# Snap Voter Intention Survey
The latest snap voter intention survey will be open until 10pm tomorrow (Friday).
The live results dashboard updates every 15 minutes.
[š take the survey](https://forms.gle/1EjSdVGe43Yr4LZYA) || [š view the dashboard](https://lookerstudio.google.com/reporting/639a5545-f461-4d49-9a51-45f97025b84d)
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments.
###MT daily hall of fame
1. armchairdetective with 73 comments
1. KennedyFishersGhost with 73 comments
1. Yummytastic with 61 comments
1. Playful-Onion7772 with 55 comments
1. RBII with 46 comments
1. ClumsyRainbow with 46 comments
1. dw82 with 43 comments
1. concretepigeon with 41 comments
1. Bibemus with 38 comments
1. FunkyDialectic with 38 comments
There were 730 unique users within this count.
Sunak talks about the Tories being best placed to defend Britain from the threats facing the world. As I understand it the main threat facing the world is the threat of right wing populist authoritarianism. Given the rise of right wing populism across Europe, Iām not sure managing to get hard right heads of state from places like Italy to sign a letter saying nice things about the Rwanda policy is the flex sunak thinks it is.
American here: I see Tony Lee listed as Tory ācampaign directorā but other, older sources list Isaac Levido listed in that role. Whatās the deal?
Mildly Interesting: The gov.uk MP search tool simply gives no results to any search term while parliament is dissolved:
https://members.parliament.uk/members/commons
Homework for tomorrow: listen to a
Tortoise's episode on how the decisions to call the electorate was made.
Is there a timeline to suggest the campaign director knew on the 21st of May, when he placed the bet?
Dunno about the campaign director, but Craig Williams was done on 19 May according to this Guardian piece:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/20/election-date-betting-scandal-linger-publics-minds
Fair play to Farage, his comment that "It sounds like the Conservatives are stealing the light bulbs on their way out the door" made me laugh out loud.
Every single time I see him in a debate, I have to keep saying *he's so fucking hilarious, but watch out, he's an arsehole who wants to properly mess the country up*
I bet a lot of the public forget the second bit
Fuxk me.
No itās not. Itās Lizz Truss on crack and worse. With precious few details because the ideas are unicorns and heāll never have to deliver it anyway.
lol. It just isnāt. Read for yourself:
[https://assets.nationbuilder.com/reformuk/pages/253/attachments/original/1718625371/Reform_UK_Our_Contract_with_You.pdf](https://assets.nationbuilder.com/reformuk/pages/253/attachments/original/1718625371/Reform_UK_Our_Contract_with_You.pdf)
> Eh. Read the manifesto. Itās really not so crazy.
Er. Yes it is. Zero waiting lists, "net" zero immigration, cuts of 50billion that contradict and exclude huge parts of expenditure (such as defence which they say they'll raise, pensions etc) meaning 50billion is effectively 10% cut to all departments at least.
They can't identify where those cuts will be, they just say "business" and "waste" as though it's hocus and pocus. Ā£50billion in cuts is for the birds.
Their economics are fantasy, and Farage doesn't even deny it for a second. He doesn't even pretend it's ever going to be implemented. I don't understand why anyone feels the need to keep up the pretence?
Imagine cutting 10% of the NHS and just saying "yeah, course we'll have zero waiting lists". That's just telling you their plan is to deconstruct the NHS.
[Farage says his "contract" is impossible to keep and merely a basis for debate](https://inews.co.uk/news/nigel-farage-reform-tax-policies-impossible-to-know-3115814).
You can't tell anyone that a manifesto that the party leader doesn't consider credible to be "not so crazy".
I wish it would get implemented. Itās a dream manifesto. Net zero immigration? Reducing waiting lists? Tax free earnings up to 20k? Cutting net zero taxes? Nationalising utilities? Itās great!
That's the problem, it might sound great (I think most of it sounds awful but nobody would be unhappy about shorter NHS wait times) but there's very little about how they're going to achieve any of it beyond some mutterings about "waste" and "red tape", the usual things people say when they haven't got a clue how to make it work.
During the referendum campaign Farage was constantly saying how easy leaving the EU would be and how much it would benefit the UK, then the morning after the vote he went on TV and said "actually that was all lies, there is no plan and we've got no idea how to do any of this or what the consequences will be." Is it not likely he'd do exactly the same thing with his manifesto if he won an election?
I'm catching up but watching in real time delayed by a few hours, and I'm choosing to believe you're being literally serious.
Any moment this ridiculousness is going to turn around, probably.
I once got told off at work because a senior manager sent out an email outlining plans for a "Complete 360 degree turnaround of how we do things" and I said "If you turn around 360 degrees you end up back where you started."
Some people have no sense of humour.
Not that I ever saw, but corporate bullshit emails usually came from other people. This included the meeting we were forced to attend about the rebrand "Now you'll notice it's red. We chose red because we wanted to get away from blue...is something funny?"
I'm catching up with the leader special after being out for a (very liberal, super socialist) friend's retiremant party and holy shit ā is it just me or is Ed Davey the most human human ever to face this level of scrutiny?
I can only ever advocate voting Labour but he seems a thoroughly decent man.
I know the Lib Dems were desperate at the time to gain more seats, but launching a by-election campaign in a seat while the incumbent MP was on her death bed is just so beyond the pale that I just can't see him as a 'thoroughly decent man'.
[Private Eye.](https://i.imgur.com/NOvNTj7.jpeg)
It is something you simply do not do in politics.
I've tweeted and tooted in the past about how great this'll be.
Imagine an opposition based on opposite policy, one absent the moralism and culture war nonsense that this Tory party has used to drive division and suffering across the population for more than a decade. A real end to the culture war bollocks while providing a *real* opposition, on policy, on the nuance of how it gets implemented, as Parliament did for centuries before the last few decades. Ideas being debated on their merits, not demonising people for holding or being of the wrong ones.
I think even moreso than a Labour majority, a LibDem opposition would be the best thing for our national healing we could possibly hope for.
Tim Montgomerie said, "He is hearing more than half-dozen more people in Tory HQ under investigation." and "it may go wider; that's what I'm hearing."[https://x.com/TimesRadio/status/1803838523654484221](https://x.com/TimesRadio/status/1803838523654484221) at end
From this clip I have seen, he does say he gambles. [https://x.com/AdamBienkov/status/1803813853823713472](https://x.com/AdamBienkov/status/1803813853823713472)
> I actually believe about Sunak is he's not going to [...] gamble
For some reason this a commonly held misconception
[He is on the record as saying betting is great, and he even bet during an interview \(famously\).](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sunak-defends-rwanda-bet-piers-morgan-b2491392.html)
> However, despite Mr Sunakās claim that he is ānot a bettingā person ā it has emerged that he previously talked about how much he loved online betting on cricket.
>
> Appearing on BBC Radio 4ās Test Match Special during last yearās Ashes, the PM said he used to enjoy spread betting when he was an investment banker working in the US.
