General Election Pre-Thread (4 of 6)

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Trust me, if Starmer and Sunak attended ALL the debates you'd be absolutely sick of them more than you are now.

Firstly, I'm largely of the opinion that there are too many debates, I's be perfectly happy with none. Just like it always used to be by the way, they are a modern phenomenon from the last few elections

If they are as badly moderated as all of them have been so far then they are utterly pointless.

There are far better ways for parties to get their message across than these debates, not one of them has shifted public opinion much at all

I agree with you there are too many debates but would have liked to have seen just one with all of the major parties and thw two main parties having their leaders in.  In my opinion its lame. No one really cares what rayner or mordaunt say

I dont mind 2-3 at most but more than that is overkill. But yes i wokld agree ut is pretty pointless as we all know its going to be a labour landslide

[markavfc40]

I can see why they want to have leaders debates just between the people with any realistic hope of being the next PM. I suppose that does beg the question though as to why Sunak has been rocking up. 

[bickster]

 

[flamingsombrero]

If I don't see Ed Davey in a Download Festival circle pit this weekend what are we even doing?

[sheepyvillian]

Debates? Cliched banal promises promises!!

[jackbauer24]

Genuine confusion on my part with how opinion polls work, statistics wise;

A few weeks ago Labour were 20% ish ahead of Tories with Reform nowhere near. Now we're in a situation where add Reform and Conservatives together and it's maybe 5% behind which seems a more valid threat and certainly no landslide.

Then I read Reform may get just a solitary seat.

So what is the opinion poll really showing?

[Danwichmann]

6 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said:

Genuine confusion on my part with how opinion polls work, statistics wise;

A few weeks ago Labour were 20% ish ahead of Tories with Reform nowhere near. Now we're in a situation where add Reform and Conservatives together and it's maybe 5% behind which seems a more valid threat and certainly no landslide.

Then I read Reform may get just a solitary seat.

So what is the opinion poll really showing?

FPTP. Votes spread nationally don't win seats for parties like Reform (or Green) . They can pick up 20% of the vote and come away with no seats. The polls aren't broken, the system is (but there is a whole other thread for that). 

[ml1dch]

7 hours ago, jackbauer24 said:

Genuine confusion on my part with how opinion polls work, statistics wise;

A few weeks ago Labour were 20% ish ahead of Tories with Reform nowhere near. Now we're in a situation where add Reform and Conservatives together and it's maybe 5% behind which seems a more valid threat and certainly no landslide.

Then I read Reform may get just a solitary seat.

So what is the opinion poll really showing?

To add a bit more to @Danwichmann's explanation.

Let's say you've got around 200 seats that are safe Labour. They went Labour in 2019 and obviously still will in 2024. You've got another 200 seats which tend to swap hands depending on which colour has won. So you'd expect those to probably switch, giving Starmer a bog-standard decent majority. The others are safe Tory seats. So let's look at somewhere like Tamworth. In 2019 it was 65% Tory, 25% Labour. Safe as houses. The current, unprecedented 20% Labour lead makes it competitive at 45% each this time. Until you chuck in the spoiler that 5% of the Tories are now Reform as well, the other parties go from 10% to 15%, the Tories go down to 40% and Labour take a comfortable-ish victory in a seat that they should be miles away from winning. 

Something else that's a bit underreported on the Reform increase - don't forget that Farage didn't stand in Tory target or defending seats in 2019. So those percentage increases are only bad for the Tories as they are only happening in places where Farage stood down last time. Somewhere like Guildford was 45% Tory, 41% Lib Dem last time, with no Brexit candidate on the ballot. Chuck in even a 5% vote share for Reform this time (and it would obviously be much higher) and Guildford is lost without any other factor being involved. Somewhere like Stoke, the Tories beat Labour 45-42 with the Brexit knob being the 6% difference maker. Last time = two Tory seats, this time = one Labour, one Lib Dem.

Another thing which isn't obvious from the headline figures, the Labour drop isn't going to Reform meaning it's more likely they (Labour) don't win the seat. The Reform increase is coming from the Tories, but the Labour drop seems to be going in targeted areas to the Lib Dems, as tactical voting becomes a thing closer to July 4th. So a Labour drop in support is terrible news for the Tories in this context as it means that those dozens of seats that were 50% Tory, 25% Labour, 25% Lib Dem are now coming in at 35% Tory, 40% Lib Dem, 15% Labour. Labour vote collapses = Tories lose the seat. 

