General Election Pre-Thread (1 of 6)

[limpid]

57 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

There's no reason you couldn't bind someone by contract in a voluntary capacity is there? But I think we're spending more time considering this than the Tories did

Without a consideration, there can be no contract.

[PaulC]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

It doesn’t matter who you’re voting for, under 400 is a narrow victory. There is literally zero evidence of that. I keep making bold statements about this (which is rather not my normal MO)

This will be the worst defeat the Tory Party have suffered since the 1918 RotP Act and probably a 100 years prior to that too. This will be much worse for them than 1997

 

Okay I hope you are right but are you purely basing this on how bad the current government are or have been? I agree it's the worst ever. Or how good the current Labour Party are? I personally don't think they are any where near attractive as New Labour were under Tony Blair at that particular time. 

[Davkaus]

IDS has been on gbeebies not just advocating for the national service but arguing it should be extended to 15 year olds

[bickster]

13 minutes ago, PaulC said:

Okay I hope you are right but are you purely basing this on how bad the current government are or have been? I agree it's the worst ever. Or how good the current Labour Party are? I personally don't think they are any where near attractive as New Labour were under Tony Blair at that particular time. 

No, statistical analysis of opinion polling, current and historical. (I’ve been at it for months)

Tactical voting will be the most organised and have the widest effect it has ever had in this election

The only policies that will have major cut through currently are bad Tory policies. Anything good they come up with will be ignored. Labour having played it very carefully for a long time are not going to **** up on policy now. They couldn’t come up with a spook the horses policy if they tried they are so anodyne.

The question really is right now, how few seats will the Tories get 

(for the record again, I'm not a Labour  voter)

 

[mjmooney]

4 minutes ago, bickster said:

Tactical voting will be the most organised and have the widest effect it has ever had in this election

This is the bit where I have my doubts. I suspect a lot of voters consider tactical voting as the only smart thing to do, but can't quite bring themselves to actually do it when they get to the ballot box. 

[ml1dch]

2 hours ago, bickster said:

The Tories are currently running the worst election campaign known to the UK, with masses of people not standing and a huge 190 seats still without candidates

Both the Greens and ReFUK have more candidates confirmed than the Tories now. 

[ml1dch]

1 hour ago, PaulC said:

Okay I hope you are right but are you purely basing this on how bad the current government are or have been? I agree it's the worst ever. Or how good the current Labour Party are? I personally don't think they are any where near attractive as New Labour were under Tony Blair at that particular time. 

Recency bias is a hell of a thing. Have a read of this comment piece from April 1997.

(extract)

Quote

 

One caveat to all this, however, remained unspoken. There were no new policies. Since Tuesday, Mr Blair had been asking his listeners to make a leap of faith: to believe that his modest reforms - smaller class sizes, a windfall tax on privatised utilities - might add up, in time, to a transformation of British society. Having refused to promise large and tangible changes for years, to gain credibility with a sceptical press and public, he now needed to promise intangibles to win their enthusiasm.

Yet, as Mr Blair set out his mild utopia last week, the very landscape he was criss-crossing seemed to deny the possibility of its attainment. In Southampton, where he spoke about poverty, the old docks glittered with bobbing speedboats. At St Thomas's Hospital in south London, where he spoke of free health care for all and was mobbed by jubilant nurses, the main entrance toilets were foul, with spilled tissues and excrement on the walls.

 

I reckon you could print the exact same piece today, change the names and dates and nobody would know. The story of an election is written by the result and nothing else. If Starmer wins a Blair-style majority, in twenty years people will remember him as an all-conquering political colossus. However little he might deserve such a reputation. 

[The Fun Factory]

On 25/05/2024 at 19:45, tonyh29 said:

Interesting that the Libs seem to be benefiting more from the SNP meltdown  in Scotland than Labour 

The celtic fringe could be  a making a comeback.

And no that isn't a haircut.