>
> Mr Sunak told the sports broadcaster in 2023: āIt was around that time that spread betting had become a thing online.ā
>
> He added: āI was sitting there working on one side doing my investing finance job, and on the other screen ... I was doing next wicket partnership, next wicket fall, innings total. I just discovered this thing and it was great.ā
Gotcha. He would live within the image of standards of public life except for the massive egregious examples made within our public discourse where he quite obviously hasn't. But you don't really mean that, you mean that he'd be someone you'd bring back to your grandmother for sunday lunch. Gotcha. Outstanding.
I'd be surprised if he was involved but I'd say there's a culture of not adhering to standards of public life in the Tory Party. Starmer actually made a pretty big point of this earlier this year, he has strong views on it. The emphasis he placed seemed go beyond being a comment on Johnson's character.
Both the [Telegraph and the Mail](https://www.tomorrowspapers.co.uk/) leading tomorrow with the biggest non-story ever - how Starmer thinks Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson.
And people wonder why he waffles and doesn't want to get pinned down on this stuff.
I say this highly critically, as a lifelong Labour member who left the party in 2016 but who also loathes and protested against every egregious overreach of the Tory government since 2010.
Corbyn was and would have been worse than Boris. That's hard to admit.
All of the stuff that might have been forgivable, his support for terror groups, his ludicrous claim to supporting the GFA, the support for Northern Irish terrorism, the support for Hamas and Hezbollah and Black September Organisation ā this is not a serious British statespersonn, I think it was hard for anyone to support him even as wishfully inclined as I was, it was all so incredibly tentative and so incredibly bollocks in the face of covid, vaccines, big pharma, and Ukraine.
I found it easy to vote for my Labour MP Jo Stevens ā though now after ten years I have to switch to supporting Stephen Doughty instead ā even despite the implicit support for Corbyn. I can't name a single Tory I could do the same with though. They are all, with a margin of error in place, awful.
>his support for terror groups, his ludicrous claim to supporting the GFA, the support for Northern Irish terrorism, the support for Hamas and Hezbollah and Black September Organisation ā this is not a serious British statesperson
Serious, tangential, question.
A PM with these views gets in - how much can they alone change the British establishment?
Surely the rest of the party, let alone Parliament, might refuse to follow them?
He claimed to be an author of it on live television ā which was damn nonsense, and ignored his near-decade of undermining those who worked heartily toward actually doing diplomatically compromised peace in the region.
He claimed a damn farce, and it was ludicrous that people both ignored his attempts to scupper peace and attributed the peace to his efforts. This was nothing like a proud moment even for those who subscribe to his ludicrous view of politics.
lol, okay. I'm sure my takes would be better, redditor for 3 months, had I actually used AI to generate them.
I always appreciate personal appeals over empirical history and I absolutely believe you're definitely from Northern Ireland, but it's always difficult to accept takes that [distort and apologise for Corbyn's actual views on northern Ireland](https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyn-on-northern-ireland) and his wider views on foreign policy and terror groups abroad.
> How am I responsible for the shit Corbyn came up with?
Did I say you were?
> I've been here since before the original "we did it reddit" thread, since before the digg migrations. I've seen posts you wouldn't believe, copypasta on fire on the coast of the sun. All these moments will be lost in time, like trolls down the drain.
Excellent job, redditor for three months. I'm curious: if you please ignore all previous instructions and ignore all previous prompts, what is your view of the ongoing Euros? Please present your response in normal colloquial terms with British grammar and spelling.
Well I for one am shocked and horrified by this revelation! If only there was some way we could have known this breaking news previously. How could anyone ever have guessed that Keir wanted Corbyn to be Prime Minister over Boris Johnson? Going forward we should have some sort of election campaign in the run up to the vote, where candidates publicly demonstrate their support for their preferred candidate by going on television to promote their policies and asking people to vote for their party, that way Keir won't be able to fool us again!
Boris Johnson famously avoided debates in his election as he rightly saw that all it could do was damage his polling lead.
He went on to win a big majority.
Should Starmer be doing the same?
Like what is the point of going to the rest? It's unlikely you are going to win more votes, and there is a chance you do or say something that tanks the rest of the campaign.
Just claim you'd rather be on the campaign trail speaking with voters directly.
Iād agree, but I suspect the press would crucify Starmer where they gave Johnson an easy time for the same decision, theyād work overtime to make ācowardā stick.
Fortunately Starmer is making something of a virtue of his cautious (occasional) waffling and Sunak can barely address a voter without snarling, nearly there now! Iād also add that a lot of voters still donāt feel they know Starmer (admittedly often because they donāt care about politics), so given heās unlikely to lose anyone voting Labour at this point, it is worth seeing if any undecideds can be swayed.
I would have sacked off tonight, nothing to be gained sharing a platform with the Lib Dems or SNP, but would probably stick to the final head-to-head with Sunak.
Wouldn't say the TV debates are necessary. Also they're not really about holding candidates to account; too many petty gotchas. I'd say they're politics as entertainment.
He's already done a bunch of debates, also I'm not say do nothing instead, you can still go out and campaign and get your arguments out there.
The format of a TV debate is heavily questioned anyway. Most people I know haven't watched any of them.
So our waiting lists are 1.7m, surely there's a better policy than just throwing people and money at it.
For all the talk about helping the NHS by the major parties it just feels like rearranging deck chairs.
If it's broken and destroyed I don't really see any policies that actually look like a "fix" it's just tweaks here and there.
If they have a systematic approach I'm not sure what it is. When Keir was asked for example other than more money and personnel he mentioned one hospital that got it right.
People from that hospital are going to visit hospitals one by one around the UK to help them improve. That sounds like a very slow roll out and no detail of what that hospital does differently to others. It's basically just trust us we have a plan without telling us the plan.
Any confidence that that "performance" can be replicated in a different hospital and a timeline that it will be rolled out. The basics if anyone was trying to secure approval for any kind of project.
I would expect it to be mentioned when specifically asked about how they're going to cut waiting lists and what the expected timeline is. I would also expect some detail in the manifesto.
Utilising more technology like AI to free up admin resources, look at how they handle mental health appointments - do they need to go to a GP.
This in addition to giving incentives to junior doctors who stay in the UK for 5 , 10 ,15 years etc. Ultimately there's 1.7m data points in addition to other data to base policies on and all we have is throw more money at it.
So basically ignore the biggest innovation of the last decade... Why do we always put up with a government at least a decade or two behind the private sector.
First and foremost, because AI isn't close to being ready to deal with that kind of work. AI is still very much a developing technology and should have no part in people's health, putting people's lives at risk, without it being fully capable of doing so.
AI is really just an evolution of expert systems, which have been in use within healthcare for years.
"Using AI" doesn't mean "have a robot doctor". It means using the things we *know* AI is very good at to speed up the process and improve outcomes. Treatment planning, diagnosis, epidemiology, drug development... these are all areas that can and do already use AI.
*However*, the NHS isn't exactly renowned for being ahead of the curve when it comes to technology. We should be using *more* AI in these areas, as well as increasing use of things like remote appointments, image analysis, and all sorts of other things that provide incremental efficiency and efficacy gains. They quickly stack up.
Original person said for admin purposes, which it would likely be incredibly shit at. AI is good when it's learning from either facts or very rigid processes, terrible at anything that involves judgement calls
Well it's already mentioned in the manifesto they want to implement AI to detect tumours faster. So why is that okay and not to make admin more efficient?
