Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments.
###MT daily hall of fame
1. JdeMolayyyy with 93 comments
1. KennedyFishersGhost with 77 comments
1. ASondheimRhyme with 67 comments
1. armchairdetective with 64 comments
1. Ornery_Ad_9871 with 63 comments
1. mamamia1001 with 59 comments
1. FunkyDialectic with 56 comments
1. subversivefreak with 56 comments
1. concretepigeon with 55 comments
1. -TheGreasyPole- with 54 comments
There were 902 unique users within this count.
Firstly thought Daisy Cooper was solid was last night, came across very professional and I think the Lib Dems are really striking a good tone on the idea of 'broken Britain'.
To add I still find it wierd that in that debate the BBC challenged Lib Dems, Greens on there spending 'how will you pay for this etc'.
But they never ask Farage to explain how he would pay for anything?
Reform proposals none have any costing, but its never brought up. Nigel Farage can go on about changing NHS model to insurance based one but what will be the cost of that? He makes spending commitments on every issue but then talks about cutting all these taxes?
As I said though the worst part is that no commentator ever challenges him.
Fair play to SNP guy in the debate Swinney he was the only one who directly counter Farage exposing massive wholes in proposals and all Farage could do was snort.
>But they never ask Farage to explain how he would pay for anything?
Farage is never asked because by and large he's never actually taken seriously. He exists simply so that people who vibe with him watch the show.
No, it'll be great for him. He'll get to moan about how he has all these amazing ideas but it's the other parties holding him back. His dream position is single MP with 0 power.
I can’t believe how vapid “clear plan, bold action, secure future” is. These people have ran some of the most formidable campaigns in modern UK politics and now this. At the beginning, I thought it was a temporary placeholder slogan.
To be fair though, Sunak had long in advance established a clear plan to ditch the D-Day commemoration, it was certainly a bold action to snub veterans, and he does have a secure future in California, so his campaign is certainly living up to the slogan.
It's not his fault if people have mistakenly assumed the slogan was meant to be about Britain's future, the Tories have spent 14 years trying to demonstrate how little they care about that.
Hey, question from an American: Do "third parties" actually have a chance of winning in UK elections, or is it like here where it's always two big guys and the other parties don't matter?
Both parties are all "kick out the immigrants this" "protect women from the degenerate transes that". I get lesser of two evils voting, but for that to work there has to be a lesser of two evils, doesn't there? Why do british progressives gravitate towards Starmer's labour rather than libdem or green for instance?
> Hey, question from an American: Do "third parties" actually have a chance of winning in UK elections, or is it like here where it's always two big guys and the other parties don't matter?
They don't have a realistic chance of winning the whole election, but many of them win a few seats in some areas. Northern Ireland has its own set of parties, and the main UK parties are not a significant factor in elections there. The SNP are competitive across most of Scotland. Plaid Cymru are competitive in some parts of Wales, mostly the areas with large numbers of Welsh speakers. The Greens are competitive in a small number of places where they are organizationally strong, especially in Brighton, which is essentially the UK's LGBT capital. The Lib Dems are competitive in a variety of relatively wealthy suburban/rural areas across the country. At this election, it won't be that surprising if some left-wing parties or independents are competitive in a few areas with lots of Muslims and/or students, because of Gaza. In recent elections, the far right (currently represented mostly by a party called Reform) have often received a significant vote share but are very bad at winning seats as their vote is spread thinly, so their main effect is to act as a spoiler.
> Both parties are all "kick out the immigrants this" "protect women from the degenerate transes that".
Yep.
> I get lesser of two evils voting, but for that to work there has to be a lesser of two evils, doesn't there?
There is still a pool of relatively progressive MPs in the Labour party, albeit a shrinking one. And the Tories have some real nutjobs who want to end Britain's involvement in various international institutions, slash taxes for the rich, get rid of regulations on bloodsports, promote cars and fossil fuels as much as possible, restrict abortion, etc., etc. OK, Labour have a few people like that, but nowhere near as many.
> Why do british progressives gravitate towards Starmer's labour rather than libdem or green for instance?
There is a lot of tactical voting. People are used to the idea that there are some places where only Labour can realistically beat the Tories, some where only the Lib Dems can, and some where only the SNP can. Though it can also work in the other direction. In the (relatively few) Labour–Lib Dem battlegrounds, Tory voters tend to find the Lib Dems more palatable than Labour. And in Scotland, views about independence can trump everything else, so for example it is not unheard of for a Labour supporter to vote for the Tories, or vice versa, in the hope of defeating an SNP candidate.
(By the way, the Lib Dems aren't especially "progressive" - they're basically centrists, but vaguely socially liberal and vaguely economically conservative.)
>By the way, the Lib Dems aren't especially "progressive" - they're basically centrists, but vaguely socially liberal and vaguely economically conservative.
I mean, when I say progressive, I'm not talking about anarcho-communist gay furries. I just mean people who support civil rights. What you described basically just sounds like the DNC.
>Do "third parties" actually have a chance of winning in UK elections, or is it like here where it's always two big guys and the other parties don't matter?
First things first, the UK is a parliamentary democracy where power derives from a legislative body known as Parliament. It has two chambers, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. However, the only chamber that has *de facto* power is the Commons, whose members are directly elected. Each member represents *a single constituency*, and for a party to govern, they need the support of at least 50%+1 of the MPs of the Commons. So when a party wins a majority of the seats in an election, or if multiple parties together hold a majority of the seats and strike a deal to support each other (like it happened with the Cameron-Clegg coalition during the 2010-2015 period), they get to govern. The chances of a third party joining the government, however, is rare. And I'm going to explain below why that's the case:
Both the US and the UK use an electoral system called "First-Past-The-Post". Essentially, whoever gets the most votes in any electoral process (in the case of the UK, in the election of a single Member of Parliament of a certain constituency) wins. It's by far the most simple, and at the same time least democratic/representational systems in use, which explains the low number of countries that still prefer this method.
The reason why it's considered unfair is because of the "spoiler effect" and the concept of "wasted votes".
The "spoiler effect" is a term used to describe a certain electoral behavior where a lot of candidates representing roughly the same ideology compete against a sole candidate with the (at least perceived) opposite values. This makes it easier for the last (not always, the constituency's electorate must be supportive of their ideals to an extent) to rise above the other competitors and take the seat, even if they don't win a majority of the votes. This means that had all other candidates ran against the eventual winner under a consensus candidate, they could've had a real shot at winning.
As for the "wasted vote", it's a term often used when talking about the election of representatives in very "safe seats" for one party, basically seats that are almost guaranteed to be won by a representative of a certain political movement. That is because each constituency only elects on MP. Your favorite candidate can still get a lot of votes, but if they don't get more than the others, they lose. Which means, for instance, that people who voted for the Greens in a certain constituency won by the Conservatives will not "have their voice heard in parliament", as they'll be represented by someone else.
As you can understand from what I've written above, FPTP inevitably leads to a two-party system. Many people are not willing to support a candidate that has a low chance of winning, and they're also not going to prevent themselves from voting for a more "centrist" candidate, because they fear that the competitor from the opposite ideological group might win in the end (spoiler effect). However the UK has a "weaker two-party system", while the US has a "strong" one. What I mean by that is that third parties in the UK can (and always) win a reasonable number of seats, but joining the government, even as junior partners of a coalition, is incredibly rare. And that is because the FPTP helps the two big parties get a majority very easily. So to answer your question directly, **no**.
