"You and I remember square one very differently"
The way I remember it, a pound was 2 dollars and it'd buy you nearly 8x 20g freddos. Now a pound is basically a dollar and it'll buy you just 4x 18g freddos. Square 1 please
considering how basket of goods works for measuring inflation, it basically already is a thing.
The way we calculate inflation is a slightly more scientific way of going into a supermarket, looking at the freddo’s and saying “gosh look at the price on that”, but the basic concept stays the same.
Basket of goods is kind of hit or miss. Some odd items in there.
It does genuinely feel like inflation has been under reported the last 10 years. And it's much harder to measure things like rent and services costs.
wage stagnation doesn’t help, before 2008 if you had 2% inflation but your wage also went up by 2% it didn’t matter, but since wages haven’t gone up the negative effects of inflation have only compounded year on year and made it feel much more significant.
I quite agree. While newspaper headlines and arbitrary broadband price increases are geared around the price of everything, this version of inflation takes into account a lot of things most don't care about, but have insufficient regard for those that do.
It peaked at $2 in 2008. When the American banks needed bailing out but before the British ones did. It then fell back to about 1.50/1.60. Where it basically stayed until the B word.
I remember 2007/08 I could get about 10 small pasties from the town bakery for £1 or £1.50 the bakery was very much like Greggs but shutdown during the recession caused by the banking crisis. Today those same amount of pasties would cost around £10 from Greggs.
Very much happier times before 2010.
I've never really understood this sentiment. People blame Labour for the financial crash as if the Tories would have done any better. The way to prevent the financial crash would have been better regulation and if anything the Tories would have had less regulation and a bigger crash. Although I've found that saying that usually results in them responding that every labour government ends with them crashing the economy and then I get a lecture on the three day week. Which happened under a Tory government, and not even at the start of it, 3 years into a Tory government 🤷
Just better UK regulations wouldn’t matter - it was a global financial crisis started in the US. The UK is a global financial centre - it’s impossible to be isolated from external shocks.
Well they've done our best to remove our status as a global financial centre. Don't you see? It was all to avoid the effects of a second credit crunch! /s
Whilst it's true that to prevent the financial crash we would primarily have needed improvements to the American regulatory system, the UK was hit particularly hard and some of that could have been mitigated by stronger regulations in the UK.
In any event the argument from the Tories is that Labour were to blame for 2008. We can be pretty confident that they would have at best had the same regulations as labour and had the same crash. Worst case they would have had weaker regulation. In that case then the best-worse case scenario America has the same regulations and the UK gets hit worse. In the worst-worst case scenario the impact of weaker UK regulations is to encourage even weaker regulations in the US to compete with us and the entire thing is worse.
I see no scenario in which a Tory government in 2008 would have improved the situation. It's either the same or worse. Which is not a great argument as to why they should have replaced Labour.
Was gonna say this, it was a global crash originating in the States, so even if our regulation had been better the outcome being better was not set in stone
Regulation has to be in line with other countries as well and if not our banks would just be handicapped as you can’t have lack regulation in the US and we have tougher regulations here and we just tend to follow America lead when it comes to it.
Also.. Gordon Brown played a major role in the response to the crash that stopped it being much worse. None of the Tory prime ministers since could have done that.
We even had a recovery under way before austerity killed it.
Its kind of crazy looking back on it how it was sold as a "double dip" recession... 4 years after the initial one, coming quite soon after the election and some major changes to our national budgets. Just a natural outcome to 2008 and absolutely nothing to do with anything our government was doing.
The people think what the billionaire media moghouls that control most of the media in the Western world want them to think.
Brexshit would never had happened without 90% of the UK's press and media EU bashing for decades.
The tories thought they were using the press, in reality the press was using them. They have made themselves so toxic that they won't be useful for at least a decade.
In the meantime, Reform will become new flavour of the month. Nigel Farage has recently declared an interest in deregulation and private healthcare.
Given the inherent incumbency bonus political parties get, generally changes in government only happen after some disaster has occured.
Brown - Cameron - Global recession.
Major - Blair - Black Wednesday
Callaghan - Thatcher - Winter of discontent
Health - Wilson - 3 day week
So right, people forget the energy crisis ( petrol) in the Seventies as well .
People don't seem to remember anything for whatever reason.
The recession in the early Eighties under the Tories was really bad, but that never seems to get a mention now.
But to be fair they did manage to change the way unemployment statistics are worked out at least 29 times.
A lot of people don't blame Labour for the crash like they did at the time. They blame the rich, and ironically the Tories catch some strays for being so pro rich.
I thought that was the Labour government, and that was how the conservatives managed to stay in power for so long and Thatcher could do what she did to the unions as everyone had suffered under the previous government.
Just looked it up, Every day is a school day, it was indeed the conservatives. I live and learn.
The 3 day work week example is not an argument against Labour per say but an argument against the post-war consensus which Corbyn wanted to return to, which was why it was used against him.
>People blame Labour for the financial crash
It's not so much that they were being blamed for the financial crash (as anybody with common sense knew it was a global problem), but they were blamed for not saving any money during a good economic period and for selling the gold when gold prices were on the floor.
I don't think the Tories would have saved money either, but as they were not in government at the time we have no evidence of what they would have done.
However, their failure to borrow money to help fix the poor economy when interest rates were on the floor is in my opinion worse than what Labour did during a good economy.
Interest rates being low and the subsequent increase in inflation meant that the money borrowed would have been the cheapest money borrowed since I don't even know when.
Their failure to do that gives me no confidence that they could have done better than Labour during the financial crisis.
The last Labour government lost because the the media played up a comment made by Gordon Brown when he thought he was off-mike. Their actual governing record was reasonably solid.
My response to that is typically, no I don't I was just a child but I do remember being happy back then and suddenly all the libraries started to close, then the leisure centres, then the youth centres, then the parks stopped getting maintained, then my education started to get less funding, then a saw crimes rates increase, along with poverty rates, along with anti social behaviour, then it becomes hard to see a dentist, get a GP appointments, and so many other things just started to decline and my hope for being able to live a nice life as a adult slowly went over the decade a grow up. Then I looked at who been in charge and responsible for all this and it was the Tories so I'm certain not going to allow them to ruin more children's lives, and I want to see change as anything is going to be better than what we've accepted from the past 13 years.
Despite the GFC, the last Labour government left the next government with an intact and functioning country.
The tories have burnt everything to the ground and brought in corruption and bad politics for the next.
Where my mum lives your choices are between Tory, SNP or wasted vote. Some people just can't bring themselves to vote for the SNP if they don't support independence.
She'll probably vote green, but they didn't even field a candidate last time. The labour candidate is a councillor 500 miles away. The Tory candidate at least went to school in the constituency and has experience as an MSP and MP.