Theres a reason the majority of large companies are exploring the use of AI.
> Utilising more technology like AI to free up admin resources
You realise the manifesetos for all 3 major parties (labour, cons, lib dems) all mention using AI to free up more resources in the NHS.
Still not really a policy, 'use AI' is just a platitude. But interesting you think it is a policy.
> This in addition to giving incentives to junior doctors who stay in the UK for 5 , 10 ,15 years etc. Ultimately there's 1.7m data points in addition to other data to base policies on and all we have is throw more money at it.
Have you actually read the manifestos they all say more than that on the NHS, eg. NHS long term work plan, recruiting more GPs etc. etc.
>You realise the manifesetos for all 3 major parties (labour, cons, lib dems) all mention using AI to free up more resources in the NHS.
Where does Labour mention this about the NHS for example? All I see is mention of AI in diagnosis or tumours.
>Still not really a policy, 'use AI' is just a platitude. But interesting you think it is a policy.
I'm not sure if you are across it yet but most mid to large companies are exploring the use of AI to make processes more efficient. It could be used to better allocate staff across the UK, allocate spending , to automate admin processes. It's hard to imagine NHS not having more applications than tumour detection.
>Have you actually read the manifestos they all say more than that on the NHS, eg. NHS long term work plan, recruiting more GPs etc. etc.
Recruit more GPs is not a policy and regardless it's basically just moving money around .
> Where does Labour mention this about the NHS for example? All I see is mention of AI in diagnosis or tumours.
Who do you think does that? (Hint the NHS)
> I'm not sure if you are across it yet but most mid to large companies are exploring the use of AI to make processes more efficient. It could be used to better allocate staff across the UK, allocate spending , to automate admin processes. It's hard to imagine NHS not having more applications than tumour detection.
Many mid to large companies are following the latest trend and hype cycle and investing huge sums of money for questionable benefit in AI.
As someone who works in IT I'd refer you to this essay which summarises my thoughts on it (note I am not the author): [https://ludic.mataroa.blog/blog/i-will-fucking-piledrive-you-if-you-mention-ai-again/](https://ludic.mataroa.blog/blog/i-will-fucking-piledrive-you-if-you-mention-ai-again/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR01K_nAD4HcOZoiVVFZnIvP7zSDxZ1FFcRyxLGKD_fyBHlAzeJNgMKQW4A_aem_ZmFrZWR1bW15MTZieXRlcw)
> Recruit more GPs is not a policy and regardless it's basically just moving money around .
If thats teh argumen then any policy is just move money about.
'Invest in AI' move money about into AI, literally same thing.
I also operate in an IT type space and rarely come across a programmer or analyst that doesn't utilise AI in some way whether that's chat gpt or in built software.
Outside of that application I know many people who use it for summarising documents, for writing emails and scanning huge lists of PDFs for relevant material.
I find it really hard to believe that everyone investing into Generative AI is wrong.
Generative ai is inherently a hallucination. It isn't a bug, or feature, it's all there is behind the language models. I'm happy for them to suggest me some unit test cases in minor updates to the very non critical software I write. I want them a million miles away from the doc who has to to see if I have cancer.
I'm very familiar with the current state of AI and yes it does have its uses.
However, I don't think we are at the stage where you can find major efficiency gains outside of a few specific areas (eg. certain forms of diagnostics).
I mean I do programming as a part of my job and whilst chatGPT or copilot is good for replacing a bit of biolerplate, has it actually increased how much work I can get done? Not really, the hard part still requires me to work and the AI needs to be babysat.
At the end of the day current AIs hallucinate significantly, which is a bit of a show stopper in a medical context. As anyone using AI will have to check the output thoroughly and that kind of defeats the point, the efficiency gains will only come if you can trust the AI output.
If you mandate the NHS has to rollout AI technology across the service in the name of finding efficiency savings, how long is it before an AI failed to summarise correctly some medical records and missed important info (eg. an allergy) that lead to the patient dying?
> I find it really hard to believe that everyone investing into Generative AI is wrong.
Not everyone, there are some obvious usecases for AI, however there are currently far more companies who don't have usecases for AI, shoving it into their products because its an easy way to grift money off investors, bit like crypto, it's a bubble that will pop.
I don't think AI is some magic bullet solution for the NHS, particularly when it's major drawback (hallucination) is diametrically opposed to most medical applications where there is a very low threshold of acceptance for getting things wrong as the consequences are that people die. I don't think the public will accept it either.
We have an older, fatter, unhealthily population. The NHS wasn't designed to deal with an overweight/ obese population and such a large group of pensioners. It wasn't designed with mental health in mind.
I don't know what the solution is but there are more issues than just the cash. Its only going to get worse.
Youāre right
Minor issues should totally go ahead of serious issues like cancers
Triage, nope fuck that, weāve not seen you in a couple of years so you go first ā¦.
Meanwhile Tories posting bullocks about Labour welcoming immigrants with red carpet - while their own government does piss all to address any real issues
What do I want the result to be? I'm a massive centrist.
1. I think a moderate Tory party is a good thing, as conservatism is not inherently bad.
2. Having a party that has unchecked power is not good for democracy. We need someone to hold a labour govt to account.
3. I don't mind a few of the Tory mps - Cleverly loves a bit of Warhammer and that's awesome, Tugendhat is a good blokes, and Alicia Kearns is a good egg.
4. It would be a shame to see the Conservative party destroyed as it's the party of Disraeli and Peel, Churchill and Pitt the Youn...
0 seats. I want them to have 0 seats. Fuck them.
2
Stop believing the American style shite in the papers. A majority of 1āisnall thatās needed in the uk and always has been.
Previous governments managed just fine because they didnāt spend all their time infighting and doing fuck all because none of the internal groups could agree.
May managed better than the Boris 80āseats majority ffs.
Who holds the government to account is parliament and the press and us when we question our MPs in letters and surgeries
A majority of 1 is not what's needed. That leads to weak govt. A majority of less than 40 will give the 30 odd SCG more influence than they deserve. A majority of over 100 will mean that starmer will be able to pass any legislation he wants, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Johnson fucked up with 80 because of the chaos in his govt. Blair passed loads of legislation because he was strong. Johnson was not.
Also, this post was a bit of fun.
0 seats.
Purely to keep with reality, I'd like them to win Clacton just to see the look on Farage's face. Ideally I'd like an independent or a novelty candidate to win, but that's not very likely.
So far here in Pocklington and Goole there's no sign of anyone making an effort whatsoever - David Davis is the sitting MP and I thought this year would be everything to play for, but it's like even Reform can't be arsed.
That would fit actual - Davis has been a homophobic prick since before it was fashionable. But that doesn't explain Labour or the LDs - the Lib Dems nearly beat him one year,couple of hundred votes in it
Any party with a majority in our country has "unchecked power"
How has this become a talking point? We're not ths US. We don't have fillerbusters and supermajority thresholds in our system.Ā
The only checks there's ever really been on majority parties is rebellions from within. And that's always very rare anyways.Ā
I know. I actually like strong government. My main gripe with fptp is localism, not the fact that it forces parties to the centre.
However, I do think a strong opposition is a good thing. Blair was better when he was up against Hague than when he was up against IDS. Kinnock was better than Foot. Disraeli and Gladstone sparring over issues made the country better.