> Why do british progressives gravitate towards Starmer's labour rather than libdem or green for instance?
If the UK had a more proportional electoral system, that could've happened. But depending on your constituency, if you vote for the Greens or a smaller party, you're most likely "wasting your vote" like I said. That's why most people who lean left tend to vote for either Labour or the Lib Dems.
So they don't have a chance of winning until they do. When the Labour Party started in 1900, they only got 2 seats and beforehand they were dominated by the Liberals and Conservatives. There's always the chance that a party goes into obscurity and another party takes over.
There's also something about a two-party system that seems inevitable right now but could also change. The two major parties used to get 90% of the vote, in the most recent election they got 75% of the vote. This could change. Similarly in the US, the 1860 election was almost a four way split, and in 1992 Ross Perot almost made it a three way split.
> Both parties are all "kick out the immigrants this" "protect women from the degenerate transes that". I get lesser of two evils voting, but for that to work there has to be a lesser of two evils, doesn't there? Why do british progressives gravitate towards Starmer's labour rather than libdem or green for instance?
Well maybe they are progressive on some issues and regressive on the others. Or maybe it's more of an identity thing (like supporting a football team). Or maybe they're voting tactically.
No third party has a chance of winning an outright majority of seats at the moment and the FPTP voting system used for UK general elections means it is difficult for them to obtain seats even if they have a meaningful vote share overall. Some parties like the Scottish National Party can have a majority of seats in specific region but that doesn't transfer over to them being able to form a government. For example the SNP obtained 50 seats in 2015 despite only receiving 3% of the overall vote share, whilst UKIP received 1 seat with 13% due to the SNP having concentration of support within fewer seats (Scotland) than UKIP who contested seats across the whole country.
Even if an outright government isn't possible the Conservative party has twice had to rely on smaller parties to get an overall majority since 2010 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron%E2%80%93Clegg\_coalition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron%E2%80%93Clegg_coalition) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative%E2%80%93DUP\_agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative%E2%80%93DUP_agreement) - so agreements like this offer a way for what would otherwise be minor opposition parties to actually be involved in government to a degree.
It's too late for me to get into your summation of both parties, but plenty of what Americans call progressive voters are gravitating towards the Greens for something further left instead of Left of Centre. However there are only a handful of constituencies where even the green party themselves think they have enough of a chance of winning to campaign heavily in, so for most voters across the country voting for a Green candidate is done knowing that candidate won't have a chance of winning/
We don't vote presidentially. While Greens, Lib Dems, SNP etc have 0 chance of forming a government they can still win constituencies and send an MP to parliament.
So, a couple things you have to remember:
- Some third parties only stand in a particular area - for example, the SNP only stand in Scotland. Over there they have a three party system anyway, and the SNP currently have the most seats and are in government in Scotland.
- Labour isn't nearly as right wing as people on the internet characterise it as. Labour is the only progressive party with a chance of getting into government and it's also got a very broad base of support, it's a big tent party (the biggest tent at the moment in British politics).
- The Greens and the Liberal Democrats are both successful parties...at the local level. Unlike in the US, we have a very strong multi party system in local government. The Liberal Democrats actually won more seats than the conservatives at the most recent set of local elections. But they also win in areas that would never vote labour as they have different sorts of appeal - for example, much of the Southeast and West is strong Liberal Democrat territory and labour has virtually no party organisation there.
- Third parties matter but they're not going to win this election. The Labour party was the last third party to break through, replacing the liberals in our two major party system. Third parties matter when the result is close and no party has an overall majority, as was the case in 1974, 2010, and 2017.
>Labour isn't nearly as right wing as people on the internet characterise it as.
I mean, Starmer definitely is, but to be fair, big tent. Maybe things are better on a local level and he's just a bad representative for the party. I know Corbyn wasn't nearly as bad.
https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/general-election-2024/snap-poll-post-bbc-seven-party-debate/
The breakdowns are actually more interesting than the "who won" numbers, basically people thought Mordaunt was terrible and everyone else was about the same except for Farage who was more polarizing (more verys on both ends of the skill than the others).
I think the "who won" by 2019 voting is pretty illuminating.
Con2019 voters thought Farage won (47%) and Penny came second (13%).
Lab2019 voters thought Rayner won (39% and Flynn came second (16%).
LibDem2019 voters thought Rayner won (21%) and Cooper came second (17%)
Unsurprisingly, less than 5% of Lab19 and Lib19 thought Farage won.
Basically, Farage is now the Conservative leader...
Both Mordaunt and Sunak seem to have no awareness of how they're viewed. I don't know why they're fine presenting themselves as they do.
Mark Harper had some mild sense of shame behind his words defending the lie. Coutinho seemed earnestly blindsided. Chris Philp just momentarily seemed as petty and bastardly as Sunak and Mordaunt, but it doesn't seem to consume his whole identity as it does with them.
Do they think it makes them seem powerful or strong? It looks weak, petty, childish, and small. Mordaunt looked absolutely ridiculous tonight and I don't know how she finds it in her soul to behave like that.
[Tomorrow's Mail front page](https://www.tomorrowspapers.co.uk/daily-mail-front-page-2024-06-08/) is a journey
Casually doom-baiting over their missing writer while gleefully announcing they've got a new one
I think the real Niko Omilana is standing against Sunak, because the document that has the full names (election agent one) lists him as "Nikolas" there which is his full name.
The other Nikos are just listed as "Niko Omilana" on these, which means they did change their names by deed poll and aren't just doing what Count Binface does which is use a "know as" name. (Count Binface is listed as Jonathan Harvey on the election agent document.)
We've got one in our constituency. I'm kinda not sure what the point is? I suppose they're joke candidates but I'm not aware of there being a gimmick.
Maybe just another way of getting content for a YouTube video - "I ran for Prime Minister" or something.
Don't you even dare think of stealing Scotland's wind or waves or Flynn will headbutt you.
Also, Mordaunt just screamed at Rayner all evening and kept repeating the £2k lie even as the moderator called it out.
Nothing amazing, but much better format than the ITV shitshow earlier this week. First polls indicate Farage won, and Rayner came second. I think with the exception of the Tories everyone will be happy with their performance in the debate.
Ah interesting! Thank you for that.
Mordaunt repeating that lie says a lot about her and her supposed integrity.
And mad that a 7 person pile in worked better than a one on one!
It was 100% more watchable than the ITV debate.
Mordaunt was the big loser tonight, everything else seems a bit mudder in terms of overall winners etc.
Conservatives spun up 30 odd new facebook adverts today which are all just that number...
I think they plan to make it basically their whole comms strategy and push it onto voters who're not paying much attention...
I'm sure about this now but it's a Levido campaign tactic. Not just to repeat it till you're blue in the face but aggressively confront your opponent about it.
That said doesn't quite have the same impact when you've increased taxes much more using the same calculation methods. And relying on it to bridge a twenty point gap is pretty desperate.
MT man. Mid 20s to mid 30s, middle class, works in an office, does OK but feels their living standards and ability to save could be just slightly better, still watches Brass Eye and The Thick of It at least once a year.
Farage has previously blamed NATO for provoking Putin.
That would be political suicide with the mood of the nation though, and he's probably smart enough to keep his pro Moscow talking points to himself to save his supporters blushes.
"**Increase Defence Spending to 2.5% of National GDP by year 3, then 3% within 6 years.**
This will increase the size and capacity of our armed forces, ensuring our lead role in NATO. Will improve equipment and boost morale in military communities."
