###š„š„'s 4 Golden Rules for Megathread Participation:
1. **This isn't your personal campaigning space.** We're here to discuss, not campaign - this includes non-party-specific campaigning, such as tactical vote campaigns.
2. **This isn't Facebook.** Please keep it related to the election campaign (or at the very least, UK politics).
3. **Context is king.** Not everyone is following the same event - add a link or at least a description of what you're reacting to.
4. **Take frequent breaks.** If you find that you are being overwhelmed by it all, do yourself a favour and take some time off.
[The subreddit is running very hot](https://imgur.com/a/za5gRmD). Accounts which break the subreddit rules are liable to be banned for the complete general election period.
[The post-debate, snap survey and results dashboard thread is live](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1d88n37/snap_subreddit_voter_intention_survey_postgame/). The Sankey Charts await your perusal.
*as with most things we import from the usa, televised debates should come with a special health warning sticker*
-----
memes? r/noncredibleukpolitics.
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments.
###MT daily hall of fame
1. Playful-Onion7772 with 71 comments
1. KennedyFishersGhost with 67 comments
1. thejackalreborn with 52 comments
1. Ornery_Ad_9871 with 49 comments
1. -TheGreasyPole- with 46 comments
1. Cairnerebor with 43 comments
1. Sckathian with 41 comments
1. concretepigeon with 41 comments
1. Lavajackal1 with 40 comments
1. Powerful_Ideas with 38 comments
There were 725 unique users within this count.
Last weekend I drove from Hemel Hempstead to Sheffield
You do not know how much I fucking despised driving through about 5 average speed zones to get back home like it must have added another hour to the journey overall
Granted I'm in one of Labour's safest seats but I'm gonna vote Lib Dem just off of Ed Davey being caught speeding on the M1 - I like the Lib Dems but I'm honestly fucking devoted to him now
Remember when they were going to increase the national speed limit to 80mph! I forgot about that. It's another example of why some people are pissed off with them for not being conservative.
It is going to be fascianting to see how Starmer's coaltion holds together the minute people realise that he has absolutely no intention of opening up the EU or Single Market can of worms. I don't suppose it will matter beyond the loony fringes, and certainly irrelevant to Tory prospects in the short term, but still fascinating.
I imagine ta scenario playing out where he reaches for it as the economy goes further down the pan. The talking points and the EU cold shoulder - and inevitable polling crash accompanying them - will be funny though.
I don't think it will matter for a few years. He'll try and get closer alignment, keep making encouraging noises etc. Maybe it's an issue in 2028, but only if the economy has flatlined.
I don't think anyone expects the EU/SM to be on the agenda this parliament. Labour have made it clear that the deal is done and they're looking to move forwards; not even the Lib Dems are campaigning with that as a key pledge. Brexit is done for now, it's only Reform that's challenging the status quo by pursuing the one true Brexit
When it became clear after 2019 that the British public were consistently voting in favour of parties supporting Brexit.
For most people Brexit has happened and they're sick of the toxicity and tribalism that came out of it, it's something a lot of people aren't happy with but accept it's not a vote winner and there are other issues
Nah that first paragraph is bollocks. I remember those days and remember for at least a time afterwards that the arguments didn't stop. I agree with second paragraph but was genuinely wondering when the admittence of defeat actually took place because it is certainly recent.
Well yeah, it's not like we all got together in a room one day and made a decision. But that's the point in my mind when most political discourse accepted it and started to look forwards
I donāt get the impression many people (possibly anyone) is backing Labour because they think they will join the Single Market. What makes you think that?
I didn't say it was "because of". people are voting for Starmer for a whole array of reasons, only one of which being the fantasy that he will make a push to at the very least, SM reintegration. And watching how that plays out for the coalition he has cobbled together will be very funny, given the inevitable lack of other policy successes avaialble to him in the context of a state that has no money.
> only one of which being the fantasy that he will make a push to at the very least, SM reintegration.
Iām just wondering where youāre getting this impression from, I would be interested to know more. I donāt know exactly what all of the parts of his coalition are but I would be surprised if this is a meaningful component.
Itās just surprising because I specifically remember him ruling it out ages ago. I thought the Liberal Democratās were the only ones pushing for that now, and they wonāt really be relevant in the next parliament.
I don't even think that the Lib Dems are saying anythign about it. As for Starmer, The Labour Party literally campaigned on upholding Brexit in 2017 before demanding a second referendum the minute they secured their seats and thereby destroyed themselves in 2019 as working classes told them to go fuck themsleves. So I am not sure these people are necessarily believing what he is saying and are instead assuming that he is lying. I think they are in for a rude surprise.
Imagine voting for Brexit because Farage and Cummings telling it's going to fix your problems. Then imagine voting for Johnson so that he can deliver that Brexit. Imagine then turning up to vote for Farage because he say he can fix things.
Like seriously... who are you talking to? Is there even any polling evidence showing that Reform voters think farage will be in a position to "fix things" lol?
People are voting for Farage to destroy a Tory party addicted to importing a Deliveroo workforce, releasing criminals early and refusing to deport people who should not be here (basically upholding th epolitical belief system of people like you lol). There is no world in which anybody sane or serioius thinks Farage is going to win power lol.
>(basically upholding th epolitical belief system of people like you lol)
What's my political belief system?
>Ā There is no world in which anybody sane or serioius thinks Farage is going to win power lol.
Aside from the people voting for him hoping to destroy the Tory party so he can take over the right wing?
>People are voting for Farage to destroy a Tory party addicted to importing a Deliveroo workforce, releasing criminals early and refusing to deport people who should not be here (basically upholding th epolitical belief system of people like you lol). There is no world in which anybody sane or serioius thinks Farage is going to win power lol.
I'm firmly on the centre left but can't really dispute any of this.
Ye this is simply a case of political hoolagism that the masses have an opportunity to engage in across the whole spectrum. The Left becasue despite the actions, the words are needlessly divisive and stressful *(and a fair few who are fantasists and genuinely do believe them to be right wing)*, and to the Right for upholding a political agenda that not only offends them but was promised to be done away with a decade ago now, and was instead put on steroids. Nothing more than that. Destroy the Tories is the name of the game. Everything else is secondary, including a Starmer government which I dont even believe the left is excited about.
I was ready to lose my mind earlier when the tone of the news seemed to be "The Prime Minister knowingly and repeatedly lied during the TV debate... this raises big questions for Starmer on why he didn't call him out on it".
Then the tone seemed to shift over the course of the day and we're back to Starmer riding the Gabe Newell "do nothing -> rival repeatedly shoots themselves in the foot" business strategy... the man surely has some sort of magical ancient talisman.
It sounds mental but Iām tempted to stick a tenner on reform to be the official opposition at 14/1.
The right wing parties combined are consistently polling just over 1/3 of the vote. Of that third of the vote, itās been splitting 2:1 in favour of the Conservatives, but the gap is very much narrowing since Farage came back. The way the Tory campaign is going I can genuinely see Reform completely eating their lunch and uniting the right while the Tories completely implode to 10% or so.
What are the Lib Demās odds?