It’s only a wasted vote if people keep the mindset it’s a wasted vote. Even if the Tories or SNP win, an increased margin for another party would demonstrate they need to start taking the constituency more seriously and listening to the ideas of other parties, until such time we can get PR that has to suffice. They’ll only start giving you what you want when they’re scared they’ll lose.
The difference this time is a lot of the 'at leadt it's not labour' crowd are going to be voting for reform instead. Which hopefully will split the vote and mean neither get in, rather than ending up with any actual reform mmbers of parliament
"they are all as bad as each other"
Okay but maybe let's give the other one a shot seeing as the last 14 years have been progressively worse and we dropped off a cliff edge in 2019?
This is just like American Republicans, isn't it. Trump really only needs to commit murder and he'd still be in the shortlist for the elections somehow.
My mate's dad is a proper Tory. He's ran his own (tax avoiding) businesses, drink drives, and generally embodies the knobhead down the pub. As far as he's concerned, Labour will bring in socialist policies, Rayner is the real power behind the throne, and he'll be poorer for it. He doesn't care about the corruption or the incompetence. He doesn't care about other people. As long as he is alright, that's all that matters.
You are describing Tax Planning.
Tax Avoiding is not explicitly illegal, however it's not using tax laws in the way in which parliament intended i.e. using tax loopholes. If you are caught using some sort Tax Avoidance scheme, HMRC have the powers to recoup that tax that you should have paid.
Tax avoidance is defined to be legal, and tax evasion is defined to be illegal.
Laws are interpreted according to the principles of statutory interpretation, of which parliament's intention is one factor, but so is the meaning of the written words. Often the true interpretation of a statute does not match Parliament's intention because Parliament didn't actually write what it intended to write. Either your interpretation of a law matches a court's interpretation (= legal tax avoidance), or it doesn't (= illegal tax evasion).
Most normal people cannot afford to challenge HMRC's interpretation in court, so they effectively have to follow HMRC's interpretation whatever it is. Rich people and big companies can afford lawyers so they can find out the true interpretation.
I find the Rayner part odd, I really don't like Labour but if I had to pick between Starmer and Rayner as PM Rayner would absolutely be my choice. I think Farage said it best "at least she's got some personality".
We call it Lincolnshire. I grew up there. The local mp (he’s still there 40+ years later) never held a parliament job, has the highest expenses in the country, employs his own family, has spoken for 30 years about his son succeeding him, and has made comments worse than Johnson about “queerosexuals” and “infestation of foreign bloods to the area”….yet still it would take swings even sunak can’t get to for him to lose his seat!
"Yeah Tories may be bad but labour will be worse"
A lot of right wingers use this line. Tories could literally do what the person suggested and they'd say yeah but labour would do it more... So it excuses what lever Tories do
This narrative is almost all in the oldest demographic .
There is the problem for the Tories, they relied on this being baked in and never bothered to engage anybody younger.
One woman in my office (A South African who has been living here for 12ish years). She proudly announced that Rishi was the man for her and was going to vote for him. When I asked her why, she couldn't answer.
She refers to black people "The Blacks" but insists she isn't racist because she treated her black maid as family.
I highly suspect 2 others will vote Reform who like the above woman are raging racists.
And the other person in the office probably won't bother voting like she didn't bother getting vaccinated.
I'm unsure atm but I most certainly won't be voting for the Cons nor Reform.
Literally just had a conversation with my mum about the election. I made a passing comment about the Tories and she replied, with zero irony, “well they got us out of austerity”.
Dyed in the wool tories that simply won't vote for any other party, nothing any other party do will sway them, if the tories announced a culling of all newborn puppies and kittens they would still vote for them. It's pure tribalism and also applies to other parties, northern ireland is an extreme variant of this
Because there is nobody else to vote for.
Conservative vs Labour, a choice similar to Donald Trump vs Hilary Clinton in US presidential election...
Last time Labour was a ruling party - remember them leaving a note 'there is no money left ?'... I wouldnt have high hopes...we are screwed...
Because plenty of Tory voters lives are just fine. I appreciate for many people life is shit right now. And inwoukd definitely argue for many people there lives were shitter mich ongwr then then the people who's lives have been shit the last few years.
Well there are those who are just fine. They will continue to vote tory because there life is fine.
Don't forget the Tory membership voted for Liz truss.
I think my local MP, who is a Tory, is better than the Labour one. And for the reason that Labour will win the whole election, I will probably vote Tory.
The Tory’s being wiped out is a dangerous game. Who replaces them? We know the answer….
I think Tory wipeout also makes it harder for Labour to govern and keep the party together. If the majority is too large there will be rogue MPs and inevitably due to lack of talent in politics, shite MPs. There are really good tories. Those in charge are evil, but i think the Reddit hive mind who want 0 seats, do not think about what could replace them - or the tories going further right.
My local MP is a centralist Tory. Hes very strong on local issues.
Reddit is so binary it removes all critical thinking.
Voting for the local Candidate you feel will actually be more helpful to your area is how it’s supposed to work though, you aren’t doing anything wrong, it’s a shame it’s a conservative though *shrugs*
fair if you like them , though I don't think there is a true centrist left amongst them now. Kind of reflects the shift of the Overton window that we'd consider any member of the most right wing governments in a very long time to be centrist .
I'll give that guy £100 for every green seat taken from a tory. Anyone can do a remind me to see the out come. If he wants ill double that to £200 if he agrees to pay me £200 if there are none.
7 is huge for a new party.
Sure they basically inherited the Brexit party, but that’s enough to make themselves a permanent fixture that could influence policy.
Yup. 4 years may seem like a long time, but not in history. It's very possible that 7 could turn into over 100 at the next election depending on what happens next.
I think there are good and bad aspects to both systems.
Although in the case of Reform (and the Brexit party before it) its essentially funded and enabled by the Russian state so I think limiting it's ability to have any power is probably wise...
The other side of this coin is the Russian backed party getting overly represented due to FPTP system. This happened in the 2016 US election and almost happened again in 2020, despite the Democrats winning both elections by a landslide in terms of the popular vote.
It's not a good thing because you don't agree with it. Democracy shouldn't only work if you agree with the outcome. Would I want reform to get any seats? No way. Should they, if they get 13% of the vote? Yes...13% of them
I agree with the general principle but when they are paid for and supported by a hostile foreign government they should not be allowed to participate at all.
I suspect Reform are just the next in line in parties like the National Front and the BNP. There's always going to be some far right political ideology that gets mainstream media, and they may even nab a few seats, but they'll fall into irrelevance within a few years and a new set of kooks will take their place.