[Jareth]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

 

(for the record again, I'm not a Labour  voter)

 

May I ask, who will you vote for?

[PaulC]

1 hour ago, ml1dch said:

Recency bias is a hell of a thing. Have a read of this comment piece from April 1997.

(extract)

I reckon you could print the exact same piece today, change the names and dates and nobody would know. The story of an election is written by the result and nothing else. If Starmer wins a Blair-style majority, in twenty years people will remember him as an all-conquering political colossus. However little he might deserve such a reputation. 

You can be all conquering like Boris Johnson was but you have to back it up during your time in government else you end up  being a disaster. Blair won three elections. 

[Nicho]

Just seen an interesting take on the military service policy, it’s so loud and unthought out it is the main media piece, hiding any labour content when a lot of the spin is that people don’t know what labour are pledging. A couple more of these and you could hardly see Starmer in the run up.

[meregreen]

18 hours ago, PaulC said:

 I don't think Labour will get over 400 seats. They did it in 1997 when they had a charismatic leader but the main reason people will vote Labour is because they want the torys out not because they want Labour under Starmer.. 

The greatest leader Labour, and in my opinion, the country, ever had, was a little unassuming man with virtually no charisma at all. Step forward Clement Attlee. I want a politician who will make a real difference to the direction this country is taking, not a snake oil salesman with smart suits and beguiling words. 

[PaulC]

Just now, meregreen said:

The greatest leader Labour, and in my opinion, the country, ever had, was a little unassuming man with virtually no charisma at all. Step forward Clement Attlee. I want a politician who will make a real difference to the direction this country is taking, not a snake oil salesman with smart suits and beguiling words. 

Yep Clement Attlee my hero. He had a great team behind him as well. 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

Have the Tories announced rationing yet?  

[limpid]

14 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Have the Tories announced rationing yet?  

Several years ago. They used the "food bank" branding.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

Anyone too old or too young for military should be obligated to join a civil defence organisation.  This group of butchers, undertakers, bankers and ex-servicemen could have a weekly TV show to document their adventures.  

Trust me Rishi.  Its a winner. 

[CarryOnVilla]

how do you guys vote, do you vote for the party or do you vote for the candidate?

also, what do you do if you have a conflict that the party you like has a fielded an unlikeable candidate in your constituency or vice verser of a great candidate, but the wrong party?

I’m fortunate that the best candidate in my area is also the party I’d want to win the election. But I’m curious to how would someone choose when theirs a conflict of personal interests? 

[chrisp65]

5 minutes ago, CarryOnVilla said:

how do you guys vote, do you vote for the party or do you vote for the candidate?

also, what do you do if you have a conflict that the party you like has a fielded an unlikeable candidate in your constituency or vice verser of a great candidate, but the wrong party?

I’m fortunate that the best candidate in my area is also the party I’d want to win the election. But I’m curious to how would someone choose when theirs a conflict of personal interests? 

Rule out parties that are thieving scum, racist scum, or privileged scum.

Look at the candidates of the remaining parties, and rule out any that are scum.

If there are still multiple options, vote for my mate Ian.

[limpid]

8 minutes ago, CarryOnVilla said:

how do you guys vote, do you vote for the party or do you vote for the candidate?

also, what do you do if you have a conflict that the party you like has a fielded an unlikeable candidate in your constituency or vice verser of a great candidate, but the wrong party?

I’m fortunate that the best candidate in my area is also the party I’d want to win the election. But I’m curious to how would someone choose when theirs a conflict of personal interests? 

In this election (and this thread is specifically about this election), I'll vote for the candidate most likely to remove the sitting tory.

[Davkaus]

"Sleepy Kier" is today's attempt at politics. Who looks at how they're polling and thinks that the way to go is copying rhetoric from Donald Trump, when it doesn't even make sense.

I know it's unreasonable to expect much political instincts from the man who lost to Liz Truss, but this is painful.