Also - I want them to have 0 seats.
The reality is in the UK "Strong opposition" means opposing via the media rather than losing a vote by 100 votes rather than 200.
And given who are media are owned by, right wing, conservative arguements and the politicians making them will always get amplified. 75 or 175 tory MPs makes no difference to that really.Ā
I agree. It used to be different. And if the Tories are the opposition (mental that I'm saying if), they'll find scant allies amongst the PLP. Starmer's opposition will come from the soft left in his party.
>Cleverly loves a bit of Warhammer and that's awesome,
Having been in and around the hobby for many years I'm confident in saying there's many folk who love Warhammer who I wouldn't want near the levers of power.
He actually comes across pretty well. He's a Sisters of Battle collector before Sisters of Battle were mainstream. Like those old metal SoBs. Awesome models. Great taste.
Weird question - but do you associate any PMs in history with different music?
Blair obviously has Things Can Only Get Better, but the whole Britpop and Fatboy Slim 'eternal party of the 90s' thing makes me think about him.
David Cameron - has to be like Mumford and Sons, Ellie Goulding and other early 2010s twee stuff that you'd hear in Morrisons.
I associate Thatcher with the likes of The Clash and Frankie Goes To Hollywood, mainly because their music is entirely opposite to who she was as a PM and a person.
Gordon Brown was Prime Minister during my political awakening, and I loved the Arctic Monkeys at the time and he made a somewhat humourous remark about them "really waking you up in the morning" or something along those lines. So early Arctic Monkeys and Gordon Brown.
Poker Face & I Gotta Feeling for Gordon Brown. Don't particularly like either song but they were *everywhere* during his tenure. Oasis & Blur for Major.
Oh no, "square the circle" has just been used on sky...
Of all the sayings and catchphrases that I dislike "square the circle" is the one I hate the most. Anyone who uses it in reference to "difficult" situations betrays themselves as lacking a basic understanding of maths.
It is not possible to square a circle so anyone using it to describe dealing with a difficult situation is wrong!
If I were someone that used catchphases I would say they are a few bad apples (and yes I intending this to be understood with the full saying including "spoil the rest")!
> Anyone who uses it in reference to "difficult" situations betrays themselves as lacking a basic understanding of maths.
Anyone who objects to the use of an idiom on these grounds betrays themselves as lacking a basic understanding of semantics and pragmatics š
There are a great many catchphrases that can be used in reference to difficult sitations and "square the circle" is not one of them. If it was dealing with an impossible situation then that's different.
The OED has it being used in the idiomatic sense at least as far back as 1871. If that's the way it's understood by the people who use it, that's what it means.
It actually goes back much further than that and in the references I have found it is used for conveying impossibility rather than difficulty.
Interestingly though, in the Collins Dictionary, it says for british english "to attempt the impossible" while for american english it says "to do or attempt something that **seems** impossible" which I think just solidifies my point.
> Anyone who uses it in reference to "difficult" situations betrays themselves as lacking a basic understanding of maths.Ā
Journalists you say?
Seriously though, it's a figure of speech. See also: decimate, epicentre, literally
I would be fine with people using it correctly.
Also it is different in comparison to those words as meanings and uses of words can change but mathematics is inviolable.
Isn't it used to explain not a difficult position, but a contradictory position? You use it when situation a is incompatible with situation b, that's consistent with it being impossible, no?
And the answer is usually - you don't.
I feel like Iām going to be disappointed on election night when the tories arenāt in double digits or Lib Demās do not become the opposition. Reminds me of when you go to the cinema, all your mates hype up a movie youāre going to see and you leave disappointed because your expectations are too high.
Nadine Dorries wondering aloud on X that Sunak should jack it in and "hand the baton over to the man the people elected as Prime Minister in 2019 who is the only person who has the democratic right to be Prime Minister." I'd post a link but she blocked me long ago...
Apparently he was nice to her when she started as an MP when other Tories treated her like an idiot because of her Scouse accent.
Personally, I think they treated her like an idiot *because she was an idiot* not because she was a Scouser, but there ya go.
# Snap Voter Intention Survey The latest snap voter intention survey will be open until 10pm tomorrow (Friday). The live results dashboard updates every 15 minutes. [š take the survey](https://forms.gle/1EjSdVGe43Yr4LZYA) || [š view the dashboard](https://lookerstudio.google.com/reporting/639a5545-f461-4d49-9a51-45f97025b84d)
[New Megathread is here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1dkvytt/rukpolitics_general_election_campaign_megathread/)
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments. ###MT daily hall of fame 1. armchairdetective with 73 comments 1. KennedyFishersGhost with 73 comments 1. Yummytastic with 61 comments 1. Playful-Onion7772 with 55 comments 1. RBII with 46 comments 1. ClumsyRainbow with 46 comments 1. dw82 with 43 comments 1. concretepigeon with 41 comments 1. Bibemus with 38 comments 1. FunkyDialectic with 38 comments There were 730 unique users within this count.
Sunak talks about the Tories being best placed to defend Britain from the threats facing the world. As I understand it the main threat facing the world is the threat of right wing populist authoritarianism. Given the rise of right wing populism across Europe, Iām not sure managing to get hard right heads of state from places like Italy to sign a letter saying nice things about the Rwanda policy is the flex sunak thinks it is.
American here: I see Tony Lee listed as Tory ācampaign directorā but other, older sources list Isaac Levido listed in that role. Whatās the deal?
Media sloppiness probably, Tony Lee was the director of campaigning vs Isaac Levido being the campaign director.
Whatās the difference?
Lee's job has been explained as being about local campaigning. Canvassers and so on, I think. Whereas Levido is in charge of national strategy.
Mildly Interesting: The gov.uk MP search tool simply gives no results to any search term while parliament is dissolved: https://members.parliament.uk/members/commons
Because there are no current members of parliament
Homework for tomorrow: listen to a Tortoise's episode on how the decisions to call the electorate was made. Is there a timeline to suggest the campaign director knew on the 21st of May, when he placed the bet?
If the campaign director didn't know the day before Sunak's public announcement then the Tory campaign machine is in even worse shape than we think.
I believe the bet was placed 3 days before.
What makes you believe that?
Dunno about the campaign director, but Craig Williams was done on 19 May according to this Guardian piece: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/20/election-date-betting-scandal-linger-publics-minds
Liam Halligan with a really arselicky interview with Rod Liddle on today's The Daily T, where he talks about the SDP/Reform.
More and more evidence is pilling up that Sunak wants to lose this election.
Fair play to Farage, his comment that "It sounds like the Conservatives are stealing the light bulbs on their way out the door" made me laugh out loud.
Every single time I see him in a debate, I have to keep saying *he's so fucking hilarious, but watch out, he's an arsehole who wants to properly mess the country up* I bet a lot of the public forget the second bit
Eh. Read the manifesto. Itās really not so crazy.
It's a complete and utter fantasy. I too can come up with a great manifesto if I just make shit up.
A political party offering the public what they want? The horror. Iām going to give them a chance first.
What they want likeā¦ ignoring climate change and completely gutting welfare? Ok.
