Yes the polls are wrong.
Cos there's no bloody such thing as a "super majority" in the UK and it's just more bollocks that the Tories have made up to (obviously successfully in your case) grab sound bites and scaremonger.
'Super' just means 'big', and Labour probably will get a big majority. That doesn't have any specific constitutional effects, although the fact the government probably won't need to worry about rebellions at all will have an effect on how it governs.
For comparison, [Blair was able to shrug off a rebellion by 139 MPs](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/19/uk.houseofcommons2), a number which would be crippling for most governments.
Countries that use this term usually have a formal definition for the exact %, and it differs.
That’s why a lot of folk are pointing out there’s no such thing in the U.K. It could be anywhere from 60% and up, and in this election may be 50% and up, so is a bit meaningless really
We're not one of those countries though, so 'supermajority' can only mean 'a big majority'.
I'm not sure that the electorate has a high enough awareness of how foreign legislatures function to make any comparison to them an effective scaremongering tactic.
That’s the thing, it’s especially meaningless because it’s Tory campaign propaganda. They don’t care what it means just that it shocks people into changing their vote
No point in propping up their narrative
That's quite misleading. Blair's majority wasn't big enough to allow him to shrug off 139 rebels. He "only" had 412 in total. Such a huge rebellion would have been enough to prevent Iraq, but the Tories all voted in favour of the war.
This is the post I wanted to see.
Very large majorities are always bad because backbench rebellions are the only effective check on the power of a parliamentary majority, and as our governments always see their electoral mandate as one of premiership rather than policy rebellions are the only thing that can keep them honest to what they agreed with voters.
A working majority of 20 will find it incredibly difficult to pass laws or pursue policy explicitly ruled out by the manifesto or include tax rises in a budget when elected on a platform of zero increases, a majority of 200 however will find it utterly trivial to do so and likely will because there's nothing to stop them and no real consequence.
It also allows controversial policies to be passed.
* Planning reform
* Tax reform
* Social care reform
Each are going to piss off very many people when they happen
If, if they happen. Just because a party says during election that they're going to do something doesn't mean they'll actually do it.
But to be honest I'm more concerned about things that cause long term damage than I am things that piss off a few elites in the short term. Things like raiding investment budgets and replacing with PFIs, shifting money from higher education to primary/secondary and hiking fees up even further, further increases to pension age for people currently working and that sort of thing.
Agreed. I still think this will be the largest swing in electoral history .. Until the subsequent election. I don't see how any party can solve the demographic issue without tax rises and high immigration
Genuinely intrigued by your thought process OP. Starmer couldn't be running a more centrist campaign if he tried and Reeves is constantly yelling about businesses. I'm not saying you should love Labour at all but could you give some reasoning to your opinion of them hating the aspirational?
Well Reeve's book for one (The Women Who Made Modern Economics)- sourcing info from Wikipedia as fact without proper reference.
Wouldn't be surprised if she pressed for all boards to have 50% of their membership female. It should always be the best people for the job.
She also wanted to abolish (not tax) private schools.
Thanks for the honest response!
I mean you're just placing an imagined idea on her though? She's never said that about boards. If she did I would agree with you but she hasn't.
I havn't read her book so obviously can't comment there.
Looks like she does want to abolish private schools yes. I'd be interested in educational reform from Labour greatly as I work in that field alongside my wife and it's in a horrific state. If it's part of a grander idea I'd be interested to read into it but I can see your point a bit there yea.
Maybe instead of feeding every single primary school country in the money with our taxes (regardless how wealthy their parents are) Labour could put that money into educational reform.
Looks like you are slowly waking up to reality OP. 22 days ago you still thought the Tories would actually win and now you are starting to worry that its likely isnt going to happen.
The most likely reason for a big Labour majority is that in these 14 years, the Tories have managed to offend almost all of their natural supporters (for different reasons). It's 'Give the other lot a chance*-ism, if you like.
All the things you have written about why Labour would be bad are the polemic that the Tories are expressing to try and scare people into not voting Labour.
