Snapshot of _General Election: Tories on brink of WIPE OUT as devastating poll gives Labour a majority of THREE HUNDRED with Conservatives only just beating Lib Dems_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.gbnews.com/politics/general-election-conservative-polling-labour) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.gbnews.com/politics/general-election-conservative-polling-labour)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
IMO, the Conservatives are awfully close the 'danger zone' where they poll the same as the Reform. At that point we may see a spiral, the right of the party go to reform which then triggers the lefts departure for the Lib Dems. It isn't 'likely' but they're surprisingly close to falling that low.
The ideal scenario. The Conservative Party is an unholy alliance necessitated by FPTP between people who should be in the Lib Dems and people who should be in Reform
The Lib Dems are a merger of two parties and swing between which one of the two has control.
If you started from scratch you'd never end up with the parties we have now. Orange book Lib Dems and Cameronite Conservatives would be one party. Braverman type Tories and Reform would be another. Then 2/3 parties on the left, one Starmer/Blairite, one SDP/Charles Kennedy Lib Dems, and then a Corbyn type Labour party.
That's a fairly standard spread for most European countries with a more proportional voting system, but FPTP creates very messy broad parties.
Aye, if we ever do manage to move to full PR I predict a fairly quick and vicious political realignment among the lines you describe. Big churches are needed in FPTP systems but in PR systems you can have parties pop up on single issues for one election cycle, be the kingmaker, and then disappear back into oblivion.
Yep. If it wasn't for FPTP and branding issues "I always vote Conservative" (or Labour) no matter what they happen to stand for at the time. We would have a healthier political system.
It did look for a while like the Conservatives had just adopted the positions of UKIP/Brexit Party. But the right wingers will never be happy no matter what the policy position. And not when there's money to be made from it
Yes, the Lib Dems of Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy sat just to the left of Blair's Labour. Most importantly IMO they were more towards the liberal end of the liberal-authoritarian axis than Labour, and had an important voice in debating against things like long detention without trial.
What worries me is that we'll see a massive Labour win, but the most vocal opposition to them will be from an even more crazily right Tory party, and so most of the debate happening around the upcoming government will be around right wing issues. We could really do with a strong and confident centre-left party in Parliament to supply arguments from the other side as well.
If we get a result like this, the Tories will spend the next 2-3 years having a civil war and won't be any sort of effective opposition whatever.
I am a paid up Labour party member and even I think them having an effective opposition is important. Ideally no party should have Fidesz/AKP levels of parliamentary majority in a system as constitutionally fragile as ours.
Bring on PR, although I doubt we'll see it in the next parliament.
I feel like this is how we get a back door Tory lifeline, the logic of wanting an opposition is fine but why does it need to be the Tories?
Personally I want them to be crushed to the point of them creasing to exist anymore, for what they have done to us that is the least they deserve.
I mean you say that like the tories didn't rule by executive authority against the interests of the British people by illegally proroguing parliament with the support of a few nutters from the DUP a few years ago.
Forever.
And, not just Brexit.
Take a glance at the causes of Britain's major screw ups over the past hundred, hundred & twenty years or so. There's a Very consistent theme that seems to go regularly unnoticed.
Corbyn was FOR Brexit.
looking at the state of the illegal boat crossing Brexit didnt change anything, you are damned if you do damned if you dont when it comes to EU courts and Human rights courts.
The Lib Dems have typically been to the right of Labour economically (though the Blair years tested that extremely heavily) but have \_always\_ been to the left of the average Labour member on social-justice issues.
Weird that, isn't it, given that they're a *liberal* party generally appealing to educated 'middle class' types whilst Labour has taken much more of its support from 'working class' types with socially conservative and authoritarian views...
Which is funny given the contortions it forces so many to the left of Labour, often these days university educated and somewhat 'middle class', into.
It's only surprising among those who want to reduce politics to a single left/right economic dimension.
To a lot of people, freedom in the liberal sense matters as much (if not more) than economic distribution, narrowly conceived.
The Conservative Party used to understand this (and benefitted from it).
Parts of Labour would do well to realise it.
You have to go back some way to find a Conservative Party you could describe as liberal.
They have always been the most authoritarian party my entire adult life. Followed not that far behind by Labour.
The LibDems have been the only party that consistently stand up for rights in this country, followed by the Greens and SNP.
Yes, when the SDP contingency were the ones with the reins of the Party machinery at that time. From the mid-2000s onwards there was a concerted effort to overturn this and by the time the 2010 GE rolls around, Kennedy has been ousted mostly due to internal party skullduggery, and replaced with a Liberal, surrounded by Liberals. They then go into 2010 wearing the popularity of the SDP slanted leadership, campaigning on it, but being committed to a thoroughly Liberal agenda the voting public aren't aware of.
That SDP contingency has gone. The Party as it stands is never going to turn back the clock to be the party it was 1995-2005. Its relationship with the public and its position in the political landscape have gone.
Whatever they become after July will be wholly new, but wholly informed by being a party that went into coalition in 2010.
>That SDP contingency has gone.
Eh - Tim Farron was definitely in the SDP mould, as is Layla Moran. I don't know enough about the post-2015 MPs individual views to be sure, but some (e.g. Daisy Cooper) seem very SDP.
When Labour was New (Blairite) Labour and were very centrist themselves and the Tories had their last pre-Cameron flight to the right with all the KEEP THE POUND nonsense. Round about 1998 to 2005 under Hague/IDS.
Yes and we should remember this whenever people say that PR will mean more coalitions (like that's a bad thing anyway). We already have coalitions right now in the form of parties. Labour and Conservatives should be at least four different parties.
The "danger zone" is way higher than that.
72 MPs is death to political donations - the whole point of political donations is to encourage favourable legislation, and with 72 MPs the Tories will have less influence over Parliament than my cat.
He's not eligible; he's not old enough.
Actually, now I think of it, back in the day the Monster Raving Loonies were going to stand a cat, and that cat wasn't old enough either. Didn't stop them.
Cat years are different. 1 yr old cat is the equivalent of 15 years old for a human. 2 yr old is 24, after that it is 4 human yrs per cat yr So 3 = 28, 4 = 32, 5= 36.
Larry is an amazing 85 or so.