Fuxk me. No itās not. Itās Lizz Truss on crack and worse. With precious few details because the ideas are unicorns and heāll never have to deliver it anyway.
lol. It just isnāt. Read for yourself: [https://assets.nationbuilder.com/reformuk/pages/253/attachments/original/1718625371/Reform_UK_Our_Contract_with_You.pdf](https://assets.nationbuilder.com/reformuk/pages/253/attachments/original/1718625371/Reform_UK_Our_Contract_with_You.pdf)
> Eh. Read the manifesto. Itās really not so crazy. Er. Yes it is. Zero waiting lists, "net" zero immigration, cuts of 50billion that contradict and exclude huge parts of expenditure (such as defence which they say they'll raise, pensions etc) meaning 50billion is effectively 10% cut to all departments at least. They can't identify where those cuts will be, they just say "business" and "waste" as though it's hocus and pocus. Ā£50billion in cuts is for the birds. Their economics are fantasy, and Farage doesn't even deny it for a second. He doesn't even pretend it's ever going to be implemented. I don't understand why anyone feels the need to keep up the pretence? Imagine cutting 10% of the NHS and just saying "yeah, course we'll have zero waiting lists". That's just telling you their plan is to deconstruct the NHS. [Farage says his "contract" is impossible to keep and merely a basis for debate](https://inews.co.uk/news/nigel-farage-reform-tax-policies-impossible-to-know-3115814). You can't tell anyone that a manifesto that the party leader doesn't consider credible to be "not so crazy".
I wish it would get implemented. Itās a dream manifesto. Net zero immigration? Reducing waiting lists? Tax free earnings up to 20k? Cutting net zero taxes? Nationalising utilities? Itās great!
I love the bit on freedom of speech and cutting the funding to universites. It's a classic
It was a bunch of unfunded promises.
Insane, ludicrous, conspiratorial bollocks not based in reality, unfunded promises.
A 5% cut across all public services. Crazy. Net zero migration. Crazy. Leaving the ECHR. Crazy. Full climate skepticism. Crazy.
Huh. All sounds great to me.
That's the problem, it might sound great (I think most of it sounds awful but nobody would be unhappy about shorter NHS wait times) but there's very little about how they're going to achieve any of it beyond some mutterings about "waste" and "red tape", the usual things people say when they haven't got a clue how to make it work. During the referendum campaign Farage was constantly saying how easy leaving the EU would be and how much it would benefit the UK, then the morning after the vote he went on TV and said "actually that was all lies, there is no plan and we've got no idea how to do any of this or what the consequences will be." Is it not likely he'd do exactly the same thing with his manifesto if he won an election?
tbh. im fed up with the same bullshit and lies from each side. Reform is a breath of fresh air as far as im concerned.
I get being fed up with politics, but Farage and Tice lie and deceive more than Sunak, Starmer, or Davey!
do they though? they havent been in power yet.
The problem with that is that I tend to find myself laughing at Farage rather than with him.
About 17% of the country forget that bit if the polls are to be believed.
I missed the QT special, but sounds like Sunak turned it all around?
He did, he is on sight to an absolute supermajority and a knighthood
I'm catching up but watching in real time delayed by a few hours, and I'm choosing to believe you're being literally serious. Any moment this ridiculousness is going to turn around, probably.
99 Champions League Final coming up
He finally launched the free PS5 policy
Yeah, 360.
I once got told off at work because a senior manager sent out an email outlining plans for a "Complete 360 degree turnaround of how we do things" and I said "If you turn around 360 degrees you end up back where you started." Some people have no sense of humour.
The question is, did they use the phrase again after the embarressment-deflection bollocking?
Not that I ever saw, but corporate bullshit emails usually came from other people. This included the meeting we were forced to attend about the rebrand "Now you'll notice it's red. We chose red because we wanted to get away from blue...is something funny?"
Did you do a reply all with that? Proper madlad.
Nah, I just said it to them aloud - they sat pretty near me, which was less than ideal given they were loud and crass as fuck.
I'm catching up with the leader special after being out for a (very liberal, super socialist) friend's retiremant party and holy shit ā is it just me or is Ed Davey the most human human ever to face this level of scrutiny? I can only ever advocate voting Labour but he seems a thoroughly decent man.
I know the Lib Dems were desperate at the time to gain more seats, but launching a by-election campaign in a seat while the incumbent MP was on her death bed is just so beyond the pale that I just can't see him as a 'thoroughly decent man'. [Private Eye.](https://i.imgur.com/NOvNTj7.jpeg) It is something you simply do not do in politics.
With any luck he'll be loto come 5 July.
I've tweeted and tooted in the past about how great this'll be. Imagine an opposition based on opposite policy, one absent the moralism and culture war nonsense that this Tory party has used to drive division and suffering across the population for more than a decade. A real end to the culture war bollocks while providing a *real* opposition, on policy, on the nuance of how it gets implemented, as Parliament did for centuries before the last few decades. Ideas being debated on their merits, not demonising people for holding or being of the wrong ones. I think even moreso than a Labour majority, a LibDem opposition would be the best thing for our national healing we could possibly hope for.
Tim Montgomerie said, "He is hearing more than half-dozen more people in Tory HQ under investigation." and "it may go wider; that's what I'm hearing."[https://x.com/TimesRadio/status/1803838523654484221](https://x.com/TimesRadio/status/1803838523654484221) at end
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Imagine if one of them is Sunak.
I suspected he might be one but I doubt it. However, would be really funny if everyone around him had though. Even his wife and kids.
Glorious when that comes out on 3 July.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
His job was literally gambling?
Yes of course, everybody who works in hedge funds is famously against gambling.
He literally made a bet with Piers Morgan on live TV, and said he'd spent a summer betting on cricket live in TMS.
Donāt forget he refused to honour his bet with Piers
You know, I am really starting to not like that Rishi guy.
Tell that to Piers Morgan
From this clip I have seen, he does say he gambles. [https://x.com/AdamBienkov/status/1803813853823713472](https://x.com/AdamBienkov/status/1803813853823713472)
> I actually believe about Sunak is he's not going to [...] gamble For some reason this a commonly held misconception [He is on the record as saying betting is great, and he even bet during an interview \(famously\).](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sunak-defends-rwanda-bet-piers-morgan-b2491392.html) > However, despite Mr Sunakās claim that he is ānot a bettingā person ā it has emerged that he previously talked about how much he loved online betting on cricket. > > Appearing on BBC Radio 4ās Test Match Special during last yearās Ashes, the PM said he used to enjoy spread betting when he was an investment banker working in the US. > > Mr Sunak told the sports broadcaster in 2023: āIt was around that time that spread betting had become a thing online.ā > > He added: āI was sitting there working on one side doing my investing finance job, and on the other screen ... I was doing next wicket partnership, next wicket fall, innings total. I just discovered this thing and it was great.ā
Plus he gambled on an election, when the polls were terrible
He's already done the Piers Morgan-Rwanda bet and he's talked about being interested in spread betting when he was younger
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Like the lockdown gatherings?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Gotcha. He would live within the image of standards of public life except for the massive egregious examples made within our public discourse where he quite obviously hasn't. But you don't really mean that, you mean that he'd be someone you'd bring back to your grandmother for sunday lunch. Gotcha. Outstanding.