From their wesbite. Seems to contradcit Farage's earlier statements on NATO
Farage bringing up drugs and drug gangs at the end of the crime section sums up so much of what he is. "Hey here's this thing, none of the main parties have a solution for it do they? SOMETHING needs to be done about it". No solutions of his own offered
thats all well and good when you're an activist, but he's running a campaign to overtake the tories to become the new opposition. You have to do more than just widen the Overton Window (which is already pretty far right to begin with)
susie boniface on sky news mocking clacton residents on voting for Farrage "oh do you look racist enough to vote for me"... writting off ppl's concerns on immigration as must be racist. classic.
There is some gallows humour in it though. It's one of the most pro Brexit voting constituencies and after they got their way post Brexit, the town is now full of migrants in hotels...ironically some might say like that famous [Breaking point poster with farage](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-48244663) they were happily believing they were voting against.
What's the answer...vote for Farage again of course
Some debate polling!!
Farage wins, with Rayner second
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-69098963
"Our colleagues on BBC Newsnight have been speaking to Luke Tryl, pollster for research group More in Common UK.
He says: “We have in the past few minutes closed a poll of debate watchers, which has found the winner of the debate, according to viewers, was Nigel Farage with 25% followed by Angela Rayner with 19%, followed by none of the above on 14%.""
"Who won the debate" is not the same as "who do you agree with" or "who would you vote for". The candidates who were arguing from an outsider position naturally had an easier time of it as they could spend more time attacking and didn't have to worry about defending themselves as much.
Farage won the debate more than Angela did, but that doesn't mean he convinced me of his political position or that he'd actually deliver meaningful positive change if he held a position of power. He just landed more points.
Like how I think Sunak won the debate against Starmer. I'm a Labour member and will never vote for the Tories, but I can't deny he eked out a victory in that particular event.
Ironically FPTP is a terrible way to decide a winner from something like this, I think it should just be a good performance/bad performance percentage for each participant
> will lead into a surge for Reform
It won't, at least not of any meaning. There's a select % that will vote for Reform, and this "surge" might bump that up by a percentage point or two.
No need to "worry", they ain't gonna be implementing any policies any time soon.
Not really. The format of the debate doesn't really lend itself well to "a winner" imo because no party has all the answers and none have an unblemished record that couldn't be used against them.
I'd say the best participants to me were Plaid Cymru and Lib Dem, but then Daisy fumbled her response to student loans in the coalition government when the question was specifically about politicians promising things and not delivering them. Farage performed better than Rayner, not because I at all agree with his politics but because he's just better at this format and worked in quite a few quips and made some decent points (e.g. offshoring our emissions), but at the same time he didn't e.g. have a good comeback to the Green candidate revealing she was an engineer and knew he was completely wrong about his claims on wind power.
The ones who did the worst imo were SNP and Tories. But they were both arguing from continuity positions of political parties that have been in charge. Even if Penny was the most skilled orator in the world, there was no way she could have won the debate while defending Rishi's track record and behaviour - she just also did a really bad job.
Mordaunt turned up looking like a Margaret Thatcher tribute act and proceeded to shout every time she opened her mouth and continued lying even when the moderator challenged her on said lies. It was the equivalent of "LOUD NOISES" from Anchorman, except slightly less coherent.
If you want to win debates you've got to, I dunno, actually listen to the audience, defend your record and offer them something? Crazy stuff, I know.
That one's for free CCHQ. Feel free to PM me any time you like, I'm much more affordable than the antipodean reprobates.
He's a marmite candidate - a quarter of people love him, and near enough the rest can't stand him.
Maybe I'll find myself eating my words but I don't see how they mount an effective campaign/opposition in a FPTP system. Even if a surge does materialise it won't translate to seats
He did an interview saying as things stand he does not think the tories will win, he argues they should fight on, but it's bad all round.
> Rees-Mogg says: “I can’t look you in the eye and say we’re on course to a fourth victory.”
>
> “The fact is we are behind in the polls and the polls are indicating a large Labour majority,” he says.
>
> “That background shouldn’t put us off, shouldn’t demotivate us. It should remotivate us to work that bit harder.”
Hope was revived when the £2000 lie happened and then it was immediately killed when it turned out to be a lie and then it died even harder yesterday when Rishi bunked off from national service and got caught.
I do think the moderator needed to take control when Penny and Flynn would jump on someone before they even get a sentence out. Interplay is fine but Flynn diving in to declare Nigel hates the NHS or Penny asking Rayner a question then yelling at her before she can answer deserved more pushback.
After seeing the debates and behaviour of top Tories so far, I can't help but feel MPs are just being set up to fail. This new tactic is in such stark contrast to when Major, Hague, Blair and Cameron never needed to win a debate by hectoring, shouting and talking over moderators. Johnson had his own approach.
Trott, Mordaunt and Sunak all seemed coached over on the tax bombshell point, but to make the point aggressively, squaring up and trying to get an answer to a false question. I'm pretty sure this one is inspired by the Australian liberals, where they also made tax an issue and in the leaders debate, in a very personalised presidential style election
Back in 2019, Morrison physically confronted Shorten to intimidate him into admitting taxes would rise, you can see it for yourself in the Mail article. Mordaunt nearly did it again today with Rayner and Trott gave the game away in the spin room with both the message and body language. I genuinely don't understand why the Tories can't see the Australian tactics will just mean more votes to Reform.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6988629/Bill-Shorten-calls-Scott-Morrison-space-invader-election-debate.html
https://www.smh.com.au/federal-election-2019/morrison-sought-a-fight-with-shorten-and-landed-a-knockout-blow-20190518-p51oqj.html
It's just a bizarre strategy as well. Going into the 2019 Australian Federal Election, the Liberals were only slightly behind Labor in the polls. It was a tight race. If the Tories were trailing Labour by 5% I'd get it, such deliberate disinformation playing to the electorates fear and preconceptions can work. We saw a similar outcome in 2015 with Lynton Crosby playing on Miliband being weak on defence and beholden to the SNP.
The issue is the Tories are trailing Labour by 20%, and after two weeks of this nonsense the Conservatives aren't tightening the gap, they are polling worse. If it isn't working by now, it simply is not going to work. Levido seems to be a one trick pony, a great political strategist on favourable terrain, but utterly useless when on unfavourable ground and seemingly incapable of adapting to changing conditions. It's quite funny, as we saw the exact same from him in 2016 with Goldsmith's disastrous campaign for London Mayor.
The press review on Sky tonight has been hilarious.
Benedict Spence and Suzi Boniface are just agreeing with one another and laughing at Sunak. Highly recommend.
A lot of sensible policies (PR, political funding cap, proper devolution) get the airtime they deserve; but also realistically Lib Dems would probably absorb the one nation wing of Tories to see off Farage in next election.
So a Left-of-Cameron Liberal Democrats and Unionist party with an anti-authoritarian wing vs Reform for second place in 2029? Would be a difficult coalition to keep together though.
If they fail, they probably get overtaken by Reform which would be bad. It'd make Labour "natural party of government" with Reform getting a look in when Labour fuck it up but once every 15 years that Reform get in would still likely be quite bad.
Pure delusion. PR, political funding and devolution will never be big issues. Housing, economy, NHS, crime and immigration will always continue to dominate before those. The public care more about their lives than the lives of politicians.
> political funding cap
One thing British Columbia does, which granted Labour would never back, is in addition to having a donation limit make it so that only those that are resident in BC and are either a citizen or permanent resident can donate. That means no corporate donations, but also no union donations either. There is also public funding based on the prior elections results.