Things could change a bit, but the only people still really in play who can make a difference are those who have gone from Tory --> not voting. If something happens that makes them think that Labour are too big of a risk then there are loads of seats where those voters coming out to vote mean they hold the seat (eg Tamworth above), but this is why these parity / crossover numbers are such bad news. It muddies the water and the "have to vote to stop Labour" crowd end up splitting as well. And if that happens, we're genuinely looking at something apocalyptic (politically speaking) on July 5th.

Sorry for all the numbers.

Edited June 15 by ml1dch

[Leeroy]

It's looking more and more likely like a Labour supermajority. When the Defence Secretary is already warning about this then you know you are doomed. I thought the polls would narrow between the two major parties but YouGov now has Reform 1 point ahead of the Tories (to be taken with a pinch of salt of course). 

 

I've been bold and put 450+ for Labour but that is assuming the Tories only get around 100 seats and their result is towards the worse end of the poll predictions. If they get around 130-150 seats (probably best case scenario for them at the moment) then Labour probably drops to around 420 seats. 

 

I genuinely think the Tories are going to panic when they get well beaten and bring Farage in as leader. What a time to be alive.

[ml1dch]

53 minutes ago, Leeroy said:

It's looking more and more likely like a Labour supermajority.

A "supermajority" isn't really a thing. There's nothing that Starmer can do with 500 MPs that he can't do with 400 MPs.

[Guest]

Ed Davey makes me smile 

[meregreen]

1 hour ago, Leeroy said:

 

 

I genuinely think the Tories are going to panic when they get well beaten and bring Farage in as leader. What a time to be alive.

That would be a dangerous time for the country too. They would likely morph into a Nationalist borderline Fascist Party, much like Le Pens mob in France. I’m no Tory, but at least the Tories I grew up with had a veneer of one nation respectability. 

[bickster]

1 hour ago, Leeroy said:

I genuinely think the Tories are going to panic when they get well beaten and bring Farage in as leader. What a time to be alive.

I’m not sure this trick can be pulled off as easily as commentators and certain Tory MPs keep hinting at. It represents a huge risk for Reform. Here’s my reasoning as to the difficulty;

• Reform isn’t a political party in the true sense as we the electorate understand it. It has no internal democracy, they haven’t yet had any party conferences and members don’t get a say on any policy or choice of candidates. It’s effectively the Farage and his Ego Party. If the Tories were to merge with Reform
• As much as the Conservative Party isn’t THAT democratic compared to say the appearance of Labour (or the LibDems, Greens, Plaid, SNP….) it does have some forms of internal democracy and firstly I can’t see Farage wanting that and outside of that internally the party has factions both in and outside the parliamentary party wanting to increase Party democracy such as the Conservative Democratic Organisation which you could probably label as Johnsonite and includes people like Pritti Patel and was set up by Lord Cruddas. They aren't the only ones, Tim Montgomerie, who set up the ConservativeHome website is another, he also set up conservativedemocracy.org to oppose Michael Howard’s attempt to remove one member one vote in leadership elections (and was successful.) If they start talks with Farage, I can’t see it ever getting past the electoral alliance stage, a significant proportion of the Tory Party want more party democracy not less.
• Farage really is only liked by a certain section even on the right in the Tory Party, he’s disliked by just as many
• Most of the Conservative Associations around the country are effectively independent of the party as an entity, they are social clubs that are affiliated to and not owned by the Tory Party. The grassroots does not have follow the merging of the party and we've seen this before when the SDP and the Liberal Party moved from their original alliance to merge. There were factions within both parties that didn’t wish to merge, famously the Owenites in the SDP remained as the SDP and a faction of the Liberals remained as the Liberal Party. They both still exist and the Liberal Party still have local councillors. It is highly unlikely that he'll ever take over the party wholesale and also likely that the individual associations could tell him to eff off.
• A lot of the Reform “membership” don’t actually like the Tories either. They are specifically going to Reform because they don’t like them despite being in the right.
• The Tories still have a lot of councillors in the UK, mostly these are grassroots dyed in the wool Tories, nothing can make them join Reform, Reform on the other hand have the best part of …. shite all.

Farage will prefer it if the Tories come to him, he'll face stiff opposition to him actually taking over the Party despite what he says. And them coming to him may be the only way it works, so all he'll get is some politicians. There may not be as many of them left, in part due to his success. His success in this election may even be a big contributory factor in why he fails in his stated goal.

[Leeroy]

38 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

A "supermajority" isn't really a thing. There's nothing that Starmer can do with 500 MPs that he can't do with 400 MPs.