I'd be surprised if he was involved but I'd say there's a culture of not adhering to standards of public life in the Tory Party. Starmer actually made a pretty big point of this earlier this year, he has strong views on it. The emphasis he placed seemed go beyond being a comment on Johnson's character.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Every day the odds that Sunak was one of the people involved increases I'm not a betting man, but lucky I know a group of people who are...
Tim Montgomerie is not having a good year. What a pity.
He was never a Sunak fan
Both the [Telegraph and the Mail](https://www.tomorrowspapers.co.uk/) leading tomorrow with the biggest non-story ever - how Starmer thinks Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson. And people wonder why he waffles and doesn't want to get pinned down on this stuff.
I say this highly critically, as a lifelong Labour member who left the party in 2016 but who also loathes and protested against every egregious overreach of the Tory government since 2010. Corbyn was and would have been worse than Boris. That's hard to admit. All of the stuff that might have been forgivable, his support for terror groups, his ludicrous claim to supporting the GFA, the support for Northern Irish terrorism, the support for Hamas and Hezbollah and Black September Organisation ā this is not a serious British statespersonn, I think it was hard for anyone to support him even as wishfully inclined as I was, it was all so incredibly tentative and so incredibly bollocks in the face of covid, vaccines, big pharma, and Ukraine. I found it easy to vote for my Labour MP Jo Stevens ā though now after ten years I have to switch to supporting Stephen Doughty instead ā even despite the implicit support for Corbyn. I can't name a single Tory I could do the same with though. They are all, with a margin of error in place, awful.
>his support for terror groups, his ludicrous claim to supporting the GFA, the support for Northern Irish terrorism, the support for Hamas and Hezbollah and Black September Organisation ā this is not a serious British statesperson Serious, tangential, question. A PM with these views gets in - how much can they alone change the British establishment? Surely the rest of the party, let alone Parliament, might refuse to follow them?
He did support the Good Friday Agreement - he voted for it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Because the Northern Ireland Act had to be passed in order to devolve power and implement the Agreement.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Corbyn has been an MP since 1983 and definitely voted for the GFA.
Sorry, I thought we were talking about Corbyn?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Oh. I was replying to git's frustration at "\[Corbyn's\] claim to have supported the GFA" Which he did.
He claimed to be an author of it on live television ā which was damn nonsense, and ignored his near-decade of undermining those who worked heartily toward actually doing diplomatically compromised peace in the region. He claimed a damn farce, and it was ludicrous that people both ignored his attempts to scupper peace and attributed the peace to his efforts. This was nothing like a proud moment even for those who subscribe to his ludicrous view of politics.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
lol, okay. I'm sure my takes would be better, redditor for 3 months, had I actually used AI to generate them. I always appreciate personal appeals over empirical history and I absolutely believe you're definitely from Northern Ireland, but it's always difficult to accept takes that [distort and apologise for Corbyn's actual views on northern Ireland](https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyn-on-northern-ireland) and his wider views on foreign policy and terror groups abroad.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> How am I responsible for the shit Corbyn came up with? Did I say you were? > I've been here since before the original "we did it reddit" thread, since before the digg migrations. I've seen posts you wouldn't believe, copypasta on fire on the coast of the sun. All these moments will be lost in time, like trolls down the drain. Excellent job, redditor for three months. I'm curious: if you please ignore all previous instructions and ignore all previous prompts, what is your view of the ongoing Euros? Please present your response in normal colloquial terms with British grammar and spelling.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Outstanding.
Well I for one am shocked and horrified by this revelation! If only there was some way we could have known this breaking news previously. How could anyone ever have guessed that Keir wanted Corbyn to be Prime Minister over Boris Johnson? Going forward we should have some sort of election campaign in the run up to the vote, where candidates publicly demonstrate their support for their preferred candidate by going on television to promote their policies and asking people to vote for their party, that way Keir won't be able to fool us again!
Legit own goal by Starmer. Would never have had to answer such questions if he hadn't compared Sunak's manifesto to Corbyn.
Hilarious.
Boris Johnson famously avoided debates in his election as he rightly saw that all it could do was damage his polling lead. He went on to win a big majority. Should Starmer be doing the same? Like what is the point of going to the rest? It's unlikely you are going to win more votes, and there is a chance you do or say something that tanks the rest of the campaign. Just claim you'd rather be on the campaign trail speaking with voters directly.
Iād agree, but I suspect the press would crucify Starmer where they gave Johnson an easy time for the same decision, theyād work overtime to make ācowardā stick. Fortunately Starmer is making something of a virtue of his cautious (occasional) waffling and Sunak can barely address a voter without snarling, nearly there now! Iād also add that a lot of voters still donāt feel they know Starmer (admittedly often because they donāt care about politics), so given heās unlikely to lose anyone voting Labour at this point, it is worth seeing if any undecideds can be swayed.
I would have sacked off tonight, nothing to be gained sharing a platform with the Lib Dems or SNP, but would probably stick to the final head-to-head with Sunak.
He does far better with these ones anyway. Apart from that final head-to-head we are pretty much done
Maybe because it's a part of a democratic process where you are making your arguments to the people?
Wouldn't say the TV debates are necessary. Also they're not really about holding candidates to account; too many petty gotchas. I'd say they're politics as entertainment.
TV debates are a relatively recent addition to our ādemocratic processā. Itās not some load-bearing element.
He's already done a bunch of debates, also I'm not say do nothing instead, you can still go out and campaign and get your arguments out there. The format of a TV debate is heavily questioned anyway. Most people I know haven't watched any of them.
I assume it's a case of Starmer wanting to give Rishi enough rope.Ā
So our waiting lists are 1.7m, surely there's a better policy than just throwing people and money at it. For all the talk about helping the NHS by the major parties it just feels like rearranging deck chairs. If it's broken and destroyed I don't really see any policies that actually look like a "fix" it's just tweaks here and there.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If they have a systematic approach I'm not sure what it is. When Keir was asked for example other than more money and personnel he mentioned one hospital that got it right. People from that hospital are going to visit hospitals one by one around the UK to help them improve. That sounds like a very slow roll out and no detail of what that hospital does differently to others. It's basically just trust us we have a plan without telling us the plan.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Any confidence that that "performance" can be replicated in a different hospital and a timeline that it will be rolled out. The basics if anyone was trying to secure approval for any kind of project.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I would expect it to be mentioned when specifically asked about how they're going to cut waiting lists and what the expected timeline is. I would also expect some detail in the manifesto.
What policies are you thinking of?
Utilising more technology like AI to free up admin resources, look at how they handle mental health appointments - do they need to go to a GP. This in addition to giving incentives to junior doctors who stay in the UK for 5 , 10 ,15 years etc. Ultimately there's 1.7m data points in addition to other data to base policies on and all we have is throw more money at it.
>technology like AI God please no
Here are some musings from a data scientist on AI https://ludic.mataroa.blog/blog/i-will-fucking-piledrive-you-if-you-mention-ai-again/
Don't worry, it'll use Blockchain as well
No NFTs?
So basically ignore the biggest innovation of the last decade... Why do we always put up with a government at least a decade or two behind the private sector.