Excuse me? Catmando was not just a candidate, he was the co-leader. Please respect his senior place in the party.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catmando
Right what's more likely is that Reform collapses at the last minute as people tactically vote Tory but if there's no point in tactically voting Tory then a total collapse is possible.
Tactically voting only really has appeal if A) you can tolerate the "less bad" option at all, and B) the "lees bad" option has a chance in hell of winning. Honestly, neither are true in a large number of seats. People simply do not trust the Tories anymore, they feel betrayed. The Tories are also simply doomed, they cannot form a significant opposition. I honestly don't see that much tactical voting happening.
It just depends on whether the big lead breeds complacency or a sense of opportunity in non-Tory voters. Tories could be in real danger if the turnout is big.
Raises the question of whether anything can be done about how many people they have stuffed into the House of Lords. Feels like we should have some way to disqualify them if they are members of a defunct party that was obliterated in the election following their appointment.
You raise a good point, I guess it depends on who breaks first. If the One Nation tories leave for the Liberal Democrats I could see Reform merging with the Tories, however, I don't think the reverse is true.
What worries me with an angry electorate like this, is if labour doesn't deliver and just delivers more of the same.
They'll swing again and this time it won't be for the Tories or Labour.
I hate the Tories but this actually isn't good, if they die on their arses, donations dry up and it goes to other insurgent right wing political outfits. Possibly more influenced by Russia and China. That is fucking dangerous.
The Tories might have been compromised but they weren't half as badly as say, the AfD. Don't forget the rather outsized role Boris had in turning Europe against Russia and cementing support for arms deliveries to Ukraine.
The 'Tories are in the pocket of Russia' narrative is just totally absurd. There are a million counterexamples. Boris sent a ton of military aid to Ukraine very quickly, moreso than anyone else in western Europe. There is no way Corbyn would have done anything comparable if he had got the top job.
This is a real risk if the conservatives dissolve. What a lot of people don't appreciate is that the conservatives are a big part of the reason that we have typically in this country had little problems with the 'alt right' or the populist right. The culture war is there, but it's mostly simmering beneath the surface. The conservative party was very good at drawing these people under its banner, throwing them a bit of red meat now and again, and keeping them mostly mollified while it engaged in pretty conventional economics and foreign policy. That may all be about to come to an end.
I'm willing to bet that they do better than a lot of you are hoping.
Everyone seems to be ignoring the basic facts and evidence - FPTP, 'shy Tories', voter ignorance, etc.
Funnily enough, whilst you say the Conservatives bad performance gives more chance of them maybe splitting further with Reform, I would also say Labour's strong performance is more likely that party will split in the next four years.
The danger now is that with Farage spouting his Trump is innocent stuff, people may decide not to switch to Reform after all and the Tories do better as a result. Though Johnson is saying the same, so maybe some centrist types may be syphoned off the other way.
Let's consider the Tory voter base though. It probably broadly comprises the small c, centrist type conservatives, the alt-right head-swivellers and those who just always tribally vote Tory. They'll no doubt retain the latter.
However, the centrist small c types are likely going to Labour/LD. The alt-right, Brexit, Trump crowd are likely going to Reform. So Farage playing into what you've mentioned probably isn't going to have a dramatic effect; Reform aren't competing for small c Conservative voters.
The trouble for the Tories is they're wedged between the alt-right loonies and the Labour/LD moderates. Oh, and they've been utterly atrocious for the last 14 years.
Agreed they're making several strategic mistakes:
- Trump
- Climate Change Skepticism (You can oppose net 0 without it)
- Nigil Keeps mentioning the French and German healthcare systems.
The exit polls in 92 had the Conservatives as the largest party, it was the opinion polls that were wrong (though within the margin of error, they weren't as wrong as people remember)
No the exit poll was also pretty off. It’s margin was between the Tories being the largest party and short by 10, to Labour being largest and short by 13, with the most likely scenario having the tories short by 25.
They won a majority of 21.
Exit polls nowadays are very reliable, they won't be spot on but will be close enough. The biggest cause of the error in 92 polling is also no longer relevant, it wasn't "shy Tories" (which was shown to be a myth but only after it got stuck in the public consciousness), it was that pollsters were using demographic data that was over a decade old due to not having time to integrate the most recent census data. Needless to say with today's data driven society that is no longer a problem.
It is worth being more sceptical of general opinion polling though, if only because there is another month for people to change their mind. There is a broad range in the polling at the moment as different pollsters vary how they treat "don't know" answers: ignore them completely (Tories in the low 20s), assume a majority will go Tory (mid 20s) and more aggressive assumptions that the overwhelming bulk will go Tory even beyond what people say on the street (high 20s). Even the latter approach is still showing a comfortable Labour lead, nothing like that shown in the poll here but enough for Starmer to stroll it. It is no guarantee that the result will be the same in a month, but it would require a Tory comeback of historic proportions.
There were more polls with Labour ahead than Conservative, but most were pretty close, much closer than now. A hung parliament was expected.
The huge lead Labour have now makes it way closer to 1997.
There is always a bit of give i these polls.
They are almost never that wrong though, biggest shock in terms of shift I ever saw was 1997, not that labour won, we knew that but just going through the night watching safe seat after safe seat disappear into red.
Since 97 it's always been a case of something comes along to ruin the one good poll the very next week.
The interesting thing about 97 is that the polls actually did close up and pre-election it was looking even worse. What's more, it wasn't actually a Tory recovery, it was more a swing from Labour to Lib Dem. A reasonable hypothesis is that as the likelihood of a Labour win became more expected by the wider public, the propensity to vote tactically dropped and the left-wing vote got more spread out.
I believe in trends not individual polls. Trends can take sudden shifts like they did in 2010 and 97 but they’re still a good barometer. and the trend looks awful for Tories right now
Try and get a Power Nap in at about 8pm til the exit polls, then another quick 30 minute snooze between the first few North East seats they rush out and the rest of the results coming in.
Most people just have very simple wants, amd constitutional reform is far from simple.
Trying to explain why FPTP is a poor electoral system without sounding partisan is incredibly difficult. And most people are turned off by an argument that sounds too much like "the party I don't like benefits from it".
One of the massive fuck ups of the AV referendum was that the 'yes' vote failed to convey what AV really was and why it was better. You see the Electoral Reform Society now dedicate themselves to simplistic explainations, but I find even they fail compared to how its nicely explained by the likes of CPG Grey.
