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.

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Lab: 40%; Con: 19%; Reform UK: 17%; Lib Dem: 10%; Green: 7%; SNP: 3%

YouGov's latest poll. They have been a bit kinder to Reform than other polling companies, but it'd be so great to witness a poll which puts Reform ahead of the Tories, and they're just 2% off at the moment. Come on, Nige.

Apparently this is the first poll from YouGov to use new methodology, which mirrors that of the MRP. The old methodology would have seen an 18-18 tie.

First post Farage poll...Poll also has Lib Dems in as opposition 65mps-58mps....But Sunak probably edged the debate so maybe waiting until the end of the week will give us a better guide...

Tories are 3/1 to win Clacton.......That's quite the underdog.

If that's winning, I'd hate to see what losing is like. Awful. Full of scripted, badly acted lines. Oh, and apparently also bare-faced lies. Not a great look, but one totally in keeping w/ the current Tory shower.

Said he edged it.....Not saying Sunak did well.....Just thought he looked more up for it out of the two...Both dreadful....

Yougov.......latest.

Lab...45
Ref...18
Con..18

That would be the end of the Tories...

dummy_half wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

GSC wrote:Imagine we'll start to see the direction of travel for Tory MPs ditching them to reform. Nigel picking his spot to direct the future of the Tory party

If the Conservatives do move even further to the right after the election, whether that's under Jenrick, Braverman, or even let's say Farage, I don't see how they wouldn't be waving goodbye to the Blue Wall for as long as they stay there. They've chased the votes of a smaller and smaller percentage of the electorate, in the knowledge that it was a smaller and smaller percentage of the electorate, all out of a desperate desire not to be outflanked, and there's an inevitable consequence to that when there's a centrist alternative.

Worked for Trump and the Republicans in 2016 and was pretty close in 2020 and looking like again in 24 - rather than fighting for the centre, try to mobilise groups who are not normally voters, who are dissatisfied with the whole system and process. I think there was a group like that in the last UK election, fed up of the stasis on Brexit, but I think it is hard for the Tories to attract the dissatisfied fringes now with Brexit out of the way, when they have been the party of Government for 14 years, and it is precisely their rule that people are dissatisfied with.

Yeah I think they've tried to start some culture wars in the last year or so but the brand is just too toxic for anyone to rally behind them. Reform comes without that baggage and then you could use their success to force what's left of the party to pivot further right

Ah yes, the culture wars approach definitely explains the policy the Tories announced the other day about gender identification and 'sex assigned at birth'.

The whole issue around trans rights is so inconsequential to most people's everyday lives that I struggle to understand how it has gained any traction.

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-5-6-june-2024/

The Farage bounce now accounted for with Redfield and Wilton, putting Reform up to 17% (+3) and the Tories at 19%.

Next debate is the seven-way shoutathon on the BBC tomorrow. Only Plaid, Green and Reform sending their leaders, the rest are not. Mordaunt and Rayner will represent the Tories and Labour. I'm surprised Davey isn't doing it. A lot of people don't know who the Lib Dem leader is, and this would have been a good opportunity to magnify his presence.

Duty281 wrote:https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-5-6-june-2024/

The Farage bounce now accounted for with Redfield and Wilton, putting Reform up to 17% (+3) and the Tories at 19%.

Next debate is the seven-way shoutathon on the BBC tomorrow. Only Plaid, Green and Reform sending their leaders, the rest are not. Mordaunt and Rayner will represent the Tories and Labour. I'm surprised Davey isn't doing it. A lot of people don't know who the Lib Dem leader is, and this would have been a good opportunity to magnify his presence.

Can understand not sending Starmer and Sunak after they've had their head to head debate (don't want to make the other leaders look THAT important), but agree about Davey - he's an experienced politician (he was first elected in Kingston in 1997, while I lived in the Constituency, iirc by a majority of less than 100), so he should shine in this setting and definitely needs to raise his profile if the LDs are intending to mount any sort of challenge to the Conservatives for 2nd place (they won't manage it, but the current opinion polls suggest it's within the range of possible outcomes).

Superb from Sunak yesterday. What a great idea - leave the D-Day commemoration early for a pathetic pre-recorded, meaningless interview w/ ITV defending the lies re. Labour tax plans. Annoying many, I imagine particularly so the blue rinse brigade who either served in WWII or are the children of those that landed on Sword beach etc 80 years ago.

Not only that, but leaves Starmer there meeting all the other international leaders as if he's the PM.