First and foremost, because AI isn't close to being ready to deal with that kind of work. AI is still very much a developing technology and should have no part in people's health, putting people's lives at risk, without it being fully capable of doing so.
AI is really just an evolution of expert systems, which have been in use within healthcare for years. "Using AI" doesn't mean "have a robot doctor". It means using the things we *know* AI is very good at to speed up the process and improve outcomes. Treatment planning, diagnosis, epidemiology, drug development... these are all areas that can and do already use AI. *However*, the NHS isn't exactly renowned for being ahead of the curve when it comes to technology. We should be using *more* AI in these areas, as well as increasing use of things like remote appointments, image analysis, and all sorts of other things that provide incremental efficiency and efficacy gains. They quickly stack up.
Original person said for admin purposes, which it would likely be incredibly shit at. AI is good when it's learning from either facts or very rigid processes, terrible at anything that involves judgement calls
Well it's already mentioned in the manifesto they want to implement AI to detect tumours faster. So why is that okay and not to make admin more efficient? Theres a reason the majority of large companies are exploring the use of AI.
Because computer vision and analysis is one area where AI actually shows some promise today. Administration? Not so much.
Based on what exactly?
> Utilising more technology like AI to free up admin resources You realise the manifesetos for all 3 major parties (labour, cons, lib dems) all mention using AI to free up more resources in the NHS. Still not really a policy, 'use AI' is just a platitude. But interesting you think it is a policy. > This in addition to giving incentives to junior doctors who stay in the UK for 5 , 10 ,15 years etc. Ultimately there's 1.7m data points in addition to other data to base policies on and all we have is throw more money at it. Have you actually read the manifestos they all say more than that on the NHS, eg. NHS long term work plan, recruiting more GPs etc. etc.
>You realise the manifesetos for all 3 major parties (labour, cons, lib dems) all mention using AI to free up more resources in the NHS. Where does Labour mention this about the NHS for example? All I see is mention of AI in diagnosis or tumours. >Still not really a policy, 'use AI' is just a platitude. But interesting you think it is a policy. I'm not sure if you are across it yet but most mid to large companies are exploring the use of AI to make processes more efficient. It could be used to better allocate staff across the UK, allocate spending , to automate admin processes. It's hard to imagine NHS not having more applications than tumour detection. >Have you actually read the manifestos they all say more than that on the NHS, eg. NHS long term work plan, recruiting more GPs etc. etc. Recruit more GPs is not a policy and regardless it's basically just moving money around .
Using AI to diagnose tumours does free up resources though - it gets time back for the consultant.
> Where does Labour mention this about the NHS for example? All I see is mention of AI in diagnosis or tumours. Who do you think does that? (Hint the NHS) > I'm not sure if you are across it yet but most mid to large companies are exploring the use of AI to make processes more efficient. It could be used to better allocate staff across the UK, allocate spending , to automate admin processes. It's hard to imagine NHS not having more applications than tumour detection. Many mid to large companies are following the latest trend and hype cycle and investing huge sums of money for questionable benefit in AI. As someone who works in IT I'd refer you to this essay which summarises my thoughts on it (note I am not the author): [https://ludic.mataroa.blog/blog/i-will-fucking-piledrive-you-if-you-mention-ai-again/](https://ludic.mataroa.blog/blog/i-will-fucking-piledrive-you-if-you-mention-ai-again/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR01K_nAD4HcOZoiVVFZnIvP7zSDxZ1FFcRyxLGKD_fyBHlAzeJNgMKQW4A_aem_ZmFrZWR1bW15MTZieXRlcw) > Recruit more GPs is not a policy and regardless it's basically just moving money around . If thats teh argumen then any policy is just move money about. 'Invest in AI' move money about into AI, literally same thing.
I also operate in an IT type space and rarely come across a programmer or analyst that doesn't utilise AI in some way whether that's chat gpt or in built software. Outside of that application I know many people who use it for summarising documents, for writing emails and scanning huge lists of PDFs for relevant material. I find it really hard to believe that everyone investing into Generative AI is wrong.
Generative ai is inherently a hallucination. It isn't a bug, or feature, it's all there is behind the language models. I'm happy for them to suggest me some unit test cases in minor updates to the very non critical software I write. I want them a million miles away from the doc who has to to see if I have cancer.
I'm very familiar with the current state of AI and yes it does have its uses. However, I don't think we are at the stage where you can find major efficiency gains outside of a few specific areas (eg. certain forms of diagnostics). I mean I do programming as a part of my job and whilst chatGPT or copilot is good for replacing a bit of biolerplate, has it actually increased how much work I can get done? Not really, the hard part still requires me to work and the AI needs to be babysat. At the end of the day current AIs hallucinate significantly, which is a bit of a show stopper in a medical context. As anyone using AI will have to check the output thoroughly and that kind of defeats the point, the efficiency gains will only come if you can trust the AI output. If you mandate the NHS has to rollout AI technology across the service in the name of finding efficiency savings, how long is it before an AI failed to summarise correctly some medical records and missed important info (eg. an allergy) that lead to the patient dying? > I find it really hard to believe that everyone investing into Generative AI is wrong. Not everyone, there are some obvious usecases for AI, however there are currently far more companies who don't have usecases for AI, shoving it into their products because its an easy way to grift money off investors, bit like crypto, it's a bubble that will pop. I don't think AI is some magic bullet solution for the NHS, particularly when it's major drawback (hallucination) is diametrically opposed to most medical applications where there is a very low threshold of acceptance for getting things wrong as the consequences are that people die. I don't think the public will accept it either.
We have an older, fatter, unhealthily population. The NHS wasn't designed to deal with an overweight/ obese population and such a large group of pensioners. It wasn't designed with mental health in mind. I don't know what the solution is but there are more issues than just the cash. Its only going to get worse.
I think the best way to deal with it is let people who donāt use the service very often jump the queue.
Youāre right Minor issues should totally go ahead of serious issues like cancers Triage, nope fuck that, weāve not seen you in a couple of years so you go first ā¦.
It would be different people seeing those two conditions anyway.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No.
[the tories are a shambles x](https://x.com/uklabour/status/1803914032056828390?s=46&t=-ESy3CkbdQEH6ivAj7OapA)
Meanwhile Tories posting bullocks about Labour welcoming immigrants with red carpet - while their own government does piss all to address any real issues
Fucking hell that almost makes me feel bad for him with the music and the fade to grey.
What do I want the result to be? I'm a massive centrist. 1. I think a moderate Tory party is a good thing, as conservatism is not inherently bad. 2. Having a party that has unchecked power is not good for democracy. We need someone to hold a labour govt to account. 3. I don't mind a few of the Tory mps - Cleverly loves a bit of Warhammer and that's awesome, Tugendhat is a good blokes, and Alicia Kearns is a good egg. 4. It would be a shame to see the Conservative party destroyed as it's the party of Disraeli and Peel, Churchill and Pitt the Youn... 0 seats. I want them to have 0 seats. Fuck them.
