Pinkun General Election thread (ID required)

[Yellow Fever 4,310]

2 hours ago, Nik Vawn said:

Maybe it will involve shark infested custard!

 

3 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Threesome with Badenoch and Braverman on a one-way plane ticket to Rwanda?

We didn't really have to wait too long for the Tory's next penance - in fact it came out just before midnight.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/20/former-tory-minister-vows-to-vote-labour-over-tories-climate-failures

Former Tory minister vows to vote Labour over party’s climate failures

Exclusive: Chris Skidmore, ex-energy minister, says Rishi Sunak’s bid to turn net zero into culture war issue is ‘greatest tragedy of his premiership’

I was a Tory minister – but I think we need a Labour government | Chris Skidmore

Edited June 21 by Yellow Fever

[Fen Canary 1,334]

34 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I think we can all agree that. 'Tactical' voting is clearly a symptom of a failing electoral system to represent the breadth of people views (whether sensible or otherwise).

It's an observation that many have claimed that the UK is naturally a small c or centre-right country - I guess informed by the usual prevalence of Tory governments with the occasional Labour one in our FPTP system. I think I would actually disagree - I think it's actually centre-left / progressive (add together the so called right and left and without the 'splits' there is typically a progressive majority). Even today. 60/40. The 'split' in the right is what's new.

I’d argue though that a lot of Labour voters are rather conservative socially, especially those outside of the cities. Greens and Lib Dem supporters are definitely socially left wing, while Reform would be right wing. For a long time Labour and the Tories have both encompassed such a wide range of views within the parties I don’t think you can lump all their voters one way or the other. I think this also applies to the SNP, whereby the party is much more socially left wing than a majority of their voters.

[Creative Midfielder 2,169]

1 minute ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

We didn't really have to wait too long for the Tory's next penance - in fact it came out just before midnight.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/20/former-tory-minister-vows-to-vote-labour-over-tories-climate-failures

Former Tory minister vows to vote Labour over party’s climate failures

Exclusive: Chris Skidmore, ex-energy minister, says Rishi Sunak’s bid to turn net zero into culture war issue is ‘greatest tragedy of his premiership’

I was a Tory minister – but I think we need a Labour government | Chris Skidmore

Yes, I saw that and am not too surprised since he did resign in response to Rishi Sunak's utterly stupid, in fact malign, actions.

Great shame really, Skidmore, did a pretty decent job as Energy Minister, outstanding in fact relative to the general level of incompetence and corruption displayed by his colleagues in government and probably the only one trying to do the right thing for his country as opposed to the best thing for himself or his party, which appears to be only motivation for what remains of the Tory party.

[Herman 10,898]

20 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Threesome with Badenoch and Braverman on a one-way plane ticket to Rwanda?

That's an image I didn't need. 😬😂

[Naturalcynic 817]

53 minutes ago, Wings of a Sparrow said:

Difficult here in Yarmouth (well not difficult really)

1. Make sure the Tories get kicked out.

2. Make sure Reform don't win (highly possible and likely)

3. That means voting for Labour.

If I was voting for my preferred party it would be Greens or Lib Dems, but some of their motives are suspect.

Given that a landslide for Labour is nigh on inevitable, your first point is largely irrelevant as a few remaining Tories here and there make little difference.  Similarly one or two Reform MPs would be pretty meaningless in the HoC.  So vote for the candidate and party that best represents your own views.

[TheGunnShow 7,072]

51 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I was referring to NZs system, whereby the makeup of parliament reflects the % of votes received, so you wouldn’t be depriving a party of an extra MP by tactical voting because you were never voting for them anyway, all you end up doing is costing your preferred party a vote by voting for somebody else.

(In NZ the local MPs are still elected via FPTP, but parties are given extra MPs if their vote share is greater than the number of seats they have won)

It's quite a tidy model - by all means pick your local MP if (s)he is decent at their job, regardless of party, but if your views are close to another party they can be picked at a national level.

[A Load of Squit 6,030]

As always, Starmer is the only one who can be trusted to tell it like it is.

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,684]

I do wish they'd stop asking SKS if he thinks/thought that Jeremy Corbyn would have made a great PM.

Irrelevant, and now, tedious.

[Barbe bleu 989]

2 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Yes - always worth noting the client - GBNews on that earlier outlier.

In truth not much has changed apart from Reform eating away at the Tories -

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_Kingdom_general_election

- 

 

 

According to your own chart Labour and conservatives are both losing ground, and doing so at a very similar rate. 

Its not inconceivable that Labour get a historic landslide on 36% of the vote and reform get nothing from 24%.  

And look at the noise in your charts.  The closer we get the more the variance increases, that shouldn't happen- we should see polls settling as minds are made up.

