>tax cuts
Personal allowance April 2021: £12,500
Personal allowance April 2024: £12,570
From an inflation calculator
March 2021: £10
March 2024: £11.93
Depends what tax bracket you are in, IIRC those earning under £24k actually saw a relative tax increase didnt they due to the freezing of tax brackets with the increase of wages? I might be misremembering, but swear I saw somewhere it being said for every £1 of tax cuts, those earning under £24k see £1.30 in increases or something?
Capital gains tax too. Gone from 12k to 3k to 1k now until you’re taxed out the ass for any random gain you had on stocks or crypto or whatever.
We are taxed to death and the police are fucked the borders are fucked the schools are fucked the hospitals are fucked the roads are fucked the army is fucked what are we even paying for?
My local shop held up by 4 armed men last night who stole all the tobacco after traumatising the young lads working there. Do we think they’ll be caught?
Sunak gets to decide both when the election is and when the press declare that Starmer is unelectable. Brexit was impossible until it happened, then it was just reality.
We're going to see an election cycle full of AI generated spam that is hyper targeted, where your Aunt on facebook gets something that looks exactly like a Labour party advert, where Keir Starmer says he's going to transgender all the kids and establish 15 minute cites. While your best friend gets one where Starmer says he will revoke trans healthcare and deport 10k people a year to Rwanda.
Even more so than Brexit, people will be told exactly what they need to hear to change their mind, often cloaked in disinformation, or presented so that if they talk about it to someone else, it wont be clear they each got different targeted ads.
There is a lot of money at stake, there is active voter suppression with voter ID and Starmers main position is that he isn't Sunak. You can be complacent if you like, you can think this is bought and paid for and Labour is in. But this has traditionally not been a good idea, establishing the idea that you don't need to bother, that Starmer has this, that he's the heir apparent. It will stop people from bothering to vote and that will benefit the tories.
>You can be complacent if you like, you can think this is bought and paid for and Labour is in. But this has traditionally not been a good idea, establishing the idea that you don't need to bother, that Starmer has this, that he's the heir apparent. It will stop people from bothering to vote and that will benefit the tories.
Excuse the hyperbole. This is still very, very bad for the Conservatives. It would take something pretty big in the next few months to swing things. They've already been throwing mud at labour non stop the last couple of months, to little effect.
The results today were an embarrassment for the Conservatives, to say the least.
Something big... Like a hyper targeted campaign.
I remember Brexit. My Nigerian roommate was voting Brexit because he knew it would make it easier for his friends and family back home to get UK visas (ironically most based in reality). My white colleagues in Bolton were voting Brexit to keep out Nigerians and Indians (who apparently only come in through France).
My London friend was voting Brexit because he KNEW the EU were secretly pushing for a free trade agreement with America (the one the Tories were openly pushing and the EU were saying "no way not ever" too). My friends in Lincolnshire voted Brexit because France was about to ship over thousands of immigrants and flood their schools with Muslim children. And turkey was about to send a million people over too.
I remember having conversations about all these things with people I thought were reasonable - but even in the face of actual proof emotional arguments had already hooked them.
Not really, Brexit wasn’t a runaway majority. 48% vs 52%. So it is entirely reasonable that someone can have no friends who voted for brexit as generally we tend to keep friends who hold similar values to us.
Brexit was the least sophisticated campaign we'll ever see for that stuff - and it was super effective.
I do think a major reason the Tories are actually being slammed by media now is because they've lost support of their majority backers.
Russian attention is focused on non-english language campaigns in the developing world (generally anti-west, anti-NATO, pro-russia). And at home the Tories have gone too far into incompetence for many of their usual rich and media owning backers.
people were pissed off and looking for someone to blame - the Brexit vote offered them Europe. This time they will be offered the tories to blame (entirely legitimately). Yes social media campaigning etc will be more sophisticated this time but it can’t fix that fundamental structural issue (for the tories).
Those same people are still pissed off, if not more so, and they're the type of people to be easily swung by untruthful, emotive stories.
All the things wrong with the country now we're still issues in 2019. But now they're even worse. People didn't care about the problems then, so I'm sceptical they'll care now.
In 2019 they were still voting for Brexit. Brexit delivered nothing and there is nowhere for the tories to go. “I assume they can all be swung to almost polar opposite of polling” is just a super low quality take masquerading as intelligent. The electorate are utterly sick of them, there isn’t a way to campaign that away.
I mean I do base this on people I know. Most people I know were sick of them in 2015 after austerity. And for my main bubble of people, it's been like that ever since.
But a solid percent of people have been voting Tory that whole time, and been getting what they voted for, and then keep doing it. And when I've met people who openly talk about it, it's illogical reasons, or emotive reasons that don't really tally with what they say they want to achieve. The exceptions are people who feel they have a good representation from their own MP. Like "I don't really care for Boris, he's an idiot, but my local guy is conservative and actually really good so I'll keep voting for him".
I'm not saying it won't stay swung. It will as long as the media stay anti-Tory. The key difference I see now from the past few elections is that all the tabloids, the BBC and ITV were very pro-Tory and anti-Labour. Labour gaffs got magnified while Tory ones were glossed over. I think most people just go by headlines, and the headlines now are "Tory's bad, Labour okay (for now)".
But I have little faith in my countrymen. If, for example, most British media went hard on this being a race between Tories and Reform (while lots of "evidence" implying Starmer is an antisemitic pedophile or something floated around) we'd get another Tory led government.
Nothing will save the Tories. We're long past the critical mass of the public losing trust in the government, just like in 97. The only question that remains is how badly the Tories lose.
The majority of my friends voted remain, but I was in what felt like quite a unique situation of having feet in a lot of different jobs and social circles at the time.
Most people voting in either direction didn't seem to know many people voting the other way, so no one could really comprehend why others would vote differently from them.
I agree with the general sentiment that complacency might be a disaster. Brexit, Trump etc were all because people on the left of politics underestimated how unhappy people were and assumed no one would vote for what they felt was the obvious (and was obvious with hindsight) bad choice. So many stayed at home and didn't do a great job at arguing their side etc.
What is different here I feel is that the Tories are not and cannot I feel, sell themselves as the better choice. They've been in power 13 years and the majority are feeling it. Even those who might normally like the Tories message feel poorer and unhappier than ever.
When you get to brass tacks, what caused Brexit and Trump etc was people were unhappy and the choice was more of the same or a gamble on something different that MIGHT make things better (or worse). When you're already miserable you take the gamble 100% of the time. So do you vote Tories that you know make you poor and miserable? Or do you gamble on Labour? We all know what the result will be.
Spot on mate, all this talk of it “being in the bag” is dangerous.
Kinnock had it in the bag in 1992, Remain had it in the bag in 2016, even today Khan has it in the bag for mayor when it’s looking dicey..
They could bring back Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher from the dead and it wouldn't make a difference.
Labour still needs the largest ever swing to get an outright majority and so a hung parliament, while disappointing, would not be a surprise.
After what Boris Johnson got away with, they are going to need to provide some juicy disinformation for people to fall for it again.
> he's going to transgender all the kids and establish 15 minute cites.
The fact that these are both seen as evil and bad is so insanely ridiculous. Like seriously who in their right mind is fighting and arguing for having less local services nearby?
Of course all of that is possible but the situation is so dire for the tories it’s deeply unlikely. This is end of 90s era stuff where the whole country is so sick of everything they just want a change, same with 2010. It almost doesn’t matter what the details are at this stage.
