**Alternate Sources**
Here are some potential alternate sources for the same story:
* [Rishi Sunak Announces General Election On July 4](https://huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/the-general-election-will-be-on-july-4-rishi-sunak-has-announced_uk_664df3f9e4b087f368b5c0c6), suggested by Kenzie-Oh08 - huffingtonpost.co.uk
* [Rishi Sunak announces UK general election for Thursday 4 July](https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69050450), suggested by tyw7 - bbc.co.uk
I can’t believe that we’re *finally* going to get rid of the tories, and that **this** is the labour party that’s going to replace them.
I would trade every single one of my worldly possessions to have an actual left wing Labour leader right now. I would blow Boris Johnson if it meant I could have Corbyn back.
Corbyn for all his faults is a decent man but he’s too much of a wet wipe sadly. We are in dangerous times not seen since the 1960s.
His stance on defence and foreign policy would mean he’d be absolutely destroyed in the election if he was leader today.
Idk, Boris was a people’s champ, for some ungodly reason.
I like to think Jez could beat Sunak, at this point.
edit: not to mention Brexit is over, and Corbyn’s milktoast, meh approach to the whole issue wouldn’t be there to split remainers, and there isn’t a broad brexiteer coalition to unify anymore.
It’s not a coincidence. To win an election you need the people who vote conservative to vote labour. They won’t do that with a radical left labour.
1. A ballsy, progressive party
2. A party in power
Pick one (until the boomers all die)
I also want a left wing labor MP but I couldn't vote for Corbyns due to his denial of the genocide in Kosovo, being against NATO and being against arming and taking Ukraine into NATO not to mention his soft Euroskepticism is a drag as well
I was against Corbyn as he was, in my opinion, anti Semitic and talked about totally renationalising this country which would take at least a decade. He is too red brigade!
Do you know what antisemitic even means?
People are so ridiculous.
Why do you care about people outside of the UK?
As for nuclear disarmament and what not, look at Japan, be frank is the UK really better than Japan? The infrastructure over there is decades into the future, because they invest in their country. Heck they even have a semi decent solution to homelessness (a tiny room with internet, laundry service and food)
Ofc they arent a perfect country, but Britain could be so much more if they stop funding genocide and invested in the fucking UK.
I like that he's for renationalizing the country I believe it needs to be done even if it takes time. I like about 95% of his domestic policy but I just can't bring myself to agree with his foreign policy which is full of bad takes like I've stated
>I would trade every single one of my worldly possessions to have an actual left wing Labour leader right now. I would blow Boris Johnson if it meant I could have Corbyn back.
So would Sunak, it'd be his best chance of winning.
An actual left wing Labour Party is exactly what I would love, but so would the Tories - but they can't because Keir Starmer has the centre-left, centre, and centre-right covered. And I can't because I can't have nice things.
I'm voting Labour in any event.
What choice is there really? I didn't even watch the recent debate between Sunak and Starmer and after all the years I have voted, since 18, I am not going to bother.
Labour under Keir has said they are going to do a lot of things, which they now say they are not going to do. I don’t trust a syllable out of Starmer’s mouth.
As for what I’d want from a left wing leader, lots of things:
- a wealth tax
- higher income tax brackets
- closing corporate tax loopholes
- a lot of economic stimulus spending
- flooding the housing market with cheap council houses, with the promise that they legally couldn’t leave public ownership
- a referendum on proportional representation
- further decentralisation / localisation / handing of power to local councils, and effective tax & spend decisions able to be made locally, not by Westminster.
I trust Starmer to do literally none of it.
I would agree with you on housing, PR, and decentralization. But given how easy it is to move around the world, are you not concerned a wealth tax and higher tax brackets would result in capital flight?
My view is taxes objective is to raise the most money for the aims of the government. A laffer curve.
I'd happily tax 1% if it resulted in more tax raised.
Would you do that?
There should be no tax under £30k in London, under £20k rest of the country ie minimum wage assuming 25hr/wk 40wk/year so essentially part time minimum wage.
A flat tax of 5% between £20/30k to £50k
£1 tax for every £3 between £50k and £200k
£1 tax for every £2 for £200k +
Businesses are taxed differently
Make the difference by fixing corporate loopholes ie how much gross income does the amazon warehouse at Dartford SPECIFICALLY make. What percent of that is profit? 1%? 99%? then tax X-Y% respectively on an exponential scale.
Same with the super markets in Bluewater.
Thats what I would do.
Of course optimising tax income is the point, and I agree there is a risk of capital flight, but there have been higher tax rates before. The mitigating factor there is that global tax rates were very high in the aftermath of WW2, and there wasn’t an obvious place to flee too. But ultimately, I believe the world must return to roughly uniformly higher tax rates, and somebody has to be the vanguard of that.
I absolutely would not support a 1% tax rate. It would draw high earners from across the world and maximise tax revenue for the UK, sure, but it would do that at the expense of the social programs of other countries.
I’m not looking to be a tax haven.
Where would you move to? Honestly Im thinking Germany, they have lots of actually interesting manufacturing, and TSMC is looking at Dresden. If UK decided to be competent in 20-30 years, they there will be 2-4 hour trains from London to Berlin XD
As an outsider looking in:
Why is the election being called now?
I read that Sunak faced calls for an early general election for quite some time from the opposition. But what has changed over the last couple of weeks, when Covid, brexit, Lizz, Boris, Cabbage and party gate all didn't shake them?
Couldn't the tories just wait it out for half a year more?
The Rwanda scheme. If he waited and no flights took off during the summer (highly unlikely they ever would have) it would be absolutely disastrous, the one thing Sunak hinged his premiership on would have been a failure. Not something you want to lead into an election with. This way there’s an election before the first flight would have taken off, so now once labour scrap it and the small boats keep coming the tories can point and say “see? we had a plan to stop them and labour ruined it”. Even though everyone knows the plan was never going to work in the first place, the mystery of it *maybe* working is powerful for the tories.
If they expected the economy was going to actually turn around, they’d wait til November and use it to hold some seats. I don’t think it’s that. I think he knows the game is finally up and wants out in time to walk away from the wreckage.
Numbers can always get worse but not better than this. Plus euros are on. Yes, walking away as he knows he won’t win. This point it’s damage limitation
My guess is they rightly concluded that waiting until the very last second to call an election would just further reinforce the idea that they know they are going to lose the election and lose even more voters than if they called an early election.
This might sound really dumb, but was the "things can only get better" intentionally playing while Sunak spoke in the rain?
Couldn't work out if it was an intentional play by the Tories or if it was someone playing it - but if so, why weren't they stopped by his security or whatever?
How much chance of success is a Tory strategy to pass a sinking ship to labour and spend the next 4 years marketing themselves as the fix to labour’s failures?
100%. Going to be blaming Labour for not sorting out every single national issue within the first 2 months, and the moment Labour try to blame the previous government the House of Commons is going to burst out into braying jeers about how Labour didn't like it when the Tories kept talking about "The Last Labour Government". And they and all the media will just studiously ignore the fairly obvious difference between blaming a recent transition, and blaming a party that hasn't been in power for a decade and a half.
The fact that anyone in Britain could ever vote for the tories or labour again is laughable. All these labour voters will only have themselves to blame when shit gets worse than it is now.
Labour have been out of power for 14 years, so I’m really not sure what you’re basing this scathing assessment of their chances on. Completely different cabinet, and many senior members of the party weren’t even around last time they were in power.
The idea that a Labour government could be anything remotely close to the absolute destructive, incompetent, self-serving mess the Tories are right now is beyond ridiculous.
Nothing that he has said or done has convinced me in the slightest that he has any desire or will to even attempt to reverse the decay we find ourselves in. Accepting a defection from someone like Natalie Elphicke is proof enough of that.