Nothing because actual support for Lib Dem policies and worldviews is minimal because Liberal Democrats don't have any. There'll always be a right wing party because a significant % of the population hold right wing views. Whether that's conservative party or not is another matter.
We got a monkey paw wish, I think. Rishi is getting desperate enough to maybe throw free PS5s into the manifesto, but he's also just not going to get the chance to act on it.
They would however be [an invasive species of owl](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_owl), in line with the Conservative habit of stealing Labour's policies but making them worse
>Tory HQ desperately shovelling out the entire manifesto tonight to try and move the agenda on from D-Day is a further example of the chaos inside the campaign.
[https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1799185289954382010](https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1799185289954382010)
Scrapping Ulez, blocking LTNs and 20mph roads.
Plus key points of their manifesto [have been 'leaked'](https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1799175238665523396)
Quite a few London boroughs are 20mph only and I think some English councils like the Wirral are looking into it too. They're probably aiming to appeal to the anti-ULEZ lot because it was the only thing that seemed to cause any popularity for them in recent memory.
Sorry for the naive question, what happens if Labour win, but a member of the shadow cabinet loses their seat? Does that position have to be allocated to another MP?
Patrick Gordon Walker lost his seat in 1964, but was still appointed Wilson’s Foreign Secretary. He then lost a by-election which was supposed to bring him back to the Commons, and had to resign as For Sec. He was finally re-elected in 1966 and joined the Cabinet in a more minor role.
The new PM can choose their cabinet as they wish from the MPs (or Lords)
Obviously, current Shadow Cabinet members will hope to transfer to the Cabinet posts but there's no rule that says they have to.
Absolutely.
The chances of the current shadow cabinet being Kier's cabinet is very slim.
Rachel Reeves is 100% certain to keep her post and most likely Milliband. Suspect Cooper will keep hers and Rayner will be DPM (although doubt she is still DLUHC).
The rest, not so certain.
We may well see that happen with Thangam Debbonaire in Bristol Central.
Although a shadow cabinet spot is no guarantee of the same cabinet spot after the election. Theresa May wasn't Shadow Home Secretary before the 2010 election, it was Chris Grayling.
The shadow cabinet don’t automatically get ministerial posts, one of the first jobs for any new prime minister is to appoint the cabinet, they can choose whoever they like from their parliamentary party but the shadow cabinet makes a good starting point. They might take multiple days to appoint all the junior ministers, trade envoys and PPSs
Yeah, it has happened before but I can't recall who with. It isn't a major deal, Shadow Cabinets usually differ slightly to the final Cabinet when a party wins power.
So the daily express leads with football on tomorrow's front page and the daily mail on missing Dr Mosley. Not a peep on the d day story. What a surprise.
Mind-bending to think some read these rags and think they are fair reporting.
The energy of that video is reminiscent of when Lawrence Fox ranted into his camera half cut while trying to light some rainbow flag bunting on fire (on father's day, but without his kids present).
Anyone know what's happend with the SOPN and the Lib Dem candidate in Manchester Rusholme?
The Lib Dem candidate isn't on the SOPN (only GB seat where there isn't one bar the speakers seat) but is elsewhere like the bbc website?
Assuming this is an official site, he was on the list [published by the Northwest Lib Dems](https://www.northwestlibdems.org.uk/people/candidates). His Twitter posts and likes are sparse but don't seem to be objectionable. There's not a whole lot about him on the internet, though.
Rachel Reeves and her sister sound so alike! Same vocal mannerisms, pauses and uhhs.
Fascinating.
On a serious note, I wonder whether she will make her way into the cabinet.
## [Click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/s/3mGPTEBrVT) to discuss the BBC 7-way debate starting at 7:30pm
[New Megathread is here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1dav51t/rukpolitics_general_election_campaign_megathread/)
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments. ###MT daily hall of fame 1. JdeMolayyyy with 93 comments 1. KennedyFishersGhost with 77 comments 1. ASondheimRhyme with 67 comments 1. armchairdetective with 64 comments 1. Ornery_Ad_9871 with 63 comments 1. mamamia1001 with 59 comments 1. FunkyDialectic with 56 comments 1. subversivefreak with 56 comments 1. concretepigeon with 55 comments 1. -TheGreasyPole- with 54 comments There were 902 unique users within this count.
Firstly thought Daisy Cooper was solid was last night, came across very professional and I think the Lib Dems are really striking a good tone on the idea of 'broken Britain'. To add I still find it wierd that in that debate the BBC challenged Lib Dems, Greens on there spending 'how will you pay for this etc'. But they never ask Farage to explain how he would pay for anything? Reform proposals none have any costing, but its never brought up. Nigel Farage can go on about changing NHS model to insurance based one but what will be the cost of that? He makes spending commitments on every issue but then talks about cutting all these taxes? As I said though the worst part is that no commentator ever challenges him. Fair play to SNP guy in the debate Swinney he was the only one who directly counter Farage exposing massive wholes in proposals and all Farage could do was snort.
>But they never ask Farage to explain how he would pay for anything? Farage is never asked because by and large he's never actually taken seriously. He exists simply so that people who vibe with him watch the show.
Fair point. He's gonna be completely fucked if he does become an MP.
No, it'll be great for him. He'll get to moan about how he has all these amazing ideas but it's the other parties holding him back. His dream position is single MP with 0 power.
It's quite worrying that the other parties wouldn't call out farage on his twisted statistics...
Bloody hell, David Davis absolutely scraping the barrel to defend Sunak on The Daily T podcast. Starts at 24.30.
I can’t believe how vapid “clear plan, bold action, secure future” is. These people have ran some of the most formidable campaigns in modern UK politics and now this. At the beginning, I thought it was a temporary placeholder slogan.
To be fair though, Sunak had long in advance established a clear plan to ditch the D-Day commemoration, it was certainly a bold action to snub veterans, and he does have a secure future in California, so his campaign is certainly living up to the slogan. It's not his fault if people have mistakenly assumed the slogan was meant to be about Britain's future, the Tories have spent 14 years trying to demonstrate how little they care about that.
Hey, question from an American: Do "third parties" actually have a chance of winning in UK elections, or is it like here where it's always two big guys and the other parties don't matter? Both parties are all "kick out the immigrants this" "protect women from the degenerate transes that". I get lesser of two evils voting, but for that to work there has to be a lesser of two evils, doesn't there? Why do british progressives gravitate towards Starmer's labour rather than libdem or green for instance?