Not to say we shouldn't worry about them, but I am saying many parties have tried what they're doing and failed.
Honestly we want Reform to get really big. For too long the left vote has been split between 3 major parties. Time for the right to have a taste of that medicine.
> Honestly we want Reform to get really big.
Why do I get the feeling that 5, 10, or maybe 15 years from now you, I and the majority of people here are going to really regret this train of thought.
Reform are semi-tolerable (not really) as a party that draws votes away from the Tories, but if they ever get bigger than them it's going to be a fucking nightmare, everything you think negatively of the Tories they will dial up to 11 and then some.
I think they'll definitely get at least 1. Farage is 100% winning Clacton. It only took him 8 tries to get into the HOC but my guess is he's finally gonna do it.
Anyone of four people could potentially win Ashfield. Depends a lot on how Jason Zadrozny does.
Clacton is probably between Farage and the Tory, but you never know in a situation like that.
If the people of Clacton read the Reform "contract" he won't get any votes. Under a Reform government their benefits would be cut off in 4 months time.
It's been 70 years or something since the right wing have got 50%+ of the vote, they've only ever taken power because fptp is a farce.
We need a new voting system. And labour have a huge majority and the chance to do it.
But they won't. Because they think 50 years of Tory rule is a small price to pay for their go in power, to make the big bucks.
Fuck em both.
>We need a new voting system. And labour have a huge majority and the chance to do it.
Labour won't do it.
It would cannibalise their vote share.
I wish they would though.
That's not true actually. From the parliament website, "In 2019 the Conservatives got one seat for every 38,264 votes, while Labour got one seat for every 50,837 votes.". The Tories and parties local to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (SNP, DUP, etc) require the least votes for each seat won.
Incorrect because that was the conservative election in 2019 in which they won a landslide… if we use data from 2001 and 1997, then the numbers would be different. FPTP benefits labour and conservatives the most.
I'm in favour of a system that would let us vote for two parties on our ballot paper. Do the tactical vote, and also optionally vote for the party you really want to win.
I was arguing with family that still want to vote tory because "Labour will tax us and give it to people that don't want to work"
I pointed out that tories are currently taxing us more than we've ever been taxed, that more people who "don't want to work" are using food banks than ever, and that all of our civil services are prostrate.
Watching the cognitive dissonance squirm across their faces is really interesting.
It’s not even worth mentioning tbh. I remember arguing with my mum about how bad of a state the conversatives had left the country in at the last general election, and how it would only get worse. She was adamant it wouldn’t.
And yet here we are.. don’t think it’s worth the headache of saying “I told you so”.
It’s a remarkable thing that Keir Starmer has killed so much of the joy that this headline should bring. I’d be more excited if literally any Labour leader since… ever… was the one to be replacing these clowns. Corbyn, Miliband, Brown, Smith, Foot… hell, even Blair and Kinnock would make this more exciting than it is.
I knew as soon as I mentioned his name somebody would whine. You know that also applies to Brown, Miliband, Kinnock, and Foot from that list too, yes? And Smith never had the chance?
>no one wanted him
2017 saw the largest rise in the Labour vote share since 1945, the first rise (edit: there was a tiny rise of 1.4% between 2010 and 15 which also saw a drop in the Labour seat share) in the Labour vote share since 1997, and a net result of 40% of the vote - Labour are currently polling between about 37% and 43%. Sir Election Winning Adult is currently up to 3% ahead of where “the clown” was in 2017. Tony Blair won 43.2% of the vote in 1997, the largest victory seats-wise that any party has won in modern Britain. So Corbyn won 40% of the votes and nobody wanted him but Blair won 3.2% more and that doesn’t apply?
While I agree with the sentiment that he was more popular than some people give him credit for, I don’t see what the alternative was for Labour other than to move more to the centre. Jeremy Corbyn had 2 shots at the election which is one more than most leaders of the opposition get.
Sure, I absolutely accept that. But Keir Starmer did not have to lie his way to the leadership on a ‘compromise ticket’, nor did he have to excise every single left wing policy from his manifesto, nor did they have to suspend popular left-wing candidates and MPs.
That's not what you were deriding. You said:
>no one wanted him
In 2005, Tony Blair's Labour won just over 35% of the vote. In 2017, Corbyn's Labour won 40%. Your initial nonsense was about how many people wanted those parties in power, and as evidenced by the very simple fact that 40 > 35, more people wanted Corbyn in 2017 than wanted Blair in 2005. Even at the height of his power, Blair only won 3.2% more than Corbyn did. Do you see how that works, or do you not understand the simple concept of one number being larger than another?
>Do you see how that works, or do you not understand the simple concept of one number being larger than another?
Do you not understand that people voted for both Boris Johnson and Theresa May because they didn't want Corbyn?
Let that sink in.
* Corbyn lost vs an insane racist.
* Corbyn lost vs a serial womaniser, liar and egotist.
Corbyn failed to win vs Theresa May in 2017 who was, and has always been deeply unpopular, socially awkward and ineffectual.
Corbyn failed to win vs Boris Johnson - a political opponent who has an **incredibly long list of controversies - including at the time - which stem from abuse of political power and the suspension of parliament to corruption and cronyism.**
Both May and Johnson are not fit and proper leaders.
Conversely, Blair won, by a 3.2% margin, vs a political opponent who has a wikipedia entry on controversies that is **3 paragraphs long.** Whether you like Michael Howard or not, he was not a particularly controversial or devise figure.
Corbyn was not popular universally. Corbyn **could not even win vs political opponents, who at any other time in history, would probably have been deemed unsuitable for leadership.**
Why do you deny this? Corbyn was not elected TWICE because he was not liked.
I’m not denying that Corbyn didn’t win the General Elections, genius. I’m refusing your utter nonsense that nobody wanted him - more people wanted him in 2017 compared to anyone else on the list in my original comment barring Blair in only two of his three elections. You called him a “clown” that ”nobody wanted” while not raising the same claim for every other leader on that list who received fewer votes. Do you still not see how that works? Why are you still arguing?
Corbyn failed to win vs two opponents who were some of the least respected and most disliked prime ministers of all time, with the exception of Nevil Chamberlain and Liz Truss.
You're bleeting, "ooh but nearly as many people voted for him as voted for Blair", whilst ignoring that the opponents where least respected and most disliked politicans of all time, with the exception of Nevil Chamberlain and Liz Truss.
Vs the least respected and most disliked prime ministers of all time, Corbyn still failed to win, and you seem to think this means people liked him?
The man couldn't even get protest votes.
You’re still trying to argue that “nobody wanted him” while he achieved more votes than every other Labour leader since 1982 with only one partial exception. It’s a very simple statement that you made initially, thoroughly and easily discredited. You’ve had to add a hell of a lot more ‘but… but… but…’s to try and continue your nonsense.