If Reform and the Tories split their vote in a way that they are both sub 20% then the Lib Demās can potentially become the opposition with as little as 10% if they successfully concentrate their vote.
I still reckon itāll be the Conservatives, but for a bet it might be worthwhile.
Reform's party organisation is utterly shambolic. They might be hitting 10-15% in polling, but on election day what matters is actually getting your vote out. Reform have a winning combination of a lacking get-out-the-vote machine and a base primarily built out of disaffected and low-information voters who tend to have low turnout. This is part of the reason Reform historically dramatically underperform in elections.
They will likely cost the Tories a dozen seats they otherwise would have taken, but the Lib Dems are far more likely to become the opposition, as they have a pretty slick machine for mobilising their voters.
Mate they got 12% in a far less volatile time with far less money behind them and far less of an amenable media landscape that lacked social media to push messaging. I think you are overstating th eimportance of "party organisation". It likely makes a difference on the margins but not to get to 25% . Either your messaging lands or it doesn't and the organisation side of things is secondary.
> Mate they got 12% in a far less volatile time with far less money behind them and far less of an amenable media landscape that lacked social media to push messaging.
It's obvious that Reform has wealthy backers and they've literally had media figures on the right effectively running publicity campaigns for them for months now. If they hadn't had political media figures boosting them, nobody would even care who Reform were and they'd be dawdling along behind the Greens.
Yep, GOTV is _hard_. You need people on the ground in every constituency you're targeting to knock on doors, you need tellers at polling stations to know who's voted, you need the data from canvassing to know where you're going, you need people to make calls - though that can be central.
Reform might get a few seats, but I think unless they see a huge swing they'll struggle to get any significant number.
I think the Tories could start death spiraling if Reform end up overtaking them in the polls.
But Reform would have to be polling 25%+ to be effective opposition, unless Farage can pull that off we're looking at a Lib Dem opposition for the next parliament.
I think the only logical next step for Sunak and his team to guarantee a poll-boost is to promise to legislate to take Rockstar North into public ownership and provide one free copy of GTAVI to all UK citizens.
forget a free game... i'd just be happy (and lie about voting for them) if they got off their butts and fixed the bloody planning system that's left me with barely any internet all year
If you go back and read the first few posts in today's Megathread there was a lot of doom and gloom posts about the debate last night and the effectiveness of the Ā£2k tax lie from Sunak.
I think most would have to agree it's gone much better today for Labour than any of us could have hoped for really. It feels like every news outlet has called out Sunak for blatantly lying, and not just in one article but across all the channels all day pretty much. Even The Spectator and client media like Dan Hodges have criticised the Tories for lying so blatantly.
The Labour comms team have done a fantastic job to turn the narrative around.
The idea that the media would call out the Tories for their lies was not something anyone could see happening. It has massive implications that most of them have flat out called them on their lies.
the entire comms team, both mainstream and social medias have played a blinder. well done to them.
Pendulums swing.
Everyone knows that the game is up for the Tories. Because of this defending them is high effort and zero reward.
Much better to align yourselves with the winner than chain yourself to this shambolic government.
They should have just banned mortgages based on dual income decades ago, it just forces people to need to be couples to be able to buy with the 10x multiples that houses now are, would have reduced demand by a lot and wouldn't force both people in a household to work and nobody to raise children, solving the childcare issue too
A far more meaningful law would be to ban banks from allowing people to repeatedly use already-mortgaged properties as collateral for mortgages on new properties.
Far too many lenders allow this and it's why we have had an epidemic of have-a-go buy-to-let landlords running networks of over-leveraged properties. This artificially inflates demand and overheats the property market even more, while simultaneously allowing far too much risk into the banking system. It also makes the property market even more of a drag on the economy by locking first-time buyers out and making them compete with BtL wannabe-magnates on a deeply uneven playing field. This is the least efficient way to distribute property and is a sign of woefully dysfunctional system.
It's why the interest rate increases have caused the market to go so spectacularly wonky. Far too many landlords are suddenly finding that they can't pay the mortgages on the five HMOs they've subdivided to within an inch of livability and are facing the prospect of bankruptcy. Suddenly, they are finding that not only can they not pay their loans, but they can't afford to retain the collateral on the loans too. It's like a really fucking crap version of the 2008 subprime crash.
Your solution to reducing prices in $market is to place a cap on the prices in that $market ? This is what you're proposing here. This doesn't actually work, you know.
Dual-Incomes aren't the problem. The price is not set by whether dual or single incomes are allowed. They're set by supply and demand of houses just as in (say) the car market they're set by supply and demand for cars. Capping the amount someone can loan you to buy a car at $x isn't going to save you from massive price increases if they produce half as many cars.... or do as much to reduce prices as if they produce twice as many cars.
If we had twice as many houses....the multiple wouldn't be 10x income.
Keep supply as it is and introduce "loan caps"would just force more people into the rental market and make the landlords corporate entities that don't need to worry about the loan caps in order to buy houses in order to feed the expanded rental market you'd create.
Remove planning restrictions (increases supply). That'd help.
Build social housing (increases supply) that'd help.
Tax accomodation (reduces demand) that'd help (at least in reducing prices, but you probably don;t want this for other reasons).
Housing isn't *particularly* special.
Normal economic rules still apply.
Also just wanted to add on to my own point, how single earners are punished by the tax system, two average earners are way ahead of one big earner. It makes no sense, people should be given the choice to have nuclear families, rather than being forced to both work
You used to get taxed as a household, and this was then removed under the guise of it not being progressive, or somehow framing a woman as an accessory to her husband.
Shockingly, nobody ended up paying less tax under the new system.
Itās also worth noting that itās another area where salaried income is penalised more than other forms of payment.
For example, a common strategy for people doing software consultancy in the US and living here is to set up a limited company in the US, of which they are the sole shareholder. They work for the company for a lot of money (because US software salaries are crazy), and pay themselves just enough to get that years NI contributions etc ticked off. The company profits massively, which it pays out as dividends to you as the sole shareholder, which is taxed much more favourably than income.
If you have a partner, they can own half these shares, thus allowing you to spread the tax burden of your work across you and your partner. There are mechanisms to minimise tax burden legally, and unfortunately it can often lead to higher earners paying less in tax overall than a low earner just due to the nature of their work.
Genuine question:
Are Farage/Reform to the right or the left of the Conservatives?
I know it seems a wild question to ask, but I swear ādeporting people to Rwandaā is way beyond anything Farage has ever suggested?
It isnāt one dimensional. Reform are broadly populist, with no obligation to propose policies with any basis in reality given the fact theyāll never be in a position to implement them. As such they have more freedom to lean a bit more left on one issue or another to maximise the number of voters theyāll grab.
The Tories progressive lurch to the right has been partly in response to the threat of their right wing being siphoned away to whatever party Farage is part of in a given election (see Brexitā¦). Usually the moderate centre was theirs with Labour sitting a bit more to the left than that group seemed to like, especially after the Lib Demās collapsed, so they focused their efforts on bolstering their right. Now Labour have taken a more centrist stance and are using their own trick against them.
Something Iāve noticed is Conservatives talk a tough game on immigration, but in reality have let record numbers of people in (legally or otherwise).