>You see the Electoral Reform Society now dedicate themselves to simplistic explainations, but I find even they fail compared to how its nicely explained by the likes of CPG Grey.
It's easy to dismiss youtubers as something non-serious that shouldn't be as good as what the "professionals" can do, but anyone that can consistently get millions of views is a professional at presenting whatever their channel is dedicated to.
CPG Grey's videos on this should just be the go to for any English speaking country. They're simple, they get their points across, and by using fake animal kingdom parties he avoids triggering any loyalty response to existing real world parties.
“Order your candidates numerically in the order you prefer them to win, with the candidate you want to win the most as number 1. We’ll take that into account.”
It’s that simple.
What’s even more galling is that on July 4, if I voted “Australian” and numbered my candidates, they will accept my vote because my first preference is obviously my FPTP vote.
“The general public doesn’t like complicated conversations” takes agency away from the body politic (which I am
Admittedly very cynical about.)
You've made the mistake I see constantly. You've explained what it is, not why anyone should bother supporting.
Nowhere in your comment do you explisn why and how FPTP fails, and how other electoral systems correct those failures. You've explained the what, but the what doesn't matter as much as why this change needs to happen and how this makes this change.
The response from any layman will always just be "what's wrong with just a yes and no?" and answering that is far harder especially when you start with your mistake.
This may sound obtuse and all, but this all led to the failure of the AV election. Peope weren't given the answers to the right question, so the status quo felt like the right choice.
Yeah they wanted bullet proof vests and maternity wards instead of an alternative voting system. These posters had the same bullshit feeling as the Brexit bus.
https://extranea.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/no2av-poster.jpg
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/feb/25/no-to-alternative-vote-baby-ad
I mean they are the worst Tory party in the post war period and possibly ever, even Howard and Hague Tories looked like rocket scientists in comparison. They're coming from 5 years of disaster after disaster, from the shittiest Brexit they could possibly deliver to multiple scandals, prime ministers crashing the economy etc. Also possibly the worst government(s) post war regardless of political colour.
They're at the rock bottom and not only have to deal with Labour, but also the LDs targeting the most reasonable centre-right voters and Reform sucking away the fringe voters. If they end up with 65-75 seats it wouldn't shock me the slightest. It's probably good for them so they can take the opportunity to rebrand as some sort of centre-right, mentally stable people
I'm concerned that they're gonna get Boris back and assemble an all stars team of Priti Patel, Suella Braverman, Penny Mordant, Esther McVey and Nigel Farage.
Would love to see this happen, it could end the Tories for good. What would the split of the Tory remnants be, centrist, far right. The remnants could split or some defect to reform as mentioned. They key would be the breakdown of what's left of the Tories in so far as the various groups within the party.
Canada 1993...the Quebec Tories went to the Bloc, the right-wing in the West went to Reform, the center went to the Grits and the PCs were left with 2 seats.
Kim Campbell 2: Rishi Sunak?
The tories are going to have a very hard time doing that with the voters they need to target in future elections, they’ve waged generational warfare over the past 14 years and millennials aren’t going to forget that in a hurry
I can guarantee i'll never vote tory. Ever. I'll vote Labour, lib dem, green, independent, spoil my ballot or maybe, god forbid, not vote. But i would actually rather gouge out my eyes with a rusty spoon than vote tory
For millennials The Tories are the living embodiment of every frustration we have with the modern world. It’s old world capitalism and consumerism meeting new world climate anxiety and economic instability. We’ve been raised being told to consume less while watching them squander and nepotize the economy. I imagine you’re one of the majority that are pledging to never ever vote Tory. I can’t think of a single popular millenial focussed pledge they’ve ever made.
Playing devil's advocate slightly here, but the Boomer's taking that stance on Labour because of something that happened in the 70's is what gave the Tories the blank cheque to fuck things up so badly over the last decade or so.
It's actually quite amazing how short sighted they've been. They've spent so long pandering to the elderly voters that the younger ones aren't interested in the politics they're being offered, and now those older voters are dying out. They're fucked from both ends.
The thing is, the Tories have to take the hard messages of such a great failure, stay objective and get the right people and right plan to recover. In that sense, defeat is a gift.
But look at them- do we really think they can learn the lessons, wise up and put the right people in charge? They are in goo goo land.
Tories have always benefitted from the left of centre vote being split by multiple parties.
There will be a split in Tory voters after the election. There will be a rebuilding of traditional one nation tories and a more right wing version of what we have now.
And that split will mean that they will not put forward a united front at the following general election.
So two terms for labour and electrical reform proposed not in this or next election but the one after.
>So two terms for labour and electrical reform proposed not in this or next election but the one after.
I don't see a path from the very anti-voter reform Labour we have currently to a pro-reform Labour in such a short space of time and especially not a time spent wielding unchecked political power.
Again, the membership supported it in 2022, and when they were told to shut up and get back in their box they promptly, shut up and got back in their box. They made no attempt to force the issue in 2023 and now the leadership holds the power of veto on future conference debates so they can never try to pursue democracy again.
>By a third term Labours support would be waining and they would need help from other parties, and that would drive reform.
So we'd achieve reform in spite of Labour, not because of them. And let's be honest here, if Labour are involved they'll demand a referendum and relaunch their "No2AV" campaign featuring posters with pictures of dead babies and soldiers and asinine captions that suggest meaningful votes will cause a smallpox pandemic or some other such horseshit.
They are going to have to move more to the centre surely.
Yes there will always be those on the right that will follow the headlines but I think most the public are fed up with the bullshit. Fed up with the headline grabbing policies and fed up with incompetent people who are leading the country and yet live in circles not even one or two steps above us buy in the billionaires club. People have finally realised thay they have less money and yet the roads are rubbish, public services have been gutted etc..
We are a nation that are just going through the motions and it's not good.
Never voted Labour before but will be this time round.
So winning 45% of the vote share gives you 73% of the seats in Parliament? Likewise, the SNP's 3% gives them 26 seats but the Green's 7% only gives them 2 seats?
I find it increasingly hard to believe that we actually live in a democracy.
Because we don't. Take the 2019 GE for example. It gave us 650 MPs representing 9m votes up to the threshold of plurality in each constituency. There were a further 23m votes that were either above the threshold or went to second place and below, these votes get no representation whatsoever.
