https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1786833178608468322
Opinium which is the pollster that has been consistently the most generous to the Tories is still giving Labour a 16% lead.
40% isn't that brilliant for Labour - it is exactly what Labour received in the 2017 general election, which they didn't win. It would appear that Labour's good fortunes are heavily dependent on Reform UK's performance.
Which presumably is why the Tories are focusing so heavily on appealing to bigots. Although as mentioned earlier I have no idea why they think they might win that particular battle - if I was a homophobic racist bigot I would be backing Nigel Farage - he is even the correct colour.
Yep. I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise.
But most people would agree that if Reform UK did not stand any candidates at the next general election that would give a huge boost to the Tories, it certainly did in 2019.
And if Labour only managed 40% in a general election it could well rob them of the ability to form a majority government.
That toilet thing is amazing, we're banning gender neutral/unisex toilets but you can have a universal toilet, which is definitely not in any way a gender neutral or unisex toilet. And we're going to justify it by saying it helps the disabled and elderly who are apparent;y unfairly affected by converting existing toilets into gender neutral, but it only applies to new developments so that's completely irrelevant to the new law
Gender neutral toilets are of course evil and cause the spread of wokeness, except on trains and planes of course where they're perfectly natural and god fearing. Turns out that 81% of people are in favour of separate male and female toilets, but 82% of the same sample of people are also in favour of universal toilets.
Because the most important issue in Britain is being able to bully trans people for going to the "wrong" toilet and we need to ensure we can keep doing that by reducing the spread of toilets that they can't be wrong in.
This is a couple of years old but I have only just had my attention drawn to it.
Not really much of a surprise to me, after all the lower down the social scale the more likely you are to have a Muslim friend I would have thought. In the same way as you more likely to have a black friend. But it might surprise a little those who have preconceived assumptions about "gammons".
I think unisex toilets are a good thing... I have no evidence to back this up other than my own experence... but my experience, in nightclubs for example, people, especially hetro blokes, tend to behave a bit better if they are sharing a bank of sinks and taps with women.
Yep. I don’t think anyone has claimed otherwise.
But most people would agree that if Reform UK did not stand any candidates at the next general election that would give a huge boost to the Tories, it certainly did in 2019.
And if Labour only managed 40% in a general election it could well rob them of the ability to form a majority government.
yougovs polling back in December showed that only 1/3rd of reform votes were winnable by the Tories, reform were polling at about 10% at the time so even if you assume all of the extra now voting reform that would add about 8% on to the Tories, which probably wouldnt be enough to stop Labour getting a decent majority if the current polls number hold until a GE
Aye, but if Sunak wins back the Reform vote, how much will he lose to Lab/LDs?
Sweet FA, anyone still voting for the tories now isn't switching to Lab/LD.
What's the largest majority in any GE in history?
Is Cameron trying to sneak back into political leadership?
I'm assuming we can file the whole toilet thing as yet another announcement that they will never get around to implementing?
I mean, many's the day I've woken up and dreaded the day to come knowing I might have to use a unisex toilet. Nightmare. It's a definite vote winner for me.
I think they’re out of parliamentary time for anything that’s not already in progress, because we’re so close to the election.
Not sure if they can do this by secondary legislation though.
I think unisex toilets are a good thing… I have no evidence to back this up other than my own experence… but my experience, in nightclubs for example, people, especially hetro blokes, tend to behave a bit better if they are sharing a bank of sinks and taps with women.
But do they still piss on the seats?
yougovs polling back in December showed that only 1/3rd of reform votes were winnable by the Tories
And that Labour would get about 2% of the Reform UK votes if Reform UK didn't stand. There is little doubt that Reform UK is damaging to the Tories. Especially in the Tory marginals where thanks to FPTP every 1% makes a huge difference.
I don't think polls which give Labour a 20-25% are realistic, I wish they were. The reality is that on election day it will be much closer, probably about half of that.
Which is what occurred in the London mayoral election - a week before the election opinion polls were putting khan's lead at about 22%, on election day he had an 11% lead.