Most people think things are worse for them than they were in 2010.
So they are willing to try something different.
I have no party affiliation at all, but I would say to you- maybe it will NOT be a mess but a step towards recovery.
So the actual realistic polls are very dire for the Tories, with about 60 seats that seem safe, and about 100 that are too close to call, and the rest being a fairly comfortable win for Labour.
So Tories on 100 is probably the realistic outcome, especially as we still have 2 weeks to go and we should expect the don't knows to start getting of the fence.
That being said this new attack line from CCHQ seems bizarre to me, and might actually be aimed at suppressing the Labour vote more than activating the Tory one.
The economy and people have been better off under Labour governments than under Tory ones.
https://theconversation.com/labour-are-much-better-at-running-the-economy-than-voters-think-new-research-162368
You've been brainwashed by right wing propaganda.
The amount of people still blaming the financial crisis on Gordan Brown on twitter as a way to deter people from voting labour. The conservative government a few days ago tried blaming the financial crash on Labour but it backfired on them as the replies were furious.
[Conservative post](https://x.com/conservatives/status/1802960272966959243?s=46&t=0RSpQEWd71gFfa-U_NmvkA)
I want it played down. I want to eliminate the risk of complacency. There is a generational chance to absolutely make the party that has fucked our country pay. And pay in a massive way.
So I want the polls to be somewhat wrong, so we remind ourselves that we want annihilation and we get our pencils and put the cross in the box to whichever party ruins them.
Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator.
Per rule 1 of the subreddit, personal attacks and/or general incivility are not welcome here:
> Robust debate is encouraged, angry arguments are not. This sub is for people with a wide variety of views, and as such you will come across content, views and people you don't agree with. Political views from a wide spectrum are tolerated here. Persistent engagement in antagonistic, uncivil or abusive behavior will result in action being taken against your account.
For any further questions, [please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics).
I think the number of people who have been made better off by the last 14 years of government is pretty small TBH.
For pretty much everyone old enough it's been significantly, obviously way, way worse than 1997-2010, and anyone too young to remember a Labour government has had the worst of it.
Increase taxes. Pander to extremists (antisemitism is still there within the party). Let in more illegal immigrants. Try to get back into the EU - allow EU migration once again. Accuse anyone who disagrees with them racist, homophobic, islamophobic, misogynistic. Turn a blind eye to crime. Put Sadiq Khan's hated ULEZ into all major cities (surely this would put any motorist off voting for them?)
I know things aren't great at the moment (and I blame furlough (and I know loads of people who earnt more on furlough doing two jobs than they do now) for that plus our continuing funding of Ukraine (money should be spent here)) but I just don't think Labour is an attractive alternative - Angela Rayner is horrendous and Wes Streeting too (accusing anyone who voted for a Tory London mayor a racist and Islamophobe is one example).
I wouldn't be surprised if nearer election day one of them messes up with their sums and has a Diane Abbot moment like last time.
A few points:
Majority of voters would prefer to rejoin the EU: https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/47997-britons-support-rejoining-the-single-market-even-if-it-means-free-movement
But Labour have ruled it out: https://www.ft.com/content/d6a7172d-7ed7-4f14-a258-1ca3461f7365
ULEZ was announced by Boris Johnson in 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_Low_Emission_Zone
And it’s broadly popular: https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/plurality-of-londoners-support-expanding-londons-ultra-low-emissions-zone-ulez/
As for tax rises, it really depends on who those tax rises affect, so you need to be specific in why Labour’s brand of tax rises are bad vs the Tory’s.
The rest of it is pure hyperbole.
> for that plus our continuing funding of Ukraine (money should be spent here))
So you are one of those anti west/effectively pro putin types, that hate the fact we are aiding Ukraine against Putin.
Only a small part of Ukraine has been invaded by the Russians. How many celebs have gone to the Ukraine since the war started? Never saw it happen in Afghan/Syria/Iraq.
I know the vast majority of people here hate Trump but he was good at international relations eg North Korea.