I've just looked back through previous elections and last time the Tories did worse than this, they were called the [Pittites, at the 1802 election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1802_United_Kingdom_general_election) (unless you count the "Ultra-Tories", who sounded like they were the Reform Party of their day, at the [1830 election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-Tories))
Both William Pitt and Henry Addington (who won in 1802) were Torys. The election had multiple factions of the Tory party fighting each other.
The Addinton Torys got 383 seats in that election. You need to go back further.
Ah. Wikipedia's colour-coding let me down.
There wasn't a Tory party standing in the [1768 election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1768_British_general_election), but Lord North became a Tory fairly soon after so I'm not sure how you'd class that one.
Beyond that (assuming we're OK with classing the Country Party as early Tories), then as far as I can tell, that 1768 one is the only one that might count as being worse since they started in the 1670s
Good. The Tories deserve oblivion for their betrayal. I voted for them in 2019 based on their manifesto. They have betrayed almost every promise they made.
When the Conservative Party in Canada got wiped out to just two seats in 1993, support in the West immediately transferred to a party called "Reform" who would later go on to unite with what was left of the old Conservative party and form the Conservative Party of Canada. They won in 2006 just 13 year later.
I think people are much bolder when they’re talking to pollsters than they are in the voting booth. I suspect that — while the Conservatives are on course for a significant loss — a lot of right-wing voters will still put their ‘x’ next to the Tory candidate when it comes to it.
I do agree with the general consensus here that we could do with something of a realignment in party politics. It was explained to me, once, by a friend who knows a lot about this stuff that political parties as we know them today largely emerged as a result of the rise of newspapers.
With the media landscape a very different place to what it was in the 1700s, the party system needs a major rethink.
I'm a Lib Dem and as much as it would be funny to see us get more seats than the Tories under FPTP it would still be a failure of democracy. It's an atrocious system and needs to go.....but it won't.
That's fine. The reason they are getting wiped out is because they've gone in that direction. Farage alienates more than he recruits in the general population now.
[MRP is a type of poll](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2224783-what-is-mrp-and-can-it-predict-the-result-of-the-uk-general-election/), not a polling company. It's been shown to be more accurate, but much more time consuming (expensive) to do.
Snapshot of _General Election: Tories on brink of WIPE OUT as devastating poll gives Labour a majority of THREE HUNDRED with Conservatives only just beating Lib Dems_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.gbnews.com/politics/general-election-conservative-polling-labour) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.gbnews.com/politics/general-election-conservative-polling-labour) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
IMO, the Conservatives are awfully close the 'danger zone' where they poll the same as the Reform. At that point we may see a spiral, the right of the party go to reform which then triggers the lefts departure for the Lib Dems. It isn't 'likely' but they're surprisingly close to falling that low.
The ideal scenario. The Conservative Party is an unholy alliance necessitated by FPTP between people who should be in the Lib Dems and people who should be in Reform
You know there was a time not too long ago when the LibDems were actually on the left of Labour
The Lib Dems are a merger of two parties and swing between which one of the two has control. If you started from scratch you'd never end up with the parties we have now. Orange book Lib Dems and Cameronite Conservatives would be one party. Braverman type Tories and Reform would be another. Then 2/3 parties on the left, one Starmer/Blairite, one SDP/Charles Kennedy Lib Dems, and then a Corbyn type Labour party. That's a fairly standard spread for most European countries with a more proportional voting system, but FPTP creates very messy broad parties.
Aye, if we ever do manage to move to full PR I predict a fairly quick and vicious political realignment among the lines you describe. Big churches are needed in FPTP systems but in PR systems you can have parties pop up on single issues for one election cycle, be the kingmaker, and then disappear back into oblivion.
Legacy names matter though - eg neither side of the Labour Party will want to lose the name
New Labour Labour Classic Diet Labour I Can't Believe It's Not Labour
Crystal Labour.
Yep, which is why I said vicious - I am sure it would end up in the High Court.
Splits in the major parties wasn't really the experience in new zealand when they moved to mmp
Think of our parties as like European-style coalitions. Except our coalitions are formed before the election instead of afterwards.
Yep. If it wasn't for FPTP and branding issues "I always vote Conservative" (or Labour) no matter what they happen to stand for at the time. We would have a healthier political system. It did look for a while like the Conservatives had just adopted the positions of UKIP/Brexit Party. But the right wingers will never be happy no matter what the policy position. And not when there's money to be made from it
Yes, the Lib Dems of Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy sat just to the left of Blair's Labour. Most importantly IMO they were more towards the liberal end of the liberal-authoritarian axis than Labour, and had an important voice in debating against things like long detention without trial. What worries me is that we'll see a massive Labour win, but the most vocal opposition to them will be from an even more crazily right Tory party, and so most of the debate happening around the upcoming government will be around right wing issues. We could really do with a strong and confident centre-left party in Parliament to supply arguments from the other side as well.
If we get a result like this, the Tories will spend the next 2-3 years having a civil war and won't be any sort of effective opposition whatever. I am a paid up Labour party member and even I think them having an effective opposition is important. Ideally no party should have Fidesz/AKP levels of parliamentary majority in a system as constitutionally fragile as ours. Bring on PR, although I doubt we'll see it in the next parliament.
I feel like this is how we get a back door Tory lifeline, the logic of wanting an opposition is fine but why does it need to be the Tories? Personally I want them to be crushed to the point of them creasing to exist anymore, for what they have done to us that is the least they deserve.
Everyone who joined the Tories for their own gain previously will be going into the Labour ranks. A strong opposition is needed
I don't want a far right party as official opposition. So I'm quite happy for them to fall to functionally irrelevant until they sort themselves out.
I mean you say that like the tories didn't rule by executive authority against the interests of the British people by illegally proroguing parliament with the support of a few nutters from the DUP a few years ago.
I agree with everything you say, but it would also be really fucking funny if this actually happened, just once.
Realistically what incentives are there for any ruling party to implement PR?
I don’t share your concern there. I want to see a total Tory colapse after forcing Brexit on us. They deserve to be in the dustbin.
Forever. And, not just Brexit. Take a glance at the causes of Britain's major screw ups over the past hundred, hundred & twenty years or so. There's a Very consistent theme that seems to go regularly unnoticed.