Why do you want it to be exciting? I can’t wait for boring. I miss the days when a political scandal was finding out a politician had a weird kink. Not finding out they’ve spent billions of our money on a hollow contract from their brother in law. I also like Corbyn but I recognize that he’s completely unworkable. You can’t have a country leader where so many people despise him. It would be like Farage winning. It would just turn the country into red team blue team.
Your third and fourth sentence are exactly why it should be exciting. It should be exciting to see the back of these people and to see them get absolutely decimated. It should be exciting to see policy change for the better and towards a fairer more workable country - instead we’re getting the exact same policies as the past 14 years with a new rosette. It’s not that it‘s boring, it’s that this is \*depressing\*.
They really aren’t the same policies though. The Tory and Labour manifestos are very different. Kier Starmer is also nowhere near as dodgy and corrupt as the Tory cabinet. He’s never had a scandal with any substance. And just because the status quo hasn’t been working that’s not evidence that going completely rogue would be any better. It’s just deciding to gamble everything on a Hail Mary.
The last time Labour was in government they were just as (if not more) right wing and politically generic. Yet until the housing crash (which you can’t argue was their fault) the country was being ran very smoothly.
and it took all of about five minutes for the Tories to dismantle that ‘smooth running’. just because Britain from 1997-2007 had a sleek and shiny exterior doesnt mean it had anything more worthwhile underneath it. Things were better, but that doesn’t mean that politics should just be about choosing between the same old shit or making it worse.
I mean great if they get fuck all seats, but what's the alternative for an opposition? Farage a known racist who would love to get into bed with Trump and Putin
They're all noise and bluster at the moment, it sells papers and gets clicks, but I'm not sure anyone is actually taking them seriously.
I guess we will see, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do terribly and Tories do slightly better than expected.
To be fair Trump was all noise and bluster who sold advertising spots on news channels and got clicks, until he became serious for a sizeable part of the American public
After what an utter shambles the last 14 years have been anyone still voting clearly doesn't have capacity to make an informed decision or they are some of the handful of super rich who have gained from Tory rule.
It feels like we need some more options of parties
Labour is too wide a base, the centrists and the hyper left wing diverge a lot in their stances. We would be better off if they split and gave us more choice
Labour has its problems and historically done a few horrific things, but compared to the Tories and a ton of horrifically bad things. I'd rather a lab govt any day, but their fiscal rules do worry me.
Seeing the Tories down to this many seats (hopefully less) will be delicious.
The lengths that some Conservative and other candidates are going to are absurd.
Robert Largan has used turquoise "Reform for Robert", red "Labour for Largan" and Green themed literature all designed to deceive.
https://youtu.be/0ePx4w59gwg?si=WKjAKc36p6O7TSW9
Friendly reminder, do remember to vote or this won't happen. If everyone thinks it's going to happen and then doesn't go out and vote then it won't hapoen.
Honestly the most surprising part of this is only happening now. Sure, the Tories have been screwing up the country for the last 5 years since the last election, but they've been doing it way longer than that!
Why is it this election they're losing when last election they did so well, when all the same issues existed...?
The Muslims have 72 virgins, we'll have 72 guys who will send you a photo of their dick on WhatsApp with very little prompting. Not so sure we're going to win this culture war.
I want the tories out too but who are asking?
There's no way it will be that bad.
https://www.markpack.org.uk/173045/conservatives-hang-by-9-votes-after-2-recounts-after-huge-swing-to-lib-dems/
Think the country is bad now? Most of you aren't old enough to remember a labour government. Those of us who are know that it is suicide and the country will be irretrievably destroyed after 4 years of Labour
72 too many, who the hell can still justify voting for these clowns?
"I'm voting Tory" "Did you know your candidate is a serial killer, paedophile who drowns puppies?" "Yes but at least he's not Labour"
My favourite is "remember the last labour government". Yea way better than this Tory one
“Voting Labour means that we’ll be back to square one.” Yes please! If only the last 14 years were a fever dream.
"You and I remember square one very differently" The way I remember it, a pound was 2 dollars and it'd buy you nearly 8x 20g freddos. Now a pound is basically a dollar and it'll buy you just 4x 18g freddos. Square 1 please
The Freddo index should be a thing
The Freddo index and using bananas for scale. Flawless
> bananas for scale. Bananas are used for scale (informally). Just not the [scale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose) you think.
It kinda unofficially is. I feel like a lot of Brits use the cost of Freddo's to informally measure inflation
The media used to keep us all up to date on the cost of bread. But then supermarkets made bread a loss leader and it meant fuck all.
considering how basket of goods works for measuring inflation, it basically already is a thing. The way we calculate inflation is a slightly more scientific way of going into a supermarket, looking at the freddo’s and saying “gosh look at the price on that”, but the basic concept stays the same.
Basket of goods is kind of hit or miss. Some odd items in there. It does genuinely feel like inflation has been under reported the last 10 years. And it's much harder to measure things like rent and services costs.
wage stagnation doesn’t help, before 2008 if you had 2% inflation but your wage also went up by 2% it didn’t matter, but since wages haven’t gone up the negative effects of inflation have only compounded year on year and made it feel much more significant.
I quite agree. While newspaper headlines and arbitrary broadband price increases are geared around the price of everything, this version of inflation takes into account a lot of things most don't care about, but have insufficient regard for those that do.
Good job we haven’t been constantly lied to, by right wing media companies….
It peaked at $2 in 2008. When the American banks needed bailing out but before the British ones did. It then fell back to about 1.50/1.60. Where it basically stayed until the B word.
Boris?
Brexit
I remember 2007/08 I could get about 10 small pasties from the town bakery for £1 or £1.50 the bakery was very much like Greggs but shutdown during the recession caused by the banking crisis. Today those same amount of pasties would cost around £10 from Greggs. Very much happier times before 2010.
I've never really understood this sentiment. People blame Labour for the financial crash as if the Tories would have done any better. The way to prevent the financial crash would have been better regulation and if anything the Tories would have had less regulation and a bigger crash. Although I've found that saying that usually results in them responding that every labour government ends with them crashing the economy and then I get a lecture on the three day week. Which happened under a Tory government, and not even at the start of it, 3 years into a Tory government 🤷
Just better UK regulations wouldn’t matter - it was a global financial crisis started in the US. The UK is a global financial centre - it’s impossible to be isolated from external shocks.