Of course a landslide victory is a landslide victory but a 300+ seat majority is more likely to have damaging long term consequences for the Conservatives than a 150 seat majority. It would be unprecedented.

 

FYI, the 1997 election was the largest number of seats won by a political party ever with 418. It didn’t break the Tories but it was a catastrophic result for them and they were out of power for the longest they have been since the Second World War. If Labour get close to 500 it’s Armageddon for the Conservative Party.

[ml1dch]

7 minutes ago, Leeroy said:

FYI, the 1997 election was the largest number of seats won by a political party ever with 418. 

Stanley Baldwin's 470 in 1931 says otherwise. 

[Leeroy]

10 minutes ago, bickster said:

I’m not sure this trick can be pulled off as easily as commentators and certain Tory MPs keep hinting at. It represents a huge risk for Reform. Here’s my reasoning as to the difficulty;

• Reform isn’t a political party in the true sense as we the electorate understand it. It has no internal democracy, they haven’t yet had any party conferences and members don’t get a say on any policy or choice of candidates. It’s effectively the Farage and his Ego Party. If the Tories were to merge with Reform
• As much as the Conservative Party isn’t THAT democratic compared to say the appearance of Labour (or the LibDems, Greens, Plaid, SNP….) it does have some forms of internal democracy and firstly I can’t see Farage wanting that and outside of that internally the party has factions both in and outside the parliamentary party wanting to increase Party democracy such as the Conservative Democratic Organisation which you could probably label as Johnsonite and includes people like Pritti Patel and was set up by Lord Cruddas. They aren't the only ones, Tim Montgomerie, who set up the ConservativeHome website is another, he also set up conservativedemocracy.org to oppose Michael Howard’s attempt to remove one member one vote in leadership elections (and was successful.) If they start talks with Farage, I can’t see it ever getting past the electoral alliance stage, a significant proportion of the Tory Party want more party democracy not less.
• Farage really is only liked by a certain section even on the right in the Tory Party, he’s disliked by just as many
• Most of the Conservative Associations around the country are effectively independent of the party as an entity, they are social clubs that are affiliated to and not owned by the Tory Party. The grassroots does not have follow the merging of the party and we've seen this before when the SDP and the Liberal Party moved from their original alliance to merge. There were factions within both parties that didn’t wish to merge, famously the Owenites in the SDP remained as the SDP and a faction of the Liberals remained as the Liberal Party. They both still exist and the Liberal Party still have local councillors. It is highly unlikely that he'll ever take over the party wholesale and also likely that the individual associations could tell him to eff off.
• A lot of the Reform “membership” don’t actually like the Tories either. They are specifically going to Reform because they don’t like them despite being in the right.
• The Tories still have a lot of councillors in the UK, mostly these are grassroots dyed in the wool Tories, nothing can make them join Reform, Reform on the other hand have the best part of …. shite all.

Farage will prefer it if the Tories come to him, he'll face stiff opposition to him actually taking over the Party despite what he says. And them coming to him may be the only way it works, so all he'll get is some politicians. There may not be as many of them left, in part due to his success. His success in this election may even be a big contributory factor in why he fails in his stated goal.

It may not happen, he’d also have to win a leadership election of course. I just think the scale of the defeat would open up the possibility.

[Leeroy]

19 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Stanley Baldwin's 470 in 1931 says otherwise. 

Ok I stand corrected. Second largest majority ever then and certainly the biggest majority since 1945. 

[ml1dch]

14 minutes ago, Leeroy said:

It may not happen, he’d also have to win a leadership election of course. I just think the scale of the defeat would open up the possibility.

As far as I can see (and I've said on here before), the easiest mechanism is to forget talks of mergers, he just defects, and says that he wants to sit in the Commons as a Tory MP. His voters will be delighted, they want him, not the party brand. 

If the leader post-election is a Cleverly or Tugendhat then it'll be hard but if it's a Patel or Braverman then it'll be pretty straightforward I reckon.

Edited June 15 by ml1dch

[bickster]

4 minutes ago, Leeroy said:

It may not happen, he’d also have to win a leadership election of course. I just think the scale of the defeat would open up the possibility.

Exactly why he will want them coming to him and not the other way around. I feel that an electoral alliance is inevitable but some kind of merger is way off the mark.

[Demitri_C]

51 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Stanley Baldwin's 470 in 1931 says otherwise. 

And the labour party is still here? Thats why when i read the tories are finished after this election  they wont be.

Both the two major parties manage ti stick no matter what. Political reform is only way it changes and neother of the two major parties support it