Genius. This is our PM. What a ******* idiot.

navyblueshorts wrote:Superb from Sunak yesterday. What a great idea - leave the D-Day commemoration early for a pathetic pre-recorded, meaningless interview w/ ITV defending the lies re. Labour tax plans. Annoying many, I imagine particularly so, the blue rinse brigade who either served in WWII or are the children of those that landed on Sword beach etc 80 years ago.

Not only that, but leaves Starmer there meeting all the other international leaders as if he's the PM.

Genius. This is our PM. What a ******* idiot.

Genuinely think he's trying to lose.

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Superb from Sunak yesterday. What a great idea - leave the D-Day commemoration early for a pathetic pre-recorded, meaningless interview w/ ITV defending the lies re. Labour tax plans. Annoying many, I imagine particularly so, the blue rinse brigade who either served in WWII or are the children of those that landed on Sword beach etc 80 years ago.

Not only that, but leaves Starmer there meeting all the other international leaders as if he's the PM.

Genius. This is our PM. What a ******* idiot.

Genuinely think he's trying to lose.

He's doing a good job if that's the case.

Honestly a lot of energy being wasted on probably the most irrelevant person in this election in Sunak.

It's the most mind-boggling miscalculation. Putting aside the fact that he was there as the highest elected representative of the country for which some of those men and women fought and died, and he didn't think it was worth more than a couple of hours of his time, there's also the fact that he and his team didn't realise the political value in being photographed with other world leaders, in being statesmanlike. It's the one thing he has over Starmer. God knows Johnson, and even Truss, knew the value of the photo opportunity.

The shouting has started early

Mordaunt seems intent on drawing Rayner into a shouting match and she keeps taking the bait. Not great

Moderator needs to be able to turn people's mics off

Wasn't as bad as I thought.

Mordaunt was dreadful and the moderator needed to be stricter. Rayner very average. Cooper's a very good communicator, I can see why Davey sent her up. The Green lady was absolutely dreadful. Welsh guy forgettable. Flynn decent, but he needed to attack Labour more because that's the SNP's rivals.

But Nige was the best of them and he sorted it, amongst the bias and being outnumbered 6-1. Should be a tidy boost for Reform.

Moreincommon debate poll...who won?

Farage - 25%
Rayner - 19%
None of the above - 14%
Denyer - 11%
Flynn - 10%
Mordaunt - 7%
Cooper - 5%
ap Iowerth - 2%

Labour running a positive Farage ad.

Not sure anyone really won given how dreadful the format was. Nobody really answered the questions given, constant talking over each other, the moderator may as well have not existed. Mordaunt allowed to get the 2k figure in again with only a small rebuke nobody heard.

I know these things are probably popular but they're pretty crap in their current guise. A 1-1 grilling on each of these subjects with a rule that you can't mention any other party would be much more useful imo.

Didnt take Nigel long to start his racist dogwhistling.

Opinion polling holding steady.

All polls from the 5th of June have recorded Labour leads between 18%-25%.

Labour are between 41%-46%. LDs 9%-12%. Greens 5%-7% (one poll putting them at 3%). Bit of a variance for the Tories and Reform. Tories are between 19%-26%; Reform 11%-17%.

Reform aren't prompted on some polls, so that might explain the lower values.

The Greens have managed to put up 629 candidates across GB, which I think is a clear record number for them. George Galloway's Workers Party have managed to find 152 candidates (though not Monty Panesar!), and the SDP, bidding for a resurgence, have fielded 122 candidates.

Main news today is the LDs launching their manifesto, centred around health and social care. Though they're not doing much better, in terms of vote share, than 2019, the Tory collapse should see them pick up a lot more seats in the south-west.

Samo wrote:Didnt take Nigel long to start his racist dogwhistling.

Was never going to, was it? The man's a scumbag.

Incidentally, why is the convicted fraudster George Cottrell back and involved w/ Farage and Reform? Enquiring minds want to know...

Reform apparently believe the UK should have remained neutral through WW2

https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1800142910798856683?s=12

Pebbles wrote:Reform apparently believe the UK should have remained neutral through WW2

https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1800142910798856683?s=12

Probably true, but easy to say in hindsight.

Jesus Christ.

Pebbles wrote:Reform apparently believe the UK should have remained neutral through WW2

https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1800142910798856683?s=12

They would, but then they'd have happily been Hitler's lapdog.

Duty281 wrote:

Pebbles wrote:Reform apparently believe the UK should have remained neutral through WW2

https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1800142910798856683?s=12

Probably true, but easy to say in hindsight.

