|
|
Post by chrisc on Jul 3, 2024 13:37:58 GMT
It looks as if the Labour vote share will end up well below the 41% polled in 2017 under Corbyn, and is more likely to be in the 36% - 39% range we saw at both 1974 elections and again in 1979 As we are basically seeing an anti Tory coalition - especially in terms of canvassing, seat targeting etc), the relevant comparator I feel is lab+lib+green. In 2017 this was 49% (40+7.4+1.6). Caveats as these are Uk numbers and I’m ignoring SNP and N Ireland. I’d be disappointed if the 2024 number turned out lower than this given the state of the Tories. Still who cares about % vote? The point of elections is to win the most seats. That’s what gets power and legitimacy. It’s what lets you change things. If we had PR and absolute vote % mattered parties would campaign and target their political strategies very differently. My suspicion - and it is only that - is that Labour will win more seats in 2024 than either in 1974 or 1979. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisc on Jul 3, 2024 13:40:56 GMT
I see Starmer was in the Carmarthen seat this morning tending to suggest things are tight there between Labour and Plaid. Do leaders visiting marginal seats really make a difference? Or do they just feel they have to be seen to be doing something? I suspect Starmers program was set up well in advance and needed to include a few visits to the other polities and he may as well choose somewhere Labour were likely to be sending canvassers to anyway. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,376
|
Post by neilj on Jul 3, 2024 13:49:23 GMT
I think if you drive/own a car, especially in London, you are already one of the better off. With the excellent public transport system in London it's cheaper and quicker to use it rather than a car. Making it more expensive means it's easier for essential users, emergency services, delivery people, buses etc to get around I would love to live in a city that has a tenth of the public transport London has Coincidentally, it makes it easier for better off people to use their cars. Why should you be able to buy such privilege? But the money raised can be used to subsidise public transport and so make it more affordable for those struggling financially (who can only dream of having a car), which is of course progressive Let's remember only 54 per cent of London households have a car, those that do tend to be better off. So yes tax them and use the money for the improvement of the many |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 3, 2024 13:57:14 GMT
Coincidentally, it makes it easier for better off people to use their cars. Why should you be able to buy such privilege? But the money raised can be used to subsidise public transport and so make it more affordable for those struggling financially (who can only dream of having a car), which is of course progressive Let's remember only 54 per cent of London households have a car, those that do tend to be better off. So yes tax them and use the money for the improvement of the many People use the same argument with tuition fees: that the money raised can fund more degree places! But you still wind up with better off people being advantaged, paying less for degrees, since they can clear the cost without paying interest. This happens again and again. They get rid of grammar schools, and then let people get better schools through having more money. Again and again, right-wing solutions, involve disadvantaging less well-off people. And you are assuming, that the money raised will go towards better public transport, and that public transport is that useful. As I pointed out to JamesB on the old board, it’s not much cop if you have to get to three different zero hours jobs, while also paying a visit to care for your sick mother, picking your kids up from school, then taking them to an after-school activity, while getting some shopping done, picking up a prescription etc. etc. even worse if it’s raining or bitterly cold as you wait for another bus with your children, or the train that’s going to be cancelled or has no seats left. Having a car, can let you do a lot in a shorter space of time. |
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Jul 3, 2024 14:07:52 GMT
Chris - when the leader or prominent shadow cabinet members visit constituencies a decent chunk of members who aren't that active turn up to the 'event'
The organisers can then get them active at least for that day and maybe some will keep up greater activism going forward.
Also gives a boost to people.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
|
Post by steve on Jul 3, 2024 14:12:30 GMT
Appears to be growing momentum to ask President Biden to call it a day after one term.
By doing so he will always be respected as a Democratic public servant of the highest standard.
Refusal out of little other than hubris aids a vile fascist criminal who wants to end democracy.
If he goes the democrats would have to have a very good reason to ignore vice president Harris as his obvious successor, the optics of replacing a black woman with probably a white man would be exceptionally tricky.