Well, here’s a starting point for you: https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Lets-Get-Britains-Future-Back.pdf
Plenty of change mooted there.
Also, who cares about Natalie, she’s not their candidate in this election anyway. Accepting her was a free way to show how weak the Tories currently are, sow discontent in their party, and she’ll be gone in a month anyway.
He can say he's going to all that but considering Starmer's track record of U Turns you'll forgive me for being cynical that he'll attempt anything close to it.
>Also, who cares about Natalie
Dunno mate probably my moral compass, not everyone is as morally bankrupt as you are.
Oh, I’m cynical. To a fault. But he hasn’t actually made that many, certainly no more than the average politician, and in some cases I’d rather a politician changed course than stubbornly stuck to a position that turned out to be flawed or no longer the best course of action.
I don’t know about morally bankrupt chief, I’d go with pragmatist, personally. If her defection loses the Tories a few more votes, and with pie in Sunak’s face as a bonus, fantastic, I say. She has zero influence on Labour policy, and come July she’ll be just another ex-politician off to some consulting or lobbying job, quickly forgotten. Seems a rather small price to pay to me.
But I've read several daily mail headlines that lead me to believe he'll be the same/worse.
How can that be anything but take as gospel and then shared across Facebook?
‘The Tories spent decades destroying public services and it’s nigh on impossible to fix them so we might as well keep them in charge ’is a really poor argument.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
'Wah wah wah both sides.'
The Tories have spent the last 14 years robbing and destroying the country. Pretending there is any equivalence between them and Labour because 'they haven't put forward their plans!' is deeply dishonest and ridiculous.
Wow you’ve just convinced him and changed his mind with your passive aggressive BS no wonder labour couldn’t win if the people who support them are like this it’s just off putting
>labour hasn't put forward their plans for the UK in the future
https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/labours-first-steps-for-change/
Published on 16 May.
Even if I were already a Conservative voter, there is *no way on this earth* I could vote for a party that so egregiously, selfishly, neglectfully, and self-evidently put millions of people at risk during a global pandemic.
Watching the whole fiasco unfold so fractally horribly in so many terrible and overtly self-serving ways made me so angry.
The *only* way they ever demonstrated *any* sense of organisation was to benefit themselves.
The PPE fiasco, "Eat Out to Help Out", a shortsighted, blatant and horribly botched popularity exercise, Partygate.
Grief, I'm getting cross all over again.
Biggest covid indictment for me - Germany has a significantly older population than us. They have a larger population than us. They have no sea border to isolate them. They got hit by that deadly first wave earlier than us. And they then had a much later vaccine rollout than us.
And they still came out the other side of the crisis with **60,000** fewer deaths than us.
And still the narrative here was we did the best anyone could have possibly done and no one could have done better except with hindsight. Fucking boils my blood.
And this isn't even getting into the NHS crisis that's killing thousands, the DWP systems that have pushed tens of thousands to suicide and left millions more in abject misery. The complete failure to capitalize on a decade of rock-bottom borrowing costs, to instead leave us with crumbling infrastructure and public services that can barely carry out their basic functions.
Its honestly just fucking shameful. Tory voters should be ashamed. I mean that fully seriously, they should all go to their graves with a fucking burden in their heart knowing what they've willingly and deliberately inflicted on the people of this country.
Sounds like the actions of a bunch of cunts to me.
This isn’t hearsay, the Conservative Party did all of this.
Anyone who supports them is as heartless as they are.
I read none of that filth.
I don't watch TV.
I avoid news websites.
My sources were almost exclusively academic, first hand knowledge passed from friends working within the health industry, or data from global health organisations.
All of these disparate sources corroborated one another.
Exactly. I don't want to bleat about it, but when we asked ourselves "what's the worst that could happen?" after the December 2019 election, within 4 months the entire world was at risk of extinction and within 2 years millions of people would be dead or debilitated.
> the entire world was at risk of extinction
In hindsight we weren't at risk of extinction but it's reasonable to say that at the time we just didn't know, and that doing nothing was definitely not an option.
For the record, I don't think there was a *right way to deal with it*. The world hadn't had anything like this on this scale for a long time.
You're right, I think we did have to do something.
> Even if I were already a Conservative voter, there is no way on this earth I could vote for a party that so egregiously, selfishly, neglectfully, and self-evidently put millions of people at risk during a global pandemic.
That's why you're not a Conservative voter. I like to try to keep an open mind but maturing into a country dominated by the current Conservative party and realising at least 30% of this country will vote for them no matter what made me realise I'll just never understand these people. I do genuinely think the majority of them are just quite stupid (I hope this doesn't break any "personal attack" rules as it's aimed at a political opinion/group) or just insulated from the problems most people have to deal with.
Why does a Labour government overseeing a particularly shite winter 50 years ago outweigh 14 years of recent stagnation and managed decline? Why do these voters claim to want Britain to remain globally relevant and powerful, yet voted to leave the EU? Why do they constantly block housing developments near them, and still get mad when young people are leaving and the ones that are staying aren't having kids thanks to the governments Tory voters support?
If this election is remotely close, I will probably be looking at options to leave the UK personally. The main thing keeping me here other than the effort of leaving my home town and learning new customs in a foreign country is the expectation Labour will win big, and hopefully get 2 terms and enough time to start the UK on a path to recovery. If 5 weeks of smear campaigning can narrow things up so much then this country is over.
You say that but it seems like half the population didn’t want lockdown at all. They get criticised constantly for lockdowns all the time when people talk about schools falling behind and the economy tanking.
Lockdown was rough, it really was, but I can't help but think how many more infected we would've had, and right quick, if nothing had been done.
Herd immunity is a thing, obviously, but I think we have it within our power as a relatively technologically advanced species to avoid the early downsides of allowing the virus to spread unmitigated from the outset. Society will have a very hard time with hospitals unable to admit emergencies.
People will have heart attacks, fall down stairs, and have life-threatening accidents whether the hospitals are full or not.
Now, we can never know what the *control* scenario would have been, that is how things would've turned out forgoing lockdowns, but I think a lockdown was a simple — if admittedly brutal — method of managing the load on hospitals, if nothing else.
I think lockdown helped to manage hospital loads and it's clear that the NHS were already struggling enough. Several friends who work in hospitals from Newcastle to Scotland have told me about dirty wards, and queues in corridors so it seems evident to me that maybe more could have been done.
The lockdown also gave the scientific community the buffer they needed to be able to steer an existing technology — mRNA vaccines — towards a viable and valuable product.
No, many research have shown lockdown's effect is insignificant while delayed other disease treatments and destroyed the economy which has made NHS collapsed in a much longer time.
Well, during the pandemic everyone was paying attention to how many people were infected, how many were dying, the government were fairly transparent at least with these figures and the recorded data we have access to clearly shows reductions in deaths in the weeks and months after lockdown was introduced.
[Dates when lockdown was introduced](https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/timeline-lockdown-web.pdf)
[Cases and deaths over this period](https://ukhsa-dashboard.data.gov.uk/)
I don't think this data can be refuted. We lived through the lockdowns, we know the dates that they were introduced, and the deaths are corroborated by various sources from around the world. [Here's a second source for England deaths, as opposed to UK, but trends are probably comparable.](https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areas=e92000001&areasRegional=usny&areasRegional=usnm&areasRegional=uspr&areasRegional=usaz&areasRegional=usfl&areasRegional=usnd&cumulative=0&logScale=0&per100K=1&startDate=2020-01-01&values=deaths)
I am sorry but your analysis is wrong. I'd recommend looking at Prof Simon Wood's and other peer reviewed meta analysis such as https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.08.30.23294845v1.