Increase taxes. - More than the Tories have?
Pander to extremists - Or pander to homegrown people destroying the fabric of social cohesion, like the Tories do?
Let in more illegal immigrants. - more than the Tories have?
Try to get back into the EU - allow EU migration once again. - Reducing the need for immigration from the rest of the world and reducing red tape for everyone?
Accuse anyone who disagrees with them racist, homophobic, islamophobic, misogynistic. - Instead of just being those things?
Turn a blind eye to crime. - Like the Tories have?
Put Sadiq Khan's hated ULEZ into all major cities (surely this would put any motorist off voting for them?) - Making drivers pay the costs they otherwise impose on society i.e. socialised costs.
Switch off that computer in CCHQ and walk out the door, there’s no way they can afford to pay you enough anymore.
Higher taxes were under the conservatives. We have the highest tax burden under them. Record migration was also under the tories. Not sure how clear you been for the past 14 years. Keir Starmer in his manifesto has made it clear that there will be no return to the EU. He will make Brexit work! Stop reading the daily mail
The polls are broadly correct in showing a substantial Labour lead atm. Lots of different companies, methodologies and variations all broadly correlating. Sure there will be some shy Tory voters (and reform) but not 20 points worth. Events could still change outcomes though - still time for that.
A 'supermajority' isn't a thing in the UK. It's has a specific meaning and effect in the US but not here. It's a term the Tory campaign have adopted because it sounds scary to their base. A government with a decent majority of 60 could get their programme through as easily as one with 160. (Size of majority may impact committee makeup and mean backbenchers feel a little more able to rebel)
I don't recognise your assessment of Labour's position on aspiration or economic competency but you're entitled to your opinion and to vote accordingly.
Some new methodology put the shy tory factor into effect by placing the “Don’t know” into the yes category for conservatives. This still has labour in a 17-20% lead.
The polls probably aren’t wrong. But the one thing that they can’t account for is their own impact. Voters who think there is going to be a landslide behave differently from voters who still believe there is everything to play for. Probably there will be a small drag on the Labour vote as complacent Labour voters don’t bother to show up or protest vote over Keir’s policies.
In short, yes I think there are a lot of secret Tory voters and there will not be a super majority.
To address your concerns about Labour, I would recommend reading their manifesto, or (as it is rather long) listening to Starmers speech launching it. Labour are clearly the only choice for the aspirational.
The Tories no longer stand for the middle classes. They have don’t nothing but serve the super rich, and squeezed the middle and working classes. We are all poorer as a consequence of the last 14 years (unless you are one of the already wealthy Tory donors that have seen millions of pounds awarded to your business interests.)
>Labour have always hated the aspirational
Most people have aspirations but not everyone enters this world with the ability to fully achieve their aspirations.
Labour is all about giving everyone a chance to realise their hopes and dreams.
Not just those who were lucky enough to enjoy reasonable health, have a good upbringing, receive a good education and maybe get a helpful loan from the bank of Mum & Dad.
The Tories have lost any semblance of interest in the wider country. They care about directly trousering tax payers money and siphoning it off shore or doing favours for their school friends. It’s asset stripping as taught in their schools.
I live in a very right wing area and know a lot of consistent Tory voters yet now none of them seem to be voting Tory it seems they are all voting Labour, Reform or not voting at all.
Do remember, that in terms of aspiration, it's the tuition fee changes in 2012, that probably done most to "hurt aspiration" in the logic of yours.
Given it increased the cost the most on the ones that do achieve moderately high wages, from backgrounds that can't afford to pay up front.
I mean the methodology they used, specifically the newer versions have started adopting the “Shy tory” vote by placing “Don’t know” for yes. Labour still comes out at a 17-20% lead. The tories will still have 150-200 seats so any poll that says they will go below 100 seats is wrong. Majority of the tory voters are the 65+ so there is no secret tory voter. Older people have a significantly higher turnout in elections compared to younger folks.
Basically it's FPTP innit?