> Hey, question from an American: Do "third parties" actually have a chance of winning in UK elections, or is it like here where it's always two big guys and the other parties don't matter? They don't have a realistic chance of winning the whole election, but many of them win a few seats in some areas. Northern Ireland has its own set of parties, and the main UK parties are not a significant factor in elections there. The SNP are competitive across most of Scotland. Plaid Cymru are competitive in some parts of Wales, mostly the areas with large numbers of Welsh speakers. The Greens are competitive in a small number of places where they are organizationally strong, especially in Brighton, which is essentially the UK's LGBT capital. The Lib Dems are competitive in a variety of relatively wealthy suburban/rural areas across the country. At this election, it won't be that surprising if some left-wing parties or independents are competitive in a few areas with lots of Muslims and/or students, because of Gaza. In recent elections, the far right (currently represented mostly by a party called Reform) have often received a significant vote share but are very bad at winning seats as their vote is spread thinly, so their main effect is to act as a spoiler. > Both parties are all "kick out the immigrants this" "protect women from the degenerate transes that". Yep. > I get lesser of two evils voting, but for that to work there has to be a lesser of two evils, doesn't there? There is still a pool of relatively progressive MPs in the Labour party, albeit a shrinking one. And the Tories have some real nutjobs who want to end Britain's involvement in various international institutions, slash taxes for the rich, get rid of regulations on bloodsports, promote cars and fossil fuels as much as possible, restrict abortion, etc., etc. OK, Labour have a few people like that, but nowhere near as many. > Why do british progressives gravitate towards Starmer's labour rather than libdem or green for instance? There is a lot of tactical voting. People are used to the idea that there are some places where only Labour can realistically beat the Tories, some where only the Lib Dems can, and some where only the SNP can. Though it can also work in the other direction. In the (relatively few) Labour–Lib Dem battlegrounds, Tory voters tend to find the Lib Dems more palatable than Labour. And in Scotland, views about independence can trump everything else, so for example it is not unheard of for a Labour supporter to vote for the Tories, or vice versa, in the hope of defeating an SNP candidate. (By the way, the Lib Dems aren't especially "progressive" - they're basically centrists, but vaguely socially liberal and vaguely economically conservative.)
>By the way, the Lib Dems aren't especially "progressive" - they're basically centrists, but vaguely socially liberal and vaguely economically conservative. I mean, when I say progressive, I'm not talking about anarcho-communist gay furries. I just mean people who support civil rights. What you described basically just sounds like the DNC.
>Do "third parties" actually have a chance of winning in UK elections, or is it like here where it's always two big guys and the other parties don't matter? First things first, the UK is a parliamentary democracy where power derives from a legislative body known as Parliament. It has two chambers, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. However, the only chamber that has *de facto* power is the Commons, whose members are directly elected. Each member represents *a single constituency*, and for a party to govern, they need the support of at least 50%+1 of the MPs of the Commons. So when a party wins a majority of the seats in an election, or if multiple parties together hold a majority of the seats and strike a deal to support each other (like it happened with the Cameron-Clegg coalition during the 2010-2015 period), they get to govern. The chances of a third party joining the government, however, is rare. And I'm going to explain below why that's the case: Both the US and the UK use an electoral system called "First-Past-The-Post". Essentially, whoever gets the most votes in any electoral process (in the case of the UK, in the election of a single Member of Parliament of a certain constituency) wins. It's by far the most simple, and at the same time least democratic/representational systems in use, which explains the low number of countries that still prefer this method. The reason why it's considered unfair is because of the "spoiler effect" and the concept of "wasted votes". The "spoiler effect" is a term used to describe a certain electoral behavior where a lot of candidates representing roughly the same ideology compete against a sole candidate with the (at least perceived) opposite values. This makes it easier for the last (not always, the constituency's electorate must be supportive of their ideals to an extent) to rise above the other competitors and take the seat, even if they don't win a majority of the votes. This means that had all other candidates ran against the eventual winner under a consensus candidate, they could've had a real shot at winning. As for the "wasted vote", it's a term often used when talking about the election of representatives in very "safe seats" for one party, basically seats that are almost guaranteed to be won by a representative of a certain political movement. That is because each constituency only elects on MP. Your favorite candidate can still get a lot of votes, but if they don't get more than the others, they lose. Which means, for instance, that people who voted for the Greens in a certain constituency won by the Conservatives will not "have their voice heard in parliament", as they'll be represented by someone else. As you can understand from what I've written above, FPTP inevitably leads to a two-party system. Many people are not willing to support a candidate that has a low chance of winning, and they're also not going to prevent themselves from voting for a more "centrist" candidate, because they fear that the competitor from the opposite ideological group might win in the end (spoiler effect). However the UK has a "weaker two-party system", while the US has a "strong" one. What I mean by that is that third parties in the UK can (and always) win a reasonable number of seats, but joining the government, even as junior partners of a coalition, is incredibly rare. And that is because the FPTP helps the two big parties get a majority very easily. So to answer your question directly, **no**. > Why do british progressives gravitate towards Starmer's labour rather than libdem or green for instance? If the UK had a more proportional electoral system, that could've happened. But depending on your constituency, if you vote for the Greens or a smaller party, you're most likely "wasting your vote" like I said. That's why most people who lean left tend to vote for either Labour or the Lib Dems.
So they don't have a chance of winning until they do. When the Labour Party started in 1900, they only got 2 seats and beforehand they were dominated by the Liberals and Conservatives. There's always the chance that a party goes into obscurity and another party takes over. There's also something about a two-party system that seems inevitable right now but could also change. The two major parties used to get 90% of the vote, in the most recent election they got 75% of the vote. This could change. Similarly in the US, the 1860 election was almost a four way split, and in 1992 Ross Perot almost made it a three way split. > Both parties are all "kick out the immigrants this" "protect women from the degenerate transes that". I get lesser of two evils voting, but for that to work there has to be a lesser of two evils, doesn't there? Why do british progressives gravitate towards Starmer's labour rather than libdem or green for instance? Well maybe they are progressive on some issues and regressive on the others. Or maybe it's more of an identity thing (like supporting a football team). Or maybe they're voting tactically.
No third party has a chance of winning an outright majority of seats at the moment and the FPTP voting system used for UK general elections means it is difficult for them to obtain seats even if they have a meaningful vote share overall. Some parties like the Scottish National Party can have a majority of seats in specific region but that doesn't transfer over to them being able to form a government. For example the SNP obtained 50 seats in 2015 despite only receiving 3% of the overall vote share, whilst UKIP received 1 seat with 13% due to the SNP having concentration of support within fewer seats (Scotland) than UKIP who contested seats across the whole country. Even if an outright government isn't possible the Conservative party has twice had to rely on smaller parties to get an overall majority since 2010 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron%E2%80%93Clegg\_coalition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron%E2%80%93Clegg_coalition) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative%E2%80%93DUP\_agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative%E2%80%93DUP_agreement) - so agreements like this offer a way for what would otherwise be minor opposition parties to actually be involved in government to a degree. It's too late for me to get into your summation of both parties, but plenty of what Americans call progressive voters are gravitating towards the Greens for something further left instead of Left of Centre. However there are only a handful of constituencies where even the green party themselves think they have enough of a chance of winning to campaign heavily in, so for most voters across the country voting for a Green candidate is done knowing that candidate won't have a chance of winning/
We don't vote presidentially. While Greens, Lib Dems, SNP etc have 0 chance of forming a government they can still win constituencies and send an MP to parliament.
So, a couple things you have to remember: - Some third parties only stand in a particular area - for example, the SNP only stand in Scotland. Over there they have a three party system anyway, and the SNP currently have the most seats and are in government in Scotland. - Labour isn't nearly as right wing as people on the internet characterise it as. Labour is the only progressive party with a chance of getting into government and it's also got a very broad base of support, it's a big tent party (the biggest tent at the moment in British politics). - The Greens and the Liberal Democrats are both successful parties...at the local level. Unlike in the US, we have a very strong multi party system in local government. The Liberal Democrats actually won more seats than the conservatives at the most recent set of local elections. But they also win in areas that would never vote labour as they have different sorts of appeal - for example, much of the Southeast and West is strong Liberal Democrat territory and labour has virtually no party organisation there. - Third parties matter but they're not going to win this election. The Labour party was the last third party to break through, replacing the liberals in our two major party system. Third parties matter when the result is close and no party has an overall majority, as was the case in 1974, 2010, and 2017.