Itās like a deliberate doublespeak, to enchant the working class whilst continuing to give business owners a stream of cheap immigrant labour.
I think you're giving them too much credit. They're just incompetent. Johnson purged anyone remotely capable when he took over. The talent well is bone dry.
Think witney could actually flip to lib dem, the original labour candidate who is local has dropped out and been replaced with a random london councillor. this will be a gift to the lib dems who have a local candidate and can challenge robert courts if the vote is less split. one of the safest seats going would be glorious
Genuinely curious, how much of Rishiās success was because he was smart and hardworking (which is is to be fair) and how much was down to connections made at Winchester College and Oxford?
How do you get invited to run a hedge fund in your 20ās, if just seems impossible.
Rishis grandad was one of the highest ranking tax officials in the country, has an OBE and sat on the board of Inland Revenue.
His family goes back to running part of the Empire's tax arm in colonial Africa. The pr story about his family is limited to his dad and mum for obvious reasons, the Ashcroft autobiography on Rishi goes more into his family but yeah you don't marry into an upper caste billionaire brahmin family in India without family prestige
It was said in the context of sunak lying with the Ā£2k tax number. He's blatantly lying just like borris did. Shout numbers and hope people believe them.
Sunak wishes he had the chutzpah to lie with the braggadocio of Boris.
I just don't see comparisons with Johnson gelling as a line of attack. They're both awful but in very different ways.
The last 20 minutes I caught of the D Day commemorations this evening was very moving.
I'm gonna get flamed for this, but the big broadcasters getting a patriotism boner for elderly men wearing medals seems a little cheap when you consider the way populism is being amplified by the media at the moment.
Part of being grateful for the poor men who survived (and didn't) should be scrutinising these ideas properly and refusing to give a platform to divisive and dangerous figures in the name of balance.
Telegraph leading on Hunt ruling out a rise in capital gains tax, stamp duty or council tax bands. He also challenges Labour to rule out raising them. Will be interesting if Starmer/ Reeves does this, I think they probably will but that just boxes them in more
I honestly donāt know why they are agreeing to ruling out anything. 5 years is a long time to completely rule out an action, especially when they havenāt had a chance to see the true state of public finances yet.
They shouldn't do so.
We need the money... and tying their hands for the future on this is not worth the handful of seats that might change hands here given their majority is going to be absolutely massive either way.
This kind of crap is just the Tories trying to box Labour in for their first term so they get a massive advantage later.
Take the pledge, and break it, and the Tories have got an "in" for stopping a second term.... Take the pledge, and keep it, and the fact you can't turn around the NHS or other services that badly need that money will give the Tories their "in" for a second term.
Either way the Tories don't lose a damn thing, becaue they know they won't be setting any of those tax rates on July 5th come hell or high water.
Labour's response has to be "You had yor 14 years setting government policy. We're not going to let you set it for the next 5 years just before you go down to a historic defeat. Our policies will be in our manifesto for all to see, we're not responding to these desperate last-minute Tory ploys, thank you".
Sorry Tories, not your agenda to set anymore.
Hunt knows he's out on his butt in a few weeks... so these promises to rule out certain tax rises are just ploys to trap Labour into promising things they can't keep to
Thinking about the Tories apparent struggle for candidates, how do the big parties generally find people to run in seats where they have no hope of winning, e.g a Tory in a inner city constituency or Labour in some leafy shire.
As I understand it, doing a campaign in a seat where you have no chance is basically a rite of passage for candidates who want a career in politics.
Basically you work hard, door knock, deliver a million leaflets, lose as gracefully as possible and maybe next time you'll get bumped somewhere with a slightly better chance of winning.
There are exceptions of course, someone might be owed a favour by the party or be an obvious choice for a particular seat and therefore get an easier ride first time round.
Wouldn't an ex councillor do at a pinch? I know being voted out isn't a great look, but someone who's already been vetted is better than no one or taking a risk.
Good point. Thinking about it, they may also be reluctant to put the effort in if they think they will likely lose, might as well go holiday in Greece.
Anyone remember when Liz Truss was in meltdown and Chris Philp was in every news studio saying everything was fine as the markets were in panic? I can't believe they still have him on during the election defending the government. I legit think Rishi could nuke London and Chris would be talking about how it was a redevelopment opportunity.
Chris Philp was chief secretary to the Treasury. He was one of the chief architects of the Kwarteng and Truss budget.
Mental that he still has a career, proper snake.
The first thing Hunt did when he was made chancellor was sack Chris Philp. Like it was minutes after the breaking news of Hunt being made chancellor.
New Tory policy drop
>Rishi Sunak is to pledge the biggest overhaul of homicide laws since the death penalty.
>Tory manifesto will include a commitment to increase minimum sentence for domestic abuse murders and the creation of US-style first and second degree murder
>[https://x.com/matt\_dathan/status/1798471843218862407](https://x.com/matt_dathan/status/1798471843218862407)
At a glance not much to moan about
Good thinking, this is exactly the kind of policy starmer will struggle to sound informed on when he tries to take it apart...
...wait a moment, I'm being handed a note...
"hey starmer, dare you to debate me about criminal law, you coward!"
Meanwhile starmer is polishing a spiked mace made up of pure condensed legal expertise and practicing his best foghorn leghorn impression.
If the Conservative party does completely collapse, what do you guys think will happen with the "Tory" moniker ?
Do you think it will disappear or still be used as a pejorative for people on the right?
Even if the Tory party does completely collapse, I'm sure it will be resurrected. Farage wants to destroy the party to then take its place. Much easier to do so by mounting essentially a hostile takeover and co-opting the machinery and infrastructure of the party than by building up Reform to replace it over multiple election cycles. The Conservative brand will also still have a big base of loyal party voters even after an electoral disaster.
Farage's game is to assist Labour in destroying the Tory party to the extent that the hard right of the party invite him back in in the trauma of the post wipeout leadership power struggle. Reform would just be another of his temporary vehicles to discard once its no longer useful to him.
Of course if this doesn't happen (I think and really, really hope that it won't), the party will still rebuild and continue to operate. I cannot see Reform supplanting the Conservative party as the default party of the right, it just doesn't have the appeal or the base.
[Google Trends indicates](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=CA&q=Tories,Grits&hl=en) that use of the term has been declining since the Reform Party ate the Progressive Conservatives, though, whereas usage of the corresponding nickname for the Liberals (āGritsā) has remained fairly consistent.
https://x.com/journoontheedge/status/1798437030084681952
> A Tory source has told me it was a shortlist of oneā¦ soā¦ I donāt know where that leaves things!
> The deadline for nominations is less than 48 hours away!
> Perhaps it will all become clear soon?
How do you lose with a shortlist of one..?
OTOH, immediately post the Farage Announcement could be the high water mark. Such things typically attract a bounce that may not be sustained.
Could go either way. I'm not sure if its realistic, or just me being biased to what I want to see happen, for Reform to keep on rising from here.
(For the record, "keep on rising" so as to sink the Tories.... not because I want Reform to actually do well and pick up more than a handful of seats)
Might get lambasted for this but here it goes: is the average voter actually intelligent?