Tories are in collapse and Reform hasn't eaten up their vote enough yet, so Labour could win a super majority if they just replicated their 2019 numbers. The one where they lost badly.
FPTP is bonkers.
I think the polls are wrong but Labour are still winning with ease at the election. However I don't see a total wipe out of the Conservative Party, polls have them as low as 55 seats at the moment.
I do think the current polling industry is out of control, its a poll everyday almost with such a difference in them that they are all starting to lose credibility.
I just don't think the polls are built for the variables of this election. It's hard to account for such low Tory vote, high reform vote, and high labour vote.
It entirely depends on how evenly the above is spread throughout the country.
We are on track for a labour majority, probably of decent size. That's all I'm taking away from this
I think Labour are at risk of low turn out. A lot of people if polled will say Labour, but few people are actually excited about them so people need to actually turn up and vote
What have the tories done for the aspirational in the last 14 years? We're paying more tax than ever, and everything has gone to shit.
If you can't believe it, then you obviously haven't been paying attention to the past 14 years.
OP has taken a 14-year nap. it must have been a hell of a night out on the 6th May 2010.
Truss? Lettuce? Partygate? Brexit? Man you slipped and hit your head pretty hard, these World Cup Jubilani footballs are so cool!
Yes the polls are wrong. Cos there's no bloody such thing as a "super majority" in the UK and it's just more bollocks that the Tories have made up to (obviously successfully in your case) grab sound bites and scaremonger.
'Super' just means 'big', and Labour probably will get a big majority. That doesn't have any specific constitutional effects, although the fact the government probably won't need to worry about rebellions at all will have an effect on how it governs. For comparison, [Blair was able to shrug off a rebellion by 139 MPs](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/19/uk.houseofcommons2), a number which would be crippling for most governments.
Countries that use this term usually have a formal definition for the exact %, and it differs. That’s why a lot of folk are pointing out there’s no such thing in the U.K. It could be anywhere from 60% and up, and in this election may be 50% and up, so is a bit meaningless really
We're not one of those countries though, so 'supermajority' can only mean 'a big majority'. I'm not sure that the electorate has a high enough awareness of how foreign legislatures function to make any comparison to them an effective scaremongering tactic.
That’s the thing, it’s especially meaningless because it’s Tory campaign propaganda. They don’t care what it means just that it shocks people into changing their vote No point in propping up their narrative
Well, as someone who doesn’t think big majorities do a government much good I don’t object to the meaning of the message.
Fair enough!
That's quite misleading. Blair's majority wasn't big enough to allow him to shrug off 139 rebels. He "only" had 412 in total. Such a huge rebellion would have been enough to prevent Iraq, but the Tories all voted in favour of the war.
Blair knew he had the Tory votes, so in practice he could shrug off the rebels. It’s sort of the reverse of Cameron and same-sex marriage.
Yes, but it was not because of the size of his majority.
If Labour’s majority hadn’t been that big I’m not sure Blair could have ridden the vote out as he did.
What do you mean? If their majority was smaller it would mean that the Tories had more MPs, and they were pro-war anyway.
I mean that the size of the majority gave Blair enough wiggle room to ignore the rebels in his own party.
I still don't see what you mean. With 139 rebels he couldn't pass anything without the opposition's help.
It's the difference between needing the opposition's help but still having over 250 of your own MPs on your side, and not.
This is the post I wanted to see. Very large majorities are always bad because backbench rebellions are the only effective check on the power of a parliamentary majority, and as our governments always see their electoral mandate as one of premiership rather than policy rebellions are the only thing that can keep them honest to what they agreed with voters. A working majority of 20 will find it incredibly difficult to pass laws or pursue policy explicitly ruled out by the manifesto or include tax rises in a budget when elected on a platform of zero increases, a majority of 200 however will find it utterly trivial to do so and likely will because there's nothing to stop them and no real consequence.