That's not worthy of you, and pretty disappointing.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pebbles wrote:Reform apparently believe the UK should have remained neutral through WW2

https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1800142910798856683?s=12

Probably true, but easy to say in hindsight.

That's not worthy of you, and pretty disappointing.

Why's that then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Toronto%E2%80%94St._Paul%27s_federal_by-election

A by-election in Canada....with 84 candidates! It's a protest at FPTP, which has seen the most popular party finish with the 2nd highest number of seats in the last two elections.

That ballot paper is going to be very long! Such a stunt is possible in Canada because there's no deposit required to stand; over here, it would cost £37,500 to do the same thing.

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pebbles wrote:Reform apparently believe the UK should have remained neutral through WW2

https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1800142910798856683?s=12

Probably true, but easy to say in hindsight.

That's not worthy of you, and pretty disappointing.

Why's that then?

Good question, because I think it's entirely in keeping with the persona and only disappointing to someone who might expect better from you.

Duty281 wrote:

Pebbles wrote:Reform apparently believe the UK should have remained neutral through WW2

https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1800142910798856683?s=12

Probably true, but easy to say in hindsight.

So you'd have advocated something similar to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact then?

Soul Requiem wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pebbles wrote:Reform apparently believe the UK should have remained neutral through WW2

https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1800142910798856683?s=12

Probably true, but easy to say in hindsight.

So you'd have advocated something similar to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact then?

Yeah, possibly, might not have needed to be formalised into a pact though.

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pebbles wrote:Reform apparently believe the UK should have remained neutral through WW2

https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1800142910798856683?s=12

Probably true, but easy to say in hindsight.

That's not worthy of you, and pretty disappointing.

Why's that then?

Oh, I don't know. Take your pick, but starter for 10 is possibly, with the hindsight that's in-keeping of course, how Hitler treated Stalin and the U.S.S.R. after signing a non-aggression agreement with them? With hindsight, do you think it would be acceptable for us to have sat by while Hitler exterminated millions for the simple reason that they were, in his view, somehow subhuman? Do you think, with hindsight of course, that we should have stayed neutral and watch Hitler's almost inevitable eventual loss to the U.S.S.R., and the subsequent engulfment by the latter of all of western Europe in the mid- to late-1940s?

Let's leave this. I think it's a pretty weak position, but it's at least given us all a new insight into your views.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pebbles wrote:Reform apparently believe the UK should have remained neutral through WW2

https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1800142910798856683?s=12

Probably true, but easy to say in hindsight.

That's not worthy of you, and pretty disappointing.

Why's that then?

Oh, I don't know. Take your pick, but starter for 10 is possibly, with the hindsight that's in-keeping of course, how Hitler treated Stalin and the U.S.S.R. after signing a non-aggression agreement with them? With hindsight, do you think it would be acceptable for us to have sat by while Hitler exterminated millions for the simple reason that they were, in his view, somehow subhuman? Do you think, with hindsight of course, that we should have stayed neutral and watch Hitler's almost inevitable eventual loss to the U.S.S.R., and the subsequent engulfment by the latter of all of western Europe in the mid- to late-1940s?

Let's leave this. I think it's a pretty weak position, but it's at least given us all a new insight into your views.

Ultimately, we'll never know, but whereas Hitler despised communism, he didn't despise the British, so an invasion would have been unlikely. Operation Sealion is generally considered to have been highly unfeasible in any regard. I don't think we can fairly judge based on the Holocaust, because it wasn't known initially. Do you think it was unacceptable for Ireland or Switzerland or Portugal to be officially neutral, after the fact?

The last one is a very interesting question. The Soviets, in a scenario where the British Empire were neutral, would have faced a tougher fight against Nazi Germany and would have been weaker, so would they have still been strong enough to push across the rest of Western Europe? Would the Americans have intervened by this point, anyway, and staged D-Day, but just on their own (because I presume Pearl Harbour still happens)?

My key point is that Nazi Germany probably would have been defeated with or without Britain's involvement. Britain made an astonishingly noble stand, but was absolutely battered and lost hundreds of thousands of people, millions more suffered, and the financial ill-effects were felt into the 1950s. Was it all worth it in the end? Possibly, possibly not.

The UK's involvement in World War 1 was absolutely an utterly tragic mistake. World War 2 might have been.

Duty281 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pebbles wrote:Reform apparently believe the UK should have remained neutral through WW2

https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1800142910798856683?s=12

Probably true, but easy to say in hindsight.

So you'd have advocated something similar to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact then?

