Election prediction time

[Nalis]

Diane 'discrimination against minority groups is bad except when it's a minority I'm not part of' Abbott free to run for Labour after all then.

Edited 31 May by Nalis

[BenTheFox]

7 hours ago, Sampson said:

Corbyn and a lot of his policies were popular in 2017 though and made gains on the Tories don’t forget. 2019 became a single issue election on Brexit where Labour tried to avoid the issue instead of going all in on a 2nd referendum as they should’ve done. 

The 2nd referendum policy was the most costly thing for them in 2019! I think Brexit is terrible, but the 'red wall' seats they lost in 2019 were leave-voting seats. Despite me never wanting Brexit, I never agreed with the concept of a second referendum where remain was an option. It was a huge slap in the face for people to be told effectively they'd got it wrong the first time and to have another go. I suspect many other remain voters felt the same way too. A second referendum where people get to vote on the type of Brexit they want on the other hand I could have gotten on board with. Ironically, this was an idea suggested by Jacob Rees-Mogg before the first referendum. I think Labour would have lost in 2019 even if they didn't have the 2nd referendum policy. Boris Johnson at the time was more popular in the country than May was in 2017 and their manifesto was a clear change from Cameron/Osborne's austerity (although I knew his levelling-up strategy was never going to amount to anything). Then you add Corbyn's personal unpopularity into this. Labour would have lost if there was no second referendum policy, but the scale of the defeat would not have been anywhere near as severe. 

 

7 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

2019 was not a single issue election, unless you mean keeping Corbyn and his 70s cronies out of Downing street.

It wasn't a single issue election, but Brexit was the biggest issue. There were many people that voted for Johnson for the reason that you've stated above, but Brexit was the biggest factor behind the scale of Labour's defeat. 

[Dunge]

I have to disagree with some of the recent comments here. 2019 was about keeping Corbyn out almost as much if not as much as Brexit. I still believe the left don’t appreciate the strength of feeling against him.

[The Doctor]

21 minutes ago, BenTheFox said:

The 2nd referendum policy was the most costly thing for them in 2019! I think Brexit is terrible, but the 'red wall' seats they lost in 2019 were leave-voting seats. Despite me never wanting Brexit, I never agreed with the concept of a second referendum where remain was an option. It was a huge slap in the face for people to be told effectively they'd got it wrong the first time and to have another go. I suspect many other remain voters felt the same way too. A second referendum where people get to vote on the type of Brexit they want on the other hand I could have gotten on board with. Ironically, this was an idea suggested by Jacob Rees-Mogg before the first referendum. I think Labour would have lost in 2019 even if they didn't have the 2nd referendum policy. Boris Johnson at the time was more popular in the country than May was in 2017 and their manifesto was a clear change from Cameron/Osborne's austerity (although I knew his levelling-up strategy was never going to amount to anything). Then you add Corbyn's personal unpopularity into this. Labour would have lost if there was no second referendum policy, but the scale of the defeat would not have been anywhere near as severe. 

 

It wasn't a single issue election, but Brexit was the biggest issue. There were many people that voted for Johnson for the reason that you've stated above, but Brexit was the biggest factor behind the scale of Labour's defeat. 

labour were very much in a no win position with brexit mind, that summer they made pretty huge losses in European elections to explicitly pro remain parties like the lib Dems. the second referendum destroyed them in leave voting constituencies because, as you say, the perceived message was "you plebs got it wrong, here's a chance to change your mind" but a "honour the will of the people" policy would also have been a death knell in younger, more metropolitan areas.

 

a referendum on the type of brexit, styled as "the tories can't stop fighting each other over how they want to leave, we'll let the people decide" might have worked but in reality the policy would probably have been immediately undermined by those who wanted the second referendum, pushing to get remain on that ballot and then we're back in the same position 

[BenTheFox]

28 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I have to disagree with some of the recent comments here. 2019 was about keeping Corbyn out almost as much if not as much as Brexit. I still believe the left don’t appreciate the strength of feeling against him.

Oh I definitely appreciate the strength of feeling against him. However, how does that explain 2.6 million fewer votes for Labour than in 2017?