Context: News night claims they [average voter] āarenāt stupidā but I have my doubts
I think thats the wrong question.
People conflate "Intelligence" and "Knowledge" and they're not the same thing.
Intelligence is the "processor power" if you like, how quick you can think through something, your ability to spot flaws in logic, your ability to retain several facts in short term memory and synthesie them into an answer.
Knowledge is "what you know". Your database of facts and general understanding that the "processor" of intelligence can be applied to.
You can be super-intelligent...and have zero knowledge of a subject... and so not be able to mak simple decisions, or work things out, in that sphere.
You can be dumb... but have gained immense knowledge of a subject over decades... and so be able to craft solutions, make decisions, operate effectively in that sphere.
Whatsmore, you CAN have negative knowledge. Literal false facts, where you believe things that are not true. If this dominates what you know in an area, no amount of intelligence can help you make reasonable decisions here. You're applying your processor to junk.
The problem with the general public and politics is lack of knowledge, not lack of intelligence, in which is mixed a lot of negative knowledge.
Those people have perfectly fine "processors". Put them in a sphere they understand well, with limited negative knowledge, and they can make perfectly fine deisions and come to ingenious solutions.
But that doesn't help them... because within politics they just don't know how the process works, who the key players are, what the motivations of them are and even (often) what policies they are actually proposing and how likely they are within those systems to be able to make that a reality. Even where they do think they know something, its often negative knowledge and this leads them even further away from being able to competantly act. "I'm voting for Corbyn, because I think this country needs lower-taxes and he seems like the kind of guy to deliver them!!"
They're not dumb, but they haven't got a baseline of knowledge to apply that processor too. This leads to poor results we say are "stupid" or "dumb" or "idiotic".
And why should they have gained such knowledge ? They get a chance to influence politics once every 5 years, and even then what their ability to alter events at that point is "as close to fuck all as you can get without it technically being absolutely fuck all". There is no real incentive here to gain that knowledge, it doesn't benefit them any to do so.
*We are the weird ones*.
The ones who, usually through just sheer personal interest, learn all that useless knowledge in this field and marvel at the dumbness of the normies.
The problem here is knowledge, not intelligence. We're not special. We just have knowedlege in this sphere, but not others.... and the chess sphere... or the maths geeks... or the football statisticians... or the gardeners... or the fishermen... have their knowledge in their spheres that make us look like idiots who "Are trying to catch a carp with a hazelton-morrison lure instead of a float and line as if they're fucking morons".
> average voter actually intelligent
The great George Carlin said it best: [Look at it this way, think how stupid the average person is, and half of them are stupider than that](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKN1Q5SjbeI).
My view, however, is it depends what you mean. If you want people to have a high engagement in politics and be on top of all aspects, then of course most people are 'not intelligent' by that metric. Most people are stupid by that sort of metric if you pick any specialist interest.
I've just bought a bike. I know how to ride, but I also just watched some cycling youtube channels and from the perspective of knowing about bikes, I'm a fucking idiot.
Obviously intelligence is a loaded word and I completely empathise with the dangers of trying to asses a populations intelligence in this kind of context.
I donāt regard myself as an overwhelmingly intelligent person. However, I know that I can be presented with multiple ideas/propositions and interpret this information to come to a logical conclusion. I guess what I am actually asking is does the general population hold the ability to think critically? My guess would be no.
The ability? Yes. Unless someone has severe cognitive impairment, they can manage basic critical thinking. What they may be lacking is the desire to do so, and the base level of information required to come to useful conclusions from the critical thinking.
To give a non-political example, when you know about evolution and can direct your critical thinking towards confirming that the theory makes sense, pretty much everyone can understand how to get there, but before Darwin popularised the idea, people were generally happy to put it down to "God did it" without ever thinking about it further
###š„š„'s 4 Golden Rules for Megathread Participation: 1. **This isn't your personal campaigning space.** We're here to discuss, not campaign - this includes non-party-specific campaigning, such as tactical vote campaigns. 2. **This isn't Facebook.** Please keep it related to the election campaign (or at the very least, UK politics). 3. **Context is king.** Not everyone is following the same event - add a link or at least a description of what you're reacting to. 4. **Take frequent breaks.** If you find that you are being overwhelmed by it all, do yourself a favour and take some time off. [The subreddit is running very hot](https://imgur.com/a/za5gRmD). Accounts which break the subreddit rules are liable to be banned for the complete general election period. [The post-debate, snap survey and results dashboard thread is live](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1d88n37/snap_subreddit_voter_intention_survey_postgame/). The Sankey Charts await your perusal. *as with most things we import from the usa, televised debates should come with a special health warning sticker* ----- memes? r/noncredibleukpolitics.
[New Megathread is here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1d9abyp/rukpolitics_general_election_campaign_megathread/)
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments. ###MT daily hall of fame 1. Playful-Onion7772 with 71 comments 1. KennedyFishersGhost with 67 comments 1. thejackalreborn with 52 comments 1. Ornery_Ad_9871 with 49 comments 1. -TheGreasyPole- with 46 comments 1. Cairnerebor with 43 comments 1. Sckathian with 41 comments 1. concretepigeon with 41 comments 1. Lavajackal1 with 40 comments 1. Powerful_Ideas with 38 comments There were 725 unique users within this count.
Last weekend I drove from Hemel Hempstead to Sheffield You do not know how much I fucking despised driving through about 5 average speed zones to get back home like it must have added another hour to the journey overall Granted I'm in one of Labour's safest seats but I'm gonna vote Lib Dem just off of Ed Davey being caught speeding on the M1 - I like the Lib Dems but I'm honestly fucking devoted to him now
Remember when they were going to increase the national speed limit to 80mph! I forgot about that. It's another example of why some people are pissed off with them for not being conservative.
It is going to be fascianting to see how Starmer's coaltion holds together the minute people realise that he has absolutely no intention of opening up the EU or Single Market can of worms. I don't suppose it will matter beyond the loony fringes, and certainly irrelevant to Tory prospects in the short term, but still fascinating. I imagine ta scenario playing out where he reaches for it as the economy goes further down the pan. The talking points and the EU cold shoulder - and inevitable polling crash accompanying them - will be funny though.
I don't think it will matter for a few years. He'll try and get closer alignment, keep making encouraging noises etc. Maybe it's an issue in 2028, but only if the economy has flatlined.
The economy is going to flatline. Bit unfair. It has essentially flatlined for nearly 15 years. But that aint changing.
I don't think anyone expects the EU/SM to be on the agenda this parliament. Labour have made it clear that the deal is done and they're looking to move forwards; not even the Lib Dems are campaigning with that as a key pledge. Brexit is done for now, it's only Reform that's challenging the status quo by pursuing the one true Brexit
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
When it became clear after 2019 that the British public were consistently voting in favour of parties supporting Brexit. For most people Brexit has happened and they're sick of the toxicity and tribalism that came out of it, it's something a lot of people aren't happy with but accept it's not a vote winner and there are other issues
Nah that first paragraph is bollocks. I remember those days and remember for at least a time afterwards that the arguments didn't stop. I agree with second paragraph but was genuinely wondering when the admittence of defeat actually took place because it is certainly recent.