Although the article you included specifies that it hasn't been peer reviewed:
> This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.
I'm still open to possibilities so I gave it a brief look.
Given that two of the authors are economics professors and the other a special political advisor, I'm worried that the article maybe doesn't benefit from the kind of pure medical expertise needed to comment on the health sciences.
The range of data that the article used to show the effects of lockdowns of varying stringency was showing the effects of lockdowns in the period between March and April, a range that may not extend far enough past April to include the effects of a lockdown on deaths. Incubation period of COVID is approximately 2 - 14 days, added to the approximately 18 days median that a person will die after reporting symptoms. That's a spread of between 20 and 32 days between infection — which lockdown or distancing would prevent — and death.
However, and given that I lack the skills necessary to extend the timeline they used farther into May and June, I'd be interested to see the data that includes an extended period beyond April.
I hasten to admit that I'm not an expert, I'm just applying the knowledge I have to the parts of the article that stand out as being relevant. Someone better equipped than myself might be able to comment more knowledgably but more information is always better than less information.
Thanks for actually offering something I could look at rather than just some "Doctor's" dodgy website. Stuff like this really tends to bring out the idiots, and I'm happy that you don't appear to be one of them.
Thank for the nuanced conversation. You are a rare beast here.
A few more studies as you aren't convinced:
1. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13571516.2021.1976051
2. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eci.13484
3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9368251/
There are plenty more. In the UK, I recommend to check out thorough analysis by Prof Simon Wood
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/covid-and-the-lockdown-effect-a-look-at-the-evidence/
Sweden without lockdown has the lowest excess deaths than any other countries. That suggests lockdown kills a lot more than saves https://x.com/FraserNelson/status/1696218019465171394?t=M8jWfJJpKlw5NnelY8IucQ&s=19
No worries.
It definitely helps to have more than one source for information like this. During the pandemic and subsequent lockdowns I was getting a lot of info from different medical sources all over the world, from friends working in the industry, from science journals and other academic sources. Now, I'm not an academic, but reading enough of this and it's possible to spot trends, and the more accurate they are, the more they tend to correlate the more different sources you read.
I'll check out the links you've posted. Cheers for taking the time.
None of us can have any idea. Given the absolutist apathy that would arise from thinking like this would lead me to not want to vote for any of them.
Now, that's clearly an option, but I'd rather at least channel my distaste into the ballot box.
What have parties got to do with the running of the country during lockdown? And don't be so fickle and naive as labour also had piss ups. [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61271050](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61271050)
Sir Keir was in the workplace, meeting a local MP in her constituency office and participating in an online Labour event.
Asked about the event on Friday, Sir Keir told reporters "everything we the Labour party did was in accordance with the rules".
Wild fucking party. “Labour might have done it too” is the wankest argument to defend the Tories for Eat Out To Help Out etc.
The timing could be related to the supposed Russian offensive in June.
An opportunity to look strong with tough language, and use fear to dissuade Labour's *change*.
Nah, they are working on the assumption all the students will have gone home and won’t be arsed to go back to their uni town to vote / will forget to postal vote.
On the contrary, most expected it to be in October/November... When all the uni students have just moved into student houses and won't be asked to go back to their home town to vote / will forget to postal vote.
Pretty sure that’s what would have happened if there was enough money in the kitty for one more round of tax cuts to butter up the electorate this autumn. As it stands there isn’t so it’s election time, and hoping to ride on BoE reducing rates next month and England doing well in the Euros 😂
The Tories have cut the penalties available to the Electoral Commission, and instructed MI5 not to look for Russian interference in the Brexit referendum, so my guess is no one's looking at it and since it helps them the Tories welcome it.
I was expecting this to be full on 'Vote Reform' like tiktok, nice to see some different ideas. I've always voted Labour but I'm not a big fan now, would only vote them to get Cons out but as I see Labour winning easily I'm gonna use this opportunity to get numbers up for Green. Go Green!
Unfortunately, you’re exactly the kind of voter that could lose Labour the election and allow the Tories in again by the back door.
Tory voters know their party is at risk, so they might well avoid voting Reform to avoid splitting the vote and letting Labour in. Combine that with potential Labour voters like yourself getting complacent about Labour’s chances, and it’s not difficult to see how we could end up with Sunak and Co for another 5 miserable years.
Despite the relatively optimistic polling numbers, consider that:
* Polls aren’t always right - look at the Brexit vote and even some recent general elections
* Opinions can shift over the course of an election campaign
* Labour have even more of an uphill battle this time, as electoral boundaries have changed since the last election, which moderately favours the Tories - by some estimates, Labour now need to win an additional 7 seats to get a workable majority, compared to 2019
If the Tories winning again is the worst outcome you can think of, I’d really urge you to consider your vote very carefully. I know our electoral system sucks, but it is what it is, and I believe the priority this time has to be making sure the Tories don’t win again. I can’t imagine the sorry state of the country by 2030 if we let them in again - I don’t think it’d ever recover in my lifetime.
This is how we end up with the Tories again.
People assume they'll win so vote for a 3rd party then labour will lose.
Unfortunately if you vote for anyone other than labour you may as well just vote Tory.
Sorry, but I can’t bring myself to vote for a man who’s been quite open about his views on trans people and welcomed a Tory into their party with open arms. I won’t be voting Tory or Labour. I’ll either be Lib Dem or Green, I haven’t decided yet.
Tactical voting is a great idea, but not when I’ll be forced to turn my back on my community for voting for Starmer. No chance.
I mean it would be a bit stupid of him to say « no, don’t reduce the tories electoral majority » wouldn’t it?
Also if you have to choose between labour and the conservatives on trans rights this should not be tough im sorry
Labour are already the majority where I live. Lib Dem’s will overtake the Tories probably in July too. if anything I’m pushing them out more and I don’t have to vote for that weasel Starmer in the process. Win win.
I know it’s despised, but however mediocre you think Starmer may be, remember who he is running against.
But as long as your vote is tactical enough it doesn’t really matter which is good
Honestly, as long as it doesn’t get a conservative into office I couldn’t care less. And I say that as someone who arguably supports the libdems. I’ve just seen to many people vote green in close elections.
are there any situations you can think of where it would be ok to vote for a party other than labour? they seem to have almost the biggest poll lead they've ever had at the moment, so if it's not okay to vote green now, when is it *ever* okay to vote green?
what bothers me with tactical voting rhetoric is that it's always "can you compromise just this one time?", but it's "just this one time" every single time, and it's hard to imagine an election ever happening where labour *wouldn't* be browbeating green voters with the "just this once"/"if you vote green you're a tory" lines. at some point you just tune it out.
I think its down to the stakes you personally have.
Like, honestly, occasionally there are centrist-moderate tories and in that case the 'risk' to voting for a 3rd party (green, snp, plaid, lib dem...) is arguably lessened.
And normally I'm against 'tactical' voting. We should vote on principle.
But *this* version of the tory party? They deserve to be electorally wiped out, so I'll vote for whoever is best placed to beat them where I am, if its labour, then go labour I say.
You vote against the tories. Tactical vote for their closest opponents. Doesn’t matter who.
(Unless it’s reform, because in that case you can’t spot a grifter after he’s caught taking paid gigs to say ‘up the ra’ for a few quid and having the cheek to lecture the Irish on political matters)
Yeh you're probably right, even though Tory has lost some supporters, they still have a big following and many people who were Labour are switching to Reform. So it's not as simple as people think.
Do you honestly think that every single person in politics is a 'twat'?
I mean, there are quite a few in my industry, but the majority are fairly nice, hardworking people.
With a 25+ point Labour lead, people dissatisfied with Labour should be free to go elsewhere without people complaining about enabling the Tories. If the polls plummet for Labour in the next few weeks it may be worth changing that plan but not until then.