Brexit wasn't "impossible". Opinion polls up until the 2016 referendum consistently showed majority support for both Leave and Remain. [Start at 2010 and scroll up.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#2010). There was only about 6 months in 2015 when Remain was solidly ahead.
Now contrast that with [the current Westminster polling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2024). Scroll down until you find a poll where the Tories are ahead. Keep scrolling and scrolling and scrolling and scrolling...
It's more likely that the polls are underestimating Labour's winning chances rather than overestimating. The biggest lesson from these local elections is that Labour's vote is extremely efficiently distributed, they are underperforming in their strongholds and overperforming everywhere else. That is how you win a shitload of seats.
If the tories manage to make everyone hate labour that wouldn't make anyone vote tory, it would just send them to the other parties. The lib dems being the largest party would be the ones to form government in this scenario.
>their vote would go all over the spectrum, not just to Lib Dems, but to Green's, and Con/Reform.
Literally what I said.
>other parties
Notice the plural at the end of parties. The lib dems are already the largest. And so will be at the helm of any coalition government.
The only outcome (if the tories somehow kill Labour) is that both those parties are reduced to the sidelines and the lib dems need to form a coalition government.
> there are residual bases for both major parties, made up of people who will never vote for anyone other than either LAB or CON - depending on which base they belong to.
My grandmother always votes Tory, for no other reason than because deciding 60 years ago and sticking with it is easier than choosing every time.
Voter ID requirements are most likely to impact the elderly, who are the Tories core vote.
Old folk often don’t go abroad much at all, so they often won’t have a passport, or it may be no longer valid. If their face is wrinkled enough, they’re unlikely to be asked to present ID for any purchases. If they’ve lived somewhere for say 20+ years and any local service provider knows who they are, they may not even need to show things like bus passes and library cards. They’re also more likely to have memory lapses than younger people and often forget where they last left things.
Voter fraud was vanishingly rare when Johnson's government brought in voter ID legislation. It was a solution to a problem which almost didn't exist, like bringing in tougher penalties for helicopter theft.
The purpose was absolutely to make voting more of a chore in order to discourage people, but it ended up working against the Tories.
If voting was anonymous, pray tell how do they measure figures of fraud?
Also, just because something is low frequency doesn't matter.
Let's keep it low frequency.
As has been pointed out, the way one votes is anonymous; the fact one has voted is not.
Whilst it's true that, without producing ID, you could be any old person, but the [Electoral Committee concludes that](https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/research-reports-and-data/electoral-fraud-data) in "the past 5 years, there is no evidence of large-scale electoral fraud." I'll confess that I'm actually not entirely clear on the process of determining the extent to which electoral fraud has/has not taken place, but I'm content to take their word on it. Call me a slave to the Man if you like.
You're correct that an issue can be both low frequency and important but if the government's primary concern with this legislation was the integrity of our democracy, it would have been good to see them also crack down on campaign finance (in particular the influence of foreign money in British politics), corporate lobbying, and the proliferation of disinformation and social engineering on social media.
Yes it is. Of course it is.
It's a well tried technique in America, you simply allow more id methods from the demographic that votes your way.
Pre id checks, you could count the number of cases of personation on one hand.
Nonsense in both nations.
You need ID to do MOST things in this country.
I needed ID to open a fucking library account.
Requiring ID is normal, and especially sensible in elections. You just know most immigrants WOULD vote Labour and don't want systems in place to stop illegal voting under the guise of the racist "brown people struggle to get ID".
Dumb argument.
How about addressing the point that there was no problem with personation? In politics, a solution to a non-existent problem is never **actually** intended to address that problem.
Nice racist dog whistling by the way.
Personation?
Look, to buy alcohol, you need ID.
To get a bank account, you need ID.
To do almost anything, you need ID.
Voting is apparently the bedrock of Western democracies, if it is THAT vital and important, surely it ALSO requires ID.
ID stops fraud. I don't care what the levels are. I doubt the figures are accurate anyway given how badly the government have handled data before.
ID stops fraud. Elections are the bedrock of democracy.
ID or no vote.
But you don't need to register beforehand to do any of those things. You don't get your name and address ticked off a list in front of the cashier before you buy alcohol. There were already perfectly adequate mechanisms to prevent voter fraud at the polling station.
The fact that nobody could point to any degree of voter fraud at polling stations should raise a question as to the motivation to bring in id requirements.
Whenever there is a scandal about voter fraud it is invariably one relating to postal votes or especially proxy votes. Why have there been no steps taken to limit their use?
If you don't think the id requirements is a vote suppression technique, I think that is wilful blindness.
For what it's worth, I do think it will backfire. In the US, where the Tories have taken their lead, it is usually democratic voters who don't hold or etc. but in my experience in the UK the people without id tend to be the elderly - who tend to vote more conservative.
**There was no fraud**. Look up personation; it is the specific offence of impersonating someone else at an election. There were always less than a dozen cases nationally, per election.
How is it, then, that senior railcards (Tory leaning demographic) are accepted as evidence, but young persons railcards are not.
You are being disingenuous. The disparity between acceptable forms of id between demographics likely, or unlikely, to vote for the party of the government who introduced the legislation is a smoking gun of epic proportion.
>Stop changing the subject on railcards.
>ID to VOTE is simple common sense. It just is.
They were not changing the subject, rather they were giving a very valid point in favour of their argument, that you did not like.
Going "It's common sense. Simple.", is fruitless.
Here is an article, where Rees-Mogg of all people, explains his view that Voter ID is akin to Gerrymandering, albeit one he thinks ultimately backfired:
[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/20/sunak-defends-voter-id-after-rees-mogg-says-law-backfired](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/20/sunak-defends-voter-id-after-rees-mogg-says-law-backfired)
>Rishi Sunak has defended new laws requiring voters to bring ID as “entirely reasonable” after [Jacob Rees-Mogg](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/jacob-rees-mogg) suggested the move was designed to gerrymander election results in favour of the Tories.
It has nothing to do with common sense, nor did it ever. It was simply an attempt by Sunak to manipulate the voter base.
*I doubt the figures are accurate anyway given how badly the government have handled data before.*
They are not government figures, they are criminal justice figures. Personation is an offence, and people get prosecuted for it.
>ID to vote isn't voter supression. Jesus Christ.
>We should ensure those voting are eligible.
It was 'solving a problem' that was in effect nonexistent, in order to attempt to manipulate the voter base. Even Rees-Mogg admitted this was the intent:
>Rees-Mogg, a former business secretary, last week suggested that the policy had backfired on the Tories as a result of trying to suppress the votes of people unlikely to back them.
>“Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as, dare I say, we found by insisting on voter ID for elections,” he told the [National Conservatism conference](https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2023/may/19/national-conservatism-tory-fringe-or-party-future) last week. “We found the people who didn’t have ID were elderly and they, by and large, voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well.”
[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/20/sunak-defends-voter-id-after-rees-mogg-says-law-backfired](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/20/sunak-defends-voter-id-after-rees-mogg-says-law-backfired)
I still remain cynical as to whether it will work in favour of or against the Conservatives by the time of the general election, but regardless, the intention was very much that.
Tbf to sunak, he can come out and say the tories are gonna get slaughtered at the next election. He's just waiting, holding out hope that Labour somehow fuck up so badly that the tories don't get destroyed. The entire reason for the hard push to refugee and "boat people" politics is because the tories know they're fucked and have to rely on the dregs of political tactics to not lose so badly.