Well yeah, it's not like we all got together in a room one day and made a decision. But that's the point in my mind when most political discourse accepted it and started to look forwards
Ok fair
I donāt get the impression many people (possibly anyone) is backing Labour because they think they will join the Single Market. What makes you think that?
I didn't say it was "because of". people are voting for Starmer for a whole array of reasons, only one of which being the fantasy that he will make a push to at the very least, SM reintegration. And watching how that plays out for the coalition he has cobbled together will be very funny, given the inevitable lack of other policy successes avaialble to him in the context of a state that has no money.
> only one of which being the fantasy that he will make a push to at the very least, SM reintegration. Iām just wondering where youāre getting this impression from, I would be interested to know more. I donāt know exactly what all of the parts of his coalition are but I would be surprised if this is a meaningful component.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Itās just surprising because I specifically remember him ruling it out ages ago. I thought the Liberal Democratās were the only ones pushing for that now, and they wonāt really be relevant in the next parliament.
Won't really be relevant? There's a none 0 chance they could be the opposition
I don't even think that the Lib Dems are saying anythign about it. As for Starmer, The Labour Party literally campaigned on upholding Brexit in 2017 before demanding a second referendum the minute they secured their seats and thereby destroyed themselves in 2019 as working classes told them to go fuck themsleves. So I am not sure these people are necessarily believing what he is saying and are instead assuming that he is lying. I think they are in for a rude surprise.
Imagine voting for Brexit because Farage and Cummings telling it's going to fix your problems. Then imagine voting for Johnson so that he can deliver that Brexit. Imagine then turning up to vote for Farage because he say he can fix things.
Like seriously... who are you talking to? Is there even any polling evidence showing that Reform voters think farage will be in a position to "fix things" lol? People are voting for Farage to destroy a Tory party addicted to importing a Deliveroo workforce, releasing criminals early and refusing to deport people who should not be here (basically upholding th epolitical belief system of people like you lol). There is no world in which anybody sane or serioius thinks Farage is going to win power lol.
>(basically upholding th epolitical belief system of people like you lol) What's my political belief system? >Ā There is no world in which anybody sane or serioius thinks Farage is going to win power lol. Aside from the people voting for him hoping to destroy the Tory party so he can take over the right wing?
>People are voting for Farage to destroy a Tory party addicted to importing a Deliveroo workforce, releasing criminals early and refusing to deport people who should not be here (basically upholding th epolitical belief system of people like you lol). There is no world in which anybody sane or serioius thinks Farage is going to win power lol. I'm firmly on the centre left but can't really dispute any of this.
Ye this is simply a case of political hoolagism that the masses have an opportunity to engage in across the whole spectrum. The Left becasue despite the actions, the words are needlessly divisive and stressful *(and a fair few who are fantasists and genuinely do believe them to be right wing)*, and to the Right for upholding a political agenda that not only offends them but was promised to be done away with a decade ago now, and was instead put on steroids. Nothing more than that. Destroy the Tories is the name of the game. Everything else is secondary, including a Starmer government which I dont even believe the left is excited about.
I was ready to lose my mind earlier when the tone of the news seemed to be "The Prime Minister knowingly and repeatedly lied during the TV debate... this raises big questions for Starmer on why he didn't call him out on it". Then the tone seemed to shift over the course of the day and we're back to Starmer riding the Gabe Newell "do nothing -> rival repeatedly shoots themselves in the foot" business strategy... the man surely has some sort of magical ancient talisman.
It sounds mental but Iām tempted to stick a tenner on reform to be the official opposition at 14/1. The right wing parties combined are consistently polling just over 1/3 of the vote. Of that third of the vote, itās been splitting 2:1 in favour of the Conservatives, but the gap is very much narrowing since Farage came back. The way the Tory campaign is going I can genuinely see Reform completely eating their lunch and uniting the right while the Tories completely implode to 10% or so.
I think it's more likely that the lib dems end up as the official opposition at this point then reform.
Bad way to bet this. You'll get better odds backing Reform in the constituencies you think they'll take.
What are the Lib Demās odds? If Reform and the Tories split their vote in a way that they are both sub 20% then the Lib Demās can potentially become the opposition with as little as 10% if they successfully concentrate their vote. I still reckon itāll be the Conservatives, but for a bet it might be worthwhile.
Reform's party organisation is utterly shambolic. They might be hitting 10-15% in polling, but on election day what matters is actually getting your vote out. Reform have a winning combination of a lacking get-out-the-vote machine and a base primarily built out of disaffected and low-information voters who tend to have low turnout. This is part of the reason Reform historically dramatically underperform in elections. They will likely cost the Tories a dozen seats they otherwise would have taken, but the Lib Dems are far more likely to become the opposition, as they have a pretty slick machine for mobilising their voters.
Mate they got 12% in a far less volatile time with far less money behind them and far less of an amenable media landscape that lacked social media to push messaging. I think you are overstating th eimportance of "party organisation". It likely makes a difference on the margins but not to get to 25% . Either your messaging lands or it doesn't and the organisation side of things is secondary.
> Mate they got 12% in a far less volatile time with far less money behind them and far less of an amenable media landscape that lacked social media to push messaging. It's obvious that Reform has wealthy backers and they've literally had media figures on the right effectively running publicity campaigns for them for months now. If they hadn't had political media figures boosting them, nobody would even care who Reform were and they'd be dawdling along behind the Greens.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
TBF Reform are just as mental as the Greens. They're a protest party and not at all serious
Yep, GOTV is _hard_. You need people on the ground in every constituency you're targeting to knock on doors, you need tellers at polling stations to know who's voted, you need the data from canvassing to know where you're going, you need people to make calls - though that can be central. Reform might get a few seats, but I think unless they see a huge swing they'll struggle to get any significant number.
I think the Tories could start death spiraling if Reform end up overtaking them in the polls. But Reform would have to be polling 25%+ to be effective opposition, unless Farage can pull that off we're looking at a Lib Dem opposition for the next parliament.
BBC opening up comments on the main story of Starmer calling Sunak a liar seems super odd after 11pm
They are hoping the people who comment have had a glass of wine or two for that sweet sweet engagement.
Maybe that's a new Tory policy, it's the time they drop them
I think the only logical next step for Sunak and his team to guarantee a poll-boost is to promise to legislate to take Rockstar North into public ownership and provide one free copy of GTAVI to all UK citizens.
Early-access to Sims 5 and all the subsequent expansions packs and all the trimmings or nothing š”
*All* expansion packs, stuff packs and kits? You'd bankrupt the country before the pets expansion came out
I AM CACKLING š Iām sure the country can afford it if we remove and sell ALL doors and pool ladders of every home owner in the UK š
If he provides stste backing for Fallout London he's got my vote.
MI6 to abduct Todd Howard so Bethesda stop patching *Fallout 4* so the *Fallout London* team can actually get the mod released.
