicians are.

A 2/3 majority makes obvious for anyone who voted remain, it would have made no sense whatsoever to anyone voting leave.

His point was perfectly clear.

Not really, no. His bias is clear, yes. I'm not arguing that a 67% requirement should have been stated as someone that voted remain; it's just demonstrably sensible. Period.
The lack of a referendum specifying the need for clear water in any decision is just another example of how cr@p Cameron and the Brexit debate was.

The fact that you and he frame this as a "Well, a remainer would propose that wouldn't they?!" kind of confirms the puerile nature of the 'debate' and the width of the divide that this country has no idea of how to move beyond. Cleary we haven't yet grown up.

Why is it demonstrably sensible? Do you accept, by the same token, that we should never have joined the EEC or ratified Maastricht, because it didn't cross a 2/3rds plebiscite? Do you think it should be 2/3rds needing to vote for PR if we ever got a referendum on that, or to rejoin the EU?

'Well a Remainer would propose that, wouldn't they?' - funnily enough, I didn't hear any Remainers advocating for a 2/3rds majority when they thought they were going to win, only after they lost.

The party membership of the Tories is aging rapidly and forever shrinking. Their popularity is at rock bottom. All they have is money and, for now, power. Not all the money will dry up when things go wrong but much of it will, which will leave them in a very weak state after the power has gone after next election.

Brexit. It happened. I think it was the most appalling mistake, and to change the status quo there should have been a requirement for a larger margin. That the vote was so close should have driven more reflection and another vote. It is too important not to try to get it right. Obviously there is a strong eurosceptic thread in this country, but there were also plenty of people using the vote as a way of sticking up a pair of fingers to the establishment (or so they thought).

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

A 2/3 majority would have made obvious sense for something of such magnitude. As it was, we got the 52-48 rubbish, with all the blight that's caused. TBH, it wouldn't have mattered that much as seen by recent issues re. Rwanda etc. The dialogue/debate over the rights/wrongs of the EU was puerile in the extreme - another example of just how poor our politicians are.

A 2/3 majority makes obvious for anyone who voted remain, it would have made no sense whatsoever to anyone voting leave.

His point was perfectly clear.

Not really, no. His bias is clear, yes. I'm not arguing that a 67% requirement should have been stated as someone that voted remain; it's just demonstrably sensible. Period.
The lack of a referendum specifying the need for clear water in any decision is just another example of how cr@p Cameron and the Brexit debate was.

The fact that you and he frame this as a "Well, a remainer would propose that wouldn't they?!" kind of confirms the puerile nature of the 'debate' and the width of the divide that this country has no idea of how to move beyond. Cleary we haven't yet grown up.

Wanting a 2/3rds majority for the side you don't agree with isn't bias? Hmmm

GSC wrote:Very much overestimating how much the ordinary person cares about Rwanda I think

Correct. The amount of illegal immigration is a concern though. It's bad news for those risking lives getting here and bad news for UK in having to house, feed them etc.

I dont know what term solution to immigration is. I do know that the government has made a political decision to not fix resulting issues. Leaving refugees in limbo awaiting processing when they could either be out the door or contributing their skills to our economy only helps those people with lucrative deals to house then.

Soul Requiem wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

A 2/3 majority would have made obvious sense for something of such magnitude. As it was, we got the 52-48 rubbish, with all the blight that's caused. TBH, it wouldn't have mattered that much as seen by recent issues re. Rwanda etc. The dialogue/debate over the rights/wrongs of the EU was puerile in the extreme - another example of just how poor our politicians are.

A 2/3 majority makes obvious for anyone who voted remain, it would have made no sense whatsoever to anyone voting leave.

His point was perfectly clear.

Not really, no. His bias is clear, yes. I'm not arguing that a 67% requirement should have been stated as someone that voted remain; it's just demonstrably sensible. Period.
The lack of a referendum specifying the need for clear water in any decision is just another example of how cr@p Cameron and the Brexit debate was.

The fact that you and he frame this as a "Well, a remainer would propose that wouldn't they?!" kind of confirms the puerile nature of the 'debate' and the width of the divide that this country has no idea of how to move beyond. Cleary we haven't yet grown up.

Wanting a 2/3rds majority for the side you don't agree with isn't bias? Hmmm

As I said, we haven't grown up. You insist that because I voted remain and I think the idea of a 2/3rds majority should obviously have been part of the referendum from the off that therefore I'm biased. I can clearly see your point, but I think it says more about your own assumptions and fears than is rooted in fact. Have a nice day .