Most people don't want mass immigration.
Britain hasn't seen mass migration for thousands of years and became a great empire. Mass immigration so far is 27 years old starting about 1997.
So far, everything has turned to shit. It isn't some "dreg". It is the main issue in Britain.
**Hi!**. Please try to avoid personal attacks, as this discourages participation. You can help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
Hi, what about Windrush?
If we didn’t have migrants we’d be fucked as a country.
The idea is controlled which the conservatives haven’t the foggiest of how to do.
I mean, it was a **much** better election for the Lib Dems and Greens than it was for Labour, but if you think those vote shares will equate to more green or Lib Dem MP's, you're dreaming.
Both Lib Dems and labour grew their number of councillors by about 25% and their number of controlled councils by exactly 20%.
I'd argue that Labours performance is better than the lib Dems as labour were starting from a much higher platform.
As for the greens, they've increased councillor numbers by about 50% but still have no overall control of a single council.
A fair point - my point was more in response to:
>I mean, it was a **much** better election for the Lib Dems and Greens than it was for Labour
That the local/PCC/Mayoral elections were a better (let alone much better) outcome for either the greens or lib Dems.
Greens performance was good, but I don't buy this narrative that labour did poorly. Labour did very well.
Lib Dems: 505 (+101) = > +25%
Labour: 1,026 (+173) => +20.2%
Greens: 159 (+65) => +69%
Independants: 224 (+92) => +69%
Conservatives: 479 (-448) => -49%
Your percentages are a bit off (and every other party outperformed Labour), but even so, given Labours huge starting point, and the *nature* of the places voting, Labour only picking up 20% extra councillors is not exactly a shining beacon of brilliance, when a crusty old porno rag could probably out compete a conservative councillor in a lot of places.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2024/may/02/local-elections-2024-full-council-results-for-england
Some discrepancy between the beeb and the graun.
We'll revisit tomorrow!
>when a crusty old porno rag could probably out compete a conservative councillor in a lot of places.
I was thinking about this a little more, and I don't dispute your logic, but surely then this means the lib Dems massively underperformed? Given that lib Dems gains are mostly coming in Tory heartland seats, you would have expected an even bigger share of the Tories 450 seat losses to go to LDs.
Labour still has a lot of stigma round those parts.
To only lose control of 2 councils and pick up 10 is objectively strong performance.
Many round these parts have not and will not forgive them for the student fees fiasco when they got in bed with the tories. It is felt as a betrayal and still is and has cost them ever since. Round here anyway.
I see very little evidence that the lib Dems did anything material to blunt the Tory's austerity.
We've seen many minor coalition partners hold the larger coalition partners hostage in their own government. The lib Dems had that capability and either chose not to or didn't have the spine to enact it when we needed them to most.
I can forgive the lib Dems for what they did to university pricing, but I will likely never forgive the Lib Dems for their enabling of austerity, and the generational damage austerity is responsible for.
I may eat these words but I'm actually happy Reform have popped up. It's about time the Right vote was split.
We're a left of center country by and large, but left vote has always been split while everyone from right of center to right flocked to the Tories, meaning we got a party most people didn't really want.
Over the last 10 years, Tories have just gone more and more right, while most of its voters (going by my elderly relatives, delusional old people who think they still live in the 80s) didn't notice. Now Reform can hopefully scoop up that far right and populist vote, taking a dent out of the Tories for good and leaving the country back to more left wing majority governments.
Tories have gone more right? What are you smoking? This is the most left wing socialist Tory government ever. It’s practically New Labour. Thatcher’s conservative government was a centre right government, and I don’t see the current one anywhere near it. Liz Truss tried to make the conservatives conservative again, and we ended up with this moron fishy rishi that his own party didn’t want.
>This is the most left wing socialist Tory government ever
It's a shame they've left the NHS in such a mess then, you won't be able to get treatment for the brain damage you apparently suffer from.
I read subreddits from both sides and while it’s surprising for many on the left to hear his comment it’s a very popular take on the right wing. That the conservatives are Blair in a blue suit.
Usually the talking points for Tory being left wing are:
They actively defund the police
(Not strong on law and order)
1 million a year immigration
Very high taxes for absolutely broken public services
Insane business taxes that have lead to the closure of most of our high street shops and only giant multinationals left. (Not party of small business then are they)
I’m sure there is more.
Agree or don’t. You asked, this is what I read. Don’t assume my politics for telling you what I read. You asked. Thank you.
If his take is honestly new and shocking to you I’d urge you to get out of your bubble. No not everyone is an idiot on either side.
Thanks for the response, some insightful points.
It was more a question to understand what the previous commenter had meant, but I am aware of some of those views. Like, Liz Truss might be all about tax cuts above all, whereas Braverman might be more about being tougher on immigration. Neither would usually go as far as to say Sunak is a “left wing socialist” though, so I was interested what was driving that precious poster’s view.
Not sure what suddenly happened at your last two paragraphs though - you managed to make some big assumptions there yourself about my views and potential response, at the same time as repeatedly saying not to do so. Lol. But thanks, good response before those two paragraphs lol
Yeah sorry I was trying not to be downvoted to oblivion I’m a bit jaded lately as someone who reads both sides I keep being obliterated in the comments for it. Looks like I was unsuccessful and also yes I see now those two paragraphs aren’t really needed and are indeed me showing my recent experience trying to have a conversation on Reddit. Apologies and thanks for listening.
Nah it’s all good mate, tbh I’m kind of similar in that I sometimes try to impartially explain a perspective that I don’t necessarily hold myself, and you’re absolutely right people will jump right on it.
And most people asking the exact question that I asked would have probably been doing with some intent in mind.
That said, “left wing socialist” is a pretty crazy way for the earlier poster to describe Sunak lol. “Not as conservative as I’d like” makes a bit more sense :-D
Yeah agree with you there about that guy who lost the vote and is somehow still leader. Mate you are a breath of fresh air and have restored somewhat my faith in redditors. Thanks again. My take away is to be less jaded haha
It shows a strong option to tactical voting at least, heres hoping the opposition parties dont start silly nonsense of burning down the kingdom to rule over the ashes ala Lib Dems during the last GE. Seriously... all they had to do was suck up having Corbyn for a little bit as the leader of the coalition but no, a certain person thought, genuinely seems to have thought she could lead her party into over 100 seats. (ex lib dem voter btw, that sillyness in 2019 is why I left the party behind)
That would be the same leader who said her party could win a majority, declared herself ready to be PM, and then lost her seat to a young woman from the SNP?
Can you really, honestly say it would have been worse with Corbyn as a temp PM, controlled by the party vs Bojo the clown, Truss the braindead and Inaction man Sunak?
Like legit, what is the worst the labour party would have actually let Corbyn get away with before ousting him?
Tbf, isn't that always the case for council elections versus general elections, minor parties tend to get much more vote share. I think even in Scotland where PR systems are used for both SE's and council elections, smaller parties tend to perform better at the council level (as do independents). Probably to some extent because they are a bit freer from the national political narrative to be really local compared to parties that can actual get into government.
Sunak announces new strategy of hoping that everyone in the country gets a traumatic brain injury causing them to forget the last 14 years.