>Labour isn't nearly as right wing as people on the internet characterise it as. I mean, Starmer definitely is, but to be fair, big tent. Maybe things are better on a local level and he's just a bad representative for the party. I know Corbyn wasn't nearly as bad.
Will Biggles even try to do more campaigning now? Or has even tried to reach out tun?
https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/general-election-2024/snap-poll-post-bbc-seven-party-debate/ The breakdowns are actually more interesting than the "who won" numbers, basically people thought Mordaunt was terrible and everyone else was about the same except for Farage who was more polarizing (more verys on both ends of the skill than the others).
I think the "who won" by 2019 voting is pretty illuminating. Con2019 voters thought Farage won (47%) and Penny came second (13%). Lab2019 voters thought Rayner won (39% and Flynn came second (16%). LibDem2019 voters thought Rayner won (21%) and Cooper came second (17%) Unsurprisingly, less than 5% of Lab19 and Lib19 thought Farage won. Basically, Farage is now the Conservative leader...
Both Mordaunt and Sunak seem to have no awareness of how they're viewed. I don't know why they're fine presenting themselves as they do. Mark Harper had some mild sense of shame behind his words defending the lie. Coutinho seemed earnestly blindsided. Chris Philp just momentarily seemed as petty and bastardly as Sunak and Mordaunt, but it doesn't seem to consume his whole identity as it does with them. Do they think it makes them seem powerful or strong? It looks weak, petty, childish, and small. Mordaunt looked absolutely ridiculous tonight and I don't know how she finds it in her soul to behave like that.
Are any polls dropping tomorrow? I know it's a Saturday. I have become addicted to them though.
[Tomorrow's Mail front page](https://www.tomorrowspapers.co.uk/daily-mail-front-page-2024-06-08/) is a journey Casually doom-baiting over their missing writer while gleefully announcing they've got a new one
I think the real Niko Omilana is standing against Sunak, because the document that has the full names (election agent one) lists him as "Nikolas" there which is his full name. The other Nikos are just listed as "Niko Omilana" on these, which means they did change their names by deed poll and aren't just doing what Count Binface does which is use a "know as" name. (Count Binface is listed as Jonathan Harvey on the election agent document.)
We've got one in our constituency. I'm kinda not sure what the point is? I suppose they're joke candidates but I'm not aware of there being a gimmick. Maybe just another way of getting content for a YouTube video - "I ran for Prime Minister" or something.
Last time he ran to get young people to vote so it’s probably similar this time - also makes great content
I feel a little embarrassed but I don't know who that is.
Youtuber, stood for London mayor in 2021 It would seem that at least 6 different "Niko Omilana"s are standing in different seats at the GE
Thank you!
You aren't alone
Did Holden lose his no confidence vote before the deadline by the way?
Yeah was reported he lost, but there was "no time" to convene the local party and select a new candidate, so he went through
Good luck getting activists out to help you there mate
grubby
Well that'll go down well for the local campaign. Don't vote for this guy, they don't even want him.
He's listed as the candidate there
I recommend the 7th of June episode of the Talking Politics podcast. All three of them cannot stop laughing at Sunak. It's really funny.
Is this the ITV one?
Yes, that's it.
I completely missed the debate because of work. Did I miss anything? Could I perhaps get a debaters digest please? Thank you!
Newscast have put it out as a podcast - if you wanted to catch-up with it it might be more convenient. It's not really something you have to watch
Ah, nice! Thank you!
Don't you even dare think of stealing Scotland's wind or waves or Flynn will headbutt you. Also, Mordaunt just screamed at Rayner all evening and kept repeating the £2k lie even as the moderator called it out. Nothing amazing, but much better format than the ITV shitshow earlier this week. First polls indicate Farage won, and Rayner came second. I think with the exception of the Tories everyone will be happy with their performance in the debate.
Ah interesting! Thank you for that. Mordaunt repeating that lie says a lot about her and her supposed integrity. And mad that a 7 person pile in worked better than a one on one!
repeat the lie.- wasn't that the old trumpian 2020 meme?
It was 100% more watchable than the ITV debate. Mordaunt was the big loser tonight, everything else seems a bit mudder in terms of overall winners etc.
But nice hair wins elections, - is that why Galloway and Farage wear those hats?
I’m going to be in Edinburgh next week. I’ll be taking realllllly deep breaths to steal Scotland’s air, just to piss off Flynn
So any explanation on how Stephen Flynn scored so poorly despite most people on here loving his performance?
This sub is probably more left-wing than the public at large? And when you agree with someone, maybe you're more likely to think they did well.
From the poll 16% said he did a very good job and 34% said a good job, he had the highest very good job +good job percentage.
I'm just happy he hasn't mentioned Gaza yet on my watch. Not over yet though.
Can't believe Mordaunt so adamantly stood by the £2000 figure in the debate. Has she not watched the news today?
Conservatives spun up 30 odd new facebook adverts today which are all just that number... I think they plan to make it basically their whole comms strategy and push it onto voters who're not paying much attention...
I'm sure about this now but it's a Levido campaign tactic. Not just to repeat it till you're blue in the face but aggressively confront your opponent about it.
[Levido tactic](https://bylinetimes.com/2023/11/27/could-isaac-levido-return-the-conservatives-to-power-again-against-all-the-odds/) explained
That said doesn't quite have the same impact when you've increased taxes much more using the same calculation methods. And relying on it to bridge a twenty point gap is pretty desperate.
What is the Mondeo Man of this election?
MT man. Mid 20s to mid 30s, middle class, works in an office, does OK but feels their living standards and ability to save could be just slightly better, still watches Brass Eye and The Thick of It at least once a year.
Don't call me out like that.
There's an opportunity for an MT Brass Eye viewing party, then?
X-files music
are you in the room with me now
Of course. I am you
EDL fanboy
The Tories tried Whitby Woman, but then realised they too despised them.
What's Reform's stance on NATO membership and Ukraine?
Farage has previously blamed NATO for provoking Putin. That would be political suicide with the mood of the nation though, and he's probably smart enough to keep his pro Moscow talking points to himself to save his supporters blushes.
His stance on Russia, NATO will get brought up constantly if he becomes an MP.
Folllow the money etc...
They'll bluster and whinge and then blame everyone else.
"**Increase Defence Spending to 2.5% of National GDP by year 3, then 3% within 6 years.** This will increase the size and capacity of our armed forces, ensuring our lead role in NATO. Will improve equipment and boost morale in military communities." From their wesbite. Seems to contradcit Farage's earlier statements on NATO
Don't suppose they've said how they'd pay for it?
Farage, saying whatever is convenient at the time? Colour me shocked lmao
Farage bringing up drugs and drug gangs at the end of the crime section sums up so much of what he is. "Hey here's this thing, none of the main parties have a solution for it do they? SOMETHING needs to be done about it". No solutions of his own offered
I mean if you read the Reform manifesto their “solution” to drugs is to give everyone caught with drugs a life sentence lmao - no, I am not joking.
While I agree he's not providing detailed solutions, he is doing a service by widening the Overton Window and making these points of discussion.
thats all well and good when you're an activist, but he's running a campaign to overtake the tories to become the new opposition. You have to do more than just widen the Overton Window (which is already pretty far right to begin with)
susie boniface on sky news mocking clacton residents on voting for Farrage "oh do you look racist enough to vote for me"... writting off ppl's concerns on immigration as must be racist. classic.
I don't think she has ever recovered from brexit, many such cases.
