You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Tories Crushed.
You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Comments
Lots of fuss about how a vote for Reform supposedly is a vote for Starmer. Ignoring the rather obvious facts that:-
1. Reform are trying to replace the Conservatives as the leading Party of the Right
2. Total number of elections ever won by Reform are 2. That is 0 out of 650 MPs. And 2 out of about 3000 Councillors.
Meanwhile, with 102 out of 107 Councils declared, the Lib Dems have more Councillors elected than the Tories, and control more than twice as many Councils than them. 505 Councillors-a bit more than 2.
Yet no-one ever mentions either that they have become the 2nd largest Party, or that this left-leaning Party might be taking votes from Labour.
I cannot see Reform taking over from the Conservatives. But I can see a possibility that the Lib Dems get more MPs than the Conservatives at the next Election, and become the next Opposition.
Strange that the Mail/Express/Sun/Telegraph don't mention it....
Although the tv news on the main channels is probably pretty much unbiased.
It galls me to think that Farage would make a big difference to Reform.
I cant stand the man.
He would certainly give them a boost in the forthcoming election.
Although I am not sure how long that might last.
If the Lib Dems could get a big result, then more people may take them seriously.
I am not sure that Ed Davey would be the right leader moving forward.
As far as the main two are concerned.
I think that many people will still worry a little about a Labour Party that can elect a Jeremy Corbyn as their leader.
Most of the parties claim to be a broad church.
As far as the Tories go, I find it difficult to fathom how the same party can select as candidates the likes of say Dominic Grieve, David Lidington, or Anna Soubry, on the one hand, then Suella Braverman, Priti Patel, and Lee Anderson on the other.
In doing this they may fulfil the broad church criteria, but the second lot guarantee to alienate me as a possible supporter, in the same way Jeremy Corbyn lost my vote for the Labour Party.
Assuming the Tories get a real battering at the general election, it will be interesting what conclusions they draw, and the direction that they take.
Well I hope you are right and the Lib Dems eventually becoming a party with enough support to win the election outright.
Middle ground in politics must represent the majority of voters at some stage.
Popularists have their place but not as a ruling party IMHO.
its sad but true I would vote lib dem if they were the second party in my area after the tories suppose it does not matter which way I vote here this is one of the strongest tory areas in the country so my vote will count for nothing.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/victorious-green-party-councillor-shouts-174043766.html
They do have time to reduce the gap. To get 150-200 MPs, rather than the under 100 currently predicted. But to win? Of course not.
That is why there is no leadership challenge. The contenders are waiting to be in Opposition, and to see who is left. Rather than act now, lose an election, and get replaced.
Much fuss about Reform. But they are likely to be no more than a sideshow. A bigger threat is the Lib Dems becoming the Opposition. But I think that is unlikely.
Where they are predicting a Labour win, but no overall majority.
I have been listening to many people talking about them being 27% clear in the polls.
Yet the gap in the local elections was only 7%.
There was only a 2% change in respect of last years results, for both the Tories, and Labour.
Labour need to double the 7%, to get an overall majority.
Tony Blair apparently had a 12.7% lead prior to the 97 general election, which I believe was a record.
Look at the latest local election results as an example. Because they are also "first past the post". Then look at the actual results, rather than the percentages.
Labour have won more than the Lib Dems and Tories combined. Lib Dem votes are extremely targeted. In seats where they are 3rd or 4th their vote collapses. But when first or second they take seats. More than the Tories with a considerably lower total vote.
@Doubleme shows a voting intention that is far more common among current voters. His question was not "who should I vote for". It was "who should I vote for to get the Tories out"
The huge difference today, compared to 20 years ago, is that there are far fewer "safe" seats. There is no "Red Wall" or "Blue Wall". For many years, an increased Labour vote largely meant bigger majorities in safe Labour seats. No longer. The extra voters are going where it matters.
Not all over the country. Essex, for example, the Tory vote was better than elsewhere. But Scotland shows a massive difference-as it is likely that the SNP will lose 20 or 30 seats, mostly to Labour. And Scotland did not have local elections.
Is a Labour Majority inevitable? Of course not. But it is odds on.
There was a polling guy on Trevor Phillips this morning.
He claimed that the local elections are a more accurate reflection of what the voting is likely to be in a general election, than the polls.
His analysis was that the 7% lead gives Labour a win, but no overall majority.
He appears on the video below from around -1.17.29.
If Labour get a 7% lead in England, they get a Majority.
Because the Tories will get about 2 seats in Scotland, and 2 in Wales.
Looking at National votes, rather than actual seats and actual Councils and actual Mayoral votes, is rather sad.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3g935ynj18o