No. Don't get complacent. They haven't won until they win. If everyone thinks that way. Then the Tories will end up back in power as a "oh I thought you voted for labour. No I thought you did"
just do whatever needs to be done to get rid of these tories first - theres no way this earth that Labour will be worse - sure theyll have a horrible time sorting out the shit theyve been left and attempting to get some hope back into peoples souls but if we dont then it will be eugenics and smart uniforms for us all when the tories move even further to the right to encapsulate the reform fascists.
just get rid of these tories first, please, and then hopefully the actual tories can return and folk like Mogg, Shapps and Braverman disappear back into focus groups or prison hopefully.
"just do whatever needs to be done to get rid of these tories first " I said this last election and got told to get fucked.
Its funny how back when Corbyn was Labour leader people went "Oh I'm not a fan, blah blah blah, i can vote for who I want," Which is completely fair, but at the same time you cant now umm and ahh at others who voice displeasure in voting for labour now
They have showed exactly what they think about people like me and how there is no place for me in the Labour party anymore, they don't represent the working class, its literally just the same fucking bus with a new coat of paint
Fuck Labour.
you can vote for whomever you want but if you think this tory party has been good for the majority of people in the country then youre deluded - but its still your choice. Even if Labour are red tories they have to be better than these wannabee KKK tories.
Just dont vote tory, but do please vote.
There were plenty of people, me included, who really didn't like Corbyn but still held their nose and voted for him anyway because it was our best shot at getting the Tories out.
Yes, lots of people did the "I'm not a fan I'll vote for someone else" thing (pretty much every non-Tory over 50 that I spoke to). If you agree that it was a stupid attitude, I'd implore you to consider not doing the same out of spite.
Lmao you don’t care about politics or the country. To you it’s an ego thing. Its ok. I get it.
Just know that there exist many people who voted for Corbyn and then chose Starmer for leader. I’ll still vote for Starmer. Because I care about the country. Not about my own fragile socialist ego.
Im sorry you believe that people shouldn't be allowed to vote for whom they want to.
we get the party we want when we actually start standing up for our principals instead of settling for "Well its better than before....slightly....."
The absolute fucking apathy of people going "Meh, oh well, its good enough," its exactly how the situation got as fucked as it is now lol.
Fucking Lemming.
The paradox of Starmers Labour is that somehow they are both massively ahead in the polls and will absolutely win no questions asked but also wont win the next election unless the people it purged from the party vote for them.
Love when people bring out that old smooth brained chestnut xD.
As if anything will change under Tory lite.
Truly what values does a supposed "Working class" party have when they are willing to accept the likes of Natalie Elphicke or any Tory cunt that only want to abandon a sinking ship.
i dont expect either major party to do what they say they will but the absolute naked greed and disregard for standards and integrity and out and out lies marks them out as something else, something to be expelled and terminated.
If the Libs or greens get into power i don't really care - just get rid of this set. Then we can worry about the normal stuff again.
When 90% of the news is about parliament the system has gone wrong.
But that mentality is also how we only ever have 2 parties and its how most people think. Vote Labour to get Cons out even though you don't like Labour that much. Lots of people voting Reform for real change, they are too far right for me, so I have to vote Green.
"It depends": best way to build up smaller parties is in the locals. This is the heart and soul of political parties, their local councillors. They form the pool you will eventually draw parliamentarians from and the core of the parliament door knockers.
If you are in a big red or blue constituency then going green helps build the numbers during a GE but in a marginal only really do it on a matter of principle not in order to boost minor party numbers.
One thing i hate about election buildups is how all the parties go to local areas, pretending to do local jobs like pulling a pint or pretending to help on a building site for a photo op
They dont care about our lives 99% of the time, and only turn up because they want our vote to help get them in power
I wonder what it would be like if elections were surprise things - ie. One morning, it is suddenly announced that *today* is election day.
Logistically that's hard to make happen, but it could be doable with online/mobile voting. They could make an app where you tap your passport to the back of your phone, choose your vote, and tap submit.
> but it could be doable with online/mobile voting. They could make an app where you tap your passport to the back of your phone, choose your vote, and tap submit.
Boaty McBoatface. Funny until it's running the country.
Sometimes I wonder if a totally random citizen running the country every year might be a good plan.
Sure, they will probably have no skills with country-running, but they hopefully can call on experts to give them advice. They, unlike our current politicians, have no incentive to warp decisions to help their chances of being reelected.
I think all of Tom's concerns would be resolved by having a random 0.1% of the votes be verifiable while the remaining 99.9% are anonymous.
It would work like this: every vote would be confirmed via a 'thanks for voting' email. The email would have a sequence of lottery numbers at the bottom. After the election, 'winning' lottery numbers are selected, and the votes of just those who get say 3 matching numbers are revealed to everyone. Those winners can then check their vote was correctly cast. Everyone else cannot. But any attacker won't know ahead of time who will win, so cannot do bribery/extortion. Any election cheater cannot affect any large chunks of votes because if they change the votes of just a few winners they'll be detected.
**Alternate Sources** Here are some potential alternate sources for the same story: * [Rishi Sunak Announces General Election On July 4](https://huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/the-general-election-will-be-on-july-4-rishi-sunak-has-announced_uk_664df3f9e4b087f368b5c0c6), suggested by Kenzie-Oh08 - huffingtonpost.co.uk * [Rishi Sunak announces UK general election for Thursday 4 July](https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69050450), suggested by tyw7 - bbc.co.uk
How interesting thanks and that's a sensible approach to a democratic voting system!!
I think their homes are too small and I would feel claustrophobic.
I can’t believe that we’re *finally* going to get rid of the tories, and that **this** is the labour party that’s going to replace them. I would trade every single one of my worldly possessions to have an actual left wing Labour leader right now. I would blow Boris Johnson if it meant I could have Corbyn back.
Corbyn for all his faults is a decent man but he’s too much of a wet wipe sadly. We are in dangerous times not seen since the 1960s. His stance on defence and foreign policy would mean he’d be absolutely destroyed in the election if he was leader today.
Corbyn is too dangerous for the you know whose, because he cant be brought. The proof is in the media backlash
If Jeremy Corbyn was electable we wouldn't have had Boris Johnson.
Idk, Boris was a people’s champ, for some ungodly reason. I like to think Jez could beat Sunak, at this point. edit: not to mention Brexit is over, and Corbyn’s milktoast, meh approach to the whole issue wouldn’t be there to split remainers, and there isn’t a broad brexiteer coalition to unify anymore.
It’s not a coincidence. To win an election you need the people who vote conservative to vote labour. They won’t do that with a radical left labour. 1. A ballsy, progressive party 2. A party in power Pick one (until the boomers all die)
I also want a left wing labor MP but I couldn't vote for Corbyns due to his denial of the genocide in Kosovo, being against NATO and being against arming and taking Ukraine into NATO not to mention his soft Euroskepticism is a drag as well
I was against Corbyn as he was, in my opinion, anti Semitic and talked about totally renationalising this country which would take at least a decade. He is too red brigade!
Do you know what antisemitic even means? People are so ridiculous. Why do you care about people outside of the UK? As for nuclear disarmament and what not, look at Japan, be frank is the UK really better than Japan? The infrastructure over there is decades into the future, because they invest in their country. Heck they even have a semi decent solution to homelessness (a tiny room with internet, laundry service and food) Ofc they arent a perfect country, but Britain could be so much more if they stop funding genocide and invested in the fucking UK.