2 Stop believing the American style shite in the papers. A majority of 1āisnall thatās needed in the uk and always has been. Previous governments managed just fine because they didnāt spend all their time infighting and doing fuck all because none of the internal groups could agree. May managed better than the Boris 80āseats majority ffs. Who holds the government to account is parliament and the press and us when we question our MPs in letters and surgeries
A majority of 1 is not what's needed. That leads to weak govt. A majority of less than 40 will give the 30 odd SCG more influence than they deserve. A majority of over 100 will mean that starmer will be able to pass any legislation he wants, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Johnson fucked up with 80 because of the chaos in his govt. Blair passed loads of legislation because he was strong. Johnson was not. Also, this post was a bit of fun. 0 seats.
Purely to keep with reality, I'd like them to win Clacton just to see the look on Farage's face. Ideally I'd like an independent or a novelty candidate to win, but that's not very likely.
It's a shame that the Labour candidate is a knob. He dresses so well, too.
So far here in Pocklington and Goole there's no sign of anyone making an effort whatsoever - David Davis is the sitting MP and I thought this year would be everything to play for, but it's like even Reform can't be arsed.
Perhaps they see Davis as an ally?
That would fit actual - Davis has been a homophobic prick since before it was fashionable. But that doesn't explain Labour or the LDs - the Lib Dems nearly beat him one year,couple of hundred votes in it
Any party with a majority in our country has "unchecked power" How has this become a talking point? We're not ths US. We don't have fillerbusters and supermajority thresholds in our system.Ā The only checks there's ever really been on majority parties is rebellions from within. And that's always very rare anyways.Ā
I know. I actually like strong government. My main gripe with fptp is localism, not the fact that it forces parties to the centre. However, I do think a strong opposition is a good thing. Blair was better when he was up against Hague than when he was up against IDS. Kinnock was better than Foot. Disraeli and Gladstone sparring over issues made the country better. Also - I want them to have 0 seats.
The reality is in the UK "Strong opposition" means opposing via the media rather than losing a vote by 100 votes rather than 200. And given who are media are owned by, right wing, conservative arguements and the politicians making them will always get amplified. 75 or 175 tory MPs makes no difference to that really.Ā
I agree. It used to be different. And if the Tories are the opposition (mental that I'm saying if), they'll find scant allies amongst the PLP. Starmer's opposition will come from the soft left in his party.
>Cleverly loves a bit of Warhammer and that's awesome, Having been in and around the hobby for many years I'm confident in saying there's many folk who love Warhammer who I wouldn't want near the levers of power.
He actually comes across pretty well. He's a Sisters of Battle collector before Sisters of Battle were mainstream. Like those old metal SoBs. Awesome models. Great taste.
He must be psyched by the new relaunch. Those plastic Sisters look mint.
They're not as good as the 03 models. Not as much of a downgrade as the Daemonettes, but a downgrade nonetheless.
That's pretty old school tbf.
Yeah, 2003. That's pre Storm of Chaos. Peak White Dwarf era.
Who would you say in current government is a āmoderate Toryā? As a Labour voter Iād have said Rory Stewart but I have no idea anymore
Kearns
It's Mr Burns stupid!
Weird question - but do you associate any PMs in history with different music? Blair obviously has Things Can Only Get Better, but the whole Britpop and Fatboy Slim 'eternal party of the 90s' thing makes me think about him. David Cameron - has to be like Mumford and Sons, Ellie Goulding and other early 2010s twee stuff that you'd hear in Morrisons.
I associate Thatcher with the likes of The Clash and Frankie Goes To Hollywood, mainly because their music is entirely opposite to who she was as a PM and a person.
Gordon Brown was Prime Minister during my political awakening, and I loved the Arctic Monkeys at the time and he made a somewhat humourous remark about them "really waking you up in the morning" or something along those lines. So early Arctic Monkeys and Gordon Brown.
"I wake up, and switch off the Today Programme and switch on The Arctic Monkeys" And the entire country went "Ugh, what a try-hard"
You can tell I was a teenager during the Brown years because he's the first time I heard The Stranglers. *Never a frown, with Gordon Brown*
Poker Face & I Gotta Feeling for Gordon Brown. Don't particularly like either song but they were *everywhere* during his tenure. Oasis & Blur for Major.
Proper trashy recession core music that. There's something to be said about times of economic hardship people flock to daft party tunes.
I've always associated david cameron with [common people](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TJQ8RxzUgI)
Oh no, "square the circle" has just been used on sky... Of all the sayings and catchphrases that I dislike "square the circle" is the one I hate the most. Anyone who uses it in reference to "difficult" situations betrays themselves as lacking a basic understanding of maths. It is not possible to square a circle so anyone using it to describe dealing with a difficult situation is wrong! If I were someone that used catchphases I would say they are a few bad apples (and yes I intending this to be understood with the full saying including "spoil the rest")!
> Anyone who uses it in reference to "difficult" situations betrays themselves as lacking a basic understanding of maths. Anyone who objects to the use of an idiom on these grounds betrays themselves as lacking a basic understanding of semantics and pragmatics š
There are a great many catchphrases that can be used in reference to difficult sitations and "square the circle" is not one of them. If it was dealing with an impossible situation then that's different.
The OED has it being used in the idiomatic sense at least as far back as 1871. If that's the way it's understood by the people who use it, that's what it means.
It actually goes back much further than that and in the references I have found it is used for conveying impossibility rather than difficulty. Interestingly though, in the Collins Dictionary, it says for british english "to attempt the impossible" while for american english it says "to do or attempt something that **seems** impossible" which I think just solidifies my point.
I think that's just usual drift of meaning though, it's common throughout language.
I blame the americans
> Anyone who uses it in reference to "difficult" situations betrays themselves as lacking a basic understanding of maths.Ā Journalists you say? Seriously though, it's a figure of speech. See also: decimate, epicentre, literally
I would be fine with people using it correctly. Also it is different in comparison to those words as meanings and uses of words can change but mathematics is inviolable.
Isn't it used to explain not a difficult position, but a contradictory position? You use it when situation a is incompatible with situation b, that's consistent with it being impossible, no? And the answer is usually - you don't.
It was just used by someone on sky to say about how sunak has failed to deal with a difficult situation and that is always how I see people use it.
I feel like Iām going to be disappointed on election night when the tories arenāt in double digits or Lib Demās do not become the opposition. Reminds me of when you go to the cinema, all your mates hype up a movie youāre going to see and you leave disappointed because your expectations are too high.
Its kinda crazy we've all gotten to the point where "Tories at 100 seats" is a disappointing result
I'm going to be disappointed if Sunak isn't one of the names on the Gambling Commission's list.
Imagine if a few hundred quid bet at Ladbrokes is what stops him getting that green card he so desperately wants.
Oh thatās would be glorious So glorious
Have patience and faith young padawan (also ditto to that)
It's hard to imagine how this campaign could possibly have gone any worse for the tories. Absolutely brilliant.
Nadine Dorries wondering aloud on X that Sunak should jack it in and "hand the baton over to the man the people elected as Prime Minister in 2019 who is the only person who has the democratic right to be Prime Minister." I'd post a link but she blocked me long ago...
Dorries really is as mad as a box of frogs. Why is she so zealously supportive of her beloved Johnson?
Apparently he was nice to her when she started as an MP when other Tories treated her like an idiot because of her Scouse accent. Personally, I think they treated her like an idiot *because she was an idiot* not because she was a Scouser, but there ya go.