This is shaping up to be the strangest election ever .

 

 

Edited June 21 by Barbe bleu

[Herman 10,898]

42 minutes ago, Wings of a Sparrow said:

I do wish they'd stop asking SKS if he thinks/thought that Jeremy Corbyn would have made a great PM.

Irrelevant, and now, tedious.

Yes, they should ask the same of Sunak and how he felt being the disgraced former PM's chancellor. 

[Yellow Fever 4,310]

21 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

According to your own chart Labour and conservatives are both losing ground, and doing so at a very similar rate. 

Its not inconceivable that Labour get a historic landslide on 36% of the vote and reform get nothing from 24%.  

And look at the noise in your charts.  The closer we get the more the variance increases, that shouldn't happen- we should see polls settling as minds are made up.

This is shaping up to be the strangest election ever .

 

 

A small narrowing is expected - the LD are also increasing slightly - you can read Curtices view here.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv22y07ggy6o

The 'variance' is largely the way the pollsters weight their responses in the small polls which is why the PoP (trend line) is more informative. I tend to compare polls only from the same company to remove weighting vagaries!  At the end of the day it's the trends on these that matter. Labour is still c. 40% (last three polls today have them still in 42% etc - much where they been all along with 23% lead). Bear in ind the mind the statistical of error is also 3% or so on small polls of 1100. 

9–20 Jun	Techne	N/A	GB	1,642	19%	42%	12%	2%	5%	17%	3%	23
19–20 Jun	Redfield & Wilton	N/A	GB	2,500	18%	42%	11%	3%	5%	19%	show 1%	23
18–19 Jun	BMG	The i	GB	1,627	19%	42%	9%	3%	7%	19%	1%	23

The much larger MRP polls try to be cleverer but again there are some unknowns - notably that 'UKIP' didn't stand in many a Tory seat before and all agree that 100 recently presumed 'safe' Tory seats are all in play 50 - 150 seats predicted - probably at the lower end after the  betting scandal. They still have their weighting methodology differences too!

Truth is this is a very unusual election - a 'punishment' election it been called. I suspect the Tories might get 100 or so seats

 

[horsefly 5,141]

2 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

I was referring to NZs system, whereby the makeup of parliament reflects the % of votes received, so you wouldn’t be depriving a party of an extra MP by tactical voting because you were never voting for them anyway, all you end up doing is costing your preferred party a vote by voting for somebody else.

(In NZ the local MPs are still elected via FPTP, but parties are given extra MPs if their vote share is greater than the number of seats they have won)

Under the NZ system you get two votes; one for your local MP, and one for the political party you wish to become the government. So it is entirely plausible to vote tactically to ensure you keep out a local candidate you wish to lose, while using your other vote positively to get the governing party you want.

[Barbe bleu 989]

1 hour ago, Wings of a Sparrow said:

I do wish they'd stop asking SKS if he thinks/thought that Jeremy Corbyn would have made a great PM.

Irrelevant, and now, tedious.

They ask him because he won't answer. 

He was much better off saying a few weeks ago when first asked that he didn't think corbyn would be great but that he would still have been much better than the other guy. However, instead of being straight he tried to deflect and that's got him in trouble.

[Yellow Fever 4,310]

5 hours ago, horsefly said:

Post Boris Johnson we couldn't be more aware just how important character is when assessing the merits of our political leaders. So what do the following two examples say about Nigel Farage and his fitness to sit in the House of Commons?

1. 3 weeks ago he declined to stand for election in the UK because he said it was far more important to spend his time helping his good friend Donald Trump get elected as president of the USA. That's Donald Trump, the man found liable for rape, a self-confessed serial sex offender, and convicted criminal.

2. He describes Andrew Tate, the depraved misogynist currently imprisoned in Romania on charges of rape and human trafficking, as a positive voice for UK schoolboys.

Anyone voting for Farage needs to consider seriously what that says about their own moral character. 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/20/nigel-farage-andrew-tate-important-voice-men-podcast-interview

Thanks HF.

I think this describes Farage and his 'type' quite well. Somebody with bit of chip on his shoulder sounding off at why he thinks he's been let down or passed over. Private school but no University (why?) - Stock broker Dad and but did non too well as a 'City' trader before he found his true vocation - selling his 'ideas'.

What interested me was the misogyny noted above - made me question if Reform reflected that - and hey presto only 20% of their candidates are female - that doesn't sound very 'modern' to me as an insurgent party but more of a throwback to the past (Labour had 50% or so female MPs elected in 2019). The average is 30% candidates today or so today - less this year than before because of Reform!