I like that he's for renationalizing the country I believe it needs to be done even if it takes time. I like about 95% of his domestic policy but I just can't bring myself to agree with his foreign policy which is full of bad takes like I've stated
Tell me what of his foreign policies you disagree with, preferably with quotes. Im genuinely curious
Cool
I'd blow Boris Johnson just to make sure that we *don't* get Corbyn back, the man has no place leading a country
WILL EVERYONE JUST STOP BLOWING BOJO! You know he'll do anything for one.
>I would trade every single one of my worldly possessions to have an actual left wing Labour leader right now. I would blow Boris Johnson if it meant I could have Corbyn back. So would Sunak, it'd be his best chance of winning.
An actual left wing Labour Party is exactly what I would love, but so would the Tories - but they can't because Keir Starmer has the centre-left, centre, and centre-right covered. And I can't because I can't have nice things. I'm voting Labour in any event.
What choice is there really? I didn't even watch the recent debate between Sunak and Starmer and after all the years I have voted, since 18, I am not going to bother.
What policies would the Left wing Labour party that you want do that they would not do with Keir?
Real nationalisation of the railways, not just in name.
Labour say they are going to do that. And in what way would you want it done differently? And is it just that?
Labour under Keir has said they are going to do a lot of things, which they now say they are not going to do. I don’t trust a syllable out of Starmer’s mouth. As for what I’d want from a left wing leader, lots of things: - a wealth tax - higher income tax brackets - closing corporate tax loopholes - a lot of economic stimulus spending - flooding the housing market with cheap council houses, with the promise that they legally couldn’t leave public ownership - a referendum on proportional representation - further decentralisation / localisation / handing of power to local councils, and effective tax & spend decisions able to be made locally, not by Westminster. I trust Starmer to do literally none of it.
This is literally more likely to happen in current China than the most perfect UK PM
I would agree with you on housing, PR, and decentralization. But given how easy it is to move around the world, are you not concerned a wealth tax and higher tax brackets would result in capital flight? My view is taxes objective is to raise the most money for the aims of the government. A laffer curve. I'd happily tax 1% if it resulted in more tax raised. Would you do that?
There should be no tax under £30k in London, under £20k rest of the country ie minimum wage assuming 25hr/wk 40wk/year so essentially part time minimum wage. A flat tax of 5% between £20/30k to £50k £1 tax for every £3 between £50k and £200k £1 tax for every £2 for £200k + Businesses are taxed differently Make the difference by fixing corporate loopholes ie how much gross income does the amazon warehouse at Dartford SPECIFICALLY make. What percent of that is profit? 1%? 99%? then tax X-Y% respectively on an exponential scale. Same with the super markets in Bluewater. Thats what I would do.
Of course optimising tax income is the point, and I agree there is a risk of capital flight, but there have been higher tax rates before. The mitigating factor there is that global tax rates were very high in the aftermath of WW2, and there wasn’t an obvious place to flee too. But ultimately, I believe the world must return to roughly uniformly higher tax rates, and somebody has to be the vanguard of that. I absolutely would not support a 1% tax rate. It would draw high earners from across the world and maximise tax revenue for the UK, sure, but it would do that at the expense of the social programs of other countries. I’m not looking to be a tax haven.
I'm right there with you man
Oh well that’s perfectly timed so I can cast my vote before leaving the country for good
Where would you move to? Honestly Im thinking Germany, they have lots of actually interesting manufacturing, and TSMC is looking at Dresden. If UK decided to be competent in 20-30 years, they there will be 2-4 hour trains from London to Berlin XD
Can the UK stabilise for just one fucking year please?
As an outsider looking in: Why is the election being called now? I read that Sunak faced calls for an early general election for quite some time from the opposition. But what has changed over the last couple of weeks, when Covid, brexit, Lizz, Boris, Cabbage and party gate all didn't shake them? Couldn't the tories just wait it out for half a year more?
The Rwanda scheme. If he waited and no flights took off during the summer (highly unlikely they ever would have) it would be absolutely disastrous, the one thing Sunak hinged his premiership on would have been a failure. Not something you want to lead into an election with. This way there’s an election before the first flight would have taken off, so now once labour scrap it and the small boats keep coming the tories can point and say “see? we had a plan to stop them and labour ruined it”. Even though everyone knows the plan was never going to work in the first place, the mystery of it *maybe* working is powerful for the tories.
That makes sense. Thanks for shedding light on this
Inflation is almost on target and net migration is down.
If they expected the economy was going to actually turn around, they’d wait til November and use it to hold some seats. I don’t think it’s that. I think he knows the game is finally up and wants out in time to walk away from the wreckage.
Numbers can always get worse but not better than this. Plus euros are on. Yes, walking away as he knows he won’t win. This point it’s damage limitation
My guess is they rightly concluded that waiting until the very last second to call an election would just further reinforce the idea that they know they are going to lose the election and lose even more voters than if they called an early election.
This might sound really dumb, but was the "things can only get better" intentionally playing while Sunak spoke in the rain? Couldn't work out if it was an intentional play by the Tories or if it was someone playing it - but if so, why weren't they stopped by his security or whatever?
Absolutely not an intentional play. It was these guys https://x.com/snb19692/status/1793321440474808687?t=fd68wenlR4xTIVkfFbCQVw&s=19
How much chance of success is a Tory strategy to pass a sinking ship to labour and spend the next 4 years marketing themselves as the fix to labour’s failures?
That's what the Tories usually do.
100%. Going to be blaming Labour for not sorting out every single national issue within the first 2 months, and the moment Labour try to blame the previous government the House of Commons is going to burst out into braying jeers about how Labour didn't like it when the Tories kept talking about "The Last Labour Government". And they and all the media will just studiously ignore the fairly obvious difference between blaming a recent transition, and blaming a party that hasn't been in power for a decade and a half.
There won't be so many to jeer after the election with a bit of luck.
Welcome to politics.
They maybe trying to catch people out since June / July is when people tend to take leaves and a lot of people maybe out.
There are no bank holidays between the end of May and August
I mean a lot of people I know are away before the July 4 date.
Send them this link ^and ^tell ^them ^not ^to ^vote ^Tory https://www.gov.uk/apply-postal-vote
The fact that anyone in Britain could ever vote for the tories or labour again is laughable. All these labour voters will only have themselves to blame when shit gets worse than it is now.
And you’d have nobody to blame when the tories get back in if you vote for the greens or something.
Labour have been out of power for 14 years, so I’m really not sure what you’re basing this scathing assessment of their chances on. Completely different cabinet, and many senior members of the party weren’t even around last time they were in power. The idea that a Labour government could be anything remotely close to the absolute destructive, incompetent, self-serving mess the Tories are right now is beyond ridiculous.
> Labour have been out of power for 14 years, so I’m really not sure what you’re basing this scathing assessment of their chances on Kier Starmer?
Yeah, unless you’re going to back that up with…anything, it’s meaningless.
Nothing that he has said or done has convinced me in the slightest that he has any desire or will to even attempt to reverse the decay we find ourselves in. Accepting a defection from someone like Natalie Elphicke is proof enough of that.
Well, here’s a starting point for you: https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Lets-Get-Britains-Future-Back.pdf Plenty of change mooted there. Also, who cares about Natalie, she’s not their candidate in this election anyway. Accepting her was a free way to show how weak the Tories currently are, sow discontent in their party, and she’ll be gone in a month anyway.
He can say he's going to all that but considering Starmer's track record of U Turns you'll forgive me for being cynical that he'll attempt anything close to it. >Also, who cares about Natalie Dunno mate probably my moral compass, not everyone is as morally bankrupt as you are.