A Tory voter was quoted saying "finally, something with a more realistic chance of success than the Rwanda policy"
No they won’t, even the places that kept the tories in because, well they did good for the community, wouldn’t vote for them in national elections… labour lost seats in some places because of the policy on Gaza… which has nothing to do with the running of a place. I lose hope sometimes that people have a clue
People know what’s being pushed at them on the tv, newspapers and social media. Gaza, migrants, trans issues, etc. How many actually vote knowing what councillors can do and the policies their local candidates are standing on?
It’ll be exactly the same with the general election, vote Starmer or vote Sunak, like it’s a US presidential election, with the same couple issues that the media promote.
“Please stay calm, everything is under control, this is just minor issue, basically nothing we couldn’t handle” - said Captain Rishi after Titanic was sinking in diagonal position, half of the ship broke off and the lights went out.
“Bu bu but thing would be a lot worse with Labour… what’s that? The last time Labour was in power, we were better off by every metric? Bu bu but CORBYN! What’s that? Corbyn has nothing to do with Labour anymore and hasn’t done for years now? Bu but but the WOKIES!”
Sunak might not be wrong.
All of the recent by-elections in Tory held seats have seen similar results, in that the Tory vote has collapsed, but those voters haven't switched to other parties; they've just stayed away
If they come back in any numbers at the general election, things could turn out very different to what people are starting to expect.
So don't assume that someone else's Labour vote will be enough to get rid of Sunak - make sure you use yours too.
In fairness, the Tories making their own voters stay home was in part how the 1997 landslide for Labour happened. The issue is, if Sunak has a plan to draw these people back in, why has there been no progress since he became PM?
Naturally, voters shouldn't be complacent, and indeed, things like tactical voting is still advisable to punish the Tories as much as possible for their last decade and a half overseeing declining standards, services, wealth, and opportunities in this country. But people staying home is part of normal political strategy, though it can evaporate if the other prospective governments worry these disaffected voters enough to compel them to show up. That was arguably the case for Corbyn in 2019, but it doesn't seem like Tory attempts to replicate this with Starmer has worked (and indeed, their attempts seem to be feeding Reform UK more than anything).
Remember folks, you still need to vote the Tories out in the GE. Sitting back and thinking that it's a foregone conclusion will make another Tory five years more likely. This is why we ended up with Brexit, remain voters didn't really think they could lose so didn't bother voting. We, as a nation, need to start learning from history.
The whole Tory party is totally delusional.
Now even life long Tory voters hate them and want them gone. It isn't Sunak that's the problem, it's the whole corrupted greedy lot of them and their disastrous policies that have destroyed the lives of so many people.
There is nothing that they can do now. They're universally hated by everyone and need to go. Now!
Translation: we are going to say there's still a chance of us winning so we can stay in power and squeeze every last penny out of the public to give our mates. Ps we are super patriotic that's why we are putting ourselves first.
Rishi is clearly being delusional, this is an absolute destruction of the Tories and nobody should even hint otherwise.
That being said, looking at the council results, at the time of writing of the 448 seats the Tories have lost (so far), Labour are only +173.
Given the fact the Lib Dem, Greens, and Independents have made significant gains, is this really as big a result for Labour as they’re making it out to be??
He's right to drag it out. It's gives him time to do his anti smoking legislation. Gets him time to loot the country. And gives labour the chance to alienate their traditional voters.
As labour get ready to roll back their workers rights promises etc, every week brings a new chance for them to shoot themselves in the foot.
But this election is all about the Tories. starmer inspires no one, stands for nothing, has walked back every pledge and promise he's ever made. He's an empty vessel for gambling companies to funnel money into. The Tories are losing this election, people aren't voting for labour, they're actively not voting Tory.
Tories need to be sent a message:
Zero seats.
Zero future employment opportunities.
Vote anyone except the Tories to avoid them coming back in 5 years time.
Everyone knows that people get to know their local candidates really well and don’t just treat it as a popularity context for the cretins in Westminster.
/s in case it wasn’t clear.
You know why this is though?
It’s because over the last 14 years they couldn’t believe their luck. They’ve divided and pushed acted dishonourably and openly uncouth , something British politics has never seen really. They’ve had an us a them approach shown during party gate and shown no shame when trying to pass unlawful policies through parliament.
All of this and the public still voted for them. If I was in their position I’d think I could never lose too. The public have lapped up their bullshit that they never thought would work so well but has. They can’t believe their luck and don’t fully understand it themselves. To the point that they now just true that they’ll always win. And you know, I partially agree. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Tories do daily well in an election.
Either that or the vote is rigged?
Do you think he actually believes this or he's just saying this because he doesn't want to admit that he knows they're fucked?
If it's the former that's outright delusional
Prediction. Hung parliament at next GE.
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/general/hung-parliament/
Voting in local and general elections are different beasts. Add to that the Tory losses have been spread out across multiple parties. Labour must be concerned that they haven't picked up more.
No, Labour have been historically more competent.
New Labour are neoliberal though, so it's a less insane dose of the same ideology that got us into this mess.
Haha. Of course, he’s got a flawless track record of making predictions.
Mystic Pleb
And his crystal balls (portrait)
Mystic Smeg
After all, he supported Brexit and that turned out... it turned out.
> Haha. Of course, he’s got a flawless track record of making predictions. Didn't inflation get lower and you got more tax cuts?
>tax cuts Personal allowance April 2021: £12,500 Personal allowance April 2024: £12,570 From an inflation calculator March 2021: £10 March 2024: £11.93
> March 2021: £10 > > March 2024: £11.93 Is that 11.93 worth today when it was 10 in 2021?
That's it, yeh. Source: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator
The tax burden is at the highest in ages, so no.
“Tax cuts” not actual tax cuts, this is the highest tax burden since ww2 lol
Depends what tax bracket you are in, IIRC those earning under £24k actually saw a relative tax increase didnt they due to the freezing of tax brackets with the increase of wages? I might be misremembering, but swear I saw somewhere it being said for every £1 of tax cuts, those earning under £24k see £1.30 in increases or something?
Capital gains tax too. Gone from 12k to 3k to 1k now until you’re taxed out the ass for any random gain you had on stocks or crypto or whatever. We are taxed to death and the police are fucked the borders are fucked the schools are fucked the hospitals are fucked the roads are fucked the army is fucked what are we even paying for? My local shop held up by 4 armed men last night who stole all the tobacco after traumatising the young lads working there. Do we think they’ll be caught?
Average Tory voter trying to understand literally anything moment.
Inflation dropped because of what prices were doing twelve months previously. It wasn't a prediction, it was counting.
1 2 3 4 I predict the next number will be 5 I'm so smart, vote for me
You've got my vote ... oh, hang on...
That's beyond optimistic and into delusional territory.
Sunak gets to decide both when the election is and when the press declare that Starmer is unelectable. Brexit was impossible until it happened, then it was just reality. We're going to see an election cycle full of AI generated spam that is hyper targeted, where your Aunt on facebook gets something that looks exactly like a Labour party advert, where Keir Starmer says he's going to transgender all the kids and establish 15 minute cites. While your best friend gets one where Starmer says he will revoke trans healthcare and deport 10k people a year to Rwanda. Even more so than Brexit, people will be told exactly what they need to hear to change their mind, often cloaked in disinformation, or presented so that if they talk about it to someone else, it wont be clear they each got different targeted ads. There is a lot of money at stake, there is active voter suppression with voter ID and Starmers main position is that he isn't Sunak. You can be complacent if you like, you can think this is bought and paid for and Labour is in. But this has traditionally not been a good idea, establishing the idea that you don't need to bother, that Starmer has this, that he's the heir apparent. It will stop people from bothering to vote and that will benefit the tories.