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

A 2/3 majority would have made obvious sense for something of such magnitude. As it was, we got the 52-48 rubbish, with all the blight that's caused. TBH, it wouldn't have mattered that much as seen by recent issues re. Rwanda etc. The dialogue/debate over the rights/wrongs of the EU was puerile in the extreme - another example of just how poor our politicians are.

A 2/3 majority makes obvious for anyone who voted remain, it would have made no sense whatsoever to anyone voting leave.

His point was perfectly clear.

Not really, no. His bias is clear, yes. I'm not arguing that a 67% requirement should have been stated as someone that voted remain; it's just demonstrably sensible. Period.
The lack of a referendum specifying the need for clear water in any decision is just another example of how cr@p Cameron and the Brexit debate was.

The fact that you and he frame this as a "Well, a remainer would propose that wouldn't they?!" kind of confirms the puerile nature of the 'debate' and the width of the divide that this country has no idea of how to move beyond. Cleary we haven't yet grown up.

Why is it demonstrably sensible? Do you accept, by the same token, that we should never have joined the EEC or ratified Maastricht, because it didn't cross a 2/3rds plebiscite? Do you think it should be 2/3rds needing to vote for PR if we ever got a referendum on that, or to rejoin the EU?

'Well a Remainer would propose that, wouldn't they?' - funnily enough, I didn't hear any Remainers advocating for a 2/3rds majority when they thought they were going to win, only after they lost.

It depends. Someone would have to make some sort of value judgement on whether such a threshold is necessary for any given vote. The examples you give? Yes, on balance, I think they probably should have had such a majority requirement.

Re. the last point, you weren't listening very hard. I think there was an assumption on the part of remain voting people that their side would win, but in plenty of conversations around the issue that I had at the time, there was plenty of discussion about whether any sort of super majority was needed; one way or the other.

lostinwales wrote:I dont know what  term solution to immigration is.  I do know that the government has made a political decision to not fix resulting issues. Leaving refugees in limbo awaiting processing when they could either be out the door or contributing their skills to our economy only helps those people with lucrative deals to house then.

mountain man wrote:

GSC wrote:Very much overestimating how much the ordinary person cares about Rwanda I think

Correct. The amount of illegal immigration is a concern though. It's bad news for those risking lives getting here and bad news for UK in having to house, feed them etc.

A birth rate of ~1.5 would suggest we absolutely need immigration. Otherwise, who's going to work to make the money to pay the pensions of the Brexiteers? Those coming in boats are a (literal) drop in the ocean cf. those coming via other routes, but the latter is hardly discussed. Probably because we need them, but then the Daily Heil etc can't publicise that part, can they?

There absolutely should be mature conversations about housing, schools, GP services etc cf. immigration incl. needs, cost etc, but the lack of such provision in areas of the country is hardly the fault of immigrants, is it? The housing 'market' in the UK is a disgrace, but too many MPs are landlords, or are in hock to those in property speculation.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

A 2/3 majority would have made obvious sense for something of such magnitude. As it was, we got the 52-48 rubbish, with all the blight that's caused. TBH, it wouldn't have mattered that much as seen by recent issues re. Rwanda etc. The dialogue/debate over the rights/wrongs of the EU was puerile in the extreme - another example of just how poor our politicians are.

A 2/3 majority makes obvious for anyone who voted remain, it would have made no sense whatsoever to anyone voting leave.

His point was perfectly clear.

Not really, no. His bias is clear, yes. I'm not arguing that a 67% requirement should have been stated as someone that voted remain; it's just demonstrably sensible. Period.
The lack of a referendum specifying the need for clear water in any decision is just another example of how cr@p Cameron and the Brexit debate was.

The fact that you and he frame this as a "Well, a remainer would propose that wouldn't they?!" kind of confirms the puerile nature of the 'debate' and the width of the divide that this country has no idea of how to move beyond. Cleary we haven't yet grown up.

Wanting a 2/3rds majority for the side you don't agree with isn't bias? Hmmm

As I said, we haven't grown up. You insist that because I voted remain and I think the idea of a 2/3rds majority should obviously have been part of the referendum from the off that therefore I'm biased. I can clearly see your point, but I think it says more about your own assumptions and fears than is rooted in fact. Have a nice day .

My fears?

Yes, your opinion is based on voting remain, that is self evident.

Immigration is needed absolutely. Illegal immigration not so much.

mountain man wrote:Immigration is needed absolutely. Illegal immigration not so much.