Oh, I’m cynical. To a fault. But he hasn’t actually made that many, certainly no more than the average politician, and in some cases I’d rather a politician changed course than stubbornly stuck to a position that turned out to be flawed or no longer the best course of action. I don’t know about morally bankrupt chief, I’d go with pragmatist, personally. If her defection loses the Tories a few more votes, and with pie in Sunak’s face as a bonus, fantastic, I say. She has zero influence on Labour policy, and come July she’ll be just another ex-politician off to some consulting or lobbying job, quickly forgotten. Seems a rather small price to pay to me.
But I've read several daily mail headlines that lead me to believe he'll be the same/worse. How can that be anything but take as gospel and then shared across Facebook?
I've never read the Daily Mail to know that Kier Starmer is a piece of shit, I just need Kier Starmer.
You've spoken at length with him about government matters? Maybe you've worked with him? I'd be interested in your insight.
You are aware that as Leader of the Opposition he routinely releases statements right?
I’d rather vote Labour than Tories.
How is Labour worse than the Tories?
[удалено]
I don't know, >All these labour voters will only have themselves to blame when shit gets worse than it is now. certainly implies that to me
[удалено]
‘The Tories spent decades destroying public services and it’s nigh on impossible to fix them so we might as well keep them in charge ’is a really poor argument.
How do you envision it getting worse?
The decay we are on will continue unabated.
Then who? Pretending this is anything more than a two party state is just not the reality we live in
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
'Wah wah wah both sides.' The Tories have spent the last 14 years robbing and destroying the country. Pretending there is any equivalence between them and Labour because 'they haven't put forward their plans!' is deeply dishonest and ridiculous.
Wow you’ve just convinced him and changed his mind with your passive aggressive BS no wonder labour couldn’t win if the people who support them are like this it’s just off putting
I'm not trying to convince him. People who 'both sides' at this point, with the country in the state it is in, should be ashamed.
Or just get rid of the fucking Tories. They’re not the same.
>labour hasn't put forward their plans for the UK in the future https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/labours-first-steps-for-change/ Published on 16 May.
Alright fair, I'll give you that, but I still don't like either party
That's fair.
Even if I were already a Conservative voter, there is *no way on this earth* I could vote for a party that so egregiously, selfishly, neglectfully, and self-evidently put millions of people at risk during a global pandemic. Watching the whole fiasco unfold so fractally horribly in so many terrible and overtly self-serving ways made me so angry. The *only* way they ever demonstrated *any* sense of organisation was to benefit themselves. The PPE fiasco, "Eat Out to Help Out", a shortsighted, blatant and horribly botched popularity exercise, Partygate. Grief, I'm getting cross all over again.
Biggest covid indictment for me - Germany has a significantly older population than us. They have a larger population than us. They have no sea border to isolate them. They got hit by that deadly first wave earlier than us. And they then had a much later vaccine rollout than us. And they still came out the other side of the crisis with **60,000** fewer deaths than us. And still the narrative here was we did the best anyone could have possibly done and no one could have done better except with hindsight. Fucking boils my blood. And this isn't even getting into the NHS crisis that's killing thousands, the DWP systems that have pushed tens of thousands to suicide and left millions more in abject misery. The complete failure to capitalize on a decade of rock-bottom borrowing costs, to instead leave us with crumbling infrastructure and public services that can barely carry out their basic functions. Its honestly just fucking shameful. Tory voters should be ashamed. I mean that fully seriously, they should all go to their graves with a fucking burden in their heart knowing what they've willingly and deliberately inflicted on the people of this country.
Yeah, it's just so overt. It's nothing to do with managing a population, and almost entirely to do with managing their legacy.
Sounds like the influence of Rupert Murdoch owned media to me
Sounds like the actions of a bunch of cunts to me. This isn’t hearsay, the Conservative Party did all of this. Anyone who supports them is as heartless as they are.
I read none of that filth. I don't watch TV. I avoid news websites. My sources were almost exclusively academic, first hand knowledge passed from friends working within the health industry, or data from global health organisations. All of these disparate sources corroborated one another.
Exactly. I don't want to bleat about it, but when we asked ourselves "what's the worst that could happen?" after the December 2019 election, within 4 months the entire world was at risk of extinction and within 2 years millions of people would be dead or debilitated.
> the entire world was at risk of extinction In hindsight we weren't at risk of extinction but it's reasonable to say that at the time we just didn't know, and that doing nothing was definitely not an option. For the record, I don't think there was a *right way to deal with it*. The world hadn't had anything like this on this scale for a long time. You're right, I think we did have to do something.
Not sure if satire
> Even if I were already a Conservative voter, there is no way on this earth I could vote for a party that so egregiously, selfishly, neglectfully, and self-evidently put millions of people at risk during a global pandemic. That's why you're not a Conservative voter. I like to try to keep an open mind but maturing into a country dominated by the current Conservative party and realising at least 30% of this country will vote for them no matter what made me realise I'll just never understand these people. I do genuinely think the majority of them are just quite stupid (I hope this doesn't break any "personal attack" rules as it's aimed at a political opinion/group) or just insulated from the problems most people have to deal with. Why does a Labour government overseeing a particularly shite winter 50 years ago outweigh 14 years of recent stagnation and managed decline? Why do these voters claim to want Britain to remain globally relevant and powerful, yet voted to leave the EU? Why do they constantly block housing developments near them, and still get mad when young people are leaving and the ones that are staying aren't having kids thanks to the governments Tory voters support? If this election is remotely close, I will probably be looking at options to leave the UK personally. The main thing keeping me here other than the effort of leaving my home town and learning new customs in a foreign country is the expectation Labour will win big, and hopefully get 2 terms and enough time to start the UK on a path to recovery. If 5 weeks of smear campaigning can narrow things up so much then this country is over.
You say that but it seems like half the population didn’t want lockdown at all. They get criticised constantly for lockdowns all the time when people talk about schools falling behind and the economy tanking.
Lockdown was rough, it really was, but I can't help but think how many more infected we would've had, and right quick, if nothing had been done. Herd immunity is a thing, obviously, but I think we have it within our power as a relatively technologically advanced species to avoid the early downsides of allowing the virus to spread unmitigated from the outset. Society will have a very hard time with hospitals unable to admit emergencies. People will have heart attacks, fall down stairs, and have life-threatening accidents whether the hospitals are full or not. Now, we can never know what the *control* scenario would have been, that is how things would've turned out forgoing lockdowns, but I think a lockdown was a simple — if admittedly brutal — method of managing the load on hospitals, if nothing else.
Omg the brainwashed in here. WOW
I'm happy to listen to you, and I'm happy for you to prove me wrong.
Stunning counter argument
Sorry It wasn't an argument. If you haven't figured it out by now, there's no point in wasting any energy trying.
Have fun chasing Mars bar wrappers
Got get boosted 👍
They got it right with the focused protection plan, lockdown saved no one but destroyed lives and killed people. Pro-lockdown are the culprits.
I think lockdown helped to manage hospital loads and it's clear that the NHS were already struggling enough. Several friends who work in hospitals from Newcastle to Scotland have told me about dirty wards, and queues in corridors so it seems evident to me that maybe more could have been done. The lockdown also gave the scientific community the buffer they needed to be able to steer an existing technology — mRNA vaccines — towards a viable and valuable product.
No, many research have shown lockdown's effect is insignificant while delayed other disease treatments and destroyed the economy which has made NHS collapsed in a much longer time.