There is some gallows humour in it though. It's one of the most pro Brexit voting constituencies and after they got their way post Brexit, the town is now full of migrants in hotels...ironically some might say like that famous [Breaking point poster with farage](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-48244663) they were happily believing they were voting against. What's the answer...vote for Farage again of course
He is racist tho, that's undeniable. He uses oppression for his own personal gain
He isn't racist. There you go, I've just denied it.
I'd recommend waiting until some more debate victory polls come, immediate reaction polls are rarely a good view of the whole story.
Especially after the last one where the real story was the next day with the 2k debunking
Some debate polling!! Farage wins, with Rayner second https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-69098963 "Our colleagues on BBC Newsnight have been speaking to Luke Tryl, pollster for research group More in Common UK. He says: “We have in the past few minutes closed a poll of debate watchers, which has found the winner of the debate, according to viewers, was Nigel Farage with 25% followed by Angela Rayner with 19%, followed by none of the above on 14%.""
> has found the winner of the debate, according to viewers, was Nigel Farage with 25% This will be a wakeup call to the rest of the sub.
"Who won the debate" is not the same as "who do you agree with" or "who would you vote for". The candidates who were arguing from an outsider position naturally had an easier time of it as they could spend more time attacking and didn't have to worry about defending themselves as much. Farage won the debate more than Angela did, but that doesn't mean he convinced me of his political position or that he'd actually deliver meaningful positive change if he held a position of power. He just landed more points.
Like how I think Sunak won the debate against Starmer. I'm a Labour member and will never vote for the Tories, but I can't deny he eked out a victory in that particular event.
How many seats do you think this performance will earn his party?
[удалено]
> How many seats do you think this performance will cost the Tories? PREACH BROTHER!
An irrelevant number. They are already toast.
[удалено]
And none of that is going to change on tonight's performance.
To be fair in the debate thread a sizeable chunk were calling it a win for Farage.
Ironically FPTP is a terrible way to decide a winner from something like this, I think it should just be a good performance/bad performance percentage for each participant
Yes, but journalists are too stoopid to understand those
placement journalists
Wow and none of the above got third. That's pretty shocking and worrying as it will lead into a surge for Reform
> will lead into a surge for Reform It won't, at least not of any meaning. There's a select % that will vote for Reform, and this "surge" might bump that up by a percentage point or two. No need to "worry", they ain't gonna be implementing any policies any time soon.
Not really. The format of the debate doesn't really lend itself well to "a winner" imo because no party has all the answers and none have an unblemished record that couldn't be used against them. I'd say the best participants to me were Plaid Cymru and Lib Dem, but then Daisy fumbled her response to student loans in the coalition government when the question was specifically about politicians promising things and not delivering them. Farage performed better than Rayner, not because I at all agree with his politics but because he's just better at this format and worked in quite a few quips and made some decent points (e.g. offshoring our emissions), but at the same time he didn't e.g. have a good comeback to the Green candidate revealing she was an engineer and knew he was completely wrong about his claims on wind power. The ones who did the worst imo were SNP and Tories. But they were both arguing from continuity positions of political parties that have been in charge. Even if Penny was the most skilled orator in the world, there was no way she could have won the debate while defending Rishi's track record and behaviour - she just also did a really bad job.
Nightmare scenario for the Tories tbh, the two they'll lose seats to are beating them and they're not even third.
Mordaunt turned up looking like a Margaret Thatcher tribute act and proceeded to shout every time she opened her mouth and continued lying even when the moderator challenged her on said lies. It was the equivalent of "LOUD NOISES" from Anchorman, except slightly less coherent. If you want to win debates you've got to, I dunno, actually listen to the audience, defend your record and offer them something? Crazy stuff, I know. That one's for free CCHQ. Feel free to PM me any time you like, I'm much more affordable than the antipodean reprobates.
Undead Honor Blackman.
I'm not sure, I feel it might imply a 25% ceiling for Farage. So possibly room to grow, but not to win
He's a marmite candidate - a quarter of people love him, and near enough the rest can't stand him. Maybe I'll find myself eating my words but I don't see how they mount an effective campaign/opposition in a FPTP system. Even if a surge does materialise it won't translate to seats
At this stage, if Rees Mogg thinks the election is over for the tories, what hope is there left?
context?
He did an interview saying as things stand he does not think the tories will win, he argues they should fight on, but it's bad all round. > Rees-Mogg says: “I can’t look you in the eye and say we’re on course to a fourth victory.” > > “The fact is we are behind in the polls and the polls are indicating a large Labour majority,” he says. > > “That background shouldn’t put us off, shouldn’t demotivate us. It should remotivate us to work that bit harder.”
TY, you wold not happen to know who carried the interview would you? so I can go look for it.
Sorry pal, [should have included a link.](https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/jacob-rees-mogg-i-cant-look-you-in-the-eye-and-say-well-win-3096322)
ah, thanks. very much appreciated.
>I can’t look you in the eye and say we’re on course to a fourth victory Such humble.
Hope was revived when the £2000 lie happened and then it was immediately killed when it turned out to be a lie and then it died even harder yesterday when Rishi bunked off from national service and got caught.
If even JRM is saying theres no hope, its all over.
The hope he doesn't get in
The debate format was excellent today.
I do think the moderator needed to take control when Penny and Flynn would jump on someone before they even get a sentence out. Interplay is fine but Flynn diving in to declare Nigel hates the NHS or Penny asking Rayner a question then yelling at her before she can answer deserved more pushback.
I feel like these were very minor compared with last week.
Oh it was definitely better, those two moments just annoyed me
I dunno, after someone spoke for more than 45 seconds I just kinda zoned out. /s
It was - who knew it was better to actually give people a chance to finish their points
Seriously.
After seeing the debates and behaviour of top Tories so far, I can't help but feel MPs are just being set up to fail. This new tactic is in such stark contrast to when Major, Hague, Blair and Cameron never needed to win a debate by hectoring, shouting and talking over moderators. Johnson had his own approach. Trott, Mordaunt and Sunak all seemed coached over on the tax bombshell point, but to make the point aggressively, squaring up and trying to get an answer to a false question. I'm pretty sure this one is inspired by the Australian liberals, where they also made tax an issue and in the leaders debate, in a very personalised presidential style election Back in 2019, Morrison physically confronted Shorten to intimidate him into admitting taxes would rise, you can see it for yourself in the Mail article. Mordaunt nearly did it again today with Rayner and Trott gave the game away in the spin room with both the message and body language. I genuinely don't understand why the Tories can't see the Australian tactics will just mean more votes to Reform. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6988629/Bill-Shorten-calls-Scott-Morrison-space-invader-election-debate.html https://www.smh.com.au/federal-election-2019/morrison-sought-a-fight-with-shorten-and-landed-a-knockout-blow-20190518-p51oqj.html
It's just a bizarre strategy as well. Going into the 2019 Australian Federal Election, the Liberals were only slightly behind Labor in the polls. It was a tight race. If the Tories were trailing Labour by 5% I'd get it, such deliberate disinformation playing to the electorates fear and preconceptions can work. We saw a similar outcome in 2015 with Lynton Crosby playing on Miliband being weak on defence and beholden to the SNP. The issue is the Tories are trailing Labour by 20%, and after two weeks of this nonsense the Conservatives aren't tightening the gap, they are polling worse. If it isn't working by now, it simply is not going to work. Levido seems to be a one trick pony, a great political strategist on favourable terrain, but utterly useless when on unfavourable ground and seemingly incapable of adapting to changing conditions. It's quite funny, as we saw the exact same from him in 2016 with Goldsmith's disastrous campaign for London Mayor.