It's not that the polls were wrong, they were correct at the time they were taken, it's just that undecided Tory voters decided how they would vote just before the election. Khan's lead in a survation poll the day before, Wednesday, was put at 10%
The latest opinium poll which gives Labour a 16% lead factors in how currently uncommitted 2019 Tory voters are likely to vote when the general election is finally called.
people, especially hetro blokes, tend to behave a bit better if they are sharing a bank of sinks and taps with women
But do they still piss on the seats?
As someone that cleaned pub toilets: absolutely guaranteed, they're awful. I can't see why men would want to share with them.
Sir John Curtice's take on the Tory hopes of a hung parliament. He seems to think it's unlikely. Reform, Scotland and tactical voting will staft them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68964302
Just a little part of the article:
At the same time, some voters seemingly voted for whichever party was best placed to defeat the Conservatives locally. Labour's support increased most (at the expense of the Liberal Democrats) in wards where they started off second to the Conservatives, while the Liberal Democrats advanced most (and Labour did less well) in wards where were the principal challengers locally.
Indeed, it is these two patterns that help explain why the Conservative Party lost nearly one in two of the council seats it was trying to defend. Conservative MPs would be unwise to assume that the same fate could not also befall them.
The bigger the Labour lead the less likely people are to vote tactically to defeat the Tories.
People vote tactically in marginal seats.
With all the current opinion polls, and by-election results, showing a huge Labour lead people will not feel that it is necessary to vote tactically, and instead are likely to vote for their preferred choice.
Which is a shame really because the smaller the Conservative Parliamentary Party the better imo. It makes them less relevant, gives them less voices in the media , and reduces their chances of winning the following general election.
ernielynch
Full Member
The bigger the Labour lead the less likely people are to vote tactically to defeat the Tories.
Well, it depends I suppose and we wont get a better idea till after the GE.
Personally, I think that those that did vote tactically will see the locals as vindication for doing so and will do so again in the GE.
We shall see though.
The problem for the Tories now is that a lot of people living in constituencies who were not engaged with politics because they believed they had no chance of unseating the Conservative MP are now alive to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, with some tactical voting, they could get rid of MPs with a 15,000 majority in 2019. They are energised and that isn't going away.
Many in the Tories' own base are disillusioned and were fine when their candidate was sailing home, but apathetic and more likely to stay home when there's a chance of them losing.
In a lot of constituencies, the Conservatives do not have the structure in place or the manpower for a sustained period of defending previously rock solid seats. And most importantly, they do not have the funding to defend so many vulnerable constituencies.
True but unfortunately due the recent development of anti-politics, mistrust of politicians, and false claims of the LibDems - who in an attempt to make themselves more relevant have created a myth suggesting that coalition governments are more healthy, many voters are now not keen to see one party able to govern easily.
With many opinions polls predicting a huge Labour majority (Kimbers prediction above gives Labour 479 seats to the Tories 84) some people might well vote tactically to stop Labour from having this huge predicted, and alledgedly unhealthy, majority.
@ martinhutch
Morale amongst the foot soldiers must be a factor too during campaigning. A "tory insider" commented that in the West Midlands campaign, many activists just showed up for photoes and then buggered off.
This is opposed to Labour, Libdems, greens etc** that must be hyped as hell at the moment. Only a couple of years back they and we, were all resigned to another Tory government.
How times change.
**Unfortunately, this probably applies to Reform activists too.
Which is what occurred in the London mayoral election – a week before the election opinion polls were putting khan’s lead at about 22%, on election day he had an 11% lead.
How much of that is down to people saying they'd vote for him (or not vote for Hall) but then not voting at all?
11% is the second largest majority in London Mayoral history - I'm not sure how much of the pre-count blustering from the Tories about how it was super close and she may just have done this was bravado, expectation management, PR or what but it's kind of sounding the same now. They're almost daring people to vote how they want cos the worst that'll happen is a hung Parliament.
Or is it still just complete delusion from the Tory benches - the same delusion that is convincing them they're doing a great job?!
Hopefully illusory elephant in the room time...
Do we now think we are safe from Tice pulling his candidates in Tory marginals?
He's about as trustworthy as a rattlesnake.