Yeah, possibly, might not have needed to be formalised into a pact though.

I mentioned that specifically because Germany ignored it within 2 years and launched a full scale attack on the then Soviet Union. I think it's a fair assumption that any such agreement between the UK and Germany would have been similarly ignored eventually.

My understanding was that Chamberlain was given Hitler's word that he wouldn't invade Poland after Czechoslavaka was sold down the river....Hitler went back on his word..

So how can Britain have some maniac carving up Europe they can't trust..

Use your head Man........Going to war wasn't an option...

Soul Requiem wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pebbles wrote:Reform apparently believe the UK should have remained neutral through WW2

https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1800142910798856683?s=12

Probably true, but easy to say in hindsight.

So you'd have advocated something similar to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact then?

Yeah, possibly, might not have needed to be formalised into a pact though.

I mentioned that specifically because Germany ignored it within 2 years and launched a full scale attack on the then Soviet Union. I think it's a fair assumption that any such agreement between the UK and Germany would have been similarly ignored eventually.

Yes, but Hitler despised communism and the invasion of Poland brought Nazi Germany and the USSR in touching distance, so invasion/conflict was always going to happen.

Hitler did not despise the UK and invading Britain, at least initially, was going to be a hell of a lot more difficult because of the 20 miles of water and the strength of the Royal Navy and Britain's air defences. Operation Sealion was always highly unfeasible. So I think invasion of Britain, if the UK stayed neutral, was not very likely, and if it did happen it almost certainly wouldn't have been attempted before any invasion of Russia (which, itself, was always likely to fail).

https://x.com/IncMonocle/status/1800482419625414907

Another assault on Farage by some coward.

Any assaults on political campaigners should equate to a much heavier sentence than the norm.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Reform is the big question at this Election........Part of me thinks they get squeezed at GE time and part of me thinks because of prompting in polls they are doing better than polls suggest....

Certainly when you get surveys and you have three main parties listed and then others lower down under others it can make a difference.....

Hard to know where Reform are....Tories nearly out to 5/1 in Clacton so good money to be made there if you think Reform are overstated.....Also Labour 7/4 in Islington and I expect them to win comfortably.....

Rotherham is interesting with no Tory candidate.......Labour v Reform and Tories+Reform vote on last time gives Reform a good majority.......Reform out at 4/1 or higher I believe which is maybe worth a shot.

Moving Truss' post across from the US thread. It had some interesting points.

Don't think Reform will be too squeezed at GE time because most should recognise that the Tories are going to lose, lose heavily, and there's nothing can be done to save them. So why not vote with your heart for this one, unlike 2015?

You've gone cold on Corbyn's chances?

It's an interesting point about Rotherham, which indeed doesn't have a Tory candidate. If Labour were still polling at 2019 levels, I'd think that Reform could snatch it, but on current polling Labour should get over 50% of the vote in Rotherham. Labour got 40% nationally in 2017 and 56.4% of the vote in Rotherham. They're doing better than that 40% now so they should be alright, but I'd expect Reform to get 30%+. Labour are 1/20 in Rotherham, for what it's worth.

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Reform is the big question at this Election........Part of me thinks they get squeezed at GE time and part of me thinks because of prompting in polls they are doing better than polls suggest....

Certainly when you get surveys and you have three main parties listed and then others lower down under others it can make a difference.....

Hard to know where Reform are....Tories nearly out to 5/1 in Clacton so good money to be made there if you think Reform are overstated.....Also Labour 7/4 in Islington and I expect them to win comfortably.....

Rotherham is interesting with no Tory candidate.......Labour v Reform and Tories+Reform vote on last time gives Reform a good majority.......Reform out at 4/1 or higher I believe which is maybe worth a shot.

Moving Truss' post across from the US thread. It had some interesting points.

Don't think Reform will be too squeezed at GE time because most should recognise that the Tories are going to lose, lose heavily, and there's nothing can be done to save them. So why not vote with your heart for this one, unlike 2015?

You've gone cold on Corbyn's chances?

It's an interesting point about Rotherham, which indeed doesn't have a Tory candidate. If Labour were still polling at 2019 levels, I'd think that Reform could snatch it, but on current polling Labour should get over 50% of the vote in Rotherham. Labour got 40% nationally in 2017 and 56.4% of the vote in Rotherham. They're doing better than that 40% now so they should be alright, but I'd expect Reform to get 30%+. Labour are 1/20 in Rotherham, for what it's worth.