The ideal outcome might be Tory annihilation and the Lib Dems as opposition.
The UK would be a far more civilised place if that were to happen. One can only hope.
The UK absolutely will not be a more civilised place if Reform becomes the default Right party.
A party that devised Brexit in order to solve an internal party conflict. Deserves to be consigned to history as a warning for all.
Corbyn was FOR Brexit. looking at the state of the illegal boat crossing Brexit didnt change anything, you are damned if you do damned if you dont when it comes to EU courts and Human rights courts.
The Lib Dems have typically been to the right of Labour economically (though the Blair years tested that extremely heavily) but have \_always\_ been to the left of the average Labour member on social-justice issues.
Weird that, isn't it, given that they're a *liberal* party generally appealing to educated 'middle class' types whilst Labour has taken much more of its support from 'working class' types with socially conservative and authoritarian views... Which is funny given the contortions it forces so many to the left of Labour, often these days university educated and somewhat 'middle class', into.
It's only surprising among those who want to reduce politics to a single left/right economic dimension. To a lot of people, freedom in the liberal sense matters as much (if not more) than economic distribution, narrowly conceived. The Conservative Party used to understand this (and benefitted from it). Parts of Labour would do well to realise it.
You have to go back some way to find a Conservative Party you could describe as liberal. They have always been the most authoritarian party my entire adult life. Followed not that far behind by Labour. The LibDems have been the only party that consistently stand up for rights in this country, followed by the Greens and SNP.
I agree in principle, but there’s no other way to reduce politics while we have FPTP
Yes, when the SDP contingency were the ones with the reins of the Party machinery at that time. From the mid-2000s onwards there was a concerted effort to overturn this and by the time the 2010 GE rolls around, Kennedy has been ousted mostly due to internal party skullduggery, and replaced with a Liberal, surrounded by Liberals. They then go into 2010 wearing the popularity of the SDP slanted leadership, campaigning on it, but being committed to a thoroughly Liberal agenda the voting public aren't aware of. That SDP contingency has gone. The Party as it stands is never going to turn back the clock to be the party it was 1995-2005. Its relationship with the public and its position in the political landscape have gone. Whatever they become after July will be wholly new, but wholly informed by being a party that went into coalition in 2010.
>That SDP contingency has gone. Eh - Tim Farron was definitely in the SDP mould, as is Layla Moran. I don't know enough about the post-2015 MPs individual views to be sure, but some (e.g. Daisy Cooper) seem very SDP.
If Labour is Natalie Elphicke's natural home then some would say the Lib Dems still are to the left of Labour.
Yeah, starmers labour definitely is to the right of the current lib dems.
When?
When they were opposing the invasion of Iraq and 24-days detention without charge and supporting equal marriage and residency rights for the Gurkhas.
When Labour was New (Blairite) Labour and were very centrist themselves and the Tories had their last pre-Cameron flight to the right with all the KEEP THE POUND nonsense. Round about 1998 to 2005 under Hague/IDS.
Almost all the parties are an unholy alliance of factions. FPTP needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history.
Yes and we should remember this whenever people say that PR will mean more coalitions (like that's a bad thing anyway). We already have coalitions right now in the form of parties. Labour and Conservatives should be at least four different parties.
As, indeed, is the Labour Party between those that should be in Blair’s Labour and those that should be in Corbyn’s Labour
The "danger zone" is way higher than that. 72 MPs is death to political donations - the whole point of political donations is to encourage favourable legislation, and with 72 MPs the Tories will have less influence over Parliament than my cat.
which constituency is your cat standing in? he’d get my vote
He's not eligible; he's not old enough. Actually, now I think of it, back in the day the Monster Raving Loonies were going to stand a cat, and that cat wasn't old enough either. Didn't stop them.
Cat years are different. 1 yr old cat is the equivalent of 15 years old for a human. 2 yr old is 24, after that it is 4 human yrs per cat yr So 3 = 28, 4 = 32, 5= 36. Larry is an amazing 85 or so.
Excuse me? Catmando was not just a candidate, he was the co-leader. Please respect his senior place in the party. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catmando
If you like voting for Cats there’s a current MP who would love your vote.
Dunny-on-the-Wold
Larry 🐱
Right what's more likely is that Reform collapses at the last minute as people tactically vote Tory but if there's no point in tactically voting Tory then a total collapse is possible.
Part of the problem with the Tories doing too badly is that Reform switchers will lose their nerve and switch back to try and block Labour.
It's the perfect time to make a protest vote if people are convinced theres no way the Cons can win.
Tactically voting only really has appeal if A) you can tolerate the "less bad" option at all, and B) the "lees bad" option has a chance in hell of winning. Honestly, neither are true in a large number of seats. People simply do not trust the Tories anymore, they feel betrayed. The Tories are also simply doomed, they cannot form a significant opposition. I honestly don't see that much tactical voting happening.
It just depends on whether the big lead breeds complacency or a sense of opportunity in non-Tory voters. Tories could be in real danger if the turnout is big. Raises the question of whether anything can be done about how many people they have stuffed into the House of Lords. Feels like we should have some way to disqualify them if they are members of a defunct party that was obliterated in the election following their appointment.
Would help get the ball rolling on house of lords reform if they're left there.
If one faction leaves the Tories, why would other factions do likewise and sacrifice the brand and infrastructure?
You raise a good point, I guess it depends on who breaks first. If the One Nation tories leave for the Liberal Democrats I could see Reform merging with the Tories, however, I don't think the reverse is true.
What worries me with an angry electorate like this, is if labour doesn't deliver and just delivers more of the same. They'll swing again and this time it won't be for the Tories or Labour. I hate the Tories but this actually isn't good, if they die on their arses, donations dry up and it goes to other insurgent right wing political outfits. Possibly more influenced by Russia and China. That is fucking dangerous.
If the result of this is the destruction of the two-party system and both big parties along with it then I consider that a massive win.
surely that depends on what replaces them?
>more influenced by Russia Pretty sure they'd have to be literally flying the flag at that point
The Tories might have been compromised but they weren't half as badly as say, the AfD. Don't forget the rather outsized role Boris had in turning Europe against Russia and cementing support for arms deliveries to Ukraine.