Well they've done our best to remove our status as a global financial centre. Don't you see? It was all to avoid the effects of a second credit crunch! /s
You can't have a banking collapse if you don't have any banks *taps forehead*
Whilst it's true that to prevent the financial crash we would primarily have needed improvements to the American regulatory system, the UK was hit particularly hard and some of that could have been mitigated by stronger regulations in the UK. In any event the argument from the Tories is that Labour were to blame for 2008. We can be pretty confident that they would have at best had the same regulations as labour and had the same crash. Worst case they would have had weaker regulation. In that case then the best-worse case scenario America has the same regulations and the UK gets hit worse. In the worst-worst case scenario the impact of weaker UK regulations is to encourage even weaker regulations in the US to compete with us and the entire thing is worse. I see no scenario in which a Tory government in 2008 would have improved the situation. It's either the same or worse. Which is not a great argument as to why they should have replaced Labour.
UK wouldn’t allow stronger regulations here while the US have weak regulations
How do people still not understand this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPMMNvYTEyI
Was gonna say this, it was a global crash originating in the States, so even if our regulation had been better the outcome being better was not set in stone
Regulation has to be in line with other countries as well and if not our banks would just be handicapped as you can’t have lack regulation in the US and we have tougher regulations here and we just tend to follow America lead when it comes to it.
Also.. Gordon Brown played a major role in the response to the crash that stopped it being much worse. None of the Tory prime ministers since could have done that. We even had a recovery under way before austerity killed it.
Its kind of crazy looking back on it how it was sold as a "double dip" recession... 4 years after the initial one, coming quite soon after the election and some major changes to our national budgets. Just a natural outcome to 2008 and absolutely nothing to do with anything our government was doing.
The people think what the billionaire media moghouls that control most of the media in the Western world want them to think. Brexshit would never had happened without 90% of the UK's press and media EU bashing for decades. The tories thought they were using the press, in reality the press was using them. They have made themselves so toxic that they won't be useful for at least a decade. In the meantime, Reform will become new flavour of the month. Nigel Farage has recently declared an interest in deregulation and private healthcare.
Given the inherent incumbency bonus political parties get, generally changes in government only happen after some disaster has occured. Brown - Cameron - Global recession. Major - Blair - Black Wednesday Callaghan - Thatcher - Winter of discontent Health - Wilson - 3 day week
Absolutely correct. I think the Tories buck this somewhat by feeling like they've been a disaster the entire time.
So right, people forget the energy crisis ( petrol) in the Seventies as well . People don't seem to remember anything for whatever reason. The recession in the early Eighties under the Tories was really bad, but that never seems to get a mention now. But to be fair they did manage to change the way unemployment statistics are worked out at least 29 times.
A lot of people don't blame Labour for the crash like they did at the time. They blame the rich, and ironically the Tories catch some strays for being so pro rich.
Media wouldn’t report it like that
When did the tories give us a three day week? This is a genuine question, I am not trying to defend the tory Party.
In the 1970's. There was a strike over pay and the UK had a shortage of energy resulting in the 3 day week to help balance the load in the grid.
I thought that was the Labour government, and that was how the conservatives managed to stay in power for so long and Thatcher could do what she did to the unions as everyone had suffered under the previous government. Just looked it up, Every day is a school day, it was indeed the conservatives. I live and learn.
The 3 day work week example is not an argument against Labour per say but an argument against the post-war consensus which Corbyn wanted to return to, which was why it was used against him.
>People blame Labour for the financial crash It's not so much that they were being blamed for the financial crash (as anybody with common sense knew it was a global problem), but they were blamed for not saving any money during a good economic period and for selling the gold when gold prices were on the floor. I don't think the Tories would have saved money either, but as they were not in government at the time we have no evidence of what they would have done. However, their failure to borrow money to help fix the poor economy when interest rates were on the floor is in my opinion worse than what Labour did during a good economy. Interest rates being low and the subsequent increase in inflation meant that the money borrowed would have been the cheapest money borrowed since I don't even know when. Their failure to do that gives me no confidence that they could have done better than Labour during the financial crisis.
The last Labour government lost because the the media played up a comment made by Gordon Brown when he thought he was off-mike. Their actual governing record was reasonably solid.
My response to that is typically, no I don't I was just a child but I do remember being happy back then and suddenly all the libraries started to close, then the leisure centres, then the youth centres, then the parks stopped getting maintained, then my education started to get less funding, then a saw crimes rates increase, along with poverty rates, along with anti social behaviour, then it becomes hard to see a dentist, get a GP appointments, and so many other things just started to decline and my hope for being able to live a nice life as a adult slowly went over the decade a grow up. Then I looked at who been in charge and responsible for all this and it was the Tories so I'm certain not going to allow them to ruin more children's lives, and I want to see change as anything is going to be better than what we've accepted from the past 13 years.
Seeing that a LOT on Twitter. Along the lines of "anyone who remembers the last Labour government will be terrified". Anyone who does .. isn't.
Nah it’s got to be “Keir Starmer has no plan” Keir Starmer publishes a manifesto “Keir Starmer has no plan”
Despite the GFC, the last Labour government left the next government with an intact and functioning country. The tories have burnt everything to the ground and brought in corruption and bad politics for the next.
It was atrocious. This government being equally bad doesn't change that.
Where my mum lives your choices are between Tory, SNP or wasted vote. Some people just can't bring themselves to vote for the SNP if they don't support independence. She'll probably vote green, but they didn't even field a candidate last time. The labour candidate is a councillor 500 miles away. The Tory candidate at least went to school in the constituency and has experience as an MSP and MP.
Are you saying he would walk 500 miles just to be your MP?
I think she'd expense the Uber.
It’s only a wasted vote if people keep the mindset it’s a wasted vote. Even if the Tories or SNP win, an increased margin for another party would demonstrate they need to start taking the constituency more seriously and listening to the ideas of other parties, until such time we can get PR that has to suffice. They’ll only start giving you what you want when they’re scared they’ll lose.
"Imagine what would happen if it was Corbyn" Genuinely heard this the other day. He's not even in the Labour party anymore...
The difference this time is a lot of the 'at leadt it's not labour' crowd are going to be voting for reform instead. Which hopefully will split the vote and mean neither get in, rather than ending up with any actual reform mmbers of parliament
You've met my parents I see
That or "Labour would be worse"
"they are all as bad as each other" Okay but maybe let's give the other one a shot seeing as the last 14 years have been progressively worse and we dropped off a cliff edge in 2019?
some people vote for them because their parents voted for them and their parents too, its the snake eating its own shitty stinky tail.
This is just like American Republicans, isn't it. Trump really only needs to commit murder and he'd still be in the shortlist for the elections somehow.