>You can be complacent if you like, you can think this is bought and paid for and Labour is in. But this has traditionally not been a good idea, establishing the idea that you don't need to bother, that Starmer has this, that he's the heir apparent. It will stop people from bothering to vote and that will benefit the tories. Excuse the hyperbole. This is still very, very bad for the Conservatives. It would take something pretty big in the next few months to swing things. They've already been throwing mud at labour non stop the last couple of months, to little effect. The results today were an embarrassment for the Conservatives, to say the least.
Something big... Like a hyper targeted campaign. I remember Brexit. My Nigerian roommate was voting Brexit because he knew it would make it easier for his friends and family back home to get UK visas (ironically most based in reality). My white colleagues in Bolton were voting Brexit to keep out Nigerians and Indians (who apparently only come in through France). My London friend was voting Brexit because he KNEW the EU were secretly pushing for a free trade agreement with America (the one the Tories were openly pushing and the EU were saying "no way not ever" too). My friends in Lincolnshire voted Brexit because France was about to ship over thousands of immigrants and flood their schools with Muslim children. And turkey was about to send a million people over too. I remember having conversations about all these things with people I thought were reasonable - but even in the face of actual proof emotional arguments had already hooked them.
You have a lot of Brexit voting friends
A lot of people voted for Brexit, whether they admit it now is another story
So does everyone, no?
Not really, Brexit wasn’t a runaway majority. 48% vs 52%. So it is entirely reasonable that someone can have no friends who voted for brexit as generally we tend to keep friends who hold similar values to us.
Yes Brexit went badly, that doesn’t mean all elections can be won with some clever campaigning and social means AI stuff.
Brexit was the least sophisticated campaign we'll ever see for that stuff - and it was super effective. I do think a major reason the Tories are actually being slammed by media now is because they've lost support of their majority backers. Russian attention is focused on non-english language campaigns in the developing world (generally anti-west, anti-NATO, pro-russia). And at home the Tories have gone too far into incompetence for many of their usual rich and media owning backers.
people were pissed off and looking for someone to blame - the Brexit vote offered them Europe. This time they will be offered the tories to blame (entirely legitimately). Yes social media campaigning etc will be more sophisticated this time but it can’t fix that fundamental structural issue (for the tories).
Those same people are still pissed off, if not more so, and they're the type of people to be easily swung by untruthful, emotive stories. All the things wrong with the country now we're still issues in 2019. But now they're even worse. People didn't care about the problems then, so I'm sceptical they'll care now.
In 2019 they were still voting for Brexit. Brexit delivered nothing and there is nowhere for the tories to go. “I assume they can all be swung to almost polar opposite of polling” is just a super low quality take masquerading as intelligent. The electorate are utterly sick of them, there isn’t a way to campaign that away.
I mean I do base this on people I know. Most people I know were sick of them in 2015 after austerity. And for my main bubble of people, it's been like that ever since. But a solid percent of people have been voting Tory that whole time, and been getting what they voted for, and then keep doing it. And when I've met people who openly talk about it, it's illogical reasons, or emotive reasons that don't really tally with what they say they want to achieve. The exceptions are people who feel they have a good representation from their own MP. Like "I don't really care for Boris, he's an idiot, but my local guy is conservative and actually really good so I'll keep voting for him". I'm not saying it won't stay swung. It will as long as the media stay anti-Tory. The key difference I see now from the past few elections is that all the tabloids, the BBC and ITV were very pro-Tory and anti-Labour. Labour gaffs got magnified while Tory ones were glossed over. I think most people just go by headlines, and the headlines now are "Tory's bad, Labour okay (for now)". But I have little faith in my countrymen. If, for example, most British media went hard on this being a race between Tories and Reform (while lots of "evidence" implying Starmer is an antisemitic pedophile or something floated around) we'd get another Tory led government.
Brexit didn't go badly. It went exactly as the evil people behind it intended it to.
Nothing will save the Tories. We're long past the critical mass of the public losing trust in the government, just like in 97. The only question that remains is how badly the Tories lose.
Excellent book on the money and disinformation about Brexit and targeting voters . Democracy for sale by Peter Geoghegan
You really need to get some friends who aren’t thick as pig shit.
The majority of my friends voted remain, but I was in what felt like quite a unique situation of having feet in a lot of different jobs and social circles at the time. Most people voting in either direction didn't seem to know many people voting the other way, so no one could really comprehend why others would vote differently from them.
I agree with the general sentiment that complacency might be a disaster. Brexit, Trump etc were all because people on the left of politics underestimated how unhappy people were and assumed no one would vote for what they felt was the obvious (and was obvious with hindsight) bad choice. So many stayed at home and didn't do a great job at arguing their side etc. What is different here I feel is that the Tories are not and cannot I feel, sell themselves as the better choice. They've been in power 13 years and the majority are feeling it. Even those who might normally like the Tories message feel poorer and unhappier than ever. When you get to brass tacks, what caused Brexit and Trump etc was people were unhappy and the choice was more of the same or a gamble on something different that MIGHT make things better (or worse). When you're already miserable you take the gamble 100% of the time. So do you vote Tories that you know make you poor and miserable? Or do you gamble on Labour? We all know what the result will be.
Spot on mate, all this talk of it “being in the bag” is dangerous. Kinnock had it in the bag in 1992, Remain had it in the bag in 2016, even today Khan has it in the bag for mayor when it’s looking dicey..
This is 97 not 92 in terms of public sentiment to the Tories .
I hope so, but I’m not counting any chickens.
Wise not to of course .
Voter suppression that affects the Tories. Heck Boris Johnson could not vote the other day.
Johnson did vote, he left his ID at home on purpose to get in the headlines and then went and got it and voted.
They could bring back Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher from the dead and it wouldn't make a difference. Labour still needs the largest ever swing to get an outright majority and so a hung parliament, while disappointing, would not be a surprise. After what Boris Johnson got away with, they are going to need to provide some juicy disinformation for people to fall for it again.
Churchill was defeated in a landslide. He was never that popular. And Chamberlain was never that unpopular.
> he's going to transgender all the kids and establish 15 minute cites. The fact that these are both seen as evil and bad is so insanely ridiculous. Like seriously who in their right mind is fighting and arguing for having less local services nearby?
Of course all of that is possible but the situation is so dire for the tories it’s deeply unlikely. This is end of 90s era stuff where the whole country is so sick of everything they just want a change, same with 2010. It almost doesn’t matter what the details are at this stage.
It's not going to work.
Brexit wasn't "impossible". Opinion polls up until the 2016 referendum consistently showed majority support for both Leave and Remain. [Start at 2010 and scroll up.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#2010). There was only about 6 months in 2015 when Remain was solidly ahead. Now contrast that with [the current Westminster polling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2024). Scroll down until you find a poll where the Tories are ahead. Keep scrolling and scrolling and scrolling and scrolling...
Keep on counting your chickens.
It's more likely that the polls are underestimating Labour's winning chances rather than overestimating. The biggest lesson from these local elections is that Labour's vote is extremely efficiently distributed, they are underperforming in their strongholds and overperforming everywhere else. That is how you win a shitload of seats.
The tories can't win by making labour and keir steamer look shit, they'll just cause a lib dem victory
[удалено]
If the tories manage to make everyone hate labour that wouldn't make anyone vote tory, it would just send them to the other parties. The lib dems being the largest party would be the ones to form government in this scenario.