I think it unlikely, but I've been aghast at lots of things in UK politics in the last 8 years that have defied common sense.
Think of how much coverage Farage got/gets and he’s not even an MP.
Leaders of political parties might get media coverage but how many people do you see on the BBC QT panel who are there in their capacity as former MPs? How many former MPs ask questions in Parliament?
The pre-London mayoral count blustering from the Tories was baffling - there was no way that they could have known how it was going before the counting had started and opinions polls are not that dramatically wrong - their margin of error isn't in double figures!
I can only think that Susan Hall was indeed delusional, but I don't understand why her team and other Tory politicians seemed to back her up - you can't get the election result that want simply by wishing for it.
A persistant refusal to accept reality has become increasingly imbedded in Tory policy over the last decade.
Sunak in his desperation is promising further tax cuts, which everyone knows can’t be funded by anything other than taking a hatchet to already decimated public service budgets.
Not that it will make any difference to his popularity, but further tax cuts for working people is one of the few things the tories are right on. People are still suffering from the inflation spike and the resultant higher borrowing costs so extra money in their pocket is exactly what they need right now, and it will also provide a much needed economic boost. I see though you're towing the 'we don't have any money' line which Rachel Reeves is so keen on so I guess there's little hope of the labour party doing much to help people*.
*Assuming of course that they're being honest, which I think we all know is unlikely.
Sunak and his Govt added £120bn to the National Debt just in the last 12 months, ignore anything he says about "funding".
Labour unfortunately have got to follow the 'line' while in Opposition, otherwise the Tory-Press will hound them (even though the Tories are adding to the National Debt at +£300m PER DAY, which they obviously never mention).
They really are desperate. Their last attempt at voter suppression seems to have failed, so let's go for a new one
Labour unfortunately have got to follow the ‘line’ while in Opposition
Labour might have to but I think here we can be honest and bin any talk about not being able to 'afford' or 'fund' tax cuts. The question is not whether we can fund them but whether they're the best way to support working people and/or boost the economy.
is it me or does that photo up there look like a still from a HSE video, 'how to spot inappropriate behavior in the workplace.
Banning postal votes would be suicidal lunacy for the Tories. In the locals we were about equal with the Tories on postal but won significantly in every box. Same in almost all wards - postal voters are usually older therefore significantly more likely to vote conservative.
Clarke- Smith is basically making a very ill informed dig re mayoral elections and allusion to postal voters fraud. He knows the Tory party will not stop postal voting and so is safe I making Trump style unfounded statements
Another thread where we all pretend that taxing and spending are arbitrary? Managing the balance between money created, spent, taxed, lent, borrowed... this is all key. Everyone know that the links between these and the considerations that need to be made are neither direct or simple... but deciding to change any of them... effects all the others, and impacts on all our lives. The over simplification of tax breaks being funded by spending cuts (or visa versa) is worth challenging, but replacing that with glib claims that they do not affect each other is no better. Looking at the "affordability" of tax cuts (especially those which the better off will benefit from) is entirely valid (and essential)... that does not means that taxes directly and solely fund spending.
Another thread where we all pretend that taxing and spending are arbitrary?
Nope. Just another attempt to debunk the myth that the govt doesn't have any money. Clearly the labour party centrists have swallowed it (apart from spending money on weapons of course) and are going to allow it to prevent them from doing anything useful. Or more likely they're using it as an excuse for not doing anything useful or changing anything, which is exactly what the corporate establishment and billionaire power brokers want.
So should labour support tory calls for lower taxes for working people or carry on pretending we can't afford them?
So should labour support tory calls for lower taxes for working people or carry on pretending we can’t afford them?
I'd prioritise public services over tax breaks for well off "working people" every time. Because the working class relying on those services and can't afford the private provisions, like private health care and eduction, that those well off "working people" will spend their tax breaks on.
^^ I obviously have a vested interest these days but even without it, I'd agree. 👍
like private health care and eduction, that those well off “working people” will spend their tax breaks on.
You seriously think 'well off' (what does that mean BTW?) working class people spend money on private health care and education??? You might want to reconnect with the real world.
He didn't say " working class people" he said " working people"