In short I suspect Reform appeals far more to the simple male 'type' as in Trump and Tate above than the average female. Being a little naughty and sexist I'd say most have more sense! Ouch.

[sonyc 6,046]

4 hours ago, Nik Vawn said:

Hopefully this time your vote will be for something you believe and not a protest or tactical vote.

Like WOAS I am also probably a Green voter at heart (and possibly a Lib Dem) in my overall politics. I've voted Labour before though and will be doing so again and for the first time in my life I'm hopeful of being part of a vote that brings in a PM I voted for. I used to be far more principled (I suppose that's the right word) - I felt Blair was a kind of Tory so never voted Labour (though wanted him to succeed once in power ). I voted for Kinnock believing in him. And so on. It is about mediating one's views and vote. I've.never voted Conservative in my life and can not see a situation where I ever will (must be the influence like you on my Welsh side). 

Locally we have 3 Green councillors - good they are too. Given the global picture you'd think that their time is now but we are caught up in a two party system. I fear too world war is all but inevitable in the next decade - if one can predict such a thing. Much of the global geopolitics feels weird, worrying (thinking of the BRICS countries and reading in general). The other massive issue will be social and public services (which are going to get stretched...if not purely because of demographics). If that's not enough, we have the huge threat of AI (a significant article today outlines how 50% of jobs could go in all sectors in the next 3 years). So, all in all, I think we are in big trouble ahead. 

Discussing politics may well become a luxury! Worrying times I think. Maybe I'm overreacting NV?  But one thing my world view does explain (I hope) is that we can be kind in life and on here. Precisely because life IS actually precious, right now, right here and things could get a whole lot worse for all of us. I see no real solutions in the zeitgeist unless something extraordinary happens. Do humans have the capacity to prevent stuff? It feels highly unlikely.

I realise now I've responded to bigger issues beyond this thread*. Yet, it's the seagull view of things that makes me nervous, concerned.

Edited June 21 by sonyc
*too much time sat on a train from Leeds post snooker!

[Naturalcynic 817]

16 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Thanks HF.

I think this describes Farage and his 'type' quite well. Somebody with bit of chip on his shoulder sounding off at why he thinks he's been let down or passed over. Private school but no University (why?) - Stock broker Dad and but did non too well as a 'City' trader before he found his true vocation - selling his 'ideas'.

What interested me was the misogyny noted above - made me question if Reform reflected that - and hey presto only 20% of their candidates are female - that doesn't sound very 'modern' to me as an insurgent party but more of a throwback to the past (Labour had 50% or so female MPs elected in 2019). The average is 30% candidates today or so today - less this year than before because of Reform!

In short I suspect Reform appeals far more to the simple male 'type' as in Trump and Tate above than the average female. Being a little naughty and sexist I'd say most have more sense! Ouch.

Why are you obsessing over Reform, a party unlikely to get more than two or three MPs at best and quite possibly none?

Edited June 21 by Naturalcynic

[Yellow Fever 4,310]

4 minutes ago, sonyc said:

I realise now I've responded to bigger issues beyond this thread. Yet, it's the seagull view of things that makes me nervous, concerned.

My long term concern beyond the present nutters at home and abroad is indeed rapid climate change forcing mass migration of people from unlivable countries. Tens of millions of people on the move totally dwarfing what we see now. Given the record temperatures in India and the Southern med perhaps we are already seeing this. 

[Naturalcynic 817]

32 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Under the NZ system you get two votes; one for your local MP, and one for the political party you wish to become the government. So it is entirely plausible to vote tactically to ensure you keep out a local candidate you wish to lose, while using your other vote positively to get the governing party you want.

So you get a government you approve of but someone actually representing you that you don’t.  

[sonyc 6,046]

4 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

My long term concern beyond the present nutters at home and abroad is indeed rapid climate change forcing mass migration of people from unlivable countries. Tens of millions of people on the move totally dwarfing what we see now. Given the record temperatures in India and the Southern med perhaps we are already seeing this. 

Yes, I could have added climate change specifically in my note about the Greens. The temperature changes we are witnessing (fires now a common news story...thinking we will hear of Portugal and Spain again soon... in nearby countries) are shocking. 

Those population movements could be a real phenomena within a decade - wars too of course displace.

Good points made YF 

[Naturalcynic 817]

16 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

My long term concern beyond the present nutters at home and abroad is indeed rapid climate change forcing mass migration of people from unlivable countries. Tens of millions of people on the move totally dwarfing what we see now. Given the record temperatures in India and the Southern med perhaps we are already seeing this. 

Given what we do here about reducing the use of fossil fuels makes barely any difference to the global carbon output and that continued climate change is almost inevitable, what’s your solution to the threat of huge-scale migration that you fear?  It’s difficult to see any viable way of addressing it that isn’t either hugely authoritarian or unpalatably callous, if not both.

