Britain - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter Ross
  • 12,896 comments
  • 524,833 views

How will you vote in the 2024 UK General Election?

  • Conservative Party

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Green Party

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Labour Party

    Votes: 14 48.3%
  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Other (Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland)

    Votes: 1 3.4%
  • Other Independents

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other Parties

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Spoiled Ballot

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Will Not/Cannot Vote

    Votes: 8 27.6%

  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .
But this? A man who takes two days to make a decision and four hours to contradict it is worth a 200-seat majority? Sunak's not exactly Dynamic Man of the Year but compared to Starmer it's like Tom Cruise vs. a tub of low-fat Creme Fraiche.

Not being a Tory is worth 200 seats...

But seriously, if lack of 'rizz is the biggest thing to complain about with Starmer, I'll take it.
 
It’s nothing to do with Starmer really. Most of those polled likely couldn’t pick him out of a lineup.

After 15 years of Tory-led crap any Labour leader is an improvement. Statesmanlike, charisma, decisiveness, who cares a flying F about any of that (and I know that’s a sad state of affairs). Just get the current lot out of government.

I’d prefer someone different. I agreed with a lot of Corbyn’s ideas and I vote LD locally. Starmer is what we have. So be it. Hopefully he discovers his inner Leftie when he finds himself with a huge majority, able to pass any legislation.
Not being a Tory is worth 200 seats...
I mean, I clearly remember how bad it was in 1997 and how unpopular the Conservatives were at the time - and we had the personality vacuum of Major against the grinning red Tory and future war criminal Blair with his turbospin. That landslide made total sense.

For this to be a bigger one doesn't. There's a load of die-hard Brexiteers who won't switch for starters, while everyone was abandoning them in '97.
 
Regrettably not all of those Brexiteers died quite so hard, though, if this pollster's figures are correct.
 
Last edited:
Brexiteers to Reform, soft Cons to the Libs (that one I really don’t get, current Labour is a mile closer to Toryland than the Libs), Labour regaining Scottish seats from the SNP, it all adds up.

IMG_4405.png


Even the co-founder of Conservative Home said he would back Reform/Farage. Sunak was not the members choice and they’re not backing him now.

I do think the polls are overestimating the final result. The young still won’t vote in large numbers as well as people assuming a guaranteed Labour win. No landslide but a healthy majority.
 
Last edited:
Watching the ITV PM debates. If Sunak says ‘they’ll raise your taxes by £2000 pounds’ once more….
 
Brexiteers to Reform
The nutters, sure. But they weren't Tory voters last time out: in 2019 they voted for the Brexit Party (headed by Farage), so that at-worst 2% will remain not Tory voters. They were probably the 2% that voted UKIP in 2017, and while UKIP got 12% in 2015 they'd got their referendum by 2017.


Again, 1997 felt totally inevitable across the country. Super-unlikeable Tories, absolute charm-vacuum Major, incredibly charismatic, spin-powered, Torylite Blair... We all knew Labour would win from three months before the election was even called, and the only question was by how much. Even despite that impending utter hoofing they got 30% and 165 seats (Lab majority 177, or 181 with Sinn Fein's absence).

Labour in 2010 was comparable, with rubber joy deficit Brown having presided over total economic disaster (after a moronic gold firesale) up against beaming, moon-faced pig-frightner Cameron, and they had a disaster... at 30%. Well, 29%. And 258 seats.

The conditions this time are similar: incumbents for the last decade-plus have screwed everything up (18, 13, and 14 years respectively!), is definitely facing defeat, but the lead characters are swapped about. The relative charmer is the baddie this time, while the guy who makes Chidi Anagonye look decisive is the goodie.

It just doesn't feel as clear cut, but polling is putting the Conservatives below every second party since Thatcher vs Foot and worse than any since David Lloyd George's new Liberal party in 1918. It would also require the largest drop in vote share in UK election history for a party contesting two successive elections (Lib Dems currently hold that at -15% from 2010-2015).
 
I get it, you really don’t like Starmer and have a soft spot for Sunak (relative charmer is not how I’ve ever heard him described, even by his supportive press. Hardworking, smart, determined, sure). Don't think this is the majority view by any stretch.

Don’t think the drop from 2019 to the current polls is that surprising, even if it would be a record. Boris, “just get it done” and Farage not challenging sitting Tories - a lot of unrepeatable factors.

Many people, like those fine folks of Clacton, didn’t get a choice between rightwing parties last time - they do now and it’s splitting the right vote in a way that hasn’t happened in a long long time. If Reform weren’t around the Tory vote share would be at least in the low-mid 30 zone of Hague/Howard/Cameron. We should thank Nigel, he’s giving people a genuine alternative.
 
I get it, you really don’t like Starmer and have a soft spot for Sunak
Then no, you don't get it.

I couldn't stand Blair, but denying he was more charming than Major (or Hague, or Howard) is delusional. Didn't like Cameron either, but again obviously a more charismatic person than Brown or Miliband (but not the other Miliband; Labour didn’t half drop a bollock there). Truss had less character than her famous salad counterpart, but didn't last long enough to encounter the electorate.

I don't like Sunak, but he is more charming - relatively speaking - than Starmer. It's not on the Blair/Major, Cameron/Brown level of outright charm and relative difference, but it's there.

