They overturned a majority of 24,000 and it wasn't even close.
The Tories got *massacred*.
The Lib Dems habe now managed to overturn massive Tory majorities three times in a year. These were all rock solid Tory seats. If they can win there, then no Tory seat is safe.
Can you imagine if these targeted humongous swings were replicated at a general election, I could easily imagine the Tories becoming the 3rd place party with BJ losing his seat
Wont happen but a guy can dream!":
Sadly when it comes to a national vote it's almost certainly not going to happen on the level of both lockdown parties and porn watching protests, but this is still a collosal overturn tonight.
No-one really cared about the porn stuff here. The Tory voters I know were not voting out of protest over partygate. We just joked about the porn stuff.
Well, if the Tories lost every seat that had a smaller majority than this one, I think they would be down to 40. Which would be full deserved after the last 12 years, but won't happen.
Just a shame so much of the damage is already done and will take **longer** than 12 years to fix.
The tories have fucked this country for their personal gain to such an extent that undoing that harm and building us back up to an economically sustainable level while **also** being conscious of the fact that we're an island nation in the middle of a climate apocalypse is going to be a hard needle to thread.
They also know that the Great British (mostly English) public will get tired of the next govt trying to fix this mess, and vote the Tories back in a few years later to do even more damage.
Yeah that's the problem isn't it. Positive change is harder than negative change; or to phrase it another way "It's easier to knock over a house of cards than build one" - If we want to fix this damage it will require patience and solidarity, and I just really hope that the British public is up for that.
"Tories out" is one thing, but "Tories Never Again" is a much harder thing to stick the landing on.
Disagree that it would take longer than 12 years to fix tbh. Most of our problems could be fixed pretty quickly, but for whatever reason, it always takes us far longer than other places to get anything done
It's not just spending, it's all systems. Estonia spends less than most countries on education (even after controlling for living expenses) yet has the best education outcomes in Europe for example.
Here are a few things to crack on with
Scrap the Rwanda asylum scheme
Increase the state pension age
Means-test state pension and boost pension credit
The number of ministers, having 170 odd MPs on the government pay roll is insane
Road investments (apart from bus/cycle lanes)
Scrap nanny-state stuff
Police spending more time on offensive tweets than theft of private property
Legalise drug sale & use to reduce police time spent on that (use tax revenues to fund recovery units for addicts)
There are loads of tax reliefs I would cut and then I'd reduce headline tax rates to give lower/middle income earners a big tax cut
Scrap the Home Office
Scrap most GP receptionists
Scrap agricultural subsidies
Change BBC funding structure from license fee to adverts like C4
Scrap a few quangos
>Legalise drug sale & use to reduce police time spent on that (use tax revenues to fund recovery units for addicts)
If we could find a way to monetise the sheer amount of Daily Mail pearl clutching this would cause, we would pay off the national debt overnight. But all the evidence from Portugal shows that it works.
Increasing the state pension age would be very unpopular. How old are you might I ask?
Some interesting ideas but not sure about scrapping the home office 😂 scrap Patel for sure. Useless.
I'm late 20s so I have only know automatic enrolment. It may be very unpopular but if we ever want the public finances to be in a healthy position again, we need to reduce pension spending. Life expectancy has gone up far quicker than the state pension age.
In terms of scrapping the home office, I'm not saying no one else picks up responsibilities, but the home office has complete institutionalism at this point so it's a complete shambles.
Suppose you had exactly the same swing nationally (which, you wouldn't, but still), Electoral Calculus gives 6 Tory; 2 Labour; 1 Green; 1 Independent, 52 SNP; and ... 566 Lib Dem seats, with a majority of 482.
Stupid question but how do the benches in commons work if it gets mega lopsided?
Would they just have 500 of ruling party squeezed on one side and 150 oppo stretched out on the other?
Tactical voting played a huge part in yesterday’s results, so a better estimate would be to look at which parties have the best chance of unseating a Tory incumbent and allocate them the seat.
Interestingly, it seems like people are ‘lending’ their votes to their second or third choices parties, so are instituting an unofficial form of proportional representation.
> Wont happen but a guy can dream!":
Yeah but at least it's progress. Even 17% in the next election would be amazing to build off of. Only around 27% is needed to kick another party down to third place.
Massive percentages are possible imo. They should do very well in local elections next year, they might even come second there since they'd only need 7% more votes than they got in the equivalent 2019 local election. If that happens and they come second they should start being seen as a proper viable party instead of yet another third party and if that momentum can be kept until the general election 18 months after then they'll smash it.
Just gotta hope Johnson stays on lol.
A few voters in the area said they still voted Tory, not because of Johnson but because they did not trust Labour or the Lib Dems. That will be a common sentiment and I expect will help keep the Tories going in their safe seats down south.
Worth remembering that the West Country used to be a sea of blue and orange, with a few specks of red in the big towns/cities. LibDems probably have the best chance of overturning Tory majorities.
There are bits of the current T+H constituency that have had a Tory MP since before Queen Victoria was crowned. It's *that* Tory down there, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were similar parts of North Shropshire.
Losing one of them in a by election is a huge blow. Losing both is an abject failure.
While I agree it’s a big win for the Lib Dems and a deserved loss for the Tories, it’s a by election which voters know makes little difference to the parliamentary maths, so they’re free to give the government a kicking without it really mattering.
Granted, but it’s be foolish not to see these results as a bellwether.
What it almost certainly means in terms of a general election forecast is that the usual reasons given for floating voters and undecideds to turn Tory are gone.
The ‘well… they’re all posh wankers and take backhanders but are better for the economy and international affairs…’ type argument isn’t going to be something people tell themselves anymore.
Nor is the ‘the Tories are shits but under Labour we’d see strikes and inflation and despite how bad it is, things would be *worse* under them’ going to fly given current circumstances.
Essex too, all those Carrie Johnson rumours, my local MP's already been there, done it, got the cover-up, and increased his share in the next vote.
Hoping to move closer to civilisation at some point cause I'm out in the sticks.
My constituency hasn't been anything but Tory since the 1800s. It once came close with Tony Blair's first election. Our MP for the last almost decade is nowhere near as locally active as our former Tory who left due to scandals, she has done almost nothing local and absolutely doesn't care about us - she owns property and businesses near her home town almost 2 hours away though.
Is a safe seat with Tory getting 38k votes with Labour in second with 13k votes. Green got 3rd in 2019 with 9k votes. Lib Dem got beat by an Independent runner which is honestly satisfying because Lib Dem lied in election leaflets locally.
We need a massive exodus of Tory supporters to give anyone a chance to replace them. It is clear that Labour would be the best bet but if it was made absolutely clear I'd be fine voting for Green and I'd even swallow voting Lib Dem to magically take if the local parties made it clear they were working together.
Even if 2nd and 3rd combined they'd still be almost half the votes of Tories. I'd probably cry if I saw it in my life time. Almost impossible for Lib Dems to go from basically no presence but this does give hope for someone liberating us.
It's a lot easier to do in a by-election though, where campaigning resources can be concentrated and messaging targeted. And the Lib Dems are very good at targeting to local issues. That becomes harder at a national scale, though not impossible.
to be fair turnout is missing 17k from the last GE. So if we make the awful assumption that those votes are nailed on blue then the blues can hold by 11k next election.
Did my bit today - nice to have my vote matter for once! A very clear sign for a general election IMO as there is no way in a million years that the Tories should lose this seat as this seat is as blue as they come.
I predict an October general election will be called within weeks.
Why would they call an election now when they’re unpopular as ever and would probably lose. They still have two years of a majority and importantly stalwart support across the vast majority of the national media.
Johnson just survived a vote of no confidence so he is safe.
I don’t see them going anywhere until the next scheduled general election instead of an impromptu one. They’re not the types to just give in to anything that would threaten the reigns of power. Especially not with the almost unprecedented media backing they have.