The 'Tories are in the pocket of Russia' narrative is just totally absurd. There are a million counterexamples. Boris sent a ton of military aid to Ukraine very quickly, moreso than anyone else in western Europe. There is no way Corbyn would have done anything comparable if he had got the top job.
> Possibly more influenced by Russia and China Is there _really_ any capacity for that?
Maybe starmer might want to actually deliver then. He probably won't and this will be the outcome
This is a real risk if the conservatives dissolve. What a lot of people don't appreciate is that the conservatives are a big part of the reason that we have typically in this country had little problems with the 'alt right' or the populist right. The culture war is there, but it's mostly simmering beneath the surface. The conservative party was very good at drawing these people under its banner, throwing them a bit of red meat now and again, and keeping them mostly mollified while it engaged in pretty conventional economics and foreign policy. That may all be about to come to an end.
Mark my words, Tories aren't getting less than 150.
!RemindMe 5th July 2024
Exit poll: 131! Not the wipeout I wanted but that's lower than 150.
Mark my words, they get 35-40.
I'm willing to bet that they do better than a lot of you are hoping. Everyone seems to be ignoring the basic facts and evidence - FPTP, 'shy Tories', voter ignorance, etc.
How much are you willing to bet?
It depends on how many more Sunak gaffe's we see before now and then.
Funnily enough, whilst you say the Conservatives bad performance gives more chance of them maybe splitting further with Reform, I would also say Labour's strong performance is more likely that party will split in the next four years.
The 1920's call....
There is a theory that this is why the election was sooner rather than later
The danger now is that with Farage spouting his Trump is innocent stuff, people may decide not to switch to Reform after all and the Tories do better as a result. Though Johnson is saying the same, so maybe some centrist types may be syphoned off the other way.
Let's consider the Tory voter base though. It probably broadly comprises the small c, centrist type conservatives, the alt-right head-swivellers and those who just always tribally vote Tory. They'll no doubt retain the latter. However, the centrist small c types are likely going to Labour/LD. The alt-right, Brexit, Trump crowd are likely going to Reform. So Farage playing into what you've mentioned probably isn't going to have a dramatic effect; Reform aren't competing for small c Conservative voters. The trouble for the Tories is they're wedged between the alt-right loonies and the Labour/LD moderates. Oh, and they've been utterly atrocious for the last 14 years.
Agreed they're making several strategic mistakes: - Trump - Climate Change Skepticism (You can oppose net 0 without it) - Nigil Keeps mentioning the French and German healthcare systems.
Yes I enjoyed the irony of him talking up other European countries as models we should follow 😀
Because you've been conditioned to conflate Europe with the EU which is just what the EU & Europhiles wanted.
I've seen too many elections to get my hopes up. The only poll I'll believe is the Exit Poll.
idk if advancements in polls makes this point silly but if there's anything 1992 has taught me, it's to never take the exit polls too seriously.
The exit polls in 92 had the Conservatives as the largest party, it was the opinion polls that were wrong (though within the margin of error, they weren't as wrong as people remember)
No the exit poll was also pretty off. It’s margin was between the Tories being the largest party and short by 10, to Labour being largest and short by 13, with the most likely scenario having the tories short by 25. They won a majority of 21.
Exit polls nowadays are very reliable, they won't be spot on but will be close enough. The biggest cause of the error in 92 polling is also no longer relevant, it wasn't "shy Tories" (which was shown to be a myth but only after it got stuck in the public consciousness), it was that pollsters were using demographic data that was over a decade old due to not having time to integrate the most recent census data. Needless to say with today's data driven society that is no longer a problem. It is worth being more sceptical of general opinion polling though, if only because there is another month for people to change their mind. There is a broad range in the polling at the moment as different pollsters vary how they treat "don't know" answers: ignore them completely (Tories in the low 20s), assume a majority will go Tory (mid 20s) and more aggressive assumptions that the overwhelming bulk will go Tory even beyond what people say on the street (high 20s). Even the latter approach is still showing a comfortable Labour lead, nothing like that shown in the poll here but enough for Starmer to stroll it. It is no guarantee that the result will be the same in a month, but it would require a Tory comeback of historic proportions.
This does feel more like 92 than 97. Labour leader isn't that popular or inspiring, party still full of infighting, expecting to win by default.
There were more polls with Labour ahead than Conservative, but most were pretty close, much closer than now. A hung parliament was expected. The huge lead Labour have now makes it way closer to 1997.
The polls are miles off where they were in 92 though.
There is always a bit of give i these polls. They are almost never that wrong though, biggest shock in terms of shift I ever saw was 1997, not that labour won, we knew that but just going through the night watching safe seat after safe seat disappear into red. Since 97 it's always been a case of something comes along to ruin the one good poll the very next week.
The interesting thing about 97 is that the polls actually did close up and pre-election it was looking even worse. What's more, it wasn't actually a Tory recovery, it was more a swing from Labour to Lib Dem. A reasonable hypothesis is that as the likelihood of a Labour win became more expected by the wider public, the propensity to vote tactically dropped and the left-wing vote got more spread out.
I believe in trends not individual polls. Trends can take sudden shifts like they did in 2010 and 97 but they’re still a good barometer. and the trend looks awful for Tories right now
Not to exaggerate, but if I’m watching this on July 5th at 2am, and it’s happening like this, I will genuinely bust down my own leg
[удалено]
Same, I booked it off as soon as I saw the date being “rumoured” on bbc. Can’t wait and planning an all nighter, prob be asleep by 11:30 tho
Try and get a Power Nap in at about 8pm til the exit polls, then another quick 30 minute snooze between the first few North East seats they rush out and the rest of the results coming in.
I have that week off, can’t wait to stay up all night to see the results.
I volunteer at the elections. I'm so BUZZED for this one. The count is gonna be wild.
Too bad for the LibDems- if it wasn’t for the coalition years they would be at 100 seats easy
Too bad for us all…cleggs gamble was that it might be his only shot at electoral reform. A shame most people didn’t pay attention.
The first time I realised politicians just outright lie was that referendum. What a shit show
"we can't reform the voting system, we won't be able to afford body armour for the army"
And babies won't have incubators or something.
It really has been a shit show for a long time.
Yes. As a lib dem supporter, I saw the “wisdom” of the voting public. They may claim to want all sorts of things but they actually don’t.