Not sure any immigration is illegal in, and of, itself. Remaining in the UK in the absence of any leave to remain is another thing.
The fact is that politicians for too long have SNAFU'd the immigration system (and every other state service), and we're now where we are. They (normally Tories) think it's actually clever to cut staff and resource and point to so-called savings. Any child could come up with that for a strategy to 'save' money, but then they wonder why the country's on its way to Hell in a handcart. Idiots.

navyblueshorts wrote:...As I said, we haven't grown up. You insist that because I voted remain and I think the idea of a 2/3rds majority should obviously have been part of the referendum from the off that therefore I'm biased. I can clearly see your point, but I think it says more about your own assumptions and fears than is rooted in fact. Have a nice day .

Soul Requiem wrote:My fears?

Yes, your opinion is based on voting remain, that is self evident.

There you go, making assumptions again. Never mind...

Rishi loses another MP...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68977175

Dead party walking...

Interestingly though the views Elphicke has on immigration are way to the right of anyone in Labour and several Lab MPs have openly questioned why she has defected and why Starmer accepted.
It's not good for Sunak for sure to have another MP move across the floor but not sure how it sits for Labour and Starmer either.

mountain man wrote:Interestingly though the views Elphicke has on immigration are way to the right of anyone in Labour and several Lab MPs have openly questioned why she has defected and why Starmer accepted.
It's not good for Sunak for sure to have another MP move across the floor but not sure how it sits for Labour and Starmer either.

She won't stand as MP at the next election. Accepting her as a short term MP increases the sense of chaos in the Tories and makes the seat more winnable for the Labour candidate.

Exactly so she hasn't gone because of her beliefs etc, just to cause trouble. Not a good look for either side.

superflyweight wrote:

mountain man wrote:Interestingly though the views Elphicke has on immigration are way to the right of anyone in Labour and several Lab MPs have openly questioned why she has defected and why Starmer accepted.
It's not good for Sunak for sure to have another MP move across the floor but not sure how it sits for Labour and Starmer either.

She won't stand as MP at the next election.  Accepting her as a short term MP increases the sense of chaos in the Tories and makes the seat more winnable for the Labour candidate.  

That's exactly it. Most of the electorate don't follow politics very closely, and won't know anything about Natalie Elphicke. All they'll get from this is that another Tory MP has defected to Labour. It might also register that she's the MP for Dover, and she's criticising Sunak over 'small boats'. That's too good to turn down politically.

I can understand why Labour members aren't happy about it, but this isn't aimed at them.

The MP most famous for tax dodging, and using taxpayer cash to pay for the heating of his stables will not be standing at the next election

Good riddance

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

mountain man wrote:Interestingly though the views Elphicke has on immigration are way to the right of anyone in Labour and several Lab MPs have openly questioned why she has defected and why Starmer accepted.
It's not good for Sunak for sure to have another MP move across the floor but not sure how it sits for Labour and Starmer either.

She won't stand as MP at the next election.  Accepting her as a short term MP increases the sense of chaos in the Tories and makes the seat more winnable for the Labour candidate.  

That's exactly it. Most of the electorate don't follow politics very closely, and won't know anything about Natalie Elphicke. All they'll get from this is that another Tory MP has defected to Labour. It might also register that she's the MP for Dover, and she's criticising Sunak over 'small boats'. That's too good to turn down politically.

I can understand why Labour members aren't happy about it, but this isn't aimed at them.

Some of the Labour blowback is quite funny. Obviously, we can't have that sort of person in the Labour party or as an MP. Oh, no. Not in our club.
I assume they have some sort of sixth sense that allows them to see directly into Elphicke's mind? Obviously, it couldn't be, that on balance Elphicke thinks her interests are best served by the current version of Labour cf. the omnishambles of a Tory party. Oh, no. It's not even as if there were any Labour MPs, for example, that were avidly pro-Brexit etc and no Labour voters/party members could possibly have countenanced being pro-Brexit or think there's an issue w/ small boats bringing immigrants across the Channel....ah.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

mountain man wrote:Interestingly though the views Elphicke has on immigration are way to the right of anyone in Labour and several Lab MPs have openly questioned why she has defected and why Starmer accepted.
It's not good for Sunak for sure to have another MP move across the floor but not sure how it sits for Labour and Starmer either.

She won't stand as MP at the next election.  Accepting her as a short term MP increases the sense of chaos in the Tories and makes the seat more winnable for the Labour candidate.  