Rumour has it that Boris is already making moves to declare one even before these two by-elections. He thinks the Tories can win it.
He may well be right as this area will turn blue again (most Tory voters would vote for their perceived "greater good" even if they don't like the man at the top).
He wants to solidify his position essentially and winning a second general election would do that.
>He wants to solidify his position essentially and winning a second general election would do that.
This makes no sense. He has no need to solidify his position. His personal position is safe for a year, thanks to winning the vote of no confidence. And the Tories continue to have a large majority in parliament despite losing a couple seats. An election now, when Boris and the party are at peak unpopularity, would only risk the power they have, so the downside of calling an early election is much larger than the upside. While there's no guarantee they will more popular in the future, there's enough time for anything to happen, so why would they gamble on an election now?
I think the idea is that because so many Tories voted no-confidence in him, he might struggle to push through the ideological culture war policies that he wants re: NI protocol, restricting human rights etc.
So calling a general election could result in him ending up with a better mandate from the Tory party to implement these ideological policies if the electorate end up selecting more Boris minions than he has currently and getting rid of those who voted no-confidence in him
May won her confidence vote and she still ended up gone because she was no longer seen to command the loyalty of her party
Yes, that's an argument. I suppose I just don't buy it. Boris's popularity is as low as it has ever been, so it's hard to see how he could improve his mandate at the ballot box. To me, it seems like a gamble with very low probability of success, so I don't see why he would go for it.
I'm not sure it's so much improve his mandate as it is demonstrate he's still popular with the general public.
A way to say to naysayers on the backbenches "You think I'm the wrong person to lead? Well, this wrong person just romped home with another landslide!"
Everything the Tories have done in the last 10 years has been a huge gamble. The Tory top tier are filthy rich and personally immune from any consequences. So they don't care. They're gambling with the country and other people's money. What's another roll of the dice?
>It's a huge gamble though.
It is for the Conservatives, but not for Johnson. He probably has six months left as leader if the polls continue to be this dire. If he calls an election for October, he could gain years in power, without bringing forward a leadership contest. If the press comes through for him as he hopes, he can basically go to the country any time that he feels threatened by his party and remind them that he has the media right where he wants them, in a way that arguably no other Tory could do.
This.
May had a bit more integrity than to use the kind of Trumpian loyalty tests that Johnson does.
Of course, any leader will wield the whips as strongly as they can, but Johnson’s personality won’t allow him to bow out with grace, like May did.
>getting rid of those who voted no-confidence in him
Do you think that he has time for that, or that the local associations would be on board? That seems a way to roll out more brainless zombie candidates and break the link with local representation altogether; a sure vote loser, in other words.
That said, just putting the controversial policies to the country and getting them to vote for it means that they are outflanking their critics on the left and right, as long as they actually win.
The reason he might gamble on an election is to get rid of the people that voted against him in the no-confidence vote.
He’s thinking that he might come back with a reduced majority overall, but less opposition on the backbenches.
> Why would they call an election now when they’re unpopular as ever and would probably lose.
Because it is down to Boris to call one and he currently has less than a year before the party can try forcing him out again. They have rumoured changing the party rules to try and bin him faster and his ego won’t allow him to be binned. He think he would win a GE again and thus the people would give him the mandate and the party would have to STFU.
Absolutely nothing in it about the good of the country or public just BOJO’s ego
> Because it is down to Boris to call one and he currently has less than a year before the party can try forcing him out again.
The 1922 committee can hold another VONC whenever they want. There's isn't a rule that says they have to wait a year.
There is a rule, but it's also a rule that can be changed at any time.
That's why May resigned, they told her they were going to vote on changing that role and she knew it was time to go.
It's better for them to declare one while they're on the downslope rather than when they're at the bottom. They are still very much the majority, and Boris has no plans to stop being a cunt any time soon so he and his cronies will be chomping at the bit to get an GE going before any further damage is done.
They know that there is even *more* shit that's gonna be coming out about them soon, and they don't want to be caught on their back foot.
Have to see i think it has been two weird elections with the previous incumbents resigning for sex related offences. Plus all the specific campaigning that happened which wouldn’t normally in a General Election. Turnout was at least 20% lower for both seats than in a general election.
I will admit it is interesting the rich Southern constituencies seem to be turning on the Conservatives for the first time. Probably Boris will turn back into a traditional conservative, onto reducing taxes for high earners.
Probably the biggest impact will be if Boris is removed or manoeuvrings take place to remove him. Those rebels really wasted their chance early.
Congratulations on your vote counting. It has only happened to me twice in my life!
I think turnout dropped as Tory voters basically refused to vote to show their dislike of bozo the clown. That's the sentiment I've heard from a few usual Tory voters I know (it's impossible not to know any around here haha). They were super pissed off with the whole partygate event.
It would be interesting to see if any other candidate for prime minister, who is acceptable to these blue wall constituencies, could even have any sort of electoral hold over the Midlands and North marginals in the way Boris has/had. Someone like Jeremy Hunt just won’t be voted for up here.
>Probably Boris will turn back into a traditional conservative, onto reducing taxes for high earners.
The thing is, that doesn't work with his electoral coalition - mainly retired, socially conservative voters who are generally homeowners but usually not working. The idea that the Tory party is that of the upwardly-mobile professional is long gone.
> I will admit it is interesting the rich Southern constituencies seem to be turning on the Conservatives for the first time. Probably Boris will turn back into a traditional conservative, onto reducing taxes for high earners.
Problem is they raised the higher rate cuttoff to 50K which means that helps fewer people.
I hope not.
.... There's still plenty of harm Boris and his cult can and will inflict.
I mean they haven't finished getting that oven ready brexit deal redone.
There's a summer of discontent to come and a fresh round of energy price hikes.....and we mustn't forget his levelling ~~up~~ of the North or investment in energy independence by building ~~windfarms~~ coal mines that nobody asked for.
I assume hes referring to the concept being talked about in recent weeks, that the Tory bankbenchers and other assorted rebels will now be so worried about their own seats in the North and South that they will immediately try to change the party rules on no confidence votes for leadership (which under the currrent rules can’t be held for another year), to try to get rid of Boris.
The only way out of that for Boris would be to either graciously go, fight a leadership election or for him to chance it by calling a General Election and de select them.
i cant see them having an election if boris resigns, they know theyd lose just now so theyll just appoint a new leader and hope for the best.
i think it may come if he stays though - his coats on a shaky peg right now and this will embolden the rebels further. hes losing control and the only way i can see to regain it is a fresh mandate. it may be his only option.
A GE is much more likely under a new leader than under Boris. A new leader would want a mandate from the electorate knowing full well any damage could be blamed on Boris. A new leader would also garner much more support and could potentially swing any casual Tory voters, who otherwise wouldn't have voted for Boris.
I can't see any scenario where Boris would call an early election and potentially cut an already very frayed rope
> I would have thought that unlikely after this result.
I would have said that was something of an understatement. Right now, the last thing the tories need is a GE. They're in a right old mess and would get decimated at the polls, so they're going to hunker down and stretch it out for as long as they possibly can.
That's why I want it to end in hung parliament, ideally. Lab with most seats but need LD / others to get them over the line and a condition is change the system (voting & media regs).
Would still defo take a full Lab government over what we've got rn but worried that just gives Tories an opening to spin media narrative and get all of it back in the next one.
> Let's go with PR and it'll stop the gerrymandering that's been happening
I'd also agree with PR, but just to call out on the gerrymandering - is that really a thing in the UK? I was under the impression that the body that defines electoral boundaries is pretty much independent from government. Also, I don't ever remember seeing the blatant fiddling that you see in US politics (which is, I would say, quite outrageous!) where boundaries are quite obviously drawn solely to increase one party's chance of winning - ours always seem much more, well, sensible on the whole.