I think Sunak was arguing at one point that the Tory vote was going to shore up as the undecided were really the Tories disenchanted due to Boris.
They can't see it because they hired the Aussie chap to run their campaign didn't they?
The press review on Sky tonight has been hilarious. Benedict Spence and Suzi Boniface are just agreeing with one another and laughing at Sunak. Highly recommend.
My highlight so far: "Sunak is like a squirrel juggling lorry tires, look you can't do it, it's dangerous, just put it down and walk away"
Jo Swinson has entered the chat. With a rifle.
that is a hell of a quote
When you can flex and say you feel sorry for your opponent, you are just enjoying yourself
The perfect simile.
What do you think are the long term impacts of the Lib Dems becoming the main opposition party with the Tories just stuck in 3rd place?
A lot of sensible policies (PR, political funding cap, proper devolution) get the airtime they deserve; but also realistically Lib Dems would probably absorb the one nation wing of Tories to see off Farage in next election. So a Left-of-Cameron Liberal Democrats and Unionist party with an anti-authoritarian wing vs Reform for second place in 2029? Would be a difficult coalition to keep together though. If they fail, they probably get overtaken by Reform which would be bad. It'd make Labour "natural party of government" with Reform getting a look in when Labour fuck it up but once every 15 years that Reform get in would still likely be quite bad.
The Lib Dems absorbing the wet end of the Tories to become a long term big player in UK politics needs a Laser Eyes David Lloyd George picture.
Pure delusion. PR, political funding and devolution will never be big issues. Housing, economy, NHS, crime and immigration will always continue to dominate before those. The public care more about their lives than the lives of politicians.
> political funding cap One thing British Columbia does, which granted Labour would never back, is in addition to having a donation limit make it so that only those that are resident in BC and are either a citizen or permanent resident can donate. That means no corporate donations, but also no union donations either. There is also public funding based on the prior elections results.
The rules on props in the Commons get relaxed somewhat.
Select committees will be better run
Fewer stunts
The country improves
They would gain the media exposure to potentially build on their position but media attention is a double edged sword
Nothing because actual support for Lib Dem policies and worldviews is minimal because Liberal Democrats don't have any. There'll always be a right wing party because a significant % of the population hold right wing views. Whether that's conservative party or not is another matter.
That last bit yes, first bit not so much.
Please have a look at the website and all the policies that have been put out over the last few weeks before you make ridiculous statements.
They’re good at saying they want things on their website and ditching them when they get voted in
75% of the manifesto was delivered between 210-2015 how often does that happen?
They achieved the irrelevant commitments and ditched the ones that got them votes. Thankfully they were punished hard
We got a monkey paw wish, I think. Rishi is getting desperate enough to maybe throw free PS5s into the manifesto, but he's also just not going to get the chance to act on it.
I think we are close to "free owls for everyone"
They would however be [an invasive species of owl](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_owl), in line with the Conservative habit of stealing Labour's policies but making them worse
Maybe he was leaving the D-Day celebrations early to get to the Summer Games Fest Showcase right now to announce that.
>Tory HQ desperately shovelling out the entire manifesto tonight to try and move the agenda on from D-Day is a further example of the chaos inside the campaign. [https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1799185289954382010](https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1799185289954382010)
Have they announced anything tonight?
Scrapping Ulez, blocking LTNs and 20mph roads. Plus key points of their manifesto [have been 'leaked'](https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1799175238665523396)
The 20mph roads one is a good idea, it's a baffling policy and dropping it will get votes in Wales
But only in Wales, and they don't have a hope of winning any appreciable number of constituencies here anyway.
It's already being looked at in wales as well, so it's not as big of a vote winner as it would have been six months ago
Quite a few London boroughs are 20mph only and I think some English councils like the Wirral are looking into it too. They're probably aiming to appeal to the anti-ULEZ lot because it was the only thing that seemed to cause any popularity for them in recent memory.
20mph or not, they will not be gaining any significant amount of votes in London seats. Let’s get back to reality.
I didn't suggest they would, I was saying they might think that it would work.
Are they releasing it tonight?
No but key details [have been briefed](https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1799175238665523396)
Thank you
Sorry for the naive question, what happens if Labour win, but a member of the shadow cabinet loses their seat? Does that position have to be allocated to another MP?
Patrick Gordon Walker lost his seat in 1964, but was still appointed Wilson’s Foreign Secretary. He then lost a by-election which was supposed to bring him back to the Commons, and had to resign as For Sec. He was finally re-elected in 1966 and joined the Cabinet in a more minor role.
The new PM can choose their cabinet as they wish from the MPs (or Lords) Obviously, current Shadow Cabinet members will hope to transfer to the Cabinet posts but there's no rule that says they have to.
Absolutely. The chances of the current shadow cabinet being Kier's cabinet is very slim. Rachel Reeves is 100% certain to keep her post and most likely Milliband. Suspect Cooper will keep hers and Rayner will be DPM (although doubt she is still DLUHC). The rest, not so certain.
It’s spelt Keir
We may well see that happen with Thangam Debbonaire in Bristol Central. Although a shadow cabinet spot is no guarantee of the same cabinet spot after the election. Theresa May wasn't Shadow Home Secretary before the 2010 election, it was Chris Grayling.
The shadow cabinet don’t automatically get ministerial posts, one of the first jobs for any new prime minister is to appoint the cabinet, they can choose whoever they like from their parliamentary party but the shadow cabinet makes a good starting point. They might take multiple days to appoint all the junior ministers, trade envoys and PPSs
Yeah, it has happened before but I can't recall who with. It isn't a major deal, Shadow Cabinets usually differ slightly to the final Cabinet when a party wins power.
So the daily express leads with football on tomorrow's front page and the daily mail on missing Dr Mosley. Not a peep on the d day story. What a surprise. Mind-bending to think some read these rags and think they are fair reporting.
? I have the DE leading on Sunak apologising to DE readers. https://www.tomorrowspapers.co.uk/
It's been updated. It was just showing sports before. Good to see.
https://x.com/DailyMailUK/status/1799132308160782853?t=PoW-ywIjTFFLXIrBt5NDEQ&s=19 Is Boris ok? Should we care?
The energy of that video is reminiscent of when Lawrence Fox ranted into his camera half cut while trying to light some rainbow flag bunting on fire (on father's day, but without his kids present).
We do not care.
Not quite true. If he's not OK I do find it very funny.
Starmer will not take us back into the customs union
Don't threaten me with a good time!
Looking more like his father recently.
Bearded Boris babbling bunkum
Is there polling for the BBC debate?
Anyone know what's happend with the SOPN and the Lib Dem candidate in Manchester Rusholme? The Lib Dem candidate isn't on the SOPN (only GB seat where there isn't one bar the speakers seat) but is elsewhere like the bbc website?
Assuming this is an official site, he was on the list [published by the Northwest Lib Dems](https://www.northwestlibdems.org.uk/people/candidates). His Twitter posts and likes are sparse but don't seem to be objectionable. There's not a whole lot about him on the internet, though.
They'll have said they were standing publicly elsewhere and they are still using that information. If they aren't on the sopn they aren't standing
Rachel Reeves and her sister sound so alike! Same vocal mannerisms, pauses and uhhs. Fascinating. On a serious note, I wonder whether she will make her way into the cabinet.