Edited 31 May by BenTheFox

[Sampson]

47 minutes ago, BenTheFox said:

The 2nd referendum policy was the most costly thing for them in 2019! I think Brexit is terrible, but the 'red wall' seats they lost in 2019 were leave-voting seats. Despite me never wanting Brexit, I never agreed with the concept of a second referendum where remain was an option. It was a huge slap in the face for people to be told effectively they'd got it wrong the first time and to have another go. I suspect many other remain voters felt the same way too. A second referendum where people get to vote on the type of Brexit they want on the other hand I could have gotten on board with. Ironically, this was an idea suggested by Jacob Rees-Mogg before the first referendum. I think Labour would have lost in 2019 even if they didn't have the 2nd referendum policy. Boris Johnson at the time was more popular in the country than May was in 2017 and their manifesto was a clear change from Cameron/Osborne's austerity (although I knew his levelling-up strategy was never going to amount to anything). Then you add Corbyn's personal unpopularity into this. Labour would have lost if there was no second referendum policy, but the scale of the defeat would not have been anywhere near as severe. 

 

It wasn't a single issue election, but Brexit was the biggest issue. There were many people that voted for Johnson for the reason that you've stated above, but Brexit was the biggest factor behind the scale of Labour's defeat. 

Yeh but Labour’s vote also rose in the blue well seats - the middle class seats in the Home Counties in the south east that all were remain seats and that have been gradually going red for years and that will all go fully red for the first time this election, that was the problem, it shouldn’t have been about keeping the red wall, it should’ve been about going after the remain voting blue wall in Kent, Surrey, Hertfordshire and the rest of the south east. The voting demographics of the country have changed, they were too scared to change the demographic they went after. 

[urban.spaceman]

37 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I have to disagree with some of the recent comments here. 2019 was about keeping Corbyn out almost as much if not as much as Brexit. I still believe his fans on the left don’t appreciate the strength of feeling against him.

FTFY;

 

Nor do they understand the sheer scale of his (second) defeat. The worst Labour defeat since 1935 - it gave the Tories free reign to do whatever they wanted and whoever replaced Corbyn, had absolutely no power to stop them from doing anything. Even to win just one seat, Starmer has the hardest electoral challenge of any Labour leader since ATLEE in 1945.

[bovril]

47 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I have to disagree with some of the recent comments here. 2019 was about keeping Corbyn out almost as much if not as much as Brexit. I still believe the left don’t appreciate the strength of feeling against him.

2017 result would seem to dispute that. To be perfectly honest though I have no idea where to even start analysing 2016, 2017 and 2019, it was such a weird time.

[Bordersfox]

53 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I have to disagree with some of the recent comments here. 2019 was about keeping Corbyn out almost as much if not as much as Brexit. I still believe the left don’t appreciate the strength of feeling against him.

I think the 2017 election results beg to differ.  2019 was very obviously a Brexit focussed election, not exclusively but it was the single biggest issue and Labour fluffed it big time, as Corbyn fluffed many things politically.  Albeit it was a bit of a lose lose really for them overall.  

 

The only positive about Brexit really is that it's come back to haunt the Tories big time, being the huge sh1t show that many of us of all political stripes thought it would be.

[Bordersfox]

9 minutes ago, bovril said:

2017 result would seem to dispute that. To be perfectly honest though I have no idea where to even start analysing 2016, 2017 and 2019, it was such a weird time.

Whoops you beat me to to it! 

[urban.spaceman]

Executive at Opinion:

 

Opinium have tended to have some of the lowest polling for Labour (low to mid 40s) and the smallest gaps between them and the Tories (14-18)

 

Their last poll:

 

This either means the Tories have closed the gap or their position has worsened/Labour's has leapt. 

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, bovril said:

2017 result would seem to dispute that. To be perfectly honest though I have no idea where to even start analysing 2016, 2017 and 2019, it was such a weird time.

Still swear that our Prem win broke something in the space-time continuum because there's not been a decent year since.

 

Worth it, though.

[urban.spaceman]

 

[bovril]

Look at all these polls. Man Geoff would be loving this  

[Daggers]

I’m almost at the stage of hoping for a Labour win - but with Ed made PM

 

The bloke is having a riot 

 

 

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Daggers said:

I’m almost at the stage of hoping for a Labour win - but with Ed made PM

 

The bloke is having a riot 

 

 

Who ever is running the LibDem socials deserves what they're being paid. Great stuff so far.