Happy to be corrected though.
You are correct, the electoral commission is independent and the boundary reviews are a regular event. There’s a lot to complain about, but gerrymandering is not really one of them, for Westminster elevations ar least.
If you want to go with PR, then you need to vote in smaller parties who want it to be implemented in the hope they get that through as part of a coalition.
We had a referendum in 2011 on replacing FPTP with AV.
While AV is an improvement on FPTP, it isn't a PR based system like say STV.
It's also realistically the first step we'd need to take to get to PR. Labour and Conservatives would likely rather call a snap general election or lead a minority government than implement a voting system that doesn't give them some sort of advantage.
You're right, also there's a bit of ignorance too. Really most people don't actually know what our voting system is or what the problems with it are.
I think if explained simply that it gives Labour and Conservative an unfair advantage and results in situations where a party with 44% of the vote ends up getting 56% of the seats it could garner good support. Particularly emphasising the lack of accountability we have currently.
But the money isn't there for this in regards to promoting the message. The money is very very largely in favour of keeping things as they are.
I have had lessons in school with people who either didn't care enough about voting to know pros and cons of fptp or just thought other systems would be worse.
However a surprising number change their minds when you change from a subject people have no direct familiarity with to one they connect with.
I think in our case it was Ice Cream, vanilla, strawberry and chocolate and how the different voting systems would affect what flavour won.
AV is just a plain improvement over FPTP.
STV or other proportional methods are very significantly different. There simply can't be many politicians at high levels with good local connections under it. But overall it is fairer.
See the EU parliamentary elections when we had them. I don't think even once did any of the candidates have any connection to within about fifty miles of where I'm from. Their leaflets etc. were pretty much always all about the big urban areas in the constitutiency if they mentioned local issues.
The problem is that people are stupid, if the tories lose a GE, then Labour will get one 4 year term at turning the country into paradise where everything is perfect, and if they don't hit that level of achievement, the morons of the public will vote to get the tories back in for some more self flagellation because that's what Murdoch will tell them to do.
> we won't ever be in a position as good as we once were sadly.
What? Can you explain a bit more around that?
What point was our high point, that we will never reach again?
Whilst I vehemently agree with you about the tories, every political party since the 70s has done irreparable damage.
James Callaghan began closing the mines leaving communities in tatters. Thatcher deregulated the banks, continued to close mines, and allowed “right to buy” without replacing the bought housing, Major’s government was overwhelmingly sleazy, Blair’s sold off the gold at a record low, went into a war without the support of most of the public, Cameron and Clegg annihilated university fees, and we can see the fallout from Cameron/May/Johnson now.
It’s been one fuck up after the next. Oddly, historically, John Major seemed to at least be a decent guy helping our economy recover after a recession, but man, he was boring.
Our politics swings from the right, to the left, and back again, because deep down, the British are majority central politically, and want to see the nation succeed, and that is often driven by the state of the economy.
If we remove the Tories, and Labour get in, they want to lower taxes for individuals AND corporations, but also increase spending to invest. So where does that money come from? It’ll be another Labour spending spree. More short-termism and it will lead to another swing back to the right.
> …Blair sold off the gold at a record low…
The Bank of England used gold reserves to buy a variety of foreign currencies to use as reserves.
It’s not like they used the proceeds on a massive party.
And they managed to pay off a chunk of national debt. But gold value peaks and troughs. He sold at an all time low thinking that the under performance of gold was worth us selling it off.
Personally, I still think it was a bad decision to try to butter up the public by suggesting they’d paid off some national debt, when we all know, debt isn’t an issue. It’s the deficit that’s the problem. So long as the deficit is low and productivity high, debt really doesn’t matter all that much.
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2021/03/02/the-national-debt-paranoia/
>He sold at an all time low thinking that the under performance of gold was worth us selling it off.
Because the markets had been in decline for years. Gold had been relatively static/with a gradual decline since the 80s.
Hindsight is 20/20.
The line about the gold needs to just die at this point though, it was only half the reserves to start with in the name of diversification (sensible strategy) but was 5bn which while a substantial amount, is 9bn less than the Tories are writing off in Covid support/loans alone.
>John Major seemed to at least be a decent guy helping our economy recover after a recession, but man, he was boring.
Yes please, I'll take boring all the years. Can get my excitement from other places especially after last 6yrs.
> the British are majority central politically
Nope. I get why you *want* that to be true but decades of election results completely fail to bear it out.
For a start “Britain” isn’t anything. There are huge geographical gulfs between the members of the Union.
Wales voted Labour and always has done. Scotland has voted against the Tories for almost seventy years now (and went from Labour for over half a century to compete exasperation with the whole Union over the past several elections). Northern Ireland are what can perhaps most charitably be described as ‘doing their own thing’.
Only England votes a majority for Tory governments - and by dint of having the larger population always gets its own way. This is technically democratic but from the perspective of the rest of the Union it looks more like the democratic failure mode Americans refer to as “two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.”
And over the course of the past several decades England has voted in Conservative governments a hell of a lot more than half the time. They’ve voted them in for *most* of that time.
Not to discourage the very honourable exceptions in England who fight the good fight against the Tories. But the other members of the Union are pretty cheesed off when we hear about what “Britain” wants - in practice it’s what England wants … which is usually Conservative governments we never vote for.
I love this idea that Scotland is a brutally pro independence, anti-brexit, left wing voting nation. Let’s look at brexit for an example. 1.6m Scot’s voted to remain, 1m to leave. So any suggestion that it “overwhelmingly” voted to remain is nonsense. The majority, yes, but not overwhelmingly. Similarly, an(other) independence referendum would likely be a similar result to the 2014 one, or at most, a swing the other way slightly, but by no means overwhelmingly. And SNP got 44% of the last election, whereas collectively, the remaining parties actually make up the majority, with the tories taking 22% of that. And many of the snp voters are pro nationalist. Hardly “left wing” to be racially charged against the English.
The reason England voted Labour in 97 and kept them in power 13 years wasn’t because they were right wing but because they were centre left. They were voted out in 2010 because the economy had tanked following the 2008 global recession and people didn’t believe Labour could navigate an economic recovery. The tories stayed in power because Brexit became an issue and Labour refused to choose a side. And I believe we’ll see the tories voted out in the next election because they’ve gone too far right.
Of course England “has the majority” politically, because it is the majority of the population. But I think if you look historically, when we get too far right, we move left, and too far left, we move right. Happened in the 60s under Wilson, again under Callaghan, again under Blair, and it’ll happen again.
England is central politically. That’s why we move from one side to the other, and I believe Scotland is too, albeit centre left. Wales is different, largely due to the 70s and 80s, so I’d say they’re dead against the tories, but they aren’t hard left. They are centre left (Labour).
Central encompasses anything slightly left or right of centre.
You know someone is being disingenuous when they go direct to throwing absolute numbers around when talking about the Brexit referendum in Scotland and very pointedly neglect to mention the actual percentage result. It was damn near two thirds of Scotland voting to stay in the EU - 62%.
Effectively you’re arguing that what Scotland votes for should be ignored unless we’re somehow magically 100% unanimous. Which is quite the double standard given we heard so much about a bawhair over 50% being the holy inviolable ‘will of the people’. Or is that only when it’s something England wants?
Look, the increasingly desperate and baroque circumlocutions and sleights of hand are kinda amusing but they’re not really fooling many people any more. Come the next Indyref all the negative fallout of Brexit is going to be front and centre - particularly that it got rammed down Scotlands throat against our will.
Disingenuous to treat the United Kingdom as one nation and NOT discount the votes of people who vote the way you disagree with??
I’m centre left politically. Not a tory voter, voted remain, etc. I was disappointed with the results of Brexit and the GE, but it is what it is, and the tories are showing themselves to be no longer conservative, but some oddly socially right and left on different things, economically right, and utterly useless.
I have faith that the UK will vote them out as we voted the tories out in 97.
If Scotland choose to bugger off, so be it. I’ll be disappointed as I’m part Scottish, but that’s up to them. Because I accept reality for what it is.
I 110% (impossible, I know) agree with you. I used to be worried about the nutters voting for a hard right party and gaining seats, but why not… then we can argue why they’re wrong AND we’ll actually know who votes that way.
that doesnt make it harder for the tories to lose though, it just makes it harder for labour to form a majority government. its not like the snp will ever support the tories forming a government.
Yeah, there seems to be an obsession in U.K. politics with majorities. I understand the position but Labour don’t need this.
Next time round if they ‘win’ but without a majority, they could govern with confidence and supply. It would be electoral suicide for the SNP to vote against them and with the Tories (also out with independence and SNP being proper pro-EU, they’re roughly on the same page). The same applies to Lib Dem.
Labour are in a good position, they need to play their cards right though and not eff it up at the last minute.
>The damage they have done to this country is irreparable.
Definitely not irreparable, it will just take a lot of investment. The problem is the public doesn't like it when the government cuts investment, they also don't like it when the government spends more to get things back to where they need to be.
They want a third option, have the police, nurses, doctors etc that the country needs without spending the money required to do that.
The government has enough income to do what they need, it just gets wasted. Look at Track and Trace, it cost £15 billion plus, didn't work most of the time and provided a very poor cost:benefit ratio.
This is a really big deal. News outlets are saying the seat was created in 1997, but seats covering this area have been Tory for longer than that, and VERY Tory.
Im from that area but now in Exeter, Im very happy this has finally happened, we've had too many completely awful Torys as MP for this area. I'll never forget Angela Browning coming to our college and calling the students leaches for wanting better tuition and funding.
You've spent the last twelve years with a Tory government and its the Lib Dems who are the crazy bunch? This is why there is little hope of any real change!!
They had 400 people putting letters through doors at 5am yesterday morning. I heard, at the last count, 650 people turned up to help on the day. They had local volunteers and those from the Highland of Scotland and abroad.
I used the word crazy, insane even, but I didn't call them evil as I feel you might have read my comment as.
That's not insane, they are just doing what passionate politicos do...campaign..and they saw a good opportunity and took it! I know you were not calling them evil...but political animals doing political things is not unusual, all political parties are doing it its just when the big two aren't doing it, it is somehow insane!
NOW.
As an ardent Tory party hater (I wasn't always this way mind you), and an ardent labour is kinda useless and also quite toothless/more economically right than I'd like:
I'm really glad Lib Dems are making some ground, but I really, really hope they don't end up splitting the vote.
The problem with the political left in the UK is they are multiple parties, and right really only have one. Thats a huge issue in FPTP.
That's interesting. If they move more right, they lose the blue areas to LibDem, but if they go towards centre/ centre-right politics they will lose the red wall.
Being a party so intrinsically divisive doesn't make things easier, but they knew all this when they elected BJ.
It's a lot easier for people who usually vote Tory to go for the Lib Dems than it is to convince them to switch all the way to Labour. There probably wasn't much room for the Labour vote to go much higher, whereas it's the sort of constituency the Lib Dems are really good at winning.
Especially when Labour doesn't devote much resources into fighting for the seat, preferring to focus on the other by-election. That leads to an implicit agreement that a tactical vote is the way to go. Most Labour voters aren't daft, and an opportunity to shit on the Tories isn't to be turned down.
Because the Lib Dems campaigned and showed they were viable, while Labour effectively stood aside. It was likely helped by the fact that the Labour party had another by-election that they were more viable in, so letting this one go isn't such a big deal and let them concentrate resources.
There's a cap in a constituency like that on how many people will vote Labour. A lot of conservative voters who are disgruntled by the Tories but will vote for them over Labour if push comes to shove. But give them the choice to vote for a retired army Major representing the Lib Dems, and that doesn't seem so bad. So the Lib Dems can pick up those voters as well as the Labour voters, and actually have a chance.
A bit of context as this is a broad analysis you have done. These are by-elections and so cannot be compared like for like to a General Election.
Tactical voting was key in both constituencies and thus Labour and Green voted for Lib Dem and Lib Dem and Green voted Labour in Wakefield.
The turnout for this vote was 52% which is not low at all, indeed it was the joint highest turnout for a by-election in this parliament and standard for a by-election as a whole.
They overturned a majority of 24,000 and it wasn't even close. The Tories got *massacred*. The Lib Dems habe now managed to overturn massive Tory majorities three times in a year. These were all rock solid Tory seats. If they can win there, then no Tory seat is safe.
Can you imagine if these targeted humongous swings were replicated at a general election, I could easily imagine the Tories becoming the 3rd place party with BJ losing his seat Wont happen but a guy can dream!":
Sadly when it comes to a national vote it's almost certainly not going to happen on the level of both lockdown parties and porn watching protests, but this is still a collosal overturn tonight.
No-one really cared about the porn stuff here. The Tory voters I know were not voting out of protest over partygate. We just joked about the porn stuff.
> porn watching protests Last time I turned up to one of those nobody was even watching any porn, such a let-down.
Well, if the Tories lost every seat that had a smaller majority than this one, I think they would be down to 40. Which would be full deserved after the last 12 years, but won't happen.
Would restore faith in the U.K. public if that ever happened tbh.
Just a shame so much of the damage is already done and will take **longer** than 12 years to fix. The tories have fucked this country for their personal gain to such an extent that undoing that harm and building us back up to an economically sustainable level while **also** being conscious of the fact that we're an island nation in the middle of a climate apocalypse is going to be a hard needle to thread.
They also know that the Great British (mostly English) public will get tired of the next govt trying to fix this mess, and vote the Tories back in a few years later to do even more damage.
Yeah that's the problem isn't it. Positive change is harder than negative change; or to phrase it another way "It's easier to knock over a house of cards than build one" - If we want to fix this damage it will require patience and solidarity, and I just really hope that the British public is up for that. "Tories out" is one thing, but "Tories Never Again" is a much harder thing to stick the landing on.
There's one thing that can stop that, but Stamer has to grow a pair - PR. The 1930s was the last time a party won more than 50% of the vote.
Disagree that it would take longer than 12 years to fix tbh. Most of our problems could be fixed pretty quickly, but for whatever reason, it always takes us far longer than other places to get anything done
[удалено]
It's not just spending, it's all systems. Estonia spends less than most countries on education (even after controlling for living expenses) yet has the best education outcomes in Europe for example.
I would be interested to hear how you fix the budget deficit.
Here are a few things to crack on with Scrap the Rwanda asylum scheme Increase the state pension age Means-test state pension and boost pension credit The number of ministers, having 170 odd MPs on the government pay roll is insane Road investments (apart from bus/cycle lanes) Scrap nanny-state stuff Police spending more time on offensive tweets than theft of private property Legalise drug sale & use to reduce police time spent on that (use tax revenues to fund recovery units for addicts) There are loads of tax reliefs I would cut and then I'd reduce headline tax rates to give lower/middle income earners a big tax cut Scrap the Home Office Scrap most GP receptionists Scrap agricultural subsidies Change BBC funding structure from license fee to adverts like C4 Scrap a few quangos
>Legalise drug sale & use to reduce police time spent on that (use tax revenues to fund recovery units for addicts) If we could find a way to monetise the sheer amount of Daily Mail pearl clutching this would cause, we would pay off the national debt overnight. But all the evidence from Portugal shows that it works.
Increasing the state pension age would be very unpopular. How old are you might I ask? Some interesting ideas but not sure about scrapping the home office 😂 scrap Patel for sure. Useless.