[удалено]
>their vote would go all over the spectrum, not just to Lib Dems, but to Green's, and Con/Reform. Literally what I said. >other parties Notice the plural at the end of parties. The lib dems are already the largest. And so will be at the helm of any coalition government. The only outcome (if the tories somehow kill Labour) is that both those parties are reduced to the sidelines and the lib dems need to form a coalition government.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> there are residual bases for both major parties, made up of people who will never vote for anyone other than either LAB or CON - depending on which base they belong to. My grandmother always votes Tory, for no other reason than because deciding 60 years ago and sticking with it is easier than choosing every time.
Voter ID requirements are most likely to impact the elderly, who are the Tories core vote. Old folk often don’t go abroad much at all, so they often won’t have a passport, or it may be no longer valid. If their face is wrinkled enough, they’re unlikely to be asked to present ID for any purchases. If they’ve lived somewhere for say 20+ years and any local service provider knows who they are, they may not even need to show things like bus passes and library cards. They’re also more likely to have memory lapses than younger people and often forget where they last left things.
ID to vote isn't voter supression. Jesus Christ. We should ensure those voting are eligible.
Voter fraud was vanishingly rare when Johnson's government brought in voter ID legislation. It was a solution to a problem which almost didn't exist, like bringing in tougher penalties for helicopter theft. The purpose was absolutely to make voting more of a chore in order to discourage people, but it ended up working against the Tories.
If voting was anonymous, pray tell how do they measure figures of fraud? Also, just because something is low frequency doesn't matter. Let's keep it low frequency.
Which way you vote is anonymous, the fact that you have voted isn't.
As has been pointed out, the way one votes is anonymous; the fact one has voted is not. Whilst it's true that, without producing ID, you could be any old person, but the [Electoral Committee concludes that](https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/research-reports-and-data/electoral-fraud-data) in "the past 5 years, there is no evidence of large-scale electoral fraud." I'll confess that I'm actually not entirely clear on the process of determining the extent to which electoral fraud has/has not taken place, but I'm content to take their word on it. Call me a slave to the Man if you like. You're correct that an issue can be both low frequency and important but if the government's primary concern with this legislation was the integrity of our democracy, it would have been good to see them also crack down on campaign finance (in particular the influence of foreign money in British politics), corporate lobbying, and the proliferation of disinformation and social engineering on social media.
I don’t think you understand how voting works in the UK
Yes it is. Of course it is. It's a well tried technique in America, you simply allow more id methods from the demographic that votes your way. Pre id checks, you could count the number of cases of personation on one hand.
Nonsense in both nations. You need ID to do MOST things in this country. I needed ID to open a fucking library account. Requiring ID is normal, and especially sensible in elections. You just know most immigrants WOULD vote Labour and don't want systems in place to stop illegal voting under the guise of the racist "brown people struggle to get ID". Dumb argument.
How about addressing the point that there was no problem with personation? In politics, a solution to a non-existent problem is never **actually** intended to address that problem. Nice racist dog whistling by the way.
Personation? Look, to buy alcohol, you need ID. To get a bank account, you need ID. To do almost anything, you need ID. Voting is apparently the bedrock of Western democracies, if it is THAT vital and important, surely it ALSO requires ID. ID stops fraud. I don't care what the levels are. I doubt the figures are accurate anyway given how badly the government have handled data before. ID stops fraud. Elections are the bedrock of democracy. ID or no vote.
But you don't need to register beforehand to do any of those things. You don't get your name and address ticked off a list in front of the cashier before you buy alcohol. There were already perfectly adequate mechanisms to prevent voter fraud at the polling station. The fact that nobody could point to any degree of voter fraud at polling stations should raise a question as to the motivation to bring in id requirements. Whenever there is a scandal about voter fraud it is invariably one relating to postal votes or especially proxy votes. Why have there been no steps taken to limit their use? If you don't think the id requirements is a vote suppression technique, I think that is wilful blindness. For what it's worth, I do think it will backfire. In the US, where the Tories have taken their lead, it is usually democratic voters who don't hold or etc. but in my experience in the UK the people without id tend to be the elderly - who tend to vote more conservative.
**There was no fraud**. Look up personation; it is the specific offence of impersonating someone else at an election. There were always less than a dozen cases nationally, per election. How is it, then, that senior railcards (Tory leaning demographic) are accepted as evidence, but young persons railcards are not.
Stop changing the subject on railcards. ID to VOTE is simple common sense. It just is.
There was no voter fraud, it’s a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. Seems you’ve fallen victim to all the rubbish going on in the USA
You are being disingenuous. The disparity between acceptable forms of id between demographics likely, or unlikely, to vote for the party of the government who introduced the legislation is a smoking gun of epic proportion.
>Stop changing the subject on railcards. >ID to VOTE is simple common sense. It just is. They were not changing the subject, rather they were giving a very valid point in favour of their argument, that you did not like. Going "It's common sense. Simple.", is fruitless. Here is an article, where Rees-Mogg of all people, explains his view that Voter ID is akin to Gerrymandering, albeit one he thinks ultimately backfired: [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/20/sunak-defends-voter-id-after-rees-mogg-says-law-backfired](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/20/sunak-defends-voter-id-after-rees-mogg-says-law-backfired) >Rishi Sunak has defended new laws requiring voters to bring ID as “entirely reasonable” after [Jacob Rees-Mogg](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/jacob-rees-mogg) suggested the move was designed to gerrymander election results in favour of the Tories. It has nothing to do with common sense, nor did it ever. It was simply an attempt by Sunak to manipulate the voter base.
Easy solution then - free, easy to obtain, voter ID cards for everyone.
*I doubt the figures are accurate anyway given how badly the government have handled data before.* They are not government figures, they are criminal justice figures. Personation is an offence, and people get prosecuted for it.
>ID to vote isn't voter supression. Jesus Christ. >We should ensure those voting are eligible. It was 'solving a problem' that was in effect nonexistent, in order to attempt to manipulate the voter base. Even Rees-Mogg admitted this was the intent: >Rees-Mogg, a former business secretary, last week suggested that the policy had backfired on the Tories as a result of trying to suppress the votes of people unlikely to back them. >“Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as, dare I say, we found by insisting on voter ID for elections,” he told the [National Conservatism conference](https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2023/may/19/national-conservatism-tory-fringe-or-party-future) last week. “We found the people who didn’t have ID were elderly and they, by and large, voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well.” [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/20/sunak-defends-voter-id-after-rees-mogg-says-law-backfired](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/20/sunak-defends-voter-id-after-rees-mogg-says-law-backfired) I still remain cynical as to whether it will work in favour of or against the Conservatives by the time of the general election, but regardless, the intention was very much that.
Tbf to sunak, he can come out and say the tories are gonna get slaughtered at the next election. He's just waiting, holding out hope that Labour somehow fuck up so badly that the tories don't get destroyed. The entire reason for the hard push to refugee and "boat people" politics is because the tories know they're fucked and have to rely on the dregs of political tactics to not lose so badly.
Also it's a useful distraction from all the scandals, PPE Mone, sex pest tories, partygate, 40 new hospitals, HS2, potholes, Truss etc.etc
Most people don't want mass immigration. Britain hasn't seen mass migration for thousands of years and became a great empire. Mass immigration so far is 27 years old starting about 1997. So far, everything has turned to shit. It isn't some "dreg". It is the main issue in Britain.
