Election prediction time

[Unabomber]

32 minutes ago, Daggers said:

Are you seriously confused about that 

[Izzy]

32 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

Solid cabinet tbf apart from Lammy

I've never voted Labour but I wish them well.

 

Been listening and reading up on Starmer today and he's growing on me.

 

I like his values and I sense he's eager to get things done.

 

[Unabomber]

Starmer seems very legit tbf and I’m not massively political 

[st albans fox]

3 minutes ago, Izzy said:

I've never voted Labour but I wish them well.

 

Been listening and reading up on Starmer today and he's growing on me.

 

I like his values and I sense he's eager to get things done.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Unabomber said:

Starmer seems very legit tbf and I’m not massively political 

The bar as PM of this country is very low ……..

[Daggers]

4 minutes ago, Unabomber said:

Are you seriously confused about that 

I disagree with that

[Unabomber]

Just now, st albans fox said:

 

The bar as PM of this country is very low ……..

Well yeah it was sunak truss and Boris before this guy 

[FoxyPV]

The most important thing to remember is that the Tories were destroyed 

[Izzy]

9 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

 

The bar as PM of this country is very low ……..

True but I get the impression Starmer doesn't have a big ego and it's not all about him.

 

I actually believe the 'country before party' line which is refreshing to hear.

 

I think he'll grow into the role over time.

[Wymsey]

Where did it go wrong for Sunak?

 

Felt like him not focusing on poverty/the poor enough wasn't a good aspect.

Edited 5 July by Wymsey

[Lako42]

2 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Where did it go wrong for Sunak?

 

Felt like him not focusing on poverty/the poor enough wasn't a good aspect.

He joined the Conservative party. 

[Dunge]

2 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Where did it go wrong for Sunak?

 

Felt like him not focusing on poverty/the poor enough wasn't a good aspect.

When Liz Truss was voted PM ahead of him.

[Izzy]

O'Brien sums it all up well for me in the first 10 mins

 

 

[urban.spaceman]

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

come off it, last nights results are a complete repudiation of that. labours vote share basically remained unmoved from 2019

Sorry, no. There's no evidence of that - vote share and numbers doesn't really mean anything in this system, especially with millions of people voting tactically this year (stopthetories.vote had almost 2 million uses, and that's just one of many sites); the surge of Reform, who only got 600k votes in 2019 as the Brexit Party, and other parties & independents gave the electorate far more choice than before. Also, turnout was much lower, either due to voter apathy or reports of consistent polls showing Labour miles ahead giving the impression people didn't need to vote.

 

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

 

the difference between a historic defeat and a landslide was nothing to do with any changes Starmer made and everything to do with reform splitting the Tory vote and Tories generally staying home. as to why, that was because the press no longer felt the need to prop up the Tories and so they collapsed under a mountain of scandals. now, I don't think even his wildest critics could claim that Corbyn is responsible for media regulation in this country 

Labour have been in the lead of the national polling for 2 and a half years, maintaining a 20pt lead for at least 2 years. They ended the campaign polling better on every single subject vs the Tories, having lead most of them for 2 years. Since 2020 Labour have won back hundreds of councillors, dozens of councils, hundreds of police and crime commissioners too. They also have the highest number of mayoralties - 20 out of 25. Pretty much every single one of those was down under the previous leadership.

Obviously the Tory's corruption and meltdown helped, but there has been a clear strategy and change at Labour especially since they lost Hartepool in 2021. 

Edited 5 July by urban.spaceman

[st albans fox]

12 minutes ago, Izzy said:

True but I get the impression Starmer doesn't have a big ego and it's not all about him.

 

I actually believe the 'country before party' line which is refreshing to hear.

 

I think he'll grow into the role over time.

Here’s a true story for you

couple of seasons ago someone I know was given a ticket by his friend to an arsenal game.  Nice seat middle front upper tier main stand 

 

As you do, he chatted now and again to the guy sitting next to him 

At some point the guy asked my mate what he did for a living 

my mate asked him what he did in response. (my mate doesn’t live in the U.K.)

‘oh, I’m in politics‘ was the reply.  Nothing more than that 

 

after the game my mates friend who’d given him the ticket asked if he’d chatted to starmer.  My mate had no idea and starmer didn’t have the ego or self importance to tell him 

[Izzy]

This guy is the ducks nuts 

 

 

[Torquay Gunner]

28 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Where did it go wrong for Sunak?

 

Felt like him not focusing on poverty/the poor enough wasn't a good aspect.

Hard to believe he could not empathise with his background.  Not having Sky should have  been a vote changer. 

[NJFox]

16 minutes ago, Izzy said:

This guy is the ducks nuts 

 

 

Just watched this, was hoping someone posted it here. When Foxestalk, John Oliver, and this guy are your news sources for a national election. 