Edited June 21 by Naturalcynic

[Nik Vawn 342]

1 hour ago, sonyc said:

 

Discussing politics may well become a luxury! Worrying times I think. Maybe I'm overreacting NV?  But one thing my world view does explain (I hope) is that we can be kind in life and on here. 

This was posted up on the notice board at West Runton today…..Roy T Bennett

”treat everyone with politeness and kindness, not because they are nice but because you are”

 

[dylanisabaddog 5,762]

7 hours ago, Nik Vawn said:

Have voted for all three main parties over the years, plus the greens. You need to listen to what they say and watch what they do before making your mind up. It used to be said where I lived that you could put a pit pony up for Labour in some of the Welsh valley constituencies and people would vote it in. Have you ever voted for any party other than Labour?

I voted twice for the Lib Dems in 2010.

Once for the first time and once for the last time. 

[dylanisabaddog 5,762]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

My long term concern beyond the present nutters at home and abroad is indeed rapid climate change forcing mass migration of people from unlivable countries. Tens of millions of people on the move totally dwarfing what we see now. Given the record temperatures in India and the Southern med perhaps we are already seeing this. 

10 years ago I did a count of House Martins that had migrated to my estate from Africa and there were around 200. This year there are around 20. 

House Martins and people have lived side by side for 15,000 years but now they're disappearing. There can only be one reason for that. 

[Barbe bleu 989]

5 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

10 years ago I did a count of House Martins that had migrated to my estate from Africa and there were around 200. This year there are around 20. 

House Martins and people have lived side by side for 15,000 years but now they're disappearing. There can only be one reason for that. 

Not sure it's just one reason.  Swifts nest in the eaves of houses but modern building standards make that harder for them. One solution is swift boxes on the walls to make up for it.  Possibly the same for House Martins?   Either way, no harm in putting up a bird box is there?

[Yellow Fever 4,310]

42 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

10 years ago I did a count of House Martins that had migrated to my estate from Africa and there were around 200. This year there are around 20. 

House Martins and people have lived side by side for 15,000 years but now they're disappearing. There can only be one reason for that. 

I would call that anecdotal (much as BB - could be a lot of other reasons too) but I get your point.

More largely, as a species, we haven't been faced with such an epoch defining global threat before which will drive significant migrations (we can argue about historical interludes driving the Vikings etc or even further back) which will require either global and regional cooperation to manage (or sadly a truly catastrophic global conflict to resolve). Either way it will require grown up attitudes and a global perspective of one people, one earth. Pretending it won't bother us so somehow we can ignore it won't work -  rather ostrich like.

I think of it as a kind of test if as a species we are actually civilized or still, as seems likely, barely down from the trees.

[yellow hammer 105]

 

[horsefly 5,141]

5 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

So you get a government you approve of but someone actually representing you that you don’t.  

what's your point? That happens under all systems. 

[Fen Canary 1,334]

7 hours ago, horsefly said:

Under the NZ system you get two votes; one for your local MP, and one for the political party you wish to become the government. So it is entirely plausible to vote tactically to ensure you keep out a local candidate you wish to lose, while using your other vote positively to get the governing party you want.

I know, I lived there. My point is that even if you caused the local MP to lose their seat, in the scheme of things it’s largely irrelevant as the parties get gifted seats at the end to make up the numbers. It’s only really relevant if you have a deep dislike of an individual MP, and even then they’d likely end up in parliament anyway once the extra seats get dished out 

[PurpleCanary 6,185]

6 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Not sure it's just one reason.  Swifts nest in the eaves of houses but modern building standards make that harder for them. One solution is swift boxes on the walls to make up for it.  Possibly the same for House Martins?   Either way, no harm in putting up a bird box is there?

Never seen Hitchcock’s The Birds then?😍

[dylanisabaddog 5,762]

13 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Not sure it's just one reason.  Swifts nest in the eaves of houses but modern building standards make that harder for them. One solution is swift boxes on the walls to make up for it.  Possibly the same for House Martins?   Either way, no harm in putting up a bird box is there?

I'm afraid House Martins don't use bird boxes. On the plus side, my Robin box has been occupied again this year. 

What you say about Swifts is spot on as they like to get inside buildings. House Martins like to construct nests clinging to the north facing walls/eves of a house. The estate I live on is 20 years old so it seems a bit strange that they decided to settle here in the first place.

What is clear is that the numbers here and elsewhere in the UK have dropped dramatically. It's possible that they've moved (to Scandinavia perhaps?) but research is limited, we simply don't know. We don't even know for sure where they live in Africa.