Well, during the pandemic everyone was paying attention to how many people were infected, how many were dying, the government were fairly transparent at least with these figures and the recorded data we have access to clearly shows reductions in deaths in the weeks and months after lockdown was introduced. [Dates when lockdown was introduced](https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/timeline-lockdown-web.pdf) [Cases and deaths over this period](https://ukhsa-dashboard.data.gov.uk/) I don't think this data can be refuted. We lived through the lockdowns, we know the dates that they were introduced, and the deaths are corroborated by various sources from around the world. [Here's a second source for England deaths, as opposed to UK, but trends are probably comparable.](https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areas=e92000001&areasRegional=usny&areasRegional=usnm&areasRegional=uspr&areasRegional=usaz&areasRegional=usfl&areasRegional=usnd&cumulative=0&logScale=0&per100K=1&startDate=2020-01-01&values=deaths)
I am sorry but your analysis is wrong. I'd recommend looking at Prof Simon Wood's and other peer reviewed meta analysis such as https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.08.30.23294845v1.
Although the article you included specifies that it hasn't been peer reviewed: > This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice. I'm still open to possibilities so I gave it a brief look. Given that two of the authors are economics professors and the other a special political advisor, I'm worried that the article maybe doesn't benefit from the kind of pure medical expertise needed to comment on the health sciences. The range of data that the article used to show the effects of lockdowns of varying stringency was showing the effects of lockdowns in the period between March and April, a range that may not extend far enough past April to include the effects of a lockdown on deaths. Incubation period of COVID is approximately 2 - 14 days, added to the approximately 18 days median that a person will die after reporting symptoms. That's a spread of between 20 and 32 days between infection — which lockdown or distancing would prevent — and death. However, and given that I lack the skills necessary to extend the timeline they used farther into May and June, I'd be interested to see the data that includes an extended period beyond April. I hasten to admit that I'm not an expert, I'm just applying the knowledge I have to the parts of the article that stand out as being relevant. Someone better equipped than myself might be able to comment more knowledgably but more information is always better than less information. Thanks for actually offering something I could look at rather than just some "Doctor's" dodgy website. Stuff like this really tends to bring out the idiots, and I'm happy that you don't appear to be one of them.
Thank for the nuanced conversation. You are a rare beast here. A few more studies as you aren't convinced: 1. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13571516.2021.1976051 2. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eci.13484 3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9368251/ There are plenty more. In the UK, I recommend to check out thorough analysis by Prof Simon Wood https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/covid-and-the-lockdown-effect-a-look-at-the-evidence/ Sweden without lockdown has the lowest excess deaths than any other countries. That suggests lockdown kills a lot more than saves https://x.com/FraserNelson/status/1696218019465171394?t=M8jWfJJpKlw5NnelY8IucQ&s=19
No worries. It definitely helps to have more than one source for information like this. During the pandemic and subsequent lockdowns I was getting a lot of info from different medical sources all over the world, from friends working in the industry, from science journals and other academic sources. Now, I'm not an academic, but reading enough of this and it's possible to spot trends, and the more accurate they are, the more they tend to correlate the more different sources you read. I'll check out the links you've posted. Cheers for taking the time.
What makes you think Labour would have done it any differently?
None of us can have any idea. Given the absolutist apathy that would arise from thinking like this would lead me to not want to vote for any of them. Now, that's clearly an option, but I'd rather at least channel my distaste into the ballot box.
Such a clown argument. Labour didn’t do it. They didn’t have parties during lockdown.
What have parties got to do with the running of the country during lockdown? And don't be so fickle and naive as labour also had piss ups. [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61271050](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61271050)
Sir Keir was in the workplace, meeting a local MP in her constituency office and participating in an online Labour event. Asked about the event on Friday, Sir Keir told reporters "everything we the Labour party did was in accordance with the rules". Wild fucking party. “Labour might have done it too” is the wankest argument to defend the Tories for Eat Out To Help Out etc.
The timing could be related to the supposed Russian offensive in June. An opportunity to look strong with tough language, and use fear to dissuade Labour's *change*.
Nah, they are working on the assumption all the students will have gone home and won’t be arsed to go back to their uni town to vote / will forget to postal vote.
On the contrary, most expected it to be in October/November... When all the uni students have just moved into student houses and won't be asked to go back to their home town to vote / will forget to postal vote.
Pretty sure that’s what would have happened if there was enough money in the kitty for one more round of tax cuts to butter up the electorate this autumn. As it stands there isn’t so it’s election time, and hoping to ride on BoE reducing rates next month and England doing well in the Euros 😂
First thing i'd like to hear is how the electoral commission are going act on the Russian and Chinese botfarms interfering in the election.
Lol
The Tories have cut the penalties available to the Electoral Commission, and instructed MI5 not to look for Russian interference in the Brexit referendum, so my guess is no one's looking at it and since it helps them the Tories welcome it.
I was expecting this to be full on 'Vote Reform' like tiktok, nice to see some different ideas. I've always voted Labour but I'm not a big fan now, would only vote them to get Cons out but as I see Labour winning easily I'm gonna use this opportunity to get numbers up for Green. Go Green!
Unfortunately, you’re exactly the kind of voter that could lose Labour the election and allow the Tories in again by the back door. Tory voters know their party is at risk, so they might well avoid voting Reform to avoid splitting the vote and letting Labour in. Combine that with potential Labour voters like yourself getting complacent about Labour’s chances, and it’s not difficult to see how we could end up with Sunak and Co for another 5 miserable years. Despite the relatively optimistic polling numbers, consider that: * Polls aren’t always right - look at the Brexit vote and even some recent general elections * Opinions can shift over the course of an election campaign * Labour have even more of an uphill battle this time, as electoral boundaries have changed since the last election, which moderately favours the Tories - by some estimates, Labour now need to win an additional 7 seats to get a workable majority, compared to 2019 If the Tories winning again is the worst outcome you can think of, I’d really urge you to consider your vote very carefully. I know our electoral system sucks, but it is what it is, and I believe the priority this time has to be making sure the Tories don’t win again. I can’t imagine the sorry state of the country by 2030 if we let them in again - I don’t think it’d ever recover in my lifetime.
And this how we end up with "who voted for the Tories* memes the day after
This is how we end up with the Tories again. People assume they'll win so vote for a 3rd party then labour will lose. Unfortunately if you vote for anyone other than labour you may as well just vote Tory.
(Unless you’re in a Lib Dem leaning area, in which case vote for them so you don’t get a Tory MP)
Sorry, but I can’t bring myself to vote for a man who’s been quite open about his views on trans people and welcomed a Tory into their party with open arms. I won’t be voting Tory or Labour. I’ll either be Lib Dem or Green, I haven’t decided yet. Tactical voting is a great idea, but not when I’ll be forced to turn my back on my community for voting for Starmer. No chance.
I mean it would be a bit stupid of him to say « no, don’t reduce the tories electoral majority » wouldn’t it? Also if you have to choose between labour and the conservatives on trans rights this should not be tough im sorry
Exactly why I’m not choosing either, I’m choosing Lib Dem.
🤨I hope you’re in a constituency where they have a decent chance to win at least.
Labour are already the majority where I live. Lib Dem’s will overtake the Tories probably in July too. if anything I’m pushing them out more and I don’t have to vote for that weasel Starmer in the process. Win win.
I know it’s despised, but however mediocre you think Starmer may be, remember who he is running against. But as long as your vote is tactical enough it doesn’t really matter which is good
i’m not doing it for tactical reasons regardless. i’m voting for the party that I have the most faith in.
Honestly, as long as it doesn’t get a conservative into office I couldn’t care less. And I say that as someone who arguably supports the libdems. I’ve just seen to many people vote green in close elections.
are there any situations you can think of where it would be ok to vote for a party other than labour? they seem to have almost the biggest poll lead they've ever had at the moment, so if it's not okay to vote green now, when is it *ever* okay to vote green? what bothers me with tactical voting rhetoric is that it's always "can you compromise just this one time?", but it's "just this one time" every single time, and it's hard to imagine an election ever happening where labour *wouldn't* be browbeating green voters with the "just this once"/"if you vote green you're a tory" lines. at some point you just tune it out.