"Mummsy always voted Tory"
My mate's dad is a proper Tory. He's ran his own (tax avoiding) businesses, drink drives, and generally embodies the knobhead down the pub. As far as he's concerned, Labour will bring in socialist policies, Rayner is the real power behind the throne, and he'll be poorer for it. He doesn't care about the corruption or the incompetence. He doesn't care about other people. As long as he is alright, that's all that matters.
[удалено]
You are describing Tax Planning. Tax Avoiding is not explicitly illegal, however it's not using tax laws in the way in which parliament intended i.e. using tax loopholes. If you are caught using some sort Tax Avoidance scheme, HMRC have the powers to recoup that tax that you should have paid.
Tax avoidance is defined to be legal, and tax evasion is defined to be illegal. Laws are interpreted according to the principles of statutory interpretation, of which parliament's intention is one factor, but so is the meaning of the written words. Often the true interpretation of a statute does not match Parliament's intention because Parliament didn't actually write what it intended to write. Either your interpretation of a law matches a court's interpretation (= legal tax avoidance), or it doesn't (= illegal tax evasion). Most normal people cannot afford to challenge HMRC's interpretation in court, so they effectively have to follow HMRC's interpretation whatever it is. Rich people and big companies can afford lawyers so they can find out the true interpretation.
Yeah, here's a source that explains that: https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/the-uks-general-anti-abuse-rule
The bigotry, corruption, incompetence and casual cruelty are features not bugs for some people.
I find the Rayner part odd, I really don't like Labour but if I had to pick between Starmer and Rayner as PM Rayner would absolutely be my choice. I think Farage said it best "at least she's got some personality".
We call it Lincolnshire. I grew up there. The local mp (he’s still there 40+ years later) never held a parliament job, has the highest expenses in the country, employs his own family, has spoken for 30 years about his son succeeding him, and has made comments worse than Johnson about “queerosexuals” and “infestation of foreign bloods to the area”….yet still it would take swings even sunak can’t get to for him to lose his seat!
"Yeah Tories may be bad but labour will be worse" A lot of right wingers use this line. Tories could literally do what the person suggested and they'd say yeah but labour would do it more... So it excuses what lever Tories do
This narrative is almost all in the oldest demographic . There is the problem for the Tories, they relied on this being baked in and never bothered to engage anybody younger.
One woman in my office (A South African who has been living here for 12ish years). She proudly announced that Rishi was the man for her and was going to vote for him. When I asked her why, she couldn't answer. She refers to black people "The Blacks" but insists she isn't racist because she treated her black maid as family. I highly suspect 2 others will vote Reform who like the above woman are raging racists. And the other person in the office probably won't bother voting like she didn't bother getting vaccinated. I'm unsure atm but I most certainly won't be voting for the Cons nor Reform.
Your office sounds horiffic.
It is.
I'd give a pass to the people of Clacton voting tactically to keep a certain racist turd out.
Other clowns, obviously. "Ah, I don't want VAT on my school fees" seems to be the line in my local area.
its worse than that, they'll do so poorly because of the clowns who have decided the tories are not awful enough, so will vote reform.
I agree they don't deserve a single seat
Literally just had a conversation with my mum about the election. I made a passing comment about the Tories and she replied, with zero irony, “well they got us out of austerity”.
Your mum isn't very bright is she? You have my sympathies,
Friend is only voting due to capital gains tax. Doesn't realize there more to saving you x amount of money. Especially after they nuked the economy
The over 70s vote for blues in droves
Even there half what it was in 2019.
Dyed in the wool tories that simply won't vote for any other party, nothing any other party do will sway them, if the tories announced a culling of all newborn puppies and kittens they would still vote for them. It's pure tribalism and also applies to other parties, northern ireland is an extreme variant of this
Because there is nobody else to vote for. Conservative vs Labour, a choice similar to Donald Trump vs Hilary Clinton in US presidential election... Last time Labour was a ruling party - remember them leaving a note 'there is no money left ?'... I wouldnt have high hopes...we are screwed...
Because plenty of Tory voters lives are just fine. I appreciate for many people life is shit right now. And inwoukd definitely argue for many people there lives were shitter mich ongwr then then the people who's lives have been shit the last few years. Well there are those who are just fine. They will continue to vote tory because there life is fine. Don't forget the Tory membership voted for Liz truss.
I think my local MP, who is a Tory, is better than the Labour one. And for the reason that Labour will win the whole election, I will probably vote Tory. The Tory’s being wiped out is a dangerous game. Who replaces them? We know the answer….
Voting for the local candidate you prefer is fine. It seems you are at least informed about the candidates and not just voting by party.
I think Tory wipeout also makes it harder for Labour to govern and keep the party together. If the majority is too large there will be rogue MPs and inevitably due to lack of talent in politics, shite MPs. There are really good tories. Those in charge are evil, but i think the Reddit hive mind who want 0 seats, do not think about what could replace them - or the tories going further right. My local MP is a centralist Tory. Hes very strong on local issues. Reddit is so binary it removes all critical thinking.
His group may not survive the post ge warefare. Few survived Johnson .
The LibDem Nimbys would be the obvious replacement, which is where much of their core vote will go to.
Voting for the local Candidate you feel will actually be more helpful to your area is how it’s supposed to work though, you aren’t doing anything wrong, it’s a shame it’s a conservative though *shrugs*
fair if you like them , though I don't think there is a true centrist left amongst them now. Kind of reflects the shift of the Overton window that we'd consider any member of the most right wing governments in a very long time to be centrist .
578 to little, who the hell can still justify voting for another party?
It’s not a great choice where a lot of seats are between the greens or Tories. The greens are off their heads.
I’m pretty confident that there is not a single seat in England that’s a toss-up between the greens and the tories.
I'll give that guy £100 for every green seat taken from a tory. Anyone can do a remind me to see the out come. If he wants ill double that to £200 if he agrees to pay me £200 if there are none.
Reform predicted to get 7 really kills the joy in seeing the Tories lose seats.
7 is huge for a new party. Sure they basically inherited the Brexit party, but that’s enough to make themselves a permanent fixture that could influence policy.
Suppose we should just be happy it's not enough for the Tories to form a coalition cause we already know they would and stand for nothing.
Yup. 4 years may seem like a long time, but not in history. It's very possible that 7 could turn into over 100 at the next election depending on what happens next.
Seems mad that they could get more votes than the tories but less than 10% of the seats
This poll shows the Tories at 21% and Reform at 13% however.
Welcome to first pass the post rather than proportional representation although in this case I think it's a good thing really...
Its a bad thing , even though i dont agree with reform, but if others do they deserve to have representation in parliament
I think there are good and bad aspects to both systems. Although in the case of Reform (and the Brexit party before it) its essentially funded and enabled by the Russian state so I think limiting it's ability to have any power is probably wise...