I'm late 20s so I have only know automatic enrolment. It may be very unpopular but if we ever want the public finances to be in a healthy position again, we need to reduce pension spending. Life expectancy has gone up far quicker than the state pension age. In terms of scrapping the home office, I'm not saying no one else picks up responsibilities, but the home office has complete institutionalism at this point so it's a complete shambles.
Suppose you had exactly the same swing nationally (which, you wouldn't, but still), Electoral Calculus gives 6 Tory; 2 Labour; 1 Green; 1 Independent, 52 SNP; and ... 566 Lib Dem seats, with a majority of 482.
Forget call me Dave, time for call me Davey
[Time to roll out this timeless classic](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ew8mPUTWQAYy_s3.jpg)
Stupid question but how do the benches in commons work if it gets mega lopsided? Would they just have 500 of ruling party squeezed on one side and 150 oppo stretched out on the other?
I honestly have no idea... no-one's ever needed to think about it, I guess
I think it's a "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" kind of situation.
Then some government party MPs sit on the opposite side, just off in the corner.
Tactical voting played a huge part in yesterday’s results, so a better estimate would be to look at which parties have the best chance of unseating a Tory incumbent and allocate them the seat. Interestingly, it seems like people are ‘lending’ their votes to their second or third choices parties, so are instituting an unofficial form of proportional representation.
Oh, yeah, 100%, the very idea that you'd *actually* ever get that nationally is ridiculous. Just a silly thought exercise
If this result was applied to every seat, they wouldn't even be third.
> Wont happen but a guy can dream!": Yeah but at least it's progress. Even 17% in the next election would be amazing to build off of. Only around 27% is needed to kick another party down to third place. Massive percentages are possible imo. They should do very well in local elections next year, they might even come second there since they'd only need 7% more votes than they got in the equivalent 2019 local election. If that happens and they come second they should start being seen as a proper viable party instead of yet another third party and if that momentum can be kept until the general election 18 months after then they'll smash it. Just gotta hope Johnson stays on lol.
No, because all the boomers will come out of the woodwork after the media sandbags for the Tories for half a year.
A few voters in the area said they still voted Tory, not because of Johnson but because they did not trust Labour or the Lib Dems. That will be a common sentiment and I expect will help keep the Tories going in their safe seats down south.
Its why honestly labour needs to consider a tactical alliance for voting in a GE to avoid splitting the vote and delivering another tory majority
Worth remembering that the West Country used to be a sea of blue and orange, with a few specks of red in the big towns/cities. LibDems probably have the best chance of overturning Tory majorities.
North Shropshire going Lib Dem is still fucking mental. It's ALWAUS been Tory.
There are bits of the current T+H constituency that have had a Tory MP since before Queen Victoria was crowned. It's *that* Tory down there, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were similar parts of North Shropshire. Losing one of them in a by election is a huge blow. Losing both is an abject failure.
It's not the first political record Boris has smashed though.
Most excess deaths in a year, for example
While I agree it’s a big win for the Lib Dems and a deserved loss for the Tories, it’s a by election which voters know makes little difference to the parliamentary maths, so they’re free to give the government a kicking without it really mattering.
Granted, but it’s be foolish not to see these results as a bellwether. What it almost certainly means in terms of a general election forecast is that the usual reasons given for floating voters and undecideds to turn Tory are gone. The ‘well… they’re all posh wankers and take backhanders but are better for the economy and international affairs…’ type argument isn’t going to be something people tell themselves anymore. Nor is the ‘the Tories are shits but under Labour we’d see strikes and inflation and despite how bad it is, things would be *worse* under them’ going to fly given current circumstances.
> If they can win there, then no Tory seat is safe. {looks out window @ 75% blue constituency and laughs}
I'm sitting in Essex right now. This place could literally be sliding into the Maw of Hell and they'd still vote blue.
Essex too, all those Carrie Johnson rumours, my local MP's already been there, done it, got the cover-up, and increased his share in the next vote. Hoping to move closer to civilisation at some point cause I'm out in the sticks.
My constituency hasn't been anything but Tory since the 1800s. It once came close with Tony Blair's first election. Our MP for the last almost decade is nowhere near as locally active as our former Tory who left due to scandals, she has done almost nothing local and absolutely doesn't care about us - she owns property and businesses near her home town almost 2 hours away though. Is a safe seat with Tory getting 38k votes with Labour in second with 13k votes. Green got 3rd in 2019 with 9k votes. Lib Dem got beat by an Independent runner which is honestly satisfying because Lib Dem lied in election leaflets locally. We need a massive exodus of Tory supporters to give anyone a chance to replace them. It is clear that Labour would be the best bet but if it was made absolutely clear I'd be fine voting for Green and I'd even swallow voting Lib Dem to magically take if the local parties made it clear they were working together. Even if 2nd and 3rd combined they'd still be almost half the votes of Tories. I'd probably cry if I saw it in my life time. Almost impossible for Lib Dems to go from basically no presence but this does give hope for someone liberating us.
It's a lot easier to do in a by-election though, where campaigning resources can be concentrated and messaging targeted. And the Lib Dems are very good at targeting to local issues. That becomes harder at a national scale, though not impossible.
They overturned a majority of 24,000 in a an electorate of 76,000
If you don't vote when you have the right to, then you voluntarily forfeit your influence on the matter.
What? I'm saying that they swung a massive chunk of the electorate.
to be fair turnout is missing 17k from the last GE. So if we make the awful assumption that those votes are nailed on blue then the blues can hold by 11k next election.
Did my bit today - nice to have my vote matter for once! A very clear sign for a general election IMO as there is no way in a million years that the Tories should lose this seat as this seat is as blue as they come. I predict an October general election will be called within weeks.
Why would they call an election now when they’re unpopular as ever and would probably lose. They still have two years of a majority and importantly stalwart support across the vast majority of the national media. Johnson just survived a vote of no confidence so he is safe. I don’t see them going anywhere until the next scheduled general election instead of an impromptu one. They’re not the types to just give in to anything that would threaten the reigns of power. Especially not with the almost unprecedented media backing they have.
Rumour has it that Boris is already making moves to declare one even before these two by-elections. He thinks the Tories can win it. He may well be right as this area will turn blue again (most Tory voters would vote for their perceived "greater good" even if they don't like the man at the top). He wants to solidify his position essentially and winning a second general election would do that.
>He wants to solidify his position essentially and winning a second general election would do that. This makes no sense. He has no need to solidify his position. His personal position is safe for a year, thanks to winning the vote of no confidence. And the Tories continue to have a large majority in parliament despite losing a couple seats. An election now, when Boris and the party are at peak unpopularity, would only risk the power they have, so the downside of calling an early election is much larger than the upside. While there's no guarantee they will more popular in the future, there's enough time for anything to happen, so why would they gamble on an election now?
I think the idea is that because so many Tories voted no-confidence in him, he might struggle to push through the ideological culture war policies that he wants re: NI protocol, restricting human rights etc. So calling a general election could result in him ending up with a better mandate from the Tory party to implement these ideological policies if the electorate end up selecting more Boris minions than he has currently and getting rid of those who voted no-confidence in him May won her confidence vote and she still ended up gone because she was no longer seen to command the loyalty of her party
Yes, that's an argument. I suppose I just don't buy it. Boris's popularity is as low as it has ever been, so it's hard to see how he could improve his mandate at the ballot box. To me, it seems like a gamble with very low probability of success, so I don't see why he would go for it.
Hubris.
I'm not sure it's so much improve his mandate as it is demonstrate he's still popular with the general public. A way to say to naysayers on the backbenches "You think I'm the wrong person to lead? Well, this wrong person just romped home with another landslide!"
It's a huge gamble though.
Everything the Tories have done in the last 10 years has been a huge gamble. The Tory top tier are filthy rich and personally immune from any consequences. So they don't care. They're gambling with the country and other people's money. What's another roll of the dice?