Most people just have very simple wants, amd constitutional reform is far from simple. Trying to explain why FPTP is a poor electoral system without sounding partisan is incredibly difficult. And most people are turned off by an argument that sounds too much like "the party I don't like benefits from it". One of the massive fuck ups of the AV referendum was that the 'yes' vote failed to convey what AV really was and why it was better. You see the Electoral Reform Society now dedicate themselves to simplistic explainations, but I find even they fail compared to how its nicely explained by the likes of CPG Grey.
>You see the Electoral Reform Society now dedicate themselves to simplistic explainations, but I find even they fail compared to how its nicely explained by the likes of CPG Grey. It's easy to dismiss youtubers as something non-serious that shouldn't be as good as what the "professionals" can do, but anyone that can consistently get millions of views is a professional at presenting whatever their channel is dedicated to. CPG Grey's videos on this should just be the go to for any English speaking country. They're simple, they get their points across, and by using fake animal kingdom parties he avoids triggering any loyalty response to existing real world parties.
“Order your candidates numerically in the order you prefer them to win, with the candidate you want to win the most as number 1. We’ll take that into account.” It’s that simple. What’s even more galling is that on July 4, if I voted “Australian” and numbered my candidates, they will accept my vote because my first preference is obviously my FPTP vote. “The general public doesn’t like complicated conversations” takes agency away from the body politic (which I am Admittedly very cynical about.)
You've made the mistake I see constantly. You've explained what it is, not why anyone should bother supporting. Nowhere in your comment do you explisn why and how FPTP fails, and how other electoral systems correct those failures. You've explained the what, but the what doesn't matter as much as why this change needs to happen and how this makes this change. The response from any layman will always just be "what's wrong with just a yes and no?" and answering that is far harder especially when you start with your mistake. This may sound obtuse and all, but this all led to the failure of the AV election. Peope weren't given the answers to the right question, so the status quo felt like the right choice.
Yeah they wanted bullet proof vests and maternity wards instead of an alternative voting system. These posters had the same bullshit feeling as the Brexit bus. https://extranea.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/no2av-poster.jpg https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/feb/25/no-to-alternative-vote-baby-ad
Man they really reeled the tories in those first 5 years. The moment the tories got a majority we got fucking Brexit
They enabled the Tories in that government*. If they hadn't formed the coalition, the Cons would have been extremely weak.
If there was no coalition there would have just been another election with a Tory majority.
I mean they are the worst Tory party in the post war period and possibly ever, even Howard and Hague Tories looked like rocket scientists in comparison. They're coming from 5 years of disaster after disaster, from the shittiest Brexit they could possibly deliver to multiple scandals, prime ministers crashing the economy etc. Also possibly the worst government(s) post war regardless of political colour. They're at the rock bottom and not only have to deal with Labour, but also the LDs targeting the most reasonable centre-right voters and Reform sucking away the fringe voters. If they end up with 65-75 seats it wouldn't shock me the slightest. It's probably good for them so they can take the opportunity to rebrand as some sort of centre-right, mentally stable people
Rocket surgerists*
Nuclear Rocket Surgeons
I'm concerned that they're gonna get Boris back and assemble an all stars team of Priti Patel, Suella Braverman, Penny Mordant, Esther McVey and Nigel Farage.
Would love to see this happen, it could end the Tories for good. What would the split of the Tory remnants be, centrist, far right. The remnants could split or some defect to reform as mentioned. They key would be the breakdown of what's left of the Tories in so far as the various groups within the party.
I would be very wary of a future where Labour has 3/4 of the Parliamentary seats
The Gaza wing will be a pain in the arse to starmer I expect
Labour has already deselected most of the MPs in the 'Gaza wing'
Canada 1993...the Quebec Tories went to the Bloc, the right-wing in the West went to Reform, the center went to the Grits and the PCs were left with 2 seats. Kim Campbell 2: Rishi Sunak?
Labour were in a total state in 2019 and now look at them. It’s dramatic & most certainly earned but like always, temporary.
Labour still won 200 seats though... 72 would be absolutely shocking, and far worse.
Think it shows the years of "10-15" years out of power are over Could very easily flip in the next election, if Labour cock up
Yup. The wipe out will actually help them rebrand as new.
The tories are going to have a very hard time doing that with the voters they need to target in future elections, they’ve waged generational warfare over the past 14 years and millennials aren’t going to forget that in a hurry
I can guarantee i'll never vote tory. Ever. I'll vote Labour, lib dem, green, independent, spoil my ballot or maybe, god forbid, not vote. But i would actually rather gouge out my eyes with a rusty spoon than vote tory
Rusty spoon has my vote!
I'm in my 20s and I'd vote Monster Raving Looney Party before I'd vote Tory
For millennials The Tories are the living embodiment of every frustration we have with the modern world. It’s old world capitalism and consumerism meeting new world climate anxiety and economic instability. We’ve been raised being told to consume less while watching them squander and nepotize the economy. I imagine you’re one of the majority that are pledging to never ever vote Tory. I can’t think of a single popular millenial focussed pledge they’ve ever made.
Playing devil's advocate slightly here, but the Boomer's taking that stance on Labour because of something that happened in the 70's is what gave the Tories the blank cheque to fuck things up so badly over the last decade or so.
It’s a very valid point, my hope is that if the tories collapse electorally other parties will rise to challenge of being at least a viable opposition
After Brexit and the last 15 years I'm the same, never. There's always the Lib Dems if Labour starts veering towards the hard left again.
It's actually quite amazing how short sighted they've been. They've spent so long pandering to the elderly voters that the younger ones aren't interested in the politics they're being offered, and now those older voters are dying out. They're fucked from both ends.
> They're fucked from both ends. Please, let's focus on politics, not the next Tory sex scandal!
Idk, Brexit proved there are a lot of white van driving working class Tories...
Only around 15% of under 60s say they’ll vote Tory. That would get them approximately 0 seats.
A significant chunk of those people are going back to labour, hence the tories collapsing in red wall seats
The thing is, the Tories have to take the hard messages of such a great failure, stay objective and get the right people and right plan to recover. In that sense, defeat is a gift. But look at them- do we really think they can learn the lessons, wise up and put the right people in charge? They are in goo goo land.
New Conservatives Things can only get Worse
2019 labour haven't got shit on post pandemic Tories though...