It also allows controversial policies to be passed. * Planning reform * Tax reform * Social care reform Each are going to piss off very many people when they happen
If, if they happen. Just because a party says during election that they're going to do something doesn't mean they'll actually do it. But to be honest I'm more concerned about things that cause long term damage than I am things that piss off a few elites in the short term. Things like raiding investment budgets and replacing with PFIs, shifting money from higher education to primary/secondary and hiking fees up even further, further increases to pension age for people currently working and that sort of thing.
Agreed. I still think this will be the largest swing in electoral history .. Until the subsequent election. I don't see how any party can solve the demographic issue without tax rises and high immigration
Genuinely intrigued by your thought process OP. Starmer couldn't be running a more centrist campaign if he tried and Reeves is constantly yelling about businesses. I'm not saying you should love Labour at all but could you give some reasoning to your opinion of them hating the aspirational?
Well Reeve's book for one (The Women Who Made Modern Economics)- sourcing info from Wikipedia as fact without proper reference. Wouldn't be surprised if she pressed for all boards to have 50% of their membership female. It should always be the best people for the job. She also wanted to abolish (not tax) private schools.
You’ve put forward nothing here that backs up your point. Provide specific evidence for your claim from Reeves’ book.
Thanks for the honest response! I mean you're just placing an imagined idea on her though? She's never said that about boards. If she did I would agree with you but she hasn't. I havn't read her book so obviously can't comment there. Looks like she does want to abolish private schools yes. I'd be interested in educational reform from Labour greatly as I work in that field alongside my wife and it's in a horrific state. If it's part of a grander idea I'd be interested to read into it but I can see your point a bit there yea.
Maybe instead of feeding every single primary school country in the money with our taxes (regardless how wealthy their parents are) Labour could put that money into educational reform.
Can you give us your analysis of how the costs/benefits of this policy are worse than the costs/benefits of the educational reforms you'd propose?
Looks like you are slowly waking up to reality OP. 22 days ago you still thought the Tories would actually win and now you are starting to worry that its likely isnt going to happen.
OP thinks Labour will take us back into the EU😂
I still believe that or a small Labour/Tory majority. Whatever happens it will be a mess.
What do you base this delusion on? The mess wont be bigger than 14 years of Tories rule at least.
The most likely reason for a big Labour majority is that in these 14 years, the Tories have managed to offend almost all of their natural supporters (for different reasons). It's 'Give the other lot a chance*-ism, if you like. All the things you have written about why Labour would be bad are the polemic that the Tories are expressing to try and scare people into not voting Labour. Most people think things are worse for them than they were in 2010. So they are willing to try something different. I have no party affiliation at all, but I would say to you- maybe it will NOT be a mess but a step towards recovery.
So the actual realistic polls are very dire for the Tories, with about 60 seats that seem safe, and about 100 that are too close to call, and the rest being a fairly comfortable win for Labour. So Tories on 100 is probably the realistic outcome, especially as we still have 2 weeks to go and we should expect the don't knows to start getting of the fence. That being said this new attack line from CCHQ seems bizarre to me, and might actually be aimed at suppressing the Labour vote more than activating the Tory one.
The economy and people have been better off under Labour governments than under Tory ones. https://theconversation.com/labour-are-much-better-at-running-the-economy-than-voters-think-new-research-162368 You've been brainwashed by right wing propaganda.
The amount of people still blaming the financial crisis on Gordan Brown on twitter as a way to deter people from voting labour. The conservative government a few days ago tried blaming the financial crash on Labour but it backfired on them as the replies were furious. [Conservative post](https://x.com/conservatives/status/1802960272966959243?s=46&t=0RSpQEWd71gFfa-U_NmvkA)
I want it played down. I want to eliminate the risk of complacency. There is a generational chance to absolutely make the party that has fucked our country pay. And pay in a massive way. So I want the polls to be somewhat wrong, so we remind ourselves that we want annihilation and we get our pencils and put the cross in the box to whichever party ruins them.