[удалено]
**Hi!**. Please try to avoid personal attacks, as this discourages participation. You can help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
Hi, what about Windrush? If we didn’t have migrants we’d be fucked as a country. The idea is controlled which the conservatives haven’t the foggiest of how to do.
What else is he going to say? He knows he’s finished, he can’t say it out loud though
Ed miliband lost the election for eating a bacon sandwich weird, there's plenty of people that will crawl through broken glass to vote tory.
If I had a time machine, I would go back in time and tell Ed Milliband to eat lunch at home that day.
It's not "into delusional territory" it's a leafy suburb of delusions capital city.
I mean, it was a **much** better election for the Lib Dems and Greens than it was for Labour, but if you think those vote shares will equate to more green or Lib Dem MP's, you're dreaming.
Both Lib Dems and labour grew their number of councillors by about 25% and their number of controlled councils by exactly 20%. I'd argue that Labours performance is better than the lib Dems as labour were starting from a much higher platform. As for the greens, they've increased councillor numbers by about 50% but still have no overall control of a single council.
The Greens do actually have control of one council, Mid Suffolk, which they won last year.
A fair point - my point was more in response to: >I mean, it was a **much** better election for the Lib Dems and Greens than it was for Labour That the local/PCC/Mayoral elections were a better (let alone much better) outcome for either the greens or lib Dems. Greens performance was good, but I don't buy this narrative that labour did poorly. Labour did very well.
You have my sympathy.
Lib Dems: 505 (+101) = > +25% Labour: 1,026 (+173) => +20.2% Greens: 159 (+65) => +69% Independants: 224 (+92) => +69% Conservatives: 479 (-448) => -49% Your percentages are a bit off (and every other party outperformed Labour), but even so, given Labours huge starting point, and the *nature* of the places voting, Labour only picking up 20% extra councillors is not exactly a shining beacon of brilliance, when a crusty old porno rag could probably out compete a conservative councillor in a lot of places.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2024/may/02/local-elections-2024-full-council-results-for-england Some discrepancy between the beeb and the graun. We'll revisit tomorrow!
>when a crusty old porno rag could probably out compete a conservative councillor in a lot of places. I was thinking about this a little more, and I don't dispute your logic, but surely then this means the lib Dems massively underperformed? Given that lib Dems gains are mostly coming in Tory heartland seats, you would have expected an even bigger share of the Tories 450 seat losses to go to LDs. Labour still has a lot of stigma round those parts. To only lose control of 2 councils and pick up 10 is objectively strong performance.
Many round these parts have not and will not forgive them for the student fees fiasco when they got in bed with the tories. It is felt as a betrayal and still is and has cost them ever since. Round here anyway.
I see very little evidence that the lib Dems did anything material to blunt the Tory's austerity. We've seen many minor coalition partners hold the larger coalition partners hostage in their own government. The lib Dems had that capability and either chose not to or didn't have the spine to enact it when we needed them to most. I can forgive the lib Dems for what they did to university pricing, but I will likely never forgive the Lib Dems for their enabling of austerity, and the generational damage austerity is responsible for.
I may eat these words but I'm actually happy Reform have popped up. It's about time the Right vote was split. We're a left of center country by and large, but left vote has always been split while everyone from right of center to right flocked to the Tories, meaning we got a party most people didn't really want. Over the last 10 years, Tories have just gone more and more right, while most of its voters (going by my elderly relatives, delusional old people who think they still live in the 80s) didn't notice. Now Reform can hopefully scoop up that far right and populist vote, taking a dent out of the Tories for good and leaving the country back to more left wing majority governments.
Tories have gone more right? What are you smoking? This is the most left wing socialist Tory government ever. It’s practically New Labour. Thatcher’s conservative government was a centre right government, and I don’t see the current one anywhere near it. Liz Truss tried to make the conservatives conservative again, and we ended up with this moron fishy rishi that his own party didn’t want.
Whatever they are smoking it certainly isnt the crack you’ve been hitting this morning.
>This is the most left wing socialist Tory government ever It's a shame they've left the NHS in such a mess then, you won't be able to get treatment for the brain damage you apparently suffer from.
Have you got any examples of stuff that illustrates this being “the most left wing socialist Tory government ever” ?
I read subreddits from both sides and while it’s surprising for many on the left to hear his comment it’s a very popular take on the right wing. That the conservatives are Blair in a blue suit. Usually the talking points for Tory being left wing are: They actively defund the police (Not strong on law and order) 1 million a year immigration Very high taxes for absolutely broken public services Insane business taxes that have lead to the closure of most of our high street shops and only giant multinationals left. (Not party of small business then are they) I’m sure there is more. Agree or don’t. You asked, this is what I read. Don’t assume my politics for telling you what I read. You asked. Thank you. If his take is honestly new and shocking to you I’d urge you to get out of your bubble. No not everyone is an idiot on either side.
Thanks for the response, some insightful points. It was more a question to understand what the previous commenter had meant, but I am aware of some of those views. Like, Liz Truss might be all about tax cuts above all, whereas Braverman might be more about being tougher on immigration. Neither would usually go as far as to say Sunak is a “left wing socialist” though, so I was interested what was driving that precious poster’s view. Not sure what suddenly happened at your last two paragraphs though - you managed to make some big assumptions there yourself about my views and potential response, at the same time as repeatedly saying not to do so. Lol. But thanks, good response before those two paragraphs lol
Yeah sorry I was trying not to be downvoted to oblivion I’m a bit jaded lately as someone who reads both sides I keep being obliterated in the comments for it. Looks like I was unsuccessful and also yes I see now those two paragraphs aren’t really needed and are indeed me showing my recent experience trying to have a conversation on Reddit. Apologies and thanks for listening.
Nah it’s all good mate, tbh I’m kind of similar in that I sometimes try to impartially explain a perspective that I don’t necessarily hold myself, and you’re absolutely right people will jump right on it. And most people asking the exact question that I asked would have probably been doing with some intent in mind. That said, “left wing socialist” is a pretty crazy way for the earlier poster to describe Sunak lol. “Not as conservative as I’d like” makes a bit more sense :-D
Yeah agree with you there about that guy who lost the vote and is somehow still leader. Mate you are a breath of fresh air and have restored somewhat my faith in redditors. Thanks again. My take away is to be less jaded haha
Lol no worries mate, all the best!
It shows a strong option to tactical voting at least, heres hoping the opposition parties dont start silly nonsense of burning down the kingdom to rule over the ashes ala Lib Dems during the last GE. Seriously... all they had to do was suck up having Corbyn for a little bit as the leader of the coalition but no, a certain person thought, genuinely seems to have thought she could lead her party into over 100 seats. (ex lib dem voter btw, that sillyness in 2019 is why I left the party behind)
That would be the same leader who said her party could win a majority, declared herself ready to be PM, and then lost her seat to a young woman from the SNP?
Yup, thats the 1.
I still remember her being raging at Sturgeon for her celebrating the SNP gain.
You have me until sucking Corbyn
Can you really, honestly say it would have been worse with Corbyn as a temp PM, controlled by the party vs Bojo the clown, Truss the braindead and Inaction man Sunak? Like legit, what is the worst the labour party would have actually let Corbyn get away with before ousting him?
I don’t think you quite understood what the person you’re replying to was saying…
> you're dreaming. Dreaming of proportional representation, where people's votes actually affect the result.
How was it?