Watched a video on Bristol Central where Greens are slight favorites and saw quite a few people saying they were Green but voting Labour to get the Tories out....Quite why it matters Lab/Green in one seat I don't know....I imagine Corbyn will suffer the same fate..

They will try the "vote Farage get Starmer" line in Clacton but most Tories know the game is up....So as the local MP has been there years and has no name recognition they will probably prefer a bruiser like Farage.

I'm sure Mr. Farage will happily live in Clacton as their MP if he were to win that seat...

Related to the above, it's long past time where it should be made illegal to stand as an MP when one hasn't lived for, say, ≥5 years in the constituency one's trying to represent.

navyblueshorts wrote:I'm sure Mr. Farage will happily live in Clacton as their MP if he were to win that seat...

Related to the above, it's long past time where it should be made illegal to stand as an MP when one hasn't lived for, say, ≥5 years in the constituency one's trying to represent.

Any benefit to this idea?

You get nominated by people who live in that constituency, isn't that enough?

navyblueshorts wrote:I'm sure Mr. Farage will happily live in Clacton as their MP if he were to win that seat...

Related to the above, it's long past time where it should be made illegal to stand as an MP when one hasn't lived for, say, ≥5 years in the constituency one's trying to represent.

Im sure he will, its not like he's some sort of self-serving grifter or anything.

Yougov...

Lab 38.. -3 (first poll to have them sub 40)
Con 18.. -1
Ref  17..+1
Lib...15. +4
Gre...8 +1

Lib have gone big on Social care and it is a subject that worries people...Also keeping relatively quiet on Europe.....

That's a wild poll. Lib Dems getting a manifesto bounce, and I'd expect them to drop back soon. That's the highest they've been, by a few % in ages. But I welcome it. Come on, Lib Dems, you and Reform can relegate the Tories to fourth in vote share.

Greens also look a bit higher than usual. As you've noted, it's also very low for Labour.

Tory vote share is quite difficult to pick. FocalData also released a poll, putting the Tories up to 24%, but Reform still holding steady in that one with 15%.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjkk2e6jp8eo

SDP putting up their manifesto. Economically left and culturally traditional, it's the perfect home for Peter Hitchens, or, erm, Rod Liddle, who is standing as a candidate for them.

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Superb from Sunak yesterday. What a great idea - leave the D-Day commemoration early for a pathetic pre-recorded, meaningless interview w/ ITV defending the lies re. Labour tax plans. Annoying many, I imagine particularly so, the blue rinse brigade who either served in WWII or are the children of those that landed on Sword beach etc 80 years ago.

Not only that, but leaves Starmer there meeting all the other international leaders as if he's the PM.

Genius. This is our PM. What a ******* idiot.

Genuinely think he's trying to lose.

Yeah, definitely trying to lose. He's done an interview with ITV claiming he went without lots of things as a child. When pressed for an example, Sunak came up with 'famously, Sky TV'.

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:I'm sure Mr. Farage will happily live in Clacton as their MP if he were to win that seat...

Related to the above, it's long past time where it should be made illegal to stand as an MP when one hasn't lived for, say, ≥5 years in the constituency one's trying to represent.

Any benefit to this idea?

You get nominated by people who live in that constituency, isn't that enough?

No; not really. I would expect my MP to have half a clue about local issues of relevance to me.

Duty281 wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjkk2e6jp8eo

SDP putting up their manifesto. Economically left and culturally traditional, it's the perfect home for Peter Hitchens, or, erm, Rod Liddle, who is standing as a candidate for them.

They still exists? Wow...

What an idiot.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv221jple3jo

Perhaps pay a bit more attention to, and argue for, an electoral process fit for purpose, instead of your own self-serving interests. Time to reap the whirlwind you talentless windbag....

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:I'm sure Mr. Farage will happily live in Clacton as their MP if he were to win that seat...

Related to the above, it's long past time where it should be made illegal to stand as an MP when one hasn't lived for, say, ≥5 years in the constituency one's trying to represent.

Any benefit to this idea?

You get nominated by people who live in that constituency, isn't that enough?

No; not really. I would expect my MP to have half a clue about local issues of relevance to me.

No need to live there for that.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjkk2e6jp8eo

SDP putting up their manifesto. Economically left and culturally traditional, it's the perfect home for Peter Hitchens, or, erm, Rod Liddle, who is standing as a candidate for them.

They still exists? Wow...

Not the originals. This lot were founded in 1990. They've done nothing until now, but under Clouston's leadership (since 2018) they've become organised. They got 20 candidates in 2019 and have now increased that to 122 for this election.