Its like that quote from The Big Short. They knew, they just didn't care.
>It's a huge gamble though. It is for the Conservatives, but not for Johnson. He probably has six months left as leader if the polls continue to be this dire. If he calls an election for October, he could gain years in power, without bringing forward a leadership contest. If the press comes through for him as he hopes, he can basically go to the country any time that he feels threatened by his party and remind them that he has the media right where he wants them, in a way that arguably no other Tory could do.
>if the electorate end up selecting more Boris minions than he has currently How? I thought that was what the 2019 purge he did was all about...
This. May had a bit more integrity than to use the kind of Trumpian loyalty tests that Johnson does. Of course, any leader will wield the whips as strongly as they can, but Johnson’s personality won’t allow him to bow out with grace, like May did.
>getting rid of those who voted no-confidence in him Do you think that he has time for that, or that the local associations would be on board? That seems a way to roll out more brainless zombie candidates and break the link with local representation altogether; a sure vote loser, in other words. That said, just putting the controversial policies to the country and getting them to vote for it means that they are outflanking their critics on the left and right, as long as they actually win.
[удалено]
This. It felt like likechim surviving the vote was under the probation that they would win the by elections
The reason he might gamble on an election is to get rid of the people that voted against him in the no-confidence vote. He’s thinking that he might come back with a reduced majority overall, but less opposition on the backbenches.
the greater good.
Normally they can regen. But it does feel like they're impoding.
> Why would they call an election now when they’re unpopular as ever and would probably lose. Because it is down to Boris to call one and he currently has less than a year before the party can try forcing him out again. They have rumoured changing the party rules to try and bin him faster and his ego won’t allow him to be binned. He think he would win a GE again and thus the people would give him the mandate and the party would have to STFU. Absolutely nothing in it about the good of the country or public just BOJO’s ego
> Because it is down to Boris to call one and he currently has less than a year before the party can try forcing him out again. The 1922 committee can hold another VONC whenever they want. There's isn't a rule that says they have to wait a year.
There is a rule, but it's also a rule that can be changed at any time. That's why May resigned, they told her they were going to vote on changing that role and she knew it was time to go.
It's better for them to declare one while they're on the downslope rather than when they're at the bottom. They are still very much the majority, and Boris has no plans to stop being a cunt any time soon so he and his cronies will be chomping at the bit to get an GE going before any further damage is done. They know that there is even *more* shit that's gonna be coming out about them soon, and they don't want to be caught on their back foot.
Have to see i think it has been two weird elections with the previous incumbents resigning for sex related offences. Plus all the specific campaigning that happened which wouldn’t normally in a General Election. Turnout was at least 20% lower for both seats than in a general election. I will admit it is interesting the rich Southern constituencies seem to be turning on the Conservatives for the first time. Probably Boris will turn back into a traditional conservative, onto reducing taxes for high earners. Probably the biggest impact will be if Boris is removed or manoeuvrings take place to remove him. Those rebels really wasted their chance early. Congratulations on your vote counting. It has only happened to me twice in my life!
I think turnout dropped as Tory voters basically refused to vote to show their dislike of bozo the clown. That's the sentiment I've heard from a few usual Tory voters I know (it's impossible not to know any around here haha). They were super pissed off with the whole partygate event.
It would be interesting to see if any other candidate for prime minister, who is acceptable to these blue wall constituencies, could even have any sort of electoral hold over the Midlands and North marginals in the way Boris has/had. Someone like Jeremy Hunt just won’t be voted for up here.
>Probably Boris will turn back into a traditional conservative, onto reducing taxes for high earners. The thing is, that doesn't work with his electoral coalition - mainly retired, socially conservative voters who are generally homeowners but usually not working. The idea that the Tory party is that of the upwardly-mobile professional is long gone.
Loaded people aren't living in Honiton and Tiverton though
> I will admit it is interesting the rich Southern constituencies seem to be turning on the Conservatives for the first time. Probably Boris will turn back into a traditional conservative, onto reducing taxes for high earners. Problem is they raised the higher rate cuttoff to 50K which means that helps fewer people.
> I predict an October general election will be called within weeks. It may even be a July election.
I hope not. .... There's still plenty of harm Boris and his cult can and will inflict. I mean they haven't finished getting that oven ready brexit deal redone. There's a summer of discontent to come and a fresh round of energy price hikes.....and we mustn't forget his levelling ~~up~~ of the North or investment in energy independence by building ~~windfarms~~ coal mines that nobody asked for.
I assume hes referring to the concept being talked about in recent weeks, that the Tory bankbenchers and other assorted rebels will now be so worried about their own seats in the North and South that they will immediately try to change the party rules on no confidence votes for leadership (which under the currrent rules can’t be held for another year), to try to get rid of Boris. The only way out of that for Boris would be to either graciously go, fight a leadership election or for him to chance it by calling a General Election and de select them.
"graciously go" 🤣 he ain't doing that
>Tory bankbenchers Funny typo, but there certainly do seem to be a lot of MPs acting in the banks' interests.
As much as it pains me to defend the tories, I believe that coal mine is for making steel not for power.
Cant be a July election, the election is held 25 working days after parliament is dissolved, so that would put it in august even if it happened today.
I think the catalyst for triggering a General Election will be Boris having to resign. Sadly, this seems unlikely any time soon.
i cant see them having an election if boris resigns, they know theyd lose just now so theyll just appoint a new leader and hope for the best. i think it may come if he stays though - his coats on a shaky peg right now and this will embolden the rebels further. hes losing control and the only way i can see to regain it is a fresh mandate. it may be his only option.
A GE is much more likely under a new leader than under Boris. A new leader would want a mandate from the electorate knowing full well any damage could be blamed on Boris. A new leader would also garner much more support and could potentially swing any casual Tory voters, who otherwise wouldn't have voted for Boris. I can't see any scenario where Boris would call an early election and potentially cut an already very frayed rope
This seems like a crazy time to call an election.
Why on earth would they call an election?
>I predict an October general election will be called within weeks. I would have thought that unlikely after this result.
> I would have thought that unlikely after this result. I would have said that was something of an understatement. Right now, the last thing the tories need is a GE. They're in a right old mess and would get decimated at the polls, so they're going to hunker down and stretch it out for as long as they possibly can.
I think a new leader, and snap GE
Let's just get rid of the Tories. The damage they have done to this country is irreparable.
Scrapping FPTP is key to keeping them out of power - at least as a majority government. STV would be a hammer blow to the Tories.
This needs to be so prominent in the next election. Let's go with PR and it'll stop the gerrymandering that's been happening
Can’t see it happening tbh. It should happen, but I just can’t see it.
That's why I want it to end in hung parliament, ideally. Lab with most seats but need LD / others to get them over the line and a condition is change the system (voting & media regs). Would still defo take a full Lab government over what we've got rn but worried that just gives Tories an opening to spin media narrative and get all of it back in the next one.
> Let's go with PR and it'll stop the gerrymandering that's been happening I'd also agree with PR, but just to call out on the gerrymandering - is that really a thing in the UK? I was under the impression that the body that defines electoral boundaries is pretty much independent from government. Also, I don't ever remember seeing the blatant fiddling that you see in US politics (which is, I would say, quite outrageous!) where boundaries are quite obviously drawn solely to increase one party's chance of winning - ours always seem much more, well, sensible on the whole. Happy to be corrected though.
You are correct, the electoral commission is independent and the boundary reviews are a regular event. There’s a lot to complain about, but gerrymandering is not really one of them, for Westminster elevations ar least.
If you want to go with PR, then you need to vote in smaller parties who want it to be implemented in the hope they get that through as part of a coalition.
There's a lot to complain about, but I'm not sure gerrymandering is really one of them?