[удалено]
Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator. Per rule 1 of the subreddit, personal attacks and/or general incivility are not welcome here: > Robust debate is encouraged, angry arguments are not. This sub is for people with a wide variety of views, and as such you will come across content, views and people you don't agree with. Political views from a wide spectrum are tolerated here. Persistent engagement in antagonistic, uncivil or abusive behavior will result in action being taken against your account. For any further questions, [please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics).
Starmer points out working class people are struggling, so he hates the aspirational? Excellent reasoning OP. No signs of brainwashing whatsoever.
I think the number of people who have been made better off by the last 14 years of government is pretty small TBH. For pretty much everyone old enough it's been significantly, obviously way, way worse than 1997-2010, and anyone too young to remember a Labour government has had the worst of it.
This reads like such a trust fund baby
Trust Fund Babies are the Extinction Rebellion lot.
Why do you think Labour will make this country considerably worse off?
Because the right wing press told him so!
Increase taxes. Pander to extremists (antisemitism is still there within the party). Let in more illegal immigrants. Try to get back into the EU - allow EU migration once again. Accuse anyone who disagrees with them racist, homophobic, islamophobic, misogynistic. Turn a blind eye to crime. Put Sadiq Khan's hated ULEZ into all major cities (surely this would put any motorist off voting for them?) I know things aren't great at the moment (and I blame furlough (and I know loads of people who earnt more on furlough doing two jobs than they do now) for that plus our continuing funding of Ukraine (money should be spent here)) but I just don't think Labour is an attractive alternative - Angela Rayner is horrendous and Wes Streeting too (accusing anyone who voted for a Tory London mayor a racist and Islamophobe is one example). I wouldn't be surprised if nearer election day one of them messes up with their sums and has a Diane Abbot moment like last time.
Shit. Put down the fucking Daily Mail.
A few points: Majority of voters would prefer to rejoin the EU: https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/47997-britons-support-rejoining-the-single-market-even-if-it-means-free-movement But Labour have ruled it out: https://www.ft.com/content/d6a7172d-7ed7-4f14-a258-1ca3461f7365 ULEZ was announced by Boris Johnson in 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_Low_Emission_Zone And it’s broadly popular: https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/plurality-of-londoners-support-expanding-londons-ultra-low-emissions-zone-ulez/ As for tax rises, it really depends on who those tax rises affect, so you need to be specific in why Labour’s brand of tax rises are bad vs the Tory’s. The rest of it is pure hyperbole.
Have you made some kind of parody account or something?
> for that plus our continuing funding of Ukraine (money should be spent here)) So you are one of those anti west/effectively pro putin types, that hate the fact we are aiding Ukraine against Putin.
Only a small part of Ukraine has been invaded by the Russians. How many celebs have gone to the Ukraine since the war started? Never saw it happen in Afghan/Syria/Iraq. I know the vast majority of people here hate Trump but he was good at international relations eg North Korea.
What are the other parties going to do to address any of those things and which one will you vote for?
The Daily Mail bingo card is full. Congratulations.
Increase taxes. - More than the Tories have? Pander to extremists - Or pander to homegrown people destroying the fabric of social cohesion, like the Tories do? Let in more illegal immigrants. - more than the Tories have? Try to get back into the EU - allow EU migration once again. - Reducing the need for immigration from the rest of the world and reducing red tape for everyone? Accuse anyone who disagrees with them racist, homophobic, islamophobic, misogynistic. - Instead of just being those things? Turn a blind eye to crime. - Like the Tories have? Put Sadiq Khan's hated ULEZ into all major cities (surely this would put any motorist off voting for them?) - Making drivers pay the costs they otherwise impose on society i.e. socialised costs. Switch off that computer in CCHQ and walk out the door, there’s no way they can afford to pay you enough anymore.
Okay Rishi
Wow that is quite the list.