Biden has a meeting with all democratic governors latter today hopefully some reality will creep onto the agenda.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,376
|
Post by neilj on Jul 3, 2024 14:15:19 GMT
But the money raised can be used to subsidise public transport and so make it more affordable for those struggling financially (who can only dream of having a car), which is of course progressive Let's remember only 54 per cent of London households have a car, those that do tend to be better off. So yes tax them and use the money for the improvement of the many People use the same argument with tuition fees: that the money raised can fund more degree places! But you still wind up with better off people being advantaged, paying less for degrees. This happens again and again. They get rid of grammar schools, and then let people get better schools through having more money. Again and again, right wing solutions, involve disadvantaging less well off people. And you are assuming, that the money raised will go towards better public transport, and that public transport is that useful. As I pointed out to JamesB on the old board, it’s not much cop if you have to get to three different zero hours jobs, while also paying a visit to care for your sick mother, picking your kids up from school, then taking them to an after-school activity, while getting some shopping done, picking up a prescription etc. etc. even worse if it’s raining or bitterly cold as you wait for another bus with your children, or the train that’s going to be cancelled or have no seat. Having a car, can let you do a lot in a shorter space of time. Tuition fees are a different subject, we are talking about London congestion charging and I can guarantee if the example you gave was your situation in London you couldn't afford to own a car, let alone run it. You'd want an efficient public transport system The public transport in London is by far the best in the country As to what the money raised is used for, by law, all surpluses raised must be reinvested into London's transport infrastructure. If that money wasn't available fares would need to rise For the many not the few |
|
|
|
Post by mandolinist on Jul 3, 2024 14:16:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by eotw on Jul 3, 2024 14:21:15 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2024 14:30:15 GMT
It looks as if the Labour vote share will end up well below the 41% polled in 2017 under Corbyn, and is more likely to be in the 36% - 39% range we saw at both 1974 elections and again in 1979. Bring back Corby!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Lass on Jul 3, 2024 14:33:45 GMT
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 3, 2024 14:34:58 GMT
People use the same argument with tuition fees: that the money raised can fund more degree places! But you still wind up with better off people being advantaged, paying less for degrees. This happens again and again. They get rid of grammar schools, and then let people get better schools through having more money. Again and again, right wing solutions, involve disadvantaging less well off people. And you are assuming, that the money raised will go towards better public transport, and that public transport is that useful. As I pointed out to JamesB on the old board, it’s not much cop if you have to get to three different zero hours jobs, while also paying a visit to care for your sick mother, picking your kids up from school, then taking them to an after-school activity, while getting some shopping done, picking up a prescription etc. etc. even worse if it’s raining or bitterly cold as you wait for another bus with your children, or the train that’s going to be cancelled or have no seat. Having a car, can let you do a lot in a shorter space of time. Tuition fees are a different subject, we are talking about London congestion charging and I can guarantee if the example you gave was your situation in London you couldn't afford to own a car, let alone run it. You'd want an efficient public transport system The public transport in London is by far the best in the country As to what the money raised is used for, by law, all surpluses raised must be reinvested into London's transport infrastructure. If that money wasn't available fares would need to rise For the many not the few Well, tuition fees are not a different subject, when considering the broader pattern of how right-wing remedies tend to advantage the better off. And if considering public transport, that can also be considered a different subject, as you do not have to fund public transport from congestion charges, any more than you had to fund degrees from tuition fees. But anyways, if nonetheless considering public transport, it is entirely possible to fund better public transport, without allowing the better off to buy privilege via greater mobility, a policy of for the few, not the many. You can get money from the better-off folk in other ways to invest in public transport, without allowing them to buy privileged access to transport (which also, incidentally, allows them privileged access to chucking more particulates in the air with their heavy vehicles), and as I said, public transport can be nowhere near the same as having a car in terms of efficacy. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jul 3, 2024 14:39:24 GMT
mandolinistSad to hear about the fate of the Old Fox pub. As you say, it was indeed a wondrous place. More or less unique too because I think, when it opened in the mid 70s, it was one of only two pubs in the country that was wholly owned by CAMRA (Campaign for Real Ale). I think the other was in St Austell. A shrine to real ale and a wonderful meeting place and community asset.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jul 3, 2024 14:41:05 GMT
Hang on, there's somebody on the pitch too, I think. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,376
|
Post by neilj on Jul 3, 2024 14:45:09 GMT
Whitestone
Con GAIN three points and Reform lose three
Con: 21% (+3)
Lab: 38% (-)
Lib Dem: 10% (-1)
Reform: 18% (-3)
Green: 7% (-)
SNP: 3% (+1)
Other: 3% (-)
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,376
|
Post by neilj on Jul 3, 2024 14:46:44 GMT
Final More in Common MRP, feels about right to me
MRP projects a Labour majority of 210 & worst defeat in Tory Party history
🔴LAB 430 (+228)
🔵CON 126 (-239)
🟠LD 52 (+41)
🟡SNP 16 (-32)
🟣REF UK 2 (+2)
🟢GRN 1 (-)
🟢 PLAID 2 (-2)
⚪️ OTH 2 (+2)
N 13,556 | 24/6 to 1/7
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,376
|
Post by neilj on Jul 3, 2024 14:48:58 GMT
BMG
More evidence of tightening
LAB: 39% (-3)
CON: 22% (+2)
RFM: 16% (=)
LDM: 11% (-1)
GRN: 7% (+1)
SNP: 3% (=)
OTH: 3% (+1)
|
|
markw
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by markw on Jul 3, 2024 14:50:07 GMT
Mandolinist and crossbat, I went to the old fox every Thursday night in the early eighties when the Bristol poly bike club met there. It's not derelict now ( was for a few years) and is still a community resource as it is now the Masjid Al-Huda mosque.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on Jul 3, 2024 14:54:28 GMT
I'm going to stick my neck out and say that Labour will get at least 40% tomorrow. Many people, especially the less politically aware, like to back a winning horse and there can't be much doubt out there about which horse that's likely to be. Could be wrong, fingers crossed, I want Labour to have a good mandate for change.
Having said that erstwhile tories sitting on their hands may not be actively voting for Labour or LD but they're tacitly accepting of a Labour gvt as they know what the result will be. You could almost call it a tactical 'vote'.
|
|
|
|
Post by mandolinist on Jul 3, 2024 14:55:59 GMT
Mandolinist and crossbat, I went to the old fox every Thursday night in the early eighties when the Bristol poly bike club met there. It's not derelict now ( was for a few years) and is still a community resource as it is now the Masjid Al-Huda mosque. Thanks for that, amazing that the clean air zone has meant we simply don't journey that way anymore so I hadn't spotted the change of use. |
|
|
|
Post by norbold on Jul 3, 2024 14:57:00 GMT
My Noble norbold . Final post on Clacton. I related how we took my niece on a tour of the Essex resorts of our youth. Jaywick had an enormous mud flat, the only occupant of which was a rather plump white lad on a lounger listening to a ghetto blaster. I did relate how proprietor of a Clacton cafe asked if we had arrived in our youth by yacht. This made me realize how much I had poshed up since I was a snotty ten-year-old. Since you brought up the question of Clacton, just a little insight into the thinking of the tourist trade down here.
Yesterday, I attended a meeting of the Clacton Tourist Group. This is a group that was set-up in the wake of a "levelling-up" £20 million grant to look at how this money could best be spent to bring tourists/holiday makers back to the area. For those who don't know Clacton still relies heavily on the tourist and holiday trade for its economy even though it has been in general decline ever since the 1960s, though with a bit of an upturn of late.
Anyway, this group comprises Council officers and Councillors along with the owners of the local tourist trade facilities - The Pier, amusement arcades, theatres, sporting and leisure facilities, restaurants, hotels, etc. There was absolute horror expressed by every single person present (except the one council officer, who wasn't allowed to express anything) at the thought of Farage being elected and the image this would give Clacton. It was felt by all that this would be a major setback to Clacton's recent revival and discourage future holiday makers from coming to a town that could vote for someone like him.
|
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jul 3, 2024 15:05:19 GMT
"Not true, certainly as far as brake wear and particulates go. Around town EVs slow largely by regeneration braking, much less physical brakes. So far **less** particulate emissions from brakes than a petrol/diesel car." Maybe leftieliberal should have relied more on common sense rather than relying on Google to replace thinking! Fuck you steve. When you're wrong you should admit it, instead of doubling down like a Tory! lens ignores tyre wear which is more important than brake wear in creating PM2.5 particulates. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,376
|
Post by neilj on Jul 3, 2024 15:05:54 GMT
Focal Data
Our final MRP poll of the election campaign indicates that Labour are on course for a record-breaking 444 seats.
Seat counts
Labour: 444 (-6 since last week)
Conservative: 108 (-2)
Lib Dem: 57 (+7)
SNP: 15 (-1)
Reform: 2 (+1)
Plaid: 2 (-)
Green: 1 (-)
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,376
|
Post by neilj on Jul 3, 2024 15:08:06 GMT
Opinium
Our final poll of the campaign points to a 20-point Labour lead:
• Con 21% (+1)
• Lab 41% (+1)
• Reform 17% (n/c)
• LD 11% (-2)
• Green 7% (+1)
• SNP 2% (-1)
|
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Jul 3, 2024 15:12:02 GMT
Opinium Our final poll of the campaign points to a 20-point Labour lead: • Con 21% (+1) • Lab 41% (+1) • Reform 17% (n/c) • LD 11% (-2) • Green 7% (+1) • SNP 2% (-1) Quite funny how Opinium have moved from having the lower Lab leads to the higher during the campaign! |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
|
Post by steve on Jul 3, 2024 15:14:38 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2024 15:16:01 GMT
Doesn’t look as though this is going to penalties….  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2024 15:16:41 GMT
For goodness sake grow up. You can always pm people. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,376
|
Post by neilj on Jul 3, 2024 15:18:32 GMT
Looking at the normal polls and MRPsthe
tories could be anything between 50 and 150
Labour 380 to 500
LibDems 30-70
Reform 0-37
SNP 8-38
Greens 0-7
So still plenty to get excited about after polling has finished
|
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Jul 3, 2024 15:18:35 GMT
I'm going to stick my neck out and say that Labour will get at least 40% tomorrow. Many people, especially the less politically aware, like to back a winning horse and there can't be much doubt out there about which horse that's likely to be. Could be wrong, fingers crossed, I want Labour to have a good mandate for change. Having said that erstwhile tories sitting on their hands may not be actively voting for Labour or LD but they're tacitly accepting of a Labour gvt as they know what the result will be. You could almost call it a tactical 'vote'. Isn't it possible that the "tightening" (in some polls anyway) may be a reflection of the postal votes that have gone in and the question "have you already voted" which helps with the weighting issues? Labour have been quite big on postal voting the past few years so they may not be as underrepresented as traditionally they were vs Tories. So possible there are clues in likelihood to vote in there for the people who vote in person. Probably the only question remaining, and that won't affect the nailed on Labour landslide anyway, is how many people get up the day and can't be bothered. The huge Labour lead doesn't help in that respect for them but equally it won't help the Tories either and Reform have killed off any chances of the Tories getting a little bit closer. |
|