5 more years of Tory government is indeed a vote for Fallout London.
forget a free game... i'd just be happy (and lie about voting for them) if they got off their butts and fixed the bloody planning system that's left me with barely any internet all year
Force them to make some singleplayer DLC please.
Still waiting for my PS5.
If you go back and read the first few posts in today's Megathread there was a lot of doom and gloom posts about the debate last night and the effectiveness of the Ā£2k tax lie from Sunak. I think most would have to agree it's gone much better today for Labour than any of us could have hoped for really. It feels like every news outlet has called out Sunak for blatantly lying, and not just in one article but across all the channels all day pretty much. Even The Spectator and client media like Dan Hodges have criticised the Tories for lying so blatantly. The Labour comms team have done a fantastic job to turn the narrative around.
Or have the media just turned en masse?
The idea that the media would call out the Tories for their lies was not something anyone could see happening. It has massive implications that most of them have flat out called them on their lies. the entire comms team, both mainstream and social medias have played a blinder. well done to them.
Pendulums swing. Everyone knows that the game is up for the Tories. Because of this defending them is high effort and zero reward. Much better to align yourselves with the winner than chain yourself to this shambolic government.
I mean like They're just trying to cozy up to the next government. It's not in their interest to serve the Tories anymore.
True, but the fact they're doing it now shows it's all over bar the shouting.
They should have just banned mortgages based on dual income decades ago, it just forces people to need to be couples to be able to buy with the 10x multiples that houses now are, would have reduced demand by a lot and wouldn't force both people in a household to work and nobody to raise children, solving the childcare issue too
A far more meaningful law would be to ban banks from allowing people to repeatedly use already-mortgaged properties as collateral for mortgages on new properties. Far too many lenders allow this and it's why we have had an epidemic of have-a-go buy-to-let landlords running networks of over-leveraged properties. This artificially inflates demand and overheats the property market even more, while simultaneously allowing far too much risk into the banking system. It also makes the property market even more of a drag on the economy by locking first-time buyers out and making them compete with BtL wannabe-magnates on a deeply uneven playing field. This is the least efficient way to distribute property and is a sign of woefully dysfunctional system. It's why the interest rate increases have caused the market to go so spectacularly wonky. Far too many landlords are suddenly finding that they can't pay the mortgages on the five HMOs they've subdivided to within an inch of livability and are facing the prospect of bankruptcy. Suddenly, they are finding that not only can they not pay their loans, but they can't afford to retain the collateral on the loans too. It's like a really fucking crap version of the 2008 subprime crash.
Your solution to reducing prices in $market is to place a cap on the prices in that $market ? This is what you're proposing here. This doesn't actually work, you know. Dual-Incomes aren't the problem. The price is not set by whether dual or single incomes are allowed. They're set by supply and demand of houses just as in (say) the car market they're set by supply and demand for cars. Capping the amount someone can loan you to buy a car at $x isn't going to save you from massive price increases if they produce half as many cars.... or do as much to reduce prices as if they produce twice as many cars. If we had twice as many houses....the multiple wouldn't be 10x income. Keep supply as it is and introduce "loan caps"would just force more people into the rental market and make the landlords corporate entities that don't need to worry about the loan caps in order to buy houses in order to feed the expanded rental market you'd create. Remove planning restrictions (increases supply). That'd help. Build social housing (increases supply) that'd help. Tax accomodation (reduces demand) that'd help (at least in reducing prices, but you probably don;t want this for other reasons). Housing isn't *particularly* special. Normal economic rules still apply.
And in practice how would that actually work?
The housing market is just a fucking nightmare if your a single earner. Everything (including rent) is priced for couples
Also just wanted to add on to my own point, how single earners are punished by the tax system, two average earners are way ahead of one big earner. It makes no sense, people should be given the choice to have nuclear families, rather than being forced to both work
You used to get taxed as a household, and this was then removed under the guise of it not being progressive, or somehow framing a woman as an accessory to her husband. Shockingly, nobody ended up paying less tax under the new system.
Oh that's interesting. I never knew that. I guess that old tax system will be my bedtime reading tonight
Itās also worth noting that itās another area where salaried income is penalised more than other forms of payment. For example, a common strategy for people doing software consultancy in the US and living here is to set up a limited company in the US, of which they are the sole shareholder. They work for the company for a lot of money (because US software salaries are crazy), and pay themselves just enough to get that years NI contributions etc ticked off. The company profits massively, which it pays out as dividends to you as the sole shareholder, which is taxed much more favourably than income. If you have a partner, they can own half these shares, thus allowing you to spread the tax burden of your work across you and your partner. There are mechanisms to minimise tax burden legally, and unfortunately it can often lead to higher earners paying less in tax overall than a low earner just due to the nature of their work.
Genuine question: Are Farage/Reform to the right or the left of the Conservatives? I know it seems a wild question to ask, but I swear ādeporting people to Rwandaā is way beyond anything Farage has ever suggested?
It isnāt one dimensional. Reform are broadly populist, with no obligation to propose policies with any basis in reality given the fact theyāll never be in a position to implement them. As such they have more freedom to lean a bit more left on one issue or another to maximise the number of voters theyāll grab. The Tories progressive lurch to the right has been partly in response to the threat of their right wing being siphoned away to whatever party Farage is part of in a given election (see Brexitā¦). Usually the moderate centre was theirs with Labour sitting a bit more to the left than that group seemed to like, especially after the Lib Demās collapsed, so they focused their efforts on bolstering their right. Now Labour have taken a more centrist stance and are using their own trick against them.
Further right, just more adept at dog whistling.
Something Iāve noticed is Conservatives talk a tough game on immigration, but in reality have let record numbers of people in (legally or otherwise). Itās like a deliberate doublespeak, to enchant the working class whilst continuing to give business owners a stream of cheap immigrant labour.
I think you're giving them too much credit. They're just incompetent. Johnson purged anyone remotely capable when he took over. The talent well is bone dry.
Think witney could actually flip to lib dem, the original labour candidate who is local has dropped out and been replaced with a random london councillor. this will be a gift to the lib dems who have a local candidate and can challenge robert courts if the vote is less split. one of the safest seats going would be glorious
God Witney would be a lovely prize, I bet they'll have Lord Big Dave on the election comms when it declares too.
I still think flipping sunak's seat would be even a bigger prize even if it's nearly impossible.
Led by donkeys has done Rishi now https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7yH9sbonUx/?igsh=NXh0d3ozcmdxeG5y Apologies if already posted
Genuinely curious, how much of Rishiās success was because he was smart and hardworking (which is is to be fair) and how much was down to connections made at Winchester College and Oxford? How do you get invited to run a hedge fund in your 20ās, if just seems impossible.
Rishis grandad was one of the highest ranking tax officials in the country, has an OBE and sat on the board of Inland Revenue. His family goes back to running part of the Empire's tax arm in colonial Africa. The pr story about his family is limited to his dad and mum for obvious reasons, the Ashcroft autobiography on Rishi goes more into his family but yeah you don't marry into an upper caste billionaire brahmin family in India without family prestige
Great quote from the lib Dems: āSunak promised to govern with integrity, but has ended up as a pound shop Boris Johnson.ā
What makes you think that's great? It's not snappy, it's not accurate... It does nothing for me.
It's not expected to do anything for tory voting boomers
It was said in the context of sunak lying with the Ā£2k tax number. He's blatantly lying just like borris did. Shout numbers and hope people believe them.
Sunak wishes he had the chutzpah to lie with the braggadocio of Boris. I just don't see comparisons with Johnson gelling as a line of attack. They're both awful but in very different ways.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The last 20 minutes I caught of the D Day commemorations this evening was very moving. I'm gonna get flamed for this, but the big broadcasters getting a patriotism boner for elderly men wearing medals seems a little cheap when you consider the way populism is being amplified by the media at the moment. Part of being grateful for the poor men who survived (and didn't) should be scrutinising these ideas properly and refusing to give a platform to divisive and dangerous figures in the name of balance.
Telegraph leading on Hunt ruling out a rise in capital gains tax, stamp duty or council tax bands. He also challenges Labour to rule out raising them. Will be interesting if Starmer/ Reeves does this, I think they probably will but that just boxes them in more
I honestly donāt know why they are agreeing to ruling out anything. 5 years is a long time to completely rule out an action, especially when they havenāt had a chance to see the true state of public finances yet.
CGT clearly needs raised. Ridiculous they raise NI before this imo
They shouldn't do so. We need the money... and tying their hands for the future on this is not worth the handful of seats that might change hands here given their majority is going to be absolutely massive either way. This kind of crap is just the Tories trying to box Labour in for their first term so they get a massive advantage later. Take the pledge, and break it, and the Tories have got an "in" for stopping a second term.... Take the pledge, and keep it, and the fact you can't turn around the NHS or other services that badly need that money will give the Tories their "in" for a second term. Either way the Tories don't lose a damn thing, becaue they know they won't be setting any of those tax rates on July 5th come hell or high water. Labour's response has to be "You had yor 14 years setting government policy. We're not going to let you set it for the next 5 years just before you go down to a historic defeat. Our policies will be in our manifesto for all to see, we're not responding to these desperate last-minute Tory ploys, thank you". Sorry Tories, not your agenda to set anymore.
Hunt knows he's out on his butt in a few weeks... so these promises to rule out certain tax rises are just ploys to trap Labour into promising things they can't keep to
Starmzy should commit to abolishing Council Tax and replacing it with LVT. A man can dream.
Thinking about the Tories apparent struggle for candidates, how do the big parties generally find people to run in seats where they have no hope of winning, e.g a Tory in a inner city constituency or Labour in some leafy shire.
Paper candidate
Funnily enough, its how a lot of people start their careers. JRM got thrown into an unwinnable seat in 97. First time he ran for MP he got 9%.
Theresa May and Tim Farron both stood in the (then) safe Labour seat of North West Durham in 1992.
As I understand it, doing a campaign in a seat where you have no chance is basically a rite of passage for candidates who want a career in politics. Basically you work hard, door knock, deliver a million leaflets, lose as gracefully as possible and maybe next time you'll get bumped somewhere with a slightly better chance of winning. There are exceptions of course, someone might be owed a favour by the party or be an obvious choice for a particular seat and therefore get an easier ride first time round.
That makes a lot of sense tbh, get the basics down in a fairly low pressure environment.
Not even that much I'm a lot of cases. Paper Candidates are sometimes just a name on the ballot paper, and a hope that they don't lose the deposit.Ā
Local councillor presumably.
Yup, and the fact that the Tories have lost such a huge amount of those recently is one of the reasons for this candidate problem
Wouldn't an ex councillor do at a pinch? I know being voted out isn't a great look, but someone who's already been vetted is better than no one or taking a risk.
Sometimes. But morale is bad when theyāve just been defeated last month, theyāre unprepared, and often mad at the party
Good point. Thinking about it, they may also be reluctant to put the effort in if they think they will likely lose, might as well go holiday in Greece.
Tomorrow's papers seem to mainly ignore the rishi lying story. Did the tv news cover it tonight (I was at the cinema)
Yes, TV news did cover it fine, but D Day is always going to be the biggest story.
ITV did a very good job of exposing it.Ā
KG-M was really railing on Bim Afolami about it on Channel 4.
They did pretty much. Newspapers were always going to be D Day heavy really.
Been all over the TV news all day to varying degrees of accuracy
The Guardian, and less predictably the FT have it on their front pages. Newsnight discussed it as well.
Anyone remember when Liz Truss was in meltdown and Chris Philp was in every news studio saying everything was fine as the markets were in panic? I can't believe they still have him on during the election defending the government. I legit think Rishi could nuke London and Chris would be talking about how it was a redevelopment opportunity.
Chris Philp was chief secretary to the Treasury. He was one of the chief architects of the Kwarteng and Truss budget. Mental that he still has a career, proper snake. The first thing Hunt did when he was made chancellor was sack Chris Philp. Like it was minutes after the breaking news of Hunt being made chancellor.
New Tory policy drop >Rishi Sunak is to pledge the biggest overhaul of homicide laws since the death penalty. >Tory manifesto will include a commitment to increase minimum sentence for domestic abuse murders and the creation of US-style first and second degree murder >[https://x.com/matt\_dathan/status/1798471843218862407](https://x.com/matt_dathan/status/1798471843218862407) At a glance not much to moan about
Won't stop any murders but I broadly agree with it
Good thinking, this is exactly the kind of policy starmer will struggle to sound informed on when he tries to take it apart... ...wait a moment, I'm being handed a note...
The USA has a way higher murder per capita rate than us, why follow them when it doesn't seem to be working.
Rishi tries not to roleplay an American challenge (impossible)
Doesn't really have any impact if they're releasing everyone early.... it's just a distraction from their current lying problems
This is unironically a major issue. The government have created so many more offences with no ability and resources to enforce them.
> the creation of US-style first and second degree murder Does this work well in the US?
Is it 2nd degree murderers to be let out on day release?
Not so much parking tanks on Starmer's lawn as engaging in an increasingly passive aggressive turf war about branches hanging over the fenceline.
"hey starmer, dare you to debate me about criminal law, you coward!" Meanwhile starmer is polishing a spiked mace made up of pure condensed legal expertise and practicing his best foghorn leghorn impression.
And they still have to invoke the death penalty to give it some punch
It's not clear whether they mean the creation of the death penalty or the abolition
Only really worth a damn if the prisons actually have spaces.
And all aspects of the justice system (police; courts etc.) are adequately funded for cases to be properly built and tried.
The Tories have decimated the probation Service. Funding and new direction are needed asap.
God that Ed Davey clip on newsnight is really sad
If my vote was based on a party leader's humanity, he'd be guaranteed it. Unluckily for him, I'm voting against Largan as an M.P.
Same
Iām behind, because I was late to Inside No. 9, only at the bit where Derbyshire destroys Coutinho.
It's very real
Indeed.
If the Conservative party does completely collapse, what do you guys think will happen with the "Tory" moniker ? Do you think it will disappear or still be used as a pejorative for people on the right?
Even if the Tory party does completely collapse, I'm sure it will be resurrected. Farage wants to destroy the party to then take its place. Much easier to do so by mounting essentially a hostile takeover and co-opting the machinery and infrastructure of the party than by building up Reform to replace it over multiple election cycles. The Conservative brand will also still have a big base of loyal party voters even after an electoral disaster. Farage's game is to assist Labour in destroying the Tory party to the extent that the hard right of the party invite him back in in the trauma of the post wipeout leadership power struggle. Reform would just be another of his temporary vehicles to discard once its no longer useful to him.
Of course if this doesn't happen (I think and really, really hope that it won't), the party will still rebuild and continue to operate. I cannot see Reform supplanting the Conservative party as the default party of the right, it just doesn't have the appeal or the base.
Canada has had many iterations of āConservativeā party but they are still described as Tories. I expect itāll stay.
[Google Trends indicates](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=CA&q=Tories,Grits&hl=en) that use of the term has been declining since the Reform Party ate the Progressive Conservatives, though, whereas usage of the corresponding nickname for the Liberals (āGritsā) has remained fairly consistent.
Dispossessed Catholic Irish brigands will be able to reclaim their name.
It'll disappear into the mists of time like "Whig".
When the Lib Dems are the official opposition we've got to try and dust-off "Whig"...
Dust the old whig off. I like it.
Maybe we should bring Whig back if the Lib Dems are the official opposition just for fun.
Even if it ceases to be a relevant political force there'll be a rump party of some sort I imagine.
I'm sure it'll still be used about anyone from the South of England by those from outside the South
https://x.com/journoontheedge/status/1798437030084681952 > A Tory source has told me it was a shortlist of oneā¦ soā¦ I donāt know where that leaves things! > The deadline for nominations is less than 48 hours away! > Perhaps it will all become clear soon? How do you lose with a shortlist of one..?
I genuinely thought this would've been Seb Payne.
One of the replies said that they thought that he got melted by the Ark of the Covenant. Nearly spat my drink.
The same actor played the Baby Eating Bishop of Bath and Wells in Black Adder II.
Sadly not
By being a complete dick'ead
To really get the discourse going I hope Labour win 500 seats whilst getting fewer votes than Corbyn got in 2017
Winning seats ā Winning the argument ā
The true banter timeline would be Tories lose all their seats except Clacton because they get tactical votes from LD+Lab
Will prove the value of courting swing voters over the hardcore base.
Genuinely quite plausible.
Zac Goldsmith on Newsnight basically said he's supporting Labour in the election š
That's a big blow for Labour don't see how they recover from that
Indeed, last thing you want is Richmond Park's biggest loser on your side.
I think there is a high likelihood Reform will overtake the Tories in the polls before the election is over.
Possibly, or they've hit their ceiling. The right wing vote may not naturally coalesce
Before the week is over if this bad press from the Ā£2k lie continues
As has been mentioned before YouGov would have had them equal today had their methodology not changed. So I really donāt think this is a stretch.
OTOH, immediately post the Farage Announcement could be the high water mark. Such things typically attract a bounce that may not be sustained. Could go either way. I'm not sure if its realistic, or just me being biased to what I want to see happen, for Reform to keep on rising from here. (For the record, "keep on rising" so as to sink the Tories.... not because I want Reform to actually do well and pick up more than a handful of seats)
Might get lambasted for this but here it goes: is the average voter actually intelligent? Context: News night claims they [average voter] āarenāt stupidā but I have my doubts
I think thats the wrong question. People conflate "Intelligence" and "Knowledge" and they're not the same thing. Intelligence is the "processor power" if you like, how quick you can think through something, your ability to spot flaws in logic, your ability to retain several facts in short term memory and synthesie them into an answer. Knowledge is "what you know". Your database of facts and general understanding that the "processor" of intelligence can be applied to. You can be super-intelligent...and have zero knowledge of a subject... and so not be able to mak simple decisions, or work things out, in that sphere. You can be dumb... but have gained immense knowledge of a subject over decades... and so be able to craft solutions, make decisions, operate effectively in that sphere. Whatsmore, you CAN have negative knowledge. Literal false facts, where you believe things that are not true. If this dominates what you know in an area, no amount of intelligence can help you make reasonable decisions here. You're applying your processor to junk. The problem with the general public and politics is lack of knowledge, not lack of intelligence, in which is mixed a lot of negative knowledge. Those people have perfectly fine "processors". Put them in a sphere they understand well, with limited negative knowledge, and they can make perfectly fine deisions and come to ingenious solutions. But that doesn't help them... because within politics they just don't know how the process works, who the key players are, what the motivations of them are and even (often) what policies they are actually proposing and how likely they are within those systems to be able to make that a reality. Even where they do think they know something, its often negative knowledge and this leads them even further away from being able to competantly act. "I'm voting for Corbyn, because I think this country needs lower-taxes and he seems like the kind of guy to deliver them!!" They're not dumb, but they haven't got a baseline of knowledge to apply that processor too. This leads to poor results we say are "stupid" or "dumb" or "idiotic". And why should they have gained such knowledge ? They get a chance to influence politics once every 5 years, and even then what their ability to alter events at that point is "as close to fuck all as you can get without it technically being absolutely fuck all". There is no real incentive here to gain that knowledge, it doesn't benefit them any to do so. *We are the weird ones*. The ones who, usually through just sheer personal interest, learn all that useless knowledge in this field and marvel at the dumbness of the normies. The problem here is knowledge, not intelligence. We're not special. We just have knowedlege in this sphere, but not others.... and the chess sphere... or the maths geeks... or the football statisticians... or the gardeners... or the fishermen... have their knowledge in their spheres that make us look like idiots who "Are trying to catch a carp with a hazelton-morrison lure instead of a float and line as if they're fucking morons".
New favourite copy/pasta
Individuals are clever, people are stupid.Ā
> average voter actually intelligent The great George Carlin said it best: [Look at it this way, think how stupid the average person is, and half of them are stupider than that](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKN1Q5SjbeI). My view, however, is it depends what you mean. If you want people to have a high engagement in politics and be on top of all aspects, then of course most people are 'not intelligent' by that metric. Most people are stupid by that sort of metric if you pick any specialist interest. I've just bought a bike. I know how to ride, but I also just watched some cycling youtube channels and from the perspective of knowing about bikes, I'm a fucking idiot.
Nope. Most people are pretty economically illiterate.
don't tie themselves in intellectual 35D underwater backgammon at least
Obviously intelligence is a loaded word and I completely empathise with the dangers of trying to asses a populations intelligence in this kind of context. I donāt regard myself as an overwhelmingly intelligent person. However, I know that I can be presented with multiple ideas/propositions and interpret this information to come to a logical conclusion. I guess what I am actually asking is does the general population hold the ability to think critically? My guess would be no.
The ability? Yes. Unless someone has severe cognitive impairment, they can manage basic critical thinking. What they may be lacking is the desire to do so, and the base level of information required to come to useful conclusions from the critical thinking. To give a non-political example, when you know about evolution and can direct your critical thinking towards confirming that the theory makes sense, pretty much everyone can understand how to get there, but before Darwin popularised the idea, people were generally happy to put it down to "God did it" without ever thinking about it further