Your voting intentions
Poll: Your voting intentions
Total Members Polled: 1238
Discussion
JagLover said:
Evanivitch said:
2015 every was still hanging onto austerity. It'll work, just give it time, they cried. Did it? I think the evidence we have today is pretty clear.
.
Is it?.
Public finances were looking much healthier and then everyone decided it would be a great idea to shut down the economy and spend £400bn dealing with the consequences.
Evanivitch said:
JagLover said:
Evanivitch said:
2015 every was still hanging onto austerity. It'll work, just give it time, they cried. Did it? I think the evidence we have today is pretty clear.
.
Is it?.
Public finances were looking much healthier and then everyone decided it would be a great idea to shut down the economy and spend £400bn dealing with the consequences.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Starmers sound bite that the tories have had 14 years of failure, does not compute. If the tories had been failing for 14 years they would not have won subsequent elections, since they got into No10. Clearly something went wrong in the last few years of their stay in No10. Although arguably the first thing that went wrong was keeping Johnson on as PM, especially as he appeared to be being worked from behind, by Cummings and Carrie.
Surely this means Labour have been failing even longer 
Evanivitch said:
Which measure of debt are you cherry picking today?
Not sure how much "cherry picking" is involved in comparing debt to GDP ratios in all the major developed countries, or indeed the deficit to GDP ratio, as that is the primary means of comparing different countries. The UK figures at the end of FY 2019 were 84% and 1.8% respectively.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsec...
So on track before the impact of Pandemic, lockdown and energy prices.
S600BSB said:
Tom8 said:
Voldemort said:
I no longer have a voting intention but only because I have already voted. Postal ballot arrived yesterday and has been sent back today.
Rishi has one vote at least then?Pan Pan Pan said:
Starmers sound bite that the tories have had 14 years of failure, does not compute. If the tories had been failing for 14 years they would not have won subsequent elections, since they got into No10. Clearly something went wrong in the last few years of their stay in No10. Although arguably the first thing that went wrong was keeping Johnson on as PM, especially as he appeared to be being worked from behind, by Cummings and Carrie.
It only fails to compute if you take the view that success or failure is immediately recognisable.Take Brexit, for example. Cameron obviously failed in preventing it from happening, but many Conservative supporters voted Leave, so at that point the Tories weren't viewed as a failure. Now, of course, with an ever shrinking minority of voters who view Brexit as anything other than a terrible mistake, the government's record is viewed differently, even by those who originally wanted Brexit.
Similarly, Johnson did an amazing job of laying the blame for the failure of Brexit to deliver quickly on everyone from the Europhile wing of his own party leftwards and combined that with the supreme good fortune of facing off against the ghost of Michael Foot, so yay, we were about to Get Brexit Done!
Five years on it is of course supremely obvious that it was always absurdly optimistic to think we could ever extricate ourselves successfully from an incredibly complex international relationship in less than a decade, and even then the best we could hope for was not to be too badly damaged by it. Again, something praised my many turns out to be abject failure with the benefit of hindsight.
Covid and Ukraine were absolute blessings for the Conservatives, of course, as their ability to perform more or less on a par with most other Western governments in dealing with global events that served them well to obfuscate their domestic incompetence for a couple of years, but now that we've moved on from that could anyone but the most fervent Brexit ideologues point to even a modest area of success to take from the last 14 years?
Kermit power said:
bad company said:
That's just bizarre! Not a single poll out there sees Reform winning more than a couple of seats, so what justifies the short odds on them compared to the Tories or LibDems?5 seats according to YouGov a day or so ago in their second MRP, thin gruel but more than double the Greens if so. In reality, who knows.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49809-secon...
Kermit power said:
That's just bizarre! Not a single poll out there sees Reform winning more than a couple of seats, so what justifies the short odds on them compared to the Tories or LibDems?
The Lib Dem strategy is very focused so has a limit of less than 100 seats and anything beyond that is a no-hoper.Reform are spreading a bit more widely so while it's harder for them to a decent number of seats they won't have such a hard limit.
Kermit power said:
That's just bizarre! Not a single poll out there sees Reform winning more than a couple of seats, so what justifies the short odds on them compared to the Tories or LibDems?
Not a gambler but aren't they on 50/1 and the Tories are on 40/1 and therefore have a higher chance?Betting odds depend on volume of betting, but in any case that looks about right, relatively speaking, given how the campaign has gone so far.
JagLover said:
Not a gambler but aren't they on 50/1 and the Tories are on 40/1 and therefore have a higher chance?
Betting odds depend on volume of betting, but in any case that looks about right, relatively speaking, given how the campaign has gone so far.