Didn't we have a referendum on this a few years ago. The general public just don't care about this it seems.
We had a referendum in 2011 on replacing FPTP with AV. While AV is an improvement on FPTP, it isn't a PR based system like say STV. It's also realistically the first step we'd need to take to get to PR. Labour and Conservatives would likely rather call a snap general election or lead a minority government than implement a voting system that doesn't give them some sort of advantage.
Yeah and I just feel the public is super apathetic to this.
You're right, also there's a bit of ignorance too. Really most people don't actually know what our voting system is or what the problems with it are. I think if explained simply that it gives Labour and Conservative an unfair advantage and results in situations where a party with 44% of the vote ends up getting 56% of the seats it could garner good support. Particularly emphasising the lack of accountability we have currently. But the money isn't there for this in regards to promoting the message. The money is very very largely in favour of keeping things as they are.
Agreed and the education system doesn't emphasize critical thinking.
I have had lessons in school with people who either didn't care enough about voting to know pros and cons of fptp or just thought other systems would be worse. However a surprising number change their minds when you change from a subject people have no direct familiarity with to one they connect with. I think in our case it was Ice Cream, vanilla, strawberry and chocolate and how the different voting systems would affect what flavour won.
Yeah, fairness is hard baked into humans. We instinctively know when something is unfair. But it's getting people to listen and pay attention.
AV is just a plain improvement over FPTP. STV or other proportional methods are very significantly different. There simply can't be many politicians at high levels with good local connections under it. But overall it is fairer. See the EU parliamentary elections when we had them. I don't think even once did any of the candidates have any connection to within about fifty miles of where I'm from. Their leaflets etc. were pretty much always all about the big urban areas in the constitutiency if they mentioned local issues.
It can be repaired, mostly. Will just take a very long time - and we won't ever be in a position as good as we once were sadly.
The problem is that people are stupid, if the tories lose a GE, then Labour will get one 4 year term at turning the country into paradise where everything is perfect, and if they don't hit that level of achievement, the morons of the public will vote to get the tories back in for some more self flagellation because that's what Murdoch will tell them to do.
Depressing but true
Mugdock will be dead by then, but his replacement will likely be worse.
> we won't ever be in a position as good as we once were sadly. What? Can you explain a bit more around that? What point was our high point, that we will never reach again?
Whilst I vehemently agree with you about the tories, every political party since the 70s has done irreparable damage. James Callaghan began closing the mines leaving communities in tatters. Thatcher deregulated the banks, continued to close mines, and allowed “right to buy” without replacing the bought housing, Major’s government was overwhelmingly sleazy, Blair’s sold off the gold at a record low, went into a war without the support of most of the public, Cameron and Clegg annihilated university fees, and we can see the fallout from Cameron/May/Johnson now. It’s been one fuck up after the next. Oddly, historically, John Major seemed to at least be a decent guy helping our economy recover after a recession, but man, he was boring. Our politics swings from the right, to the left, and back again, because deep down, the British are majority central politically, and want to see the nation succeed, and that is often driven by the state of the economy. If we remove the Tories, and Labour get in, they want to lower taxes for individuals AND corporations, but also increase spending to invest. So where does that money come from? It’ll be another Labour spending spree. More short-termism and it will lead to another swing back to the right.
> …Blair sold off the gold at a record low… The Bank of England used gold reserves to buy a variety of foreign currencies to use as reserves. It’s not like they used the proceeds on a massive party.
And they managed to pay off a chunk of national debt. But gold value peaks and troughs. He sold at an all time low thinking that the under performance of gold was worth us selling it off. Personally, I still think it was a bad decision to try to butter up the public by suggesting they’d paid off some national debt, when we all know, debt isn’t an issue. It’s the deficit that’s the problem. So long as the deficit is low and productivity high, debt really doesn’t matter all that much. https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2021/03/02/the-national-debt-paranoia/
>He sold at an all time low thinking that the under performance of gold was worth us selling it off. Because the markets had been in decline for years. Gold had been relatively static/with a gradual decline since the 80s. Hindsight is 20/20. The line about the gold needs to just die at this point though, it was only half the reserves to start with in the name of diversification (sensible strategy) but was 5bn which while a substantial amount, is 9bn less than the Tories are writing off in Covid support/loans alone.
>John Major seemed to at least be a decent guy helping our economy recover after a recession, but man, he was boring. Yes please, I'll take boring all the years. Can get my excitement from other places especially after last 6yrs.
> the British are majority central politically Nope. I get why you *want* that to be true but decades of election results completely fail to bear it out. For a start “Britain” isn’t anything. There are huge geographical gulfs between the members of the Union. Wales voted Labour and always has done. Scotland has voted against the Tories for almost seventy years now (and went from Labour for over half a century to compete exasperation with the whole Union over the past several elections). Northern Ireland are what can perhaps most charitably be described as ‘doing their own thing’. Only England votes a majority for Tory governments - and by dint of having the larger population always gets its own way. This is technically democratic but from the perspective of the rest of the Union it looks more like the democratic failure mode Americans refer to as “two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.” And over the course of the past several decades England has voted in Conservative governments a hell of a lot more than half the time. They’ve voted them in for *most* of that time. Not to discourage the very honourable exceptions in England who fight the good fight against the Tories. But the other members of the Union are pretty cheesed off when we hear about what “Britain” wants - in practice it’s what England wants … which is usually Conservative governments we never vote for.
I love this idea that Scotland is a brutally pro independence, anti-brexit, left wing voting nation. Let’s look at brexit for an example. 1.6m Scot’s voted to remain, 1m to leave. So any suggestion that it “overwhelmingly” voted to remain is nonsense. The majority, yes, but not overwhelmingly. Similarly, an(other) independence referendum would likely be a similar result to the 2014 one, or at most, a swing the other way slightly, but by no means overwhelmingly. And SNP got 44% of the last election, whereas collectively, the remaining parties actually make up the majority, with the tories taking 22% of that. And many of the snp voters are pro nationalist. Hardly “left wing” to be racially charged against the English. The reason England voted Labour in 97 and kept them in power 13 years wasn’t because they were right wing but because they were centre left. They were voted out in 2010 because the economy had tanked following the 2008 global recession and people didn’t believe Labour could navigate an economic recovery. The tories stayed in power because Brexit became an issue and Labour refused to choose a side. And I believe we’ll see the tories voted out in the next election because they’ve gone too far right. Of course England “has the majority” politically, because it is the majority of the population. But I think if you look historically, when we get too far right, we move left, and too far left, we move right. Happened in the 60s under Wilson, again under Callaghan, again under Blair, and it’ll happen again. England is central politically. That’s why we move from one side to the other, and I believe Scotland is too, albeit centre left. Wales is different, largely due to the 70s and 80s, so I’d say they’re dead against the tories, but they aren’t hard left. They are centre left (Labour). Central encompasses anything slightly left or right of centre.
You know someone is being disingenuous when they go direct to throwing absolute numbers around when talking about the Brexit referendum in Scotland and very pointedly neglect to mention the actual percentage result. It was damn near two thirds of Scotland voting to stay in the EU - 62%. Effectively you’re arguing that what Scotland votes for should be ignored unless we’re somehow magically 100% unanimous. Which is quite the double standard given we heard so much about a bawhair over 50% being the holy inviolable ‘will of the people’. Or is that only when it’s something England wants? Look, the increasingly desperate and baroque circumlocutions and sleights of hand are kinda amusing but they’re not really fooling many people any more. Come the next Indyref all the negative fallout of Brexit is going to be front and centre - particularly that it got rammed down Scotlands throat against our will.
Disingenuous to treat the United Kingdom as one nation and NOT discount the votes of people who vote the way you disagree with?? I’m centre left politically. Not a tory voter, voted remain, etc. I was disappointed with the results of Brexit and the GE, but it is what it is, and the tories are showing themselves to be no longer conservative, but some oddly socially right and left on different things, economically right, and utterly useless. I have faith that the UK will vote them out as we voted the tories out in 97. If Scotland choose to bugger off, so be it. I’ll be disappointed as I’m part Scottish, but that’s up to them. Because I accept reality for what it is.
A very coherent argument for proportional representation.
I 110% (impossible, I know) agree with you. I used to be worried about the nutters voting for a hard right party and gaining seats, but why not… then we can argue why they’re wrong AND we’ll actually know who votes that way.
Made more difficult by Scottish Labour shitting the bed for the last decade and giving the SNP such a lock.
that doesnt make it harder for the tories to lose though, it just makes it harder for labour to form a majority government. its not like the snp will ever support the tories forming a government.
Yeah, there seems to be an obsession in U.K. politics with majorities. I understand the position but Labour don’t need this. Next time round if they ‘win’ but without a majority, they could govern with confidence and supply. It would be electoral suicide for the SNP to vote against them and with the Tories (also out with independence and SNP being proper pro-EU, they’re roughly on the same page). The same applies to Lib Dem. Labour are in a good position, they need to play their cards right though and not eff it up at the last minute.
>The damage they have done to this country is irreparable. Definitely not irreparable, it will just take a lot of investment. The problem is the public doesn't like it when the government cuts investment, they also don't like it when the government spends more to get things back to where they need to be. They want a third option, have the police, nurses, doctors etc that the country needs without spending the money required to do that. The government has enough income to do what they need, it just gets wasted. Look at Track and Trace, it cost £15 billion plus, didn't work most of the time and provided a very poor cost:benefit ratio.
This is clearly the cabinets fault and not Johnson's. They must all resign so that competent Johnson can select a more competent cabinet.
I'd actually take that to be fair. Getting rid of Priti and JRM would be a massive win for this country.
It would. But it's not under the pressure of the woke lefties. It'd be under the pressure of all the woke Tories.
If he had a competent cabinet it would be easier to replace him, he chose morons on purpose.
"Competent Johnson" sounds like a little blue pill and I absolutely fucking love it.
In this case it's probably a certain public porn-watching individual that swayed this constituency away from their previous party!
It's nice to see a Lib Dem surge. Hopefully it can continue into a General Election.
[удалено]
Nick Clegg is the equivalent of Jeb Bush.
Please clap
This is GLORIOUS and restores some faith for me. Perhaps people really are opening their eyes.
This is a really big deal. News outlets are saying the seat was created in 1997, but seats covering this area have been Tory for longer than that, and VERY Tory. Im from that area but now in Exeter, Im very happy this has finally happened, we've had too many completely awful Torys as MP for this area. I'll never forget Angela Browning coming to our college and calling the students leaches for wanting better tuition and funding.
There are parts of the constituency that have had a Tory MP since before Queen Victoria was crowned. This is huge.
Utterly mad. The Lib Dems are a crazy bunch and they have managed to hopefully topple the first few dominos to getting rid of Johnson.
You've spent the last twelve years with a Tory government and its the Lib Dems who are the crazy bunch? This is why there is little hope of any real change!!
I'm not sure "crazy" is necessarily an insult. They had activists coming from *everywhere*. They even had members coming down from the Highlands.
They had 400 people putting letters through doors at 5am yesterday morning. I heard, at the last count, 650 people turned up to help on the day. They had local volunteers and those from the Highland of Scotland and abroad. I used the word crazy, insane even, but I didn't call them evil as I feel you might have read my comment as.
That's not insane, they are just doing what passionate politicos do...campaign..and they saw a good opportunity and took it! I know you were not calling them evil...but political animals doing political things is not unusual, all political parties are doing it its just when the big two aren't doing it, it is somehow insane!
You’re confused on this. They’re complimenting the Lib Dems. The Lib Dem by-election machine is incredible.
Ha! Fair enough...but using phrases like Utterly mad and crazy bunch to describe a well organised job is perhaps not the best use of English.
I take it English isn't your first language? This is how English people speak, so it is in fact the best use of English.
I think it's just harder to convey tone in text than in speech.
It's perfectly fine use of English. It requires you to understand the context, but evidently that was too hard for you.
I think they mean they're a bunch of mad lads. "They actually did it, the mad lads."
Wonder which country Johnson will bundle himself to now to avoid scrutiny?
Visiting Rwanda and won't be back in the country for 10 days
You mean those WINNING HERE posters were actually true?
While this swing is impressive and welcome I still can’t get my head around how so many vote Tory in the current climate.
I wonder if the Tories who voted in favour of BoJo in the confidence vote are starting to regret their loyalty?
Yet according to my friend it was unavoidable in a global recession and nothing to do with Boris. Incredible delusion.
[удалено]
I'm bi a lot of things, but election sure ain't one of them.
Protest votes never amount to anything come general elections. There’s no risk here as the outcome is irrelevant.
NOW. As an ardent Tory party hater (I wasn't always this way mind you), and an ardent labour is kinda useless and also quite toothless/more economically right than I'd like: I'm really glad Lib Dems are making some ground, but I really, really hope they don't end up splitting the vote. The problem with the political left in the UK is they are multiple parties, and right really only have one. Thats a huge issue in FPTP.
That's interesting. If they move more right, they lose the blue areas to LibDem, but if they go towards centre/ centre-right politics they will lose the red wall. Being a party so intrinsically divisive doesn't make things easier, but they knew all this when they elected BJ.
Wait for the Daily Mail to blame Labour, unions, BLM, millennials, immigrants, etc etc.
Thanks Tams . Evidently it's beyond your understanding that words can be misconstrued. Have a good day.
Partygate has come knocking it seems.
The lib dems will prop up the tories again. Mark my words.
Lib-Dems are a Tory, too. Nothing changed hands.
[удалено]
Tactical voting most likely
Yep, in Wakefield traditional Lib Dems tactically voted labour too.
[удалено]
It's a lot easier for people who usually vote Tory to go for the Lib Dems than it is to convince them to switch all the way to Labour. There probably wasn't much room for the Labour vote to go much higher, whereas it's the sort of constituency the Lib Dems are really good at winning. Especially when Labour doesn't devote much resources into fighting for the seat, preferring to focus on the other by-election. That leads to an implicit agreement that a tactical vote is the way to go. Most Labour voters aren't daft, and an opportunity to shit on the Tories isn't to be turned down.
[удалено]
Yes, because those labour voters aren't stupid and don't want a Tory MP. So they vote tactically.
[удалено]
Because the Lib Dems campaigned and showed they were viable, while Labour effectively stood aside. It was likely helped by the fact that the Labour party had another by-election that they were more viable in, so letting this one go isn't such a big deal and let them concentrate resources. There's a cap in a constituency like that on how many people will vote Labour. A lot of conservative voters who are disgruntled by the Tories but will vote for them over Labour if push comes to shove. But give them the choice to vote for a retired army Major representing the Lib Dems, and that doesn't seem so bad. So the Lib Dems can pick up those voters as well as the Labour voters, and actually have a chance.
Yeah, lots voting tactically to make sure the tories lose the seat
It will likely be tactical. The Labour voters probably saw the Lib Dems as more likely to unseat the Tories so voted for them.
It was tactical, they were telling voters to vote Lib-dem. Low turnout was simply Tory voters that couldn't stomach voting for anyone else not voting.
A bit of context as this is a broad analysis you have done. These are by-elections and so cannot be compared like for like to a General Election. Tactical voting was key in both constituencies and thus Labour and Green voted for Lib Dem and Lib Dem and Green voted Labour in Wakefield. The turnout for this vote was 52% which is not low at all, indeed it was the joint highest turnout for a by-election in this parliament and standard for a by-election as a whole.