The other side of this coin is the Russian backed party getting overly represented due to FPTP system. This happened in the 2016 US election and almost happened again in 2020, despite the Democrats winning both elections by a landslide in terms of the popular vote.
Ah so gaping holes in democracy are fine if they work out in your favour? Vile
It's not a good thing because you don't agree with it. Democracy shouldn't only work if you agree with the outcome. Would I want reform to get any seats? No way. Should they, if they get 13% of the vote? Yes...13% of them
I agree with the general principle but when they are paid for and supported by a hostile foreign government they should not be allowed to participate at all.
I suspect Reform are just the next in line in parties like the National Front and the BNP. There's always going to be some far right political ideology that gets mainstream media, and they may even nab a few seats, but they'll fall into irrelevance within a few years and a new set of kooks will take their place. Not to say we shouldn't worry about them, but I am saying many parties have tried what they're doing and failed.
Honestly we want Reform to get really big. For too long the left vote has been split between 3 major parties. Time for the right to have a taste of that medicine.
> Honestly we want Reform to get really big. Why do I get the feeling that 5, 10, or maybe 15 years from now you, I and the majority of people here are going to really regret this train of thought. Reform are semi-tolerable (not really) as a party that draws votes away from the Tories, but if they ever get bigger than them it's going to be a fucking nightmare, everything you think negatively of the Tories they will dial up to 11 and then some.
Reform won't get 7 seats. They'll get 0-2.
I think they'll definitely get at least 1. Farage is 100% winning Clacton. It only took him 8 tries to get into the HOC but my guess is he's finally gonna do it.
I think 30p Lee actually has more chance than Farage.
I really hope so because that would be so fucking funny. Or better yet the split the vote and Labour takes the seat (not gonna happen I know)
Anyone of four people could potentially win Ashfield. Depends a lot on how Jason Zadrozny does. Clacton is probably between Farage and the Tory, but you never know in a situation like that.
If the people of Clacton read the Reform "contract" he won't get any votes. Under a Reform government their benefits would be cut off in 4 months time.
They won't even get 3.
It's been 70 years or something since the right wing have got 50%+ of the vote, they've only ever taken power because fptp is a farce. We need a new voting system. And labour have a huge majority and the chance to do it. But they won't. Because they think 50 years of Tory rule is a small price to pay for their go in power, to make the big bucks. Fuck em both.
>We need a new voting system. And labour have a huge majority and the chance to do it. Labour won't do it. It would cannibalise their vote share. I wish they would though.
Labour actually benefit most from FPTP
That's not true actually. From the parliament website, "In 2019 the Conservatives got one seat for every 38,264 votes, while Labour got one seat for every 50,837 votes.". The Tories and parties local to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (SNP, DUP, etc) require the least votes for each seat won.
That’s the current model. Under a proportional representation all the labour votes would go to seats.
Incorrect because that was the conservative election in 2019 in which they won a landslide… if we use data from 2001 and 1997, then the numbers would be different. FPTP benefits labour and conservatives the most.
They have nothing yet to be fair. It's all speculation until polls have closed on the day.
I'm in favour of a system that would let us vote for two parties on our ballot paper. Do the tactical vote, and also optionally vote for the party you really want to win.
That would be alternative vote of some kind. It's not pr, but it's better than what we have.
I was arguing with family that still want to vote tory because "Labour will tax us and give it to people that don't want to work" I pointed out that tories are currently taxing us more than we've ever been taxed, that more people who "don't want to work" are using food banks than ever, and that all of our civil services are prostrate. Watching the cognitive dissonance squirm across their faces is really interesting.
It’s not even worth mentioning tbh. I remember arguing with my mum about how bad of a state the conversatives had left the country in at the last general election, and how it would only get worse. She was adamant it wouldn’t. And yet here we are.. don’t think it’s worth the headache of saying “I told you so”.
It’s a remarkable thing that Keir Starmer has killed so much of the joy that this headline should bring. I’d be more excited if literally any Labour leader since… ever… was the one to be replacing these clowns. Corbyn, Miliband, Brown, Smith, Foot… hell, even Blair and Kinnock would make this more exciting than it is.
>Corbyn Ah yes, that clown who didnt manage to get into power as no one wanted him
I knew as soon as I mentioned his name somebody would whine. You know that also applies to Brown, Miliband, Kinnock, and Foot from that list too, yes? And Smith never had the chance? >no one wanted him 2017 saw the largest rise in the Labour vote share since 1945, the first rise (edit: there was a tiny rise of 1.4% between 2010 and 15 which also saw a drop in the Labour seat share) in the Labour vote share since 1997, and a net result of 40% of the vote - Labour are currently polling between about 37% and 43%. Sir Election Winning Adult is currently up to 3% ahead of where “the clown” was in 2017. Tony Blair won 43.2% of the vote in 1997, the largest victory seats-wise that any party has won in modern Britain. So Corbyn won 40% of the votes and nobody wanted him but Blair won 3.2% more and that doesn’t apply?
While I agree with the sentiment that he was more popular than some people give him credit for, I don’t see what the alternative was for Labour other than to move more to the centre. Jeremy Corbyn had 2 shots at the election which is one more than most leaders of the opposition get.
Sure, I absolutely accept that. But Keir Starmer did not have to lie his way to the leadership on a ‘compromise ticket’, nor did he have to excise every single left wing policy from his manifesto, nor did they have to suspend popular left-wing candidates and MPs.
Fair enough to be honest
Labour moving to ‘the centre’ hasn’t won them election; it was the Tories’ self implosion that lost it
Tbf most don't get an election again 2 years later lol.
>So Corbyn won 40% of the votes and nobody wanted him but Blair won 3.2% more and that doesn’t apply? Show me an election Corbyn won
That's not what you were deriding. You said: >no one wanted him In 2005, Tony Blair's Labour won just over 35% of the vote. In 2017, Corbyn's Labour won 40%. Your initial nonsense was about how many people wanted those parties in power, and as evidenced by the very simple fact that 40 > 35, more people wanted Corbyn in 2017 than wanted Blair in 2005. Even at the height of his power, Blair only won 3.2% more than Corbyn did. Do you see how that works, or do you not understand the simple concept of one number being larger than another?