Again, the mood, while inevitably resulting in a government being booted at long last, doesn't feel quite like it did in 1997. Maybe more like 2010 (which, though resulting in the coalition, was a 100-seat swing away from government).

Nonetheless, in both those cases the incumbents had screwed everything up and had a characterful figurehead to replace the bland PM. They were perfect storms to deliver 100-seat swings.

We have the former but not the latter this time, but predictions are for a nearly 200-seat majority, ~25% voter share for the second party, sub-100 seats for the second party, and various other records...

I don't think they're going to beat 1997, because Starmer isn't Blair. They'll probably beat the 100-seat swing of 2010 though, at 150 or so (so ~200 blue, ~350 red).

Like the two most recent US elections, it's a perfect time for a strong third party showing.

But probably won't be.
 
Last edited:
The nutters, sure. But they weren't Tory voters last time out: in 2019 they voted for the Brexit Party (headed by Farage), so that at-worst 2% will remain not Tory voters.
Brexiteers, the (relatively) sane ones, voted for the charismatic and confident Boris Johnson. The Brexit party's vote tally of ~650k is only part of it, but Labour's popular vote share fell by ~2.5m votes in 2019. With half of Labour voters being pro-Brexit no doubt some of them went to pro-Brexit Johnson, also many in the other half will have accounted for the ~1.3m vote jump for the Lib Dems who were pro-remain. Without the Brexit issue, it's safe to assume a good chunk of Corbyn's ~2.5 vote loss will return, not just because of Jezza's fence-sitting on the Brexit issue, but also because the media hasn't been as successful at branding Starmer a Jew hatin' Commie.
 
Just for info... regarding my complaint to the Electoral Commission regarding Robert Largan...

Thank you for contacting the Electoral Commission

When it comes to campaigning, the Commission is responsible for ensuring that campaign material by parties and campaigners includes information to identify the person or organisation which has caused it to be published. This is known as an imprint.

Our remit does not extend to the content or style of campaign material. This is not subject to regulation by any UK body.

The digital imprint regime gives voters more information about who is trying to reach them online, including campaigners and political parties. Voters should check for an imprint if they have concerns about the source of material. We encourage all candidates to consider how voters will understand their campaign materials. To learn more please see our website.

Kind Regards

So as long as the small print is present, it's okay.

... right, I'm off to get some posters printed.
 
Just for info... regarding my complaint to the Electoral Commission regarding Robert Largan...



So as long as the small print is present, it's okay.

... right, I'm off to get some posters printed.
Its been in the news and all over social media by now, so it may be okay according to the Electorial Commission, but hopefully the damage has been done to that tits chances.

Looking at 2019 results for that constituency, Largan won the seat by a slim majority - 45.9% to 44.8% (from Ruth George, Labour) A difference of just 590 votes from the 54,173 total votes cast. It had been a Labour seat before then, so i don't imagine it would take much bad press to swing it back again.
 
Last edited:
So as long as the small print is present, it's okay.
Yes, that's the rule unfortunately. There's been quite a bit of campaigning over the last session - including in locals - where especially the Conservative candidates have obfuscated their party affiliation in material (different colourings most often), but the legally required imprint has been there.

In the meantime:


 
We know which of Rishi's 2 jobs he considers more important - abandons his duties as PM early to go do a campaigning interview as Tory leader

 
It's almost like he doesn't want the job. I guess he's already day dreaming about what silicon valley role he can land himself come July.
 
even The Telegraph have had enough - the flippin Telegraph

I'm not paying to read that. Anyone else feel the same? Here's an archived link.
It's a bit difficult to keep selling their preferred candidate to the Dad's Army larpers who thrive on their rag when he can't even stay in one place long enough to support the vets. What a PR disaster.

His response is to lash out at his critics who are politicising D-Day and taking the focus off our veterans.
 
Last edited:
Well, I guess being an arrogant, disrespectful ** is a character. What a **.

One of our local councillors didn't show up to Remembrance Day last year, and... well, that's their character too.
 
He said the itinerary was sorted weeks ago so... why was he always scheduled to do a runner?
 
He said the itinerary was sorted weeks ago so... why was he always scheduled to do a runner?
Rule Britannia - he only ever planned to attend the British events with British veterans.
Probably thought that would play well with the Tory crowd of voters & press.

It was a pre-recorded interview that won't get aired until Monday evening and his team chose the time to record it, so all the photo-op events he does over the next few days were considered more important.
 
Last edited:
I imagine this went down well in his own constituency, which includes Catterick Garrison, the largest British army base.
 
Jonathan Pie's election specials.
  1. All the money is gone.
  2. Stunt policies won't solve the immigration crisis.

 
Last edited:
And in other news, the Green Party are launching their election manifesto during a rare, unsilenced hyper car track day at Cadwell Park.

It was either there or at a monster truck extravaganza at Newark Show Ground.
 
Last edited:
And in other news, the Green Party are launching their election manifesto during a rare, unsilenced hyper car track day at Cadwell Park.

It was either there or at a monster truck extravaganza at Newark Show Ground.
I wouldn't put it past Ed Davey to do an interview live from the passenger seat of one of Terry Grant's Jaguars.
 
Back