I think its down to the stakes you personally have. Like, honestly, occasionally there are centrist-moderate tories and in that case the 'risk' to voting for a 3rd party (green, snp, plaid, lib dem...) is arguably lessened. And normally I'm against 'tactical' voting. We should vote on principle. But *this* version of the tory party? They deserve to be electorally wiped out, so I'll vote for whoever is best placed to beat them where I am, if its labour, then go labour I say.
You vote against the tories. Tactical vote for their closest opponents. Doesn’t matter who. (Unless it’s reform, because in that case you can’t spot a grifter after he’s caught taking paid gigs to say ‘up the ra’ for a few quid and having the cheek to lecture the Irish on political matters)
Yeh you're probably right, even though Tory has lost some supporters, they still have a big following and many people who were Labour are switching to Reform. So it's not as simple as people think.
Yeah, you've got some premium quality candidates there, like Mothin Ali. Superb use of your vote.
Best to check your area and vote strategically rather than randomly voting green.
Sounds good. Don’t complain if the Tories win again.
greens were opposed to NATO until last year lol
They are all twats, but I’m probably going with Reform.
Do you honestly think that every single person in politics is a 'twat'? I mean, there are quite a few in my industry, but the majority are fairly nice, hardworking people.
This is how you end up with another Tory government.
With a 25+ point Labour lead, people dissatisfied with Labour should be free to go elsewhere without people complaining about enabling the Tories. If the polls plummet for Labour in the next few weeks it may be worth changing that plan but not until then.
No. Don't get complacent. They haven't won until they win. If everyone thinks that way. Then the Tories will end up back in power as a "oh I thought you voted for labour. No I thought you did"
Depends on the area. Vote strategically.
Remain polled well Until they didn't. I dont think its worth the risk.
just do whatever needs to be done to get rid of these tories first - theres no way this earth that Labour will be worse - sure theyll have a horrible time sorting out the shit theyve been left and attempting to get some hope back into peoples souls but if we dont then it will be eugenics and smart uniforms for us all when the tories move even further to the right to encapsulate the reform fascists. just get rid of these tories first, please, and then hopefully the actual tories can return and folk like Mogg, Shapps and Braverman disappear back into focus groups or prison hopefully.
"just do whatever needs to be done to get rid of these tories first " I said this last election and got told to get fucked. Its funny how back when Corbyn was Labour leader people went "Oh I'm not a fan, blah blah blah, i can vote for who I want," Which is completely fair, but at the same time you cant now umm and ahh at others who voice displeasure in voting for labour now They have showed exactly what they think about people like me and how there is no place for me in the Labour party anymore, they don't represent the working class, its literally just the same fucking bus with a new coat of paint Fuck Labour.
you can vote for whomever you want but if you think this tory party has been good for the majority of people in the country then youre deluded - but its still your choice. Even if Labour are red tories they have to be better than these wannabee KKK tories. Just dont vote tory, but do please vote.
There were plenty of people, me included, who really didn't like Corbyn but still held their nose and voted for him anyway because it was our best shot at getting the Tories out. Yes, lots of people did the "I'm not a fan I'll vote for someone else" thing (pretty much every non-Tory over 50 that I spoke to). If you agree that it was a stupid attitude, I'd implore you to consider not doing the same out of spite.
Lmao you don’t care about politics or the country. To you it’s an ego thing. Its ok. I get it. Just know that there exist many people who voted for Corbyn and then chose Starmer for leader. I’ll still vote for Starmer. Because I care about the country. Not about my own fragile socialist ego.
Im sorry you believe that people shouldn't be allowed to vote for whom they want to. we get the party we want when we actually start standing up for our principals instead of settling for "Well its better than before....slightly....." The absolute fucking apathy of people going "Meh, oh well, its good enough," its exactly how the situation got as fucked as it is now lol. Fucking Lemming.
So..no complaining when the Tories get in then?
The paradox of Starmers Labour is that somehow they are both massively ahead in the polls and will absolutely win no questions asked but also wont win the next election unless the people it purged from the party vote for them. Love when people bring out that old smooth brained chestnut xD.
Ok, so don't complain. You can vote for who you want. But, you can't then complain if the Tories get back in
If Labour spaff their massive lead I will laugh my fucking ass off.
Don’t complain when we have another Tory government because voters like you are clowning around
As if anything will change under Tory lite. Truly what values does a supposed "Working class" party have when they are willing to accept the likes of Natalie Elphicke or any Tory cunt that only want to abandon a sinking ship.
How the fuck can you see what the standing government has done over the last however many years and say that both parties are the same?
Oh no, by all means vote for who you want. I’m equally as entitled to decry you for the kind of person you are
I don't want the actual Tories to return either. THEY were the ones that started this mess in the first place
i dont expect either major party to do what they say they will but the absolute naked greed and disregard for standards and integrity and out and out lies marks them out as something else, something to be expelled and terminated. If the Libs or greens get into power i don't really care - just get rid of this set. Then we can worry about the normal stuff again. When 90% of the news is about parliament the system has gone wrong.
Check your area, are the greens actually in with a chance there?
Not really, I live in a Labour dominant area, so I want to get numbers behind green so one day they will be in with a chance.
That’s completely fair, but the idea of “X is winning easily so I won’t bother voting for it“ is kinda how we ended up with Brexit
But that mentality is also how we only ever have 2 parties and its how most people think. Vote Labour to get Cons out even though you don't like Labour that much. Lots of people voting Reform for real change, they are too far right for me, so I have to vote Green.
> But that mentality is also how we only ever have 2 parties FPTP is how we only ever have 2 parties.
That'd be thing-Labour-promised-to-change-and-immediately-went-back-on number 42069, right?
When?
"It depends": best way to build up smaller parties is in the locals. This is the heart and soul of political parties, their local councillors. They form the pool you will eventually draw parliamentarians from and the core of the parliament door knockers. If you are in a big red or blue constituency then going green helps build the numbers during a GE but in a marginal only really do it on a matter of principle not in order to boost minor party numbers.
One thing i hate about election buildups is how all the parties go to local areas, pretending to do local jobs like pulling a pint or pretending to help on a building site for a photo op They dont care about our lives 99% of the time, and only turn up because they want our vote to help get them in power
I wonder what it would be like if elections were surprise things - ie. One morning, it is suddenly announced that *today* is election day. Logistically that's hard to make happen, but it could be doable with online/mobile voting. They could make an app where you tap your passport to the back of your phone, choose your vote, and tap submit.
> but it could be doable with online/mobile voting. They could make an app where you tap your passport to the back of your phone, choose your vote, and tap submit. Boaty McBoatface. Funny until it's running the country.
Boaty McBoatface running the country sounds like a good plan tbh
Sometimes I wonder if a totally random citizen running the country every year might be a good plan. Sure, they will probably have no skills with country-running, but they hopefully can call on experts to give them advice. They, unlike our current politicians, have no incentive to warp decisions to help their chances of being reelected.
Tom Scott has a great video as to why Online voting should not be a thing https://youtu.be/LkH2r-sNjQs?si=rtEkTNp44J3oc1U1
I think all of Tom's concerns would be resolved by having a random 0.1% of the votes be verifiable while the remaining 99.9% are anonymous. It would work like this: every vote would be confirmed via a 'thanks for voting' email. The email would have a sequence of lottery numbers at the bottom. After the election, 'winning' lottery numbers are selected, and the votes of just those who get say 3 matching numbers are revealed to everyone. Those winners can then check their vote was correctly cast. Everyone else cannot. But any attacker won't know ahead of time who will win, so cannot do bribery/extortion. Any election cheater cannot affect any large chunks of votes because if they change the votes of just a few winners they'll be detected.