That's exactly it. Most of the electorate don't follow politics very closely, and won't know anything about Natalie Elphicke. All they'll get from this is that another Tory MP has defected to Labour. It might also register that she's the MP for Dover, and she's criticising Sunak over 'small boats'. That's too good to turn down politically.

I can understand why Labour members aren't happy about it, but this isn't aimed at them.

Some of the Labour blowback is quite funny. Obviously, we can't have that sort of person in the Labour party or as an MP. Oh, no. Not in our club.
I assume they have some sort of sixth sense that allows them to see directly into Elphicke's mind? Obviously, it couldn't be, that on balance Elphicke thinks her interests are best served by the current version of Labour cf. the omnishambles of a Tory party. Oh, no. It's not even as if there were any Labour MPs, for example, that were avidly pro-Brexit etc and no Labour voters/party members could possibly have countenanced being pro-Brexit or think there's an issue w/ small boats bringing immigrants across the Channel....ah.

I would suggest most complaints from Labour members or MPs stem from her comments defending her convicted sex offender of an ex husband.

JDizzle wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

mountain man wrote:Interestingly though the views Elphicke has on immigration are way to the right of anyone in Labour and several Lab MPs have openly questioned why she has defected and why Starmer accepted.
It's not good for Sunak for sure to have another MP move across the floor but not sure how it sits for Labour and Starmer either.

She won't stand as MP at the next election.  Accepting her as a short term MP increases the sense of chaos in the Tories and makes the seat more winnable for the Labour candidate.  

That's exactly it. Most of the electorate don't follow politics very closely, and won't know anything about Natalie Elphicke. All they'll get from this is that another Tory MP has defected to Labour. It might also register that she's the MP for Dover, and she's criticising Sunak over 'small boats'. That's too good to turn down politically.

I can understand why Labour members aren't happy about it, but this isn't aimed at them.

Some of the Labour blowback is quite funny. Obviously, we can't have that sort of person in the Labour party or as an MP. Oh, no. Not in our club.
I assume they have some sort of sixth sense that allows them to see directly into Elphicke's mind? Obviously, it couldn't be, that on balance Elphicke thinks her interests are best served by the current version of Labour cf. the omnishambles of a Tory party. Oh, no. It's not even as if there were any Labour MPs, for example, that were avidly pro-Brexit etc and no Labour voters/party members could possibly have countenanced being pro-Brexit or think there's an issue w/ small boats bringing immigrants across the Channel....ah.

I would suggest most complaints from Labour members or MPs stem from her comments defending her convicted sex offender of an ex husband.

Could be, I agree. Then again, I suppose someone should be persona non grata for life for something they once said, especially their ex-husband, whom presumably they may have loved deeply...

I think calling it ‘something they once’ said is a very polite way of describing defending their convicted sex offender husband only a few years ago, whilst a sitting MP.

And no-one saying person non grata for life - just not allowing them to cross the floor months before you aren’t allowing them to stand anyway.

It’s a cynical ploy. And it’ll work and I get why he has done it. But it will make it harder to keep Labour MPs in line if the election is won

Nice people...

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/article/2024/may/09/unrwa-jerusalem-hq-closed-after-israeli-extremist-arson-attack

https://bylinetimes.com/2024/05/09/nigel-farage-nomad-capitalist-speaker/

Cupid Stunt. You'd think people would have seen through him by now...

Really nice people...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg300jek94zo

A light unto the Nations. Not....

Neo-Nazi Curious and Champions of Israel

Nauseating:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crgygdr7vezo

Hard to imagine how much lower they can get. All being well (although suspect it'll be torpedoed by underhand approaches), the ICC will be granted the warrants requested by the lead prosecutor to haul in Netanyahu etc, as well as the Hamas leadership, given half a chance.
I see Biden has also removed the mask re. his blind spot and bias here - no-one is making any 'equivalence', you moron - and, as usual, the UK Government is talking b0llox.

Hmm. I wonder how Irish Mr. Biden is feeling right at this moment? Always quick to trumpet his 'Irishness' in the past - perhaps time to look at himself in the mirror?

navyblueshorts wrote:Nauseating:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crgygdr7vezo

Hard to imagine how much lower they can get. All being well (although suspect it'll be torpedoed by underhand approaches), the ICC will be granted the warrants requested by the lead prosecutor to haul in Netanyahu etc, as well as the Hamas leadership, given half a chance.
I see Biden has also removed the mask re. his blind spot and bias here - no-one is making any 'equivalence', you moron - and, as usual, the UK Government is talking b0llox.

Jewish lobby in the USA is potentially more damaging to Biden's hopes than the Muslim lobby.......Think Michigan has probably gone but a mixture of Biden playing politics and being controlled by his puppet masters at play.

AIPAC cough up hundreds of millions in every election cycle.....and money talks.

Sounding like Sunak is going to see sense and stop squatting for a miracle...

GSC wrote:Sounding like Sunak is going to see sense and stop squatting for a miracle...

We can but hope! Whenever the next GE happens, if the Tories don't get an absolute shoeing, I'll be very surprised.

I suppose he might as well. Let's get this shambles over with. 1/7 on Betfair that it happens in July.

Although apparently it has caused panic in the ranks, and rumours of a no confidence vote are happening. Would be hilarious if Sunak were forced out before a GE.

Tories trail by anywhere between 16% and 30% according to this month's polling.

"As a reminder, the second half of the year begins on 1 July."  - thanks to the BBC political editor for that stirring insight.

Widely reported as the 4th July now

GSC wrote:Widely reported as the 4th July now

If they do....Either they think the political outlook will get worse....Or they are counting on England reaching the 1/2 finals of the Euros and for the Country to be taken over by a Union Jack waving fervour..

Be surprised if they call it though....November seems more likely and sensible.

Yep, going to be the 4th of July according to reports. I get it doesn't matter because they're so far behind, but it seems terrible timing, because there's going to be lots of boat crossings during this time which is a reminder time and again the Tories have failed.

Hopefully the Tories get smashed into utter oblivion. 14 years of failure.

Things can only get better in the background is A+

GSC wrote:Things can only get better in the background is A+

Apparently No confidence in Sunak letters are going in from backbench Tories who think an election now means safe seats for life are gone.

All confirmed then. A six week campaign, which is about how long it was when Major tried a similarly impossible comeback in 1997.

I did think the Tories would string it out as long as possible, but I guess the inflation news motivated Sunak to call it now. Some talk about Euro 2024, but England will likely be between the last 16 and QF game by the day of the election, which isn't going to provoke much patriotism (and even if it did, why vote Tory?). Could have called it on the 11th, which is the day after England's possible semi-final against France, and either the highest of highs or lowest of lows for the national mood.

1/9 for a Labour majority. 11/2 for a hung parliament. 25/1 for a Tory majority.

Duty281 wrote:All confirmed then. A six week campaign, which is about how long it was when Major tried a similarly impossible comeback in 1997.

I did think the Tories would string it out as long as possible, but I guess the inflation news motivated Sunak to call it now. Some talk about Euro 2024, but England will likely be between the last 16 and QF game by the day of the election, which isn't going to provoke much patriotism (and even if it did, why vote Tory?). Could have called it on the 11th, which is the day after England's possible semi-final against France, and either the highest of highs or lowest of lows for the national mood.

1/9 for a Labour majority. 11/2 for a hung parliament. 25/1 for a Tory majority.

Not voting......My ex-Tory voting Wife and eldest told me previously they are not voting.......Father-in-Law will go to Reform probably and Mother-in-law will do what she's told....

Sound. I'll probably go the same way as your father-in-law, but you all knew that!

GSC wrote:Things can only get better in the background is A+

Stood in the pissing rain with no cover, talking about Labour having no plan as well. Outstanding.

School holidays will have started in Scotland by 6th July. Could mean lower voting numbers up here if folk are away. A Labour resurgence is expected given the utter apathy for the Tories and SNP numbers expected to drop.

Is it legal to change your name by deed poll to 'None Of The Above'?

Yougov......Favorable ratings of parties in UK..

Greens
Fav.....42
unfav..37

Labour
Fav....42
unfav.47

Lib Dem
Fav....33
Unfav.47

Reform
Fav....20
Unfav.48

Conservative
Fav....20
Unfav.69

Greens are the only net positive......BUT....They are very popular with 18-24s and they are less likely to vote.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Is it legal to change your name by deed poll to 'None Of The Above'?

Your brothers.....Groucho voted Conservative.....Harpo voted Democrat....and Chico voted for whichever horse was tipped in the 3.30.

king_carlos wrote:

GSC wrote:Things can only get better in the background is A+

Stood in the pissing rain with no cover, talking about Labour having no plan as well. Outstanding.

School holidays will have started in Scotland by 6th July. Could mean lower voting numbers up here if folk are away. A Labour resurgence is expected given the utter apathy for the Tories and SNP numbers expected to drop.

Terrible imagery. It's like they're not even trying.