[CosbehFox]

Really happy with that cabinet. Direct experience to roles. Timpson’s appointment in particular feels really correct 

[Voll Blau]

7 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

Really happy with that cabinet. Direct experience to roles. Timpson’s appointment in particular feels really correct 

One of the advantages of Starmer coming late to politics. He doesn't owe any favours, can just give the right people the right job.

[The Doctor]

24 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Sorry, no. There's no evidence of that - vote share and numbers doesn't really mean anything in this system, especially with millions of people voting tactically this year (stopthetories.vote had almost 2 million uses, and that's just one of many sites); the surge of Reform, who only got 600k votes in 2019 as the Brexit Party, and other parties & independents gave the electorate far more choice than before. Also, turnout was much lower, either due to voter apathy or reports of consistent polls showing Labour miles ahead giving the impression people didn't need to vote.

 

Labour have been in the lead of the national polling for 2 and a half years, maintaining a 20pt lead for at least 2 years. They ended the campaign polling better on every single subject vs the Tories, having lead most of them for 2 years. Since 2020 Labour have won back hundreds of councillors, dozens of councils, hundreds of police and crime commissioners too. They also have the highest number of mayoralties - 20 out of 25. Pretty much every single one of those was down under the previous leadership.

Obviously the Tory's corruption and meltdown helped, but there has been a clear strategy and change at Labour especially since they lost Hartepool in 2021. 

no, vote share is what matters here. if it was a change in labour and starting to appeal to more people, the vote share should have significantly jumped. it's remained static because this landslide isn't driven by more people wanting this labour government, it's driven by the collapse of the tories. you point out the surge of reform, however that is something I've already addressed - the tories haemorrhaged votes to them, and other tories stayed home because of this iteration of them. the idea that the low turn out was actually labour supporters who felt so comfortable that they didn't need to vote for the party not in power is ridiculous copium.

 

what labour have got is a sandcastle majority, no foundations and will be washed away the moment the tide changes, because the voting data indicates that this landslide is ultimately because people wanted to give the tories a good kicking and labour just happened to be there. this shouldn't be a controversial take, it's literally what John Curtice was saying last night and labour would be well served by showing a degree of humility and heeding it if they want more than 1 term in government 

[Legend_in_blue]

1 hour ago, Wymsey said:

Where did it go wrong for Sunak?

 

Felt like him not focusing on poverty/the poor enough wasn't a good aspect.

When he was convicted for breaching lockdown rules.

 

Funny how people forget this over time.

[RobHawk]

I'm finding all this talk of Reform splitting the vote on the right quite funny, isn't that effectively what has happened with the lib dems, greens and labour on left. 

 

Another party one the right has just levelled the playing field. Obviously the Tories have hemorrhaged votes because of the last 14 years as well as that but it actually makes for a fairer race imo.

[Foxdiamond]

1 hour ago, Izzy said:

True but I get the impression Starmer doesn't have a big ego and it's not all about him.

 

I actually believe the 'country before party' line which is refreshing to hear.

 

I think he'll grow into the role over time.

Perhaps a modern Clem Attlee

[Foxdiamond]

2 minutes ago, RobHawk said:

I'm finding all this talk of Reform splitting the vote on the right quite funny, isn't that effectively what has happened with the lib dems, greens and labour on left. 

 

Another party one the right has just levelled the playing field. Obviously the Tories have hemorrhaged votes because of the last 14 years as well as that but it actually makes for a fairer race imo.

So true. The anti Tory vote has been split so often in the past. We have seen in previous by elections Tories voted out only for their voters return to them in a GE. This time is different

[Dunge]

32 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

no, vote share is what matters here. if it was a change in labour and starting to appeal to more people, the vote share should have significantly jumped. it's remained static because this landslide isn't driven by more people wanting this labour government, it's driven by the collapse of the tories. you point out the surge of reform, however that is something I've already addressed - the tories haemorrhaged votes to them, and other tories stayed home because of this iteration of them. the idea that the low turn out was actually labour supporters who felt so comfortable that they didn't need to vote for the party not in power is ridiculous copium.

 

what labour have got is a sandcastle majority, no foundations and will be washed away the moment the tide changes, because the voting data indicates that this landslide is ultimately because people wanted to give the tories a good kicking and labour just happened to be there. this shouldn't be a controversial take, it's literally what John Curtice was saying last night and labour would be well served by showing a degree of humility and heeding it if they want more than 1 term in government 

While I agree in part, people felt able to give the Conservatives a kicking. Labour’s voters in this election aren’t as inspired by Starmer as many of Labour’s voters were inspired by Corbyn at the last election, but they have picked up votes off the Conservatives that wouldn’t have gone there otherwise (including mine) * and they haven’t had people actively voting against them to keep their leader out (which I would have done).

 

Corbyn was polarising. Some loved him and still do. To me he was and remains toxic.

 

 

*They’ve also lost votes on the left but it hasn’t hurt them overall.

Edited 5 July by Dunge