[urban.spaceman]

Vaz just got humilated on national televison  

 

 

(again)

[The Fox Covert]

On 26/05/2024 at 03:22, fox_favourite said:

I don't understand. Why bring up the thought of national service as an election policy? In what way is that going to win votes from anyone? The young won't certainly vote for a party that wants to openly introduce it, the parents of the kids wont want to their kids doing it on the whole. You alienated lots of voters. 

 

They know something is brewing, and of course, it will be needed I feel, (god, I hope I'm wrong) but this whole thing sounds bizarre to add it to a policy and think people will elected you. Ot can't be just sheer incompetence....can it?

 

I genuinely have no idea who to vote for on this election. The whole thing from any side seems chaotic. I'm not a political expert of any sorts and don't have a preferred party, never have. But I always find things that can get behind with a party. But this one....not a clue 

I don't really understand and it shows how desperate the Tories are. They know they are going to lose so they won't actually have to shoulder the responsibility of reintroducing National Service. They are trying to appeal to the older demographic, some of whom have misty eyed memories of what National Service in the 1950s was actually like. They consider it will appeal to the most right-wing jingoistic voter who has defected to Reform because they think the Tories haven't been fascist enough.

[The Doctor]

2 minutes ago, The Fox Covert said:

I don't really understand and it shows how desperate the Tories are. They know they are going to lose so they won't actually have to shoulder the responsibility of reintroducing National Service. They are trying to appeal to the older demographic, some of whom have misty eyed memories of what National Service in the 1950s was actually like. They consider it will appeal to the most right-wing jingoistic voter who has defected to Reform because they think the Tories haven't been fascist enough.

You've touched on exactly why they're bringing it up - they're utterly despised by the younger generations, so are gambling on the leaded fuel generations turning out in huge numbers to **** the kids over.

[Parafox]

8 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

You've touched on exactly why they're bringing it up - they're utterly despised by the younger generations, so are gambling on the leaded fuel generations turning out in huge numbers to **** the kids over.

 

Excuse me but, I'm of a "leaded fuel" generation but I'm not fooled by anything the Tories try to bribe us with. It's all rhetorical headline grabbing and none of it is a manifesto policy. 

 

There may well be a percentage of the blue rinse brigade for whom the Tory party can ever do wrong. 

 

I'd like to think I have the nouse, and intellect to know when I'm being ****ed over by the Gov. Or anyone else, for that matter.

 

Unfortunately there are bound to be those dyed-in-the-wool Conservatives as much as there are those forever Red Socialists who will only vote for what they've believed in for more than a generation.

 

Hopefully common sense will prevail for the majority of ordinary voters that aren't senile or reactionary, to dispose of the current government and try a change. Undoubtedly there's those who are concerned about moving away from the norm, something they've only known for the last 14 years and they find that a bit scary. 

[urban.spaceman]

Mega gaffe incoming.

 

 

[urban.spaceman]

Hope it’s a good’un. 

[Legend_in_blue]

 

[The Doctor]

1 hour ago, Parafox said:

 

Excuse me but, I'm of a "leaded fuel" generation but I'm not fooled by anything the Tories try to bribe us with. It's all rhetorical headline grabbing and none of it is a manifesto policy. 

 

There may well be a percentage of the blue rinse brigade for whom the Tory party can ever do wrong. 

 

I'd like to think I have the nouse, and intellect to know when I'm being ****ed over by the Gov. Or anyone else, for that matter.

 

Unfortunately there are bound to be those dyed-in-the-wool Conservatives as much as there are those forever Red Socialists who will only vote for what they've believed in for more than a generation.

 

Hopefully common sense will prevail for the majority of ordinary voters that aren't senile or reactionary, to dispose of the current government and try a change. Undoubtedly there's those who are concerned about moving away from the norm, something they've only known for the last 14 years and they find that a bit scary. 

Yea, I'm not expressing an opinion on any individual member of those generations, they're not all headbanging tories, but the simple fact remains that there is a not insignficant sentiment of "kids these days have it too easy" within those generations and that is presicely what the tories are banking on with the national service policy.

[urban.spaceman]

Oh my god.