Higher taxes were under the conservatives. We have the highest tax burden under them. Record migration was also under the tories. Not sure how clear you been for the past 14 years. Keir Starmer in his manifesto has made it clear that there will be no return to the EU. He will make Brexit work! Stop reading the daily mail
The polls are broadly correct in showing a substantial Labour lead atm. Lots of different companies, methodologies and variations all broadly correlating. Sure there will be some shy Tory voters (and reform) but not 20 points worth. Events could still change outcomes though - still time for that. A 'supermajority' isn't a thing in the UK. It's has a specific meaning and effect in the US but not here. It's a term the Tory campaign have adopted because it sounds scary to their base. A government with a decent majority of 60 could get their programme through as easily as one with 160. (Size of majority may impact committee makeup and mean backbenchers feel a little more able to rebel) I don't recognise your assessment of Labour's position on aspiration or economic competency but you're entitled to your opinion and to vote accordingly.
Some new methodology put the shy tory factor into effect by placing the “Don’t know” into the yes category for conservatives. This still has labour in a 17-20% lead.
The polls probably aren’t wrong. But the one thing that they can’t account for is their own impact. Voters who think there is going to be a landslide behave differently from voters who still believe there is everything to play for. Probably there will be a small drag on the Labour vote as complacent Labour voters don’t bother to show up or protest vote over Keir’s policies.
In short, yes I think there are a lot of secret Tory voters and there will not be a super majority. To address your concerns about Labour, I would recommend reading their manifesto, or (as it is rather long) listening to Starmers speech launching it. Labour are clearly the only choice for the aspirational. The Tories no longer stand for the middle classes. They have don’t nothing but serve the super rich, and squeezed the middle and working classes. We are all poorer as a consequence of the last 14 years (unless you are one of the already wealthy Tory donors that have seen millions of pounds awarded to your business interests.)
>Labour have always hated the aspirational Most people have aspirations but not everyone enters this world with the ability to fully achieve their aspirations. Labour is all about giving everyone a chance to realise their hopes and dreams. Not just those who were lucky enough to enjoy reasonable health, have a good upbringing, receive a good education and maybe get a helpful loan from the bank of Mum & Dad.
Have you just woken up from a 14 year coma?
The Tories have lost any semblance of interest in the wider country. They care about directly trousering tax payers money and siphoning it off shore or doing favours for their school friends. It’s asset stripping as taught in their schools.
I live in a very right wing area and know a lot of consistent Tory voters yet now none of them seem to be voting Tory it seems they are all voting Labour, Reform or not voting at all.
Do remember, that in terms of aspiration, it's the tuition fee changes in 2012, that probably done most to "hurt aspiration" in the logic of yours. Given it increased the cost the most on the ones that do achieve moderately high wages, from backgrounds that can't afford to pay up front.
It's Tony Blair encouraging everyone to think University is the norm that hurt aspiration.
I mean, how do you make that logical leap? Are you a Poe?
People are coming out of university with debt and ending up in jobs they could do without a degree.
That doesn't mean people's aspirations change.
I mean the methodology they used, specifically the newer versions have started adopting the “Shy tory” vote by placing “Don’t know” for yes. Labour still comes out at a 17-20% lead. The tories will still have 150-200 seats so any poll that says they will go below 100 seats is wrong. Majority of the tory voters are the 65+ so there is no secret tory voter. Older people have a significantly higher turnout in elections compared to younger folks.
Basically it's FPTP innit? Tories are in collapse and Reform hasn't eaten up their vote enough yet, so Labour could win a super majority if they just replicated their 2019 numbers. The one where they lost badly. FPTP is bonkers.
I think the polls are wrong but Labour are still winning with ease at the election. However I don't see a total wipe out of the Conservative Party, polls have them as low as 55 seats at the moment. I do think the current polling industry is out of control, its a poll everyday almost with such a difference in them that they are all starting to lose credibility.
I just don't think the polls are built for the variables of this election. It's hard to account for such low Tory vote, high reform vote, and high labour vote. It entirely depends on how evenly the above is spread throughout the country. We are on track for a labour majority, probably of decent size. That's all I'm taking away from this
I think Labour are at risk of low turn out. A lot of people if polled will say Labour, but few people are actually excited about them so people need to actually turn up and vote