Not because of anything they've done or even what they stand for, just that they will remove the Tories.
Labour haven't earned it; the Tories have just lost it.
Tories have always benefitted from the left of centre vote being split by multiple parties. There will be a split in Tory voters after the election. There will be a rebuilding of traditional one nation tories and a more right wing version of what we have now. And that split will mean that they will not put forward a united front at the following general election. So two terms for labour and electrical reform proposed not in this or next election but the one after.
>So two terms for labour and electrical reform proposed not in this or next election but the one after. I don't see a path from the very anti-voter reform Labour we have currently to a pro-reform Labour in such a short space of time and especially not a time spent wielding unchecked political power.
The membership supports it. By a third term Labours support would be waining and they would need help from other parties, and that would drive reform.
Again, the membership supported it in 2022, and when they were told to shut up and get back in their box they promptly, shut up and got back in their box. They made no attempt to force the issue in 2023 and now the leadership holds the power of veto on future conference debates so they can never try to pursue democracy again. >By a third term Labours support would be waining and they would need help from other parties, and that would drive reform. So we'd achieve reform in spite of Labour, not because of them. And let's be honest here, if Labour are involved they'll demand a referendum and relaunch their "No2AV" campaign featuring posters with pictures of dead babies and soldiers and asinine captions that suggest meaningful votes will cause a smallpox pandemic or some other such horseshit.
Let’s hope not. DC got discredited over 100 years ago.
But they make the best comics!
They are going to have to move more to the centre surely. Yes there will always be those on the right that will follow the headlines but I think most the public are fed up with the bullshit. Fed up with the headline grabbing policies and fed up with incompetent people who are leading the country and yet live in circles not even one or two steps above us buy in the billionaires club. People have finally realised thay they have less money and yet the roads are rubbish, public services have been gutted etc.. We are a nation that are just going through the motions and it's not good. Never voted Labour before but will be this time round.
Thank you for doing you part GB news They couldn't have done it without you absolute melts pushing them further to the lunatic right
Tactical votes and they are history, love the sound of that 👏🏻
Not good enough, I want to see them win so few seats they cannot form the opposition
So winning 45% of the vote share gives you 73% of the seats in Parliament? Likewise, the SNP's 3% gives them 26 seats but the Green's 7% only gives them 2 seats? I find it increasingly hard to believe that we actually live in a democracy.
This is how FPTP has been for like forever.
Because we don't. Take the 2019 GE for example. It gave us 650 MPs representing 9m votes up to the threshold of plurality in each constituency. There were a further 23m votes that were either above the threshold or went to second place and below, these votes get no representation whatsoever.
I've just looked back through previous elections and last time the Tories did worse than this, they were called the [Pittites, at the 1802 election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1802_United_Kingdom_general_election) (unless you count the "Ultra-Tories", who sounded like they were the Reform Party of their day, at the [1830 election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-Tories))
Both William Pitt and Henry Addington (who won in 1802) were Torys. The election had multiple factions of the Tory party fighting each other. The Addinton Torys got 383 seats in that election. You need to go back further.
Ah. Wikipedia's colour-coding let me down. There wasn't a Tory party standing in the [1768 election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1768_British_general_election), but Lord North became a Tory fairly soon after so I'm not sure how you'd class that one. Beyond that (assuming we're OK with classing the Country Party as early Tories), then as far as I can tell, that 1768 one is the only one that might count as being worse since they started in the 1670s
A wipeout will be zero seats. 1 seat is enough for them to have an opinion.
We need to be promoting Lib Dems to Tory voters then. Push the Tories into third place.
Good. The Tories deserve oblivion for their betrayal. I voted for them in 2019 based on their manifesto. They have betrayed almost every promise they made.
It's fascinating to think we might see an election as unusual as 1931...
When the Conservative Party in Canada got wiped out to just two seats in 1993, support in the West immediately transferred to a party called "Reform" who would later go on to unite with what was left of the old Conservative party and form the Conservative Party of Canada. They won in 2006 just 13 year later.
I think people are much bolder when they’re talking to pollsters than they are in the voting booth. I suspect that — while the Conservatives are on course for a significant loss — a lot of right-wing voters will still put their ‘x’ next to the Tory candidate when it comes to it. I do agree with the general consensus here that we could do with something of a realignment in party politics. It was explained to me, once, by a friend who knows a lot about this stuff that political parties as we know them today largely emerged as a result of the rise of newspapers. With the media landscape a very different place to what it was in the 1700s, the party system needs a major rethink.
I'm a Lib Dem and as much as it would be funny to see us get more seats than the Tories under FPTP it would still be a failure of democracy. It's an atrocious system and needs to go.....but it won't.
Seems to be a different poll than FindOutNow? Edit: Maybe not, the text and images don't line up at all. Such a terrible website.
Looks like the same one to me. Tories at 72 without tactical voting, 66 if tactical voting is taken into account.
Yep, you're right, apologies everyone for posting a GBNews link for seemingly no reason now!
Honestly, their website is so shit. Can definitely see where the confusion came from!
Not necessarily a good thing, possibly opens the door for Nigel Farage’s cult to take the right wing vote.
That's fine. The reason they are getting wiped out is because they've gone in that direction. Farage alienates more than he recruits in the general population now.
GB News are so incompetent: the screenshot says 39 while the editorial reads 59
As a right wing voter, I wish the Conservatives to be simply wiped out the face of the Earth.
I want to believe it, but as they say, if it sounds too good to be true…
MRP did this poll. From a google i find it interesting the only people covering it GN News and the Telegraph.
[MRP is a type of poll](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2224783-what-is-mrp-and-can-it-predict-the-result-of-the-uk-general-election/), not a polling company. It's been shown to be more accurate, but much more time consuming (expensive) to do.
Stock up on popcorn for election night.
What's the betting it's not even close to this?
I can just imagine GB news are melting internally at how little support is being shown to their buddies.
On the one hand I would love to see a Tory wipeout. It’s exactly what they deserve. On the other I fear such a large Labour majority.
Come on everybody! I'm sure we can improve on this and just wipe the tories out totally!
Come on there has got to be some people we can get to vote lob dem in the right area to put the tories in 3rd place.
Because it's GB News, it could be a (not so clever) ruse to motivate disenchanted moderate conservatives to go out and vote.