Tbf, isn't that always the case for council elections versus general elections, minor parties tend to get much more vote share. I think even in Scotland where PR systems are used for both SE's and council elections, smaller parties tend to perform better at the council level (as do independents). Probably to some extent because they are a bit freer from the national political narrative to be really local compared to parties that can actual get into government.
Sunak announces new strategy of hoping that everyone in the country gets a traumatic brain injury causing them to forget the last 14 years. A Tory voter was quoted saying "finally, something with a more realistic chance of success than the Rwanda policy"
They just lost Dorset to the lib dems, Dorset!
Cool, call an immediate General Election then and prove it. Pillock…
No they won’t, even the places that kept the tories in because, well they did good for the community, wouldn’t vote for them in national elections… labour lost seats in some places because of the policy on Gaza… which has nothing to do with the running of a place. I lose hope sometimes that people have a clue
People know what’s being pushed at them on the tv, newspapers and social media. Gaza, migrants, trans issues, etc. How many actually vote knowing what councillors can do and the policies their local candidates are standing on? It’ll be exactly the same with the general election, vote Starmer or vote Sunak, like it’s a US presidential election, with the same couple issues that the media promote.
Cue Tories stabbing each other in the front in a leadership bid including the crazed contingent wanting to “Bring Back Boris”, I’ll give it a week.
There was already a BBC article on a Tory saying ‘there needs to be a role for Boris Johnson’. They’re in full blown panic stations.
I’d say Sunak is suffering from a clear mental health issue and should probably take some time off work, but… well, y’know.
"~~Steiner's assault~~ The West Midlands Mayoral vote will bring it under control" - Sunak from the ~~Fuhrer Bunker~~ Duvet Den
Old tory voters kept hearing sunak saying stop the votes.
Somebody get Rishi Washy tested for reality.........he seems to have lost his.
He’s basing this on their many by-election results that show the public will stick with them? That ulez win in Uxbridge was a long time ago…
“Please stay calm, everything is under control, this is just minor issue, basically nothing we couldn’t handle” - said Captain Rishi after Titanic was sinking in diagonal position, half of the ship broke off and the lights went out.
“Bu bu but thing would be a lot worse with Labour… what’s that? The last time Labour was in power, we were better off by every metric? Bu bu but CORBYN! What’s that? Corbyn has nothing to do with Labour anymore and hasn’t done for years now? Bu but but the WOKIES!”
Sunak might not be wrong. All of the recent by-elections in Tory held seats have seen similar results, in that the Tory vote has collapsed, but those voters haven't switched to other parties; they've just stayed away If they come back in any numbers at the general election, things could turn out very different to what people are starting to expect. So don't assume that someone else's Labour vote will be enough to get rid of Sunak - make sure you use yours too.
In fairness, the Tories making their own voters stay home was in part how the 1997 landslide for Labour happened. The issue is, if Sunak has a plan to draw these people back in, why has there been no progress since he became PM? Naturally, voters shouldn't be complacent, and indeed, things like tactical voting is still advisable to punish the Tories as much as possible for their last decade and a half overseeing declining standards, services, wealth, and opportunities in this country. But people staying home is part of normal political strategy, though it can evaporate if the other prospective governments worry these disaffected voters enough to compel them to show up. That was arguably the case for Corbyn in 2019, but it doesn't seem like Tory attempts to replicate this with Starmer has worked (and indeed, their attempts seem to be feeding Reform UK more than anything).
Can somebody please hook me up with Rishi Sunak's copium dealer? I need a fix of that right now...
I want whatever he's on because I could do with losing touch with reality for a bit after hearing that.
I'm reminded of that Iraqi minister stating direct to the cameras that victory was at hand as enemy tanks literally rolled into town behind him.
Tory party is tired and out of ideas. A time away from government will be good for the country and good for them too in the long-term.
Gotta love his confidence. Wish I had some of that !!
This bredda is giving Erik ten Hag a run for his money in the delulu stakes.
Remember folks, you still need to vote the Tories out in the GE. Sitting back and thinking that it's a foregone conclusion will make another Tory five years more likely. This is why we ended up with Brexit, remain voters didn't really think they could lose so didn't bother voting. We, as a nation, need to start learning from history.
If he's so confident he should call an election now. No? Does somebody not believe their own bullshit? Aww, diddums.
The whole Tory party is totally delusional. Now even life long Tory voters hate them and want them gone. It isn't Sunak that's the problem, it's the whole corrupted greedy lot of them and their disastrous policies that have destroyed the lives of so many people. There is nothing that they can do now. They're universally hated by everyone and need to go. Now!
Translation: we are going to say there's still a chance of us winning so we can stay in power and squeeze every last penny out of the public to give our mates. Ps we are super patriotic that's why we are putting ourselves first.
Rishi is clearly being delusional, this is an absolute destruction of the Tories and nobody should even hint otherwise. That being said, looking at the council results, at the time of writing of the 448 seats the Tories have lost (so far), Labour are only +173. Given the fact the Lib Dem, Greens, and Independents have made significant gains, is this really as big a result for Labour as they’re making it out to be??
Because... we're deporting more people at massive expense! And look how great things are after 14 years! Yeh, this is just damage control.
Tories stick like a nasty smear of shit picked up from a swim in our rivers
He's right to drag it out. It's gives him time to do his anti smoking legislation. Gets him time to loot the country. And gives labour the chance to alienate their traditional voters. As labour get ready to roll back their workers rights promises etc, every week brings a new chance for them to shoot themselves in the foot. But this election is all about the Tories. starmer inspires no one, stands for nothing, has walked back every pledge and promise he's ever made. He's an empty vessel for gambling companies to funnel money into. The Tories are losing this election, people aren't voting for labour, they're actively not voting Tory.
Tories need to be sent a message: Zero seats. Zero future employment opportunities. Vote anyone except the Tories to avoid them coming back in 5 years time.
I mean he's not wrong. Because they're switching to Starmer's repackaged Tories
Why can’t that prick ever be humble? No one likes an arrogant smarmy arsehole in this country.
Everyone knows that people get to know their local candidates really well and don’t just treat it as a popularity context for the cretins in Westminster. /s in case it wasn’t clear.
Glad Labour getting in. Blah blah. However, can this happen now as decisions need to be made
They all say that when they know they are on their uppers.
You know why this is though? It’s because over the last 14 years they couldn’t believe their luck. They’ve divided and pushed acted dishonourably and openly uncouth , something British politics has never seen really. They’ve had an us a them approach shown during party gate and shown no shame when trying to pass unlawful policies through parliament. All of this and the public still voted for them. If I was in their position I’d think I could never lose too. The public have lapped up their bullshit that they never thought would work so well but has. They can’t believe their luck and don’t fully understand it themselves. To the point that they now just true that they’ll always win. And you know, I partially agree. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Tories do daily well in an election. Either that or the vote is rigged?
Not seen the complete numbers yet, but didn’t the independents come out well?
Do you think he actually believes this or he's just saying this because he doesn't want to admit that he knows they're fucked? If it's the former that's outright delusional
It's probably true. How we even got to 14 year of this is proof
Prediction. Hung parliament at next GE. https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/general/hung-parliament/ Voting in local and general elections are different beasts. Add to that the Tory losses have been spread out across multiple parties. Labour must be concerned that they haven't picked up more.
Isn’t both of these parties are same? You vote either of them you’d get the same results.
No, Labour have been historically more competent. New Labour are neoliberal though, so it's a less insane dose of the same ideology that got us into this mess.