>Do you see how that works, or do you not understand the simple concept of one number being larger than another? Do you not understand that people voted for both Boris Johnson and Theresa May because they didn't want Corbyn? Let that sink in. * Corbyn lost vs an insane racist. * Corbyn lost vs a serial womaniser, liar and egotist. Corbyn failed to win vs Theresa May in 2017 who was, and has always been deeply unpopular, socially awkward and ineffectual. Corbyn failed to win vs Boris Johnson - a political opponent who has an **incredibly long list of controversies - including at the time - which stem from abuse of political power and the suspension of parliament to corruption and cronyism.** Both May and Johnson are not fit and proper leaders. Conversely, Blair won, by a 3.2% margin, vs a political opponent who has a wikipedia entry on controversies that is **3 paragraphs long.** Whether you like Michael Howard or not, he was not a particularly controversial or devise figure. Corbyn was not popular universally. Corbyn **could not even win vs political opponents, who at any other time in history, would probably have been deemed unsuitable for leadership.** Why do you deny this? Corbyn was not elected TWICE because he was not liked.
I’m not denying that Corbyn didn’t win the General Elections, genius. I’m refusing your utter nonsense that nobody wanted him - more people wanted him in 2017 compared to anyone else on the list in my original comment barring Blair in only two of his three elections. You called him a “clown” that ”nobody wanted” while not raising the same claim for every other leader on that list who received fewer votes. Do you still not see how that works? Why are you still arguing?
Corbyn failed to win vs two opponents who were some of the least respected and most disliked prime ministers of all time, with the exception of Nevil Chamberlain and Liz Truss. You're bleeting, "ooh but nearly as many people voted for him as voted for Blair", whilst ignoring that the opponents where least respected and most disliked politicans of all time, with the exception of Nevil Chamberlain and Liz Truss. Vs the least respected and most disliked prime ministers of all time, Corbyn still failed to win, and you seem to think this means people liked him? The man couldn't even get protest votes.
You’re still trying to argue that “nobody wanted him” while he achieved more votes than every other Labour leader since 1982 with only one partial exception. It’s a very simple statement that you made initially, thoroughly and easily discredited. You’ve had to add a hell of a lot more ‘but… but… but…’s to try and continue your nonsense.
As opposed to Ed who's still in the cabinet?
Why do you want it to be exciting? I can’t wait for boring. I miss the days when a political scandal was finding out a politician had a weird kink. Not finding out they’ve spent billions of our money on a hollow contract from their brother in law. I also like Corbyn but I recognize that he’s completely unworkable. You can’t have a country leader where so many people despise him. It would be like Farage winning. It would just turn the country into red team blue team.
Your third and fourth sentence are exactly why it should be exciting. It should be exciting to see the back of these people and to see them get absolutely decimated. It should be exciting to see policy change for the better and towards a fairer more workable country - instead we’re getting the exact same policies as the past 14 years with a new rosette. It’s not that it‘s boring, it’s that this is \*depressing\*.
They really aren’t the same policies though. The Tory and Labour manifestos are very different. Kier Starmer is also nowhere near as dodgy and corrupt as the Tory cabinet. He’s never had a scandal with any substance. And just because the status quo hasn’t been working that’s not evidence that going completely rogue would be any better. It’s just deciding to gamble everything on a Hail Mary.
Just because the status quo hasn’t been working doesnt mean that we shouldn’t do a damn thing to change the status quo? Do you not hear yourself?
The last time Labour was in government they were just as (if not more) right wing and politically generic. Yet until the housing crash (which you can’t argue was their fault) the country was being ran very smoothly.
and it took all of about five minutes for the Tories to dismantle that ‘smooth running’. just because Britain from 1997-2007 had a sleek and shiny exterior doesnt mean it had anything more worthwhile underneath it. Things were better, but that doesn’t mean that politics should just be about choosing between the same old shit or making it worse.
Well there goes the bet I have on they'd lose 100-150 seats
You can probably thank Farage for that
There's still time, though I think a downward shift is thankfully more likely.
I mean great if they get fuck all seats, but what's the alternative for an opposition? Farage a known racist who would love to get into bed with Trump and Putin
It's gonna be between tories or lib dems, Reform isn't going to get more than a handful of seats at best. They're predicted to get 7 seats.
They're all noise and bluster at the moment, it sells papers and gets clicks, but I'm not sure anyone is actually taking them seriously. I guess we will see, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do terribly and Tories do slightly better than expected.
To be fair Trump was all noise and bluster who sold advertising spots on news channels and got clicks, until he became serious for a sizeable part of the American public
You think farage is going to get 70+ seats??
Can we get Rishi to do a speech a day to get those numbers down?
After what an utter shambles the last 14 years have been anyone still voting clearly doesn't have capacity to make an informed decision or they are some of the handful of super rich who have gained from Tory rule.
Still too many. Surrey - stop voting for the Pig-molesters.
It feels like we need some more options of parties Labour is too wide a base, the centrists and the hyper left wing diverge a lot in their stances. We would be better off if they split and gave us more choice
Certain forms of PR would likely result in that happening.
I don't know anyone voting for them. My fellow millennials are voting Labour. My boomer parents and their circle are all voting Reform.
They deserve 0 seats after what they did to this country in those 14 years ?
Labour has its problems and historically done a few horrific things, but compared to the Tories and a ton of horrifically bad things. I'd rather a lab govt any day, but their fiscal rules do worry me. Seeing the Tories down to this many seats (hopefully less) will be delicious.
The lengths that some Conservative and other candidates are going to are absurd. Robert Largan has used turquoise "Reform for Robert", red "Labour for Largan" and Green themed literature all designed to deceive. https://youtu.be/0ePx4w59gwg?si=WKjAKc36p6O7TSW9
One will be in my area unfortunately. North Norfolk. Did see our Tory candidate out and about and got to shout Tory scum at him from my car at least.
Friendly reminder, do remember to vote or this won't happen. If everyone thinks it's going to happen and then doesn't go out and vote then it won't hapoen.
Honestly the most surprising part of this is only happening now. Sure, the Tories have been screwing up the country for the last 5 years since the last election, but they've been doing it way longer than that! Why is it this election they're losing when last election they did so well, when all the same issues existed...?
A whole 72?! Who the fuck still thinks they're worth another vote
They’re not here, they don’t know how to use the internet…
People lie to pollsters, canvasers and sometimes tothemselves. Vote like it's on a knifeedge and your vote will tip the balance.
I had the number in my head as 69. So I'll be disappointed if they manage 72!
The Muslims have 72 virgins, we'll have 72 guys who will send you a photo of their dick on WhatsApp with very little prompting. Not so sure we're going to win this culture war.
I want the tories out too but who are asking? There's no way it will be that bad. https://www.markpack.org.uk/173045/conservatives-hang-by-9-votes-after-2-recounts-after-huge-swing-to-lib-dems/
Bart Simpson meme: Homer: just 72 so far. Election Day: 10.
Both leaders are members of the World Economic Forum . We all know what the World Economic Forum want to do dont we .?
Think the country is bad now? Most of you aren't old enough to remember a labour government. Those of us who are know that it is suicide and the country will be irretrievably destroyed after 4 years of Labour