Tories do have a higher chance but not that much more.Betting odds depend on volume of betting, but in any case that looks about right, relatively speaking, given how the campaign has gone so far.
JagLover said:
Kermit power said:
That's just bizarre! Not a single poll out there sees Reform winning more than a couple of seats, so what justifies the short odds on them compared to the Tories or LibDems?
Not a gambler but aren't they on 50/1 and the Tories are on 40/1 and therefore have a higher chance?Betting odds depend on volume of betting, but in any case that looks about right, relatively speaking, given how the campaign has gone so far.
Electoral Calculus, for example, are calling 19.9% of the vote for the Tories, 17.8% for Reform and 11.6% for the LibDems, which makes sense of those betting odds until you look at their seat projections - 76 Tories, 66 LibDems and just 3 Reform.
Take the prediction for Liverpool Walton as an example and you start to see why. Labour are still expected to romp it, but their share of the vote is forecast to drop from 81% to 77% with Reform increasing from 2% to 9.4%. That significant increase for Reform is a much bigger waste than the 1% increase for the LibDems.
Now head South to another Walton which really couldn't be much more different - Esher & Walton. The Reform vote there has grown even more - from absolutely nothing (because they weren't standing against Tory candidates) to 11.9%, but they're all still worthless, as a much smaller increase for the LibDems from 44.6% to 46.2% will almost certainly take the seat as the Tories tumble from 48.3% to 25.2%!
Reform's curse is that of the Greens and the LibDems in overdrive. Whilst Labour and the Tories typically do either really well or really badly in the majority of constituencies, the smaller parties all tend to have fairly even distribution across the entire country, meaning they need a far higher share of the national vote for each seat they win.
If that's not enough to tell you that our electoral system is a sick joke, just consider the fact that Labour are being forecast to win over 70% of the seats they're standing in with less than 40% of the national vote. Our electoral system is a sham pretending to be democracy.
Kermit power said:
JagLover said:
Kermit power said:
That's just bizarre! Not a single poll out there sees Reform winning more than a couple of seats, so what justifies the short odds on them compared to the Tories or LibDems?
Not a gambler but aren't they on 50/1 and the Tories are on 40/1 and therefore have a higher chance?Betting odds depend on volume of betting, but in any case that looks about right, relatively speaking, given how the campaign has gone so far.
Electoral Calculus, for example, are calling 19.9% of the vote for the Tories, 17.8% for Reform and 11.6% for the LibDems, which makes sense of those betting odds until you look at their seat projections - 76 Tories, 66 LibDems and just 3 Reform.
Take the prediction for Liverpool Walton as an example and you start to see why. Labour are still expected to romp it, but their share of the vote is forecast to drop from 81% to 77% with Reform increasing from 2% to 9.4%. That significant increase for Reform is a much bigger waste than the 1% increase for the LibDems.
Now head South to another Walton which really couldn't be much more different - Esher & Walton. The Reform vote there has grown even more - from absolutely nothing (because they weren't standing against Tory candidates) to 11.9%, but they're all still worthless, as a much smaller increase for the LibDems from 44.6% to 46.2% will almost certainly take the seat as the Tories tumble from 48.3% to 25.2%!
Reform's curse is that of the Greens and the LibDems in overdrive. Whilst Labour and the Tories typically do either really well or really badly in the majority of constituencies, the smaller parties all tend to have fairly even distribution across the entire country, meaning they need a far higher share of the national vote for each seat they win.
If that's not enough to tell you that our electoral system is a sick joke, just consider the fact that Labour are being forecast to win over 70% of the seats they're standing in with less than 40% of the national vote. Our electoral system is a sham pretending to be democracy.
Kermit power said:
It would make a lot of sense under a PR system, but it makes absolutely none under FPTP.
Electoral Calculus, for example, are calling 19.9% of the vote for the Tories, 17.8% for Reform and 11.6% for the LibDems, which makes sense of those betting odds until you look at their seat projections - 76 Tories, 66 LibDems and just 3 Reform.
.
Neither party are going to win, or come anywhere close to it, but I still think that slightly higher odds for Reform than the Tories is about right, because the momentum is with Reform and the Tories have had an awful campaign, and the thing about more broadly based support is, if it goes a bit higher, suddenly you are in contention for seats which may be three way races. Electoral Calculus, for example, are calling 19.9% of the vote for the Tories, 17.8% for Reform and 11.6% for the LibDems, which makes sense of those betting odds until you look at their seat projections - 76 Tories, 66 LibDems and just 3 Reform.
.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff