UK General Election 2024

[Kaliwax]

Anyone not convinced of the need for a change of government should consider whether you want to live in a country where 2 million people have had to use a food bank (DWP figure) and the Trussell Trust estimates 655,000 are reliant on them. Surely we can do better than that.

Ive had to use a food bank a few times, I feel completely embarrassed about it

 

[Bald Rick]

Don't you think Reform Supporters could do a January 6th moment and march down and invade Houses of Parliament?

Given that I have yet to meet a Reform supporter who has any common sense, I’d expect them to march down to Westminster, invade, and find themselves in the Nave of the Abbey.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Fancy the Lib Dems as official opposition? Survation's MRP thinks we are very close to the prospect:

x.com

x.com

Happy to see LDs as opposition but any opposition need 100+ seats to be credible this poll is pretty close to a dictatorship but will be based on sub 40% of the vote thats not healthy either. Also going to make seating in HoC pretty tricky!

 

[takno]

Happy to see LDs as opposition but any opposition need 100+ seats to be credible this poll is pretty close to a dictatorship but will be based on sub 40% of the vote thats not healthy either. Also going to make seating in HoC pretty tricky!

Perhaps it's finally a big enough majority for them to agree to move to a more suitable building and chamber, and save a few billion trying to keep the Palace of Westminster upright.

 

[DarloRich]

I guess I will go for the Green Party. I thought voting would be simple, it certainly isn't, my first time voting!

Pick whoever is best for you. Voting for Green is fine but could easily let a Tory in. Check you constituency on line and see which party is best place to win/unseat an awful Tory

Don't you think Reform Supporters could do a January 6th moment and march down and invade Houses of Parliament?

No!

Firstly what will they arm themselves with? cricket bats? hockey sticks? Secondly no one will be there on Friday and thirdly Weatherspoon's will be open!

pretty close to a dictatorship

is it a "dictatorship" when the Tories win a massive majority?

 

[Gloster]

Given that I have yet to meet a Reform supporter who has any common sense, I’d expect them to march down to Westminster, invade, and find themselves in the Nave of the Abbey.

Or they would end up in Warminster.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

is it a "dictatorship" when the Tories win a massive majority?

Torys biggest majority was 144 this would be close to 250 if its correct - theres no comparison outside of national govt in WW2

 

[Darandio]

Torys biggest majority was 144 this would be close to 250 if its correct - theres no comparison outside of national govt in WW2

Still isn't a dictatorship though.

 

[DarloRich]

Torys biggest majority was 144 this would be close to 250 if its correct - theres no comparison outside of national govt in WW2

however, in reality the difference between the 2 examples is nothing and still not a dictatorship.

A party with a 200 majority has exactly the same freedom to act as party with a 100 majority. They have , in theory, the same freedom to act as a party with a majority of 1. In reality you need a majority of 30+ to be comfortable.

EDIT this argument is straight out of the Conservative Central Office play book. It is nonsense.

 

[JamesT]

Anyone not convinced of the need for a change of government should consider whether you want to live in a country where 2 million people have had to use a food bank (DWP figure) and the Trussell Trust estimates 655,000 are reliant on them. Surely we can do better than that.

Have any parties stated any policies that would eliminate food bank usage? It’s not as if it’s solely a UK problem, that well-known bastion of the small state, France, apparently have 3 million people reliant on them.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

A party with a 200 majority has exactly the same freedom to act as party with a 100 majority. They have , in theory, the same freedom to act as a party with a majority of 1. In reality you need a majority of 30+ to be comfortable.

As long as they see that such a decisive vote for them, if realised, means there is wholesale support to go and deliver that change which Blair didn't do.

 

[ainsworth74]

Have any parties stated any policies that would eliminate food bank usage? It’s not as if it’s solely a UK problem, that well-known bastion of the small state, France, apparently have 3 million people reliant on them.

For me it's less the usage and more the growth in usage. We've seen a significant increase in the usage of food banks since 2010 and even before the current cost of living crisis the usage was substantially above 2010. It's just gone even higher in the last couple of years.

You'll never eliminate food banks, but we should surely be at least trying to minimise their usage.

It's why I find it frankly bizarre when MPs, often Tory, hail the opening of a new food bank or praising their work. As a Government MP if your constituents are using food banks in increasing numbers, and new food banks are being opened in your patch that's not something to celebrate, it's a sign of failure of your Government.

 

[Jimini]

It's why I find it frankly bizarre when MPs, often Tory, hail the opening of a new food bank or praising their work. As a Government MP if your constituents are using food banks in increasing numbers, and new food banks are being opened in your patch that's not something to celebrate, it's a sign of failure of your Government.

Well said.

 

[jfollows]

however, in reality the difference between the 2 examples is nothing and still not a dictatorship.

A party with a 200 majority has exactly the same freedom to act as party with a 100 majority. They have , in theory, the same freedom to act as a party with a majority of 1. In reality you need a majority of 30+ to be comfortable.

EDIT this argument is straight out of the Conservative Central Office play book. It is nonsense.

Absolutely so, it's nonsense.

The Conservatives themselves have tried to do things with their large majority, which is to all intents and purposes no different than a 200 majority for Labour, and run into checks and balances along the way.

Boris Johnson forcing the House of Commons to vote against Owen Paterson's suspension was a huge breach of convention and the entire method of self-policing, and had to be rapidly undone. The Supreme Court has stopped the Conservatives in their tracks and reversed Boris Johnson's illegal prorogation of Parliament. The House of Lords has put its spanners in the works.

Labour will run into its own checks and balances along the way, I hope not for similar reasons, but for different ones, whether it has an 80 majority or a 200 majority.

 

[Gloster]

It's why I find it frankly bizarre when MPs, often Tory, hail the opening of a new food bank or praising their work. As a Government MP if your constituents are using food banks in increasing numbers, and new food banks are being opened in your patch that's not something to celebrate, it's a sign of failure of your Government.

For some of them it shows how we are still the same old England where everybody gathered round to help when we stood together against foreigners, the WI ran White Elephant stalls to raise money for tea cosies for pensioners (who would be duly grateful), and village constables and AA men saluted and touched their forelock as thanks for the coin they had been given. And of course sending people to foodbanks instead of giving them adequate benefits saves the taxpayer money.

 

[takno]

Have any parties stated any policies that would eliminate food bank usage? It’s not as if it’s solely a UK problem, that well-known bastion of the small state, France, apparently have 3 million people reliant on them.

I don't know if you've noticed, but Macron has been rather attempting to turn France into a small-state capitalist paradise. There's been a bit of a to-do about it, and he seems to have lost a bit of support over it.

 

[DarloRich]

Absolutely so, it's nonsense.

same as the nonsense about packing the house of lords - as If Johnson , Truss et al haven't been doing that for the last decade!

 

[Class 466]

There is literally no difference between a majority of say 20 and one of 150 - a majority is a majority. All this talk of Dictatorships and Supermajorities is just a bit ridiculous.

 

[JamesT]

I don't know if you've noticed, but Macron has been rather attempting to turn France into a small-state capitalist paradise. There's been a bit of a to-do about it, and he seems to have lost a bit of support over it.

“Trying”. He’s managed to take French government spending when he took office in 2017 from 57.5% of GDP to 57.3% last year.

 

[Purple Train]

Torys biggest majority was 144 this would be close to 250 if its correct - theres no comparison outside of national govt in WW2

Pedantic, but the Conservatives alone (within the National Government) won a majority of over 300 in 1931.

 

[Sorcerer]

Some might argue that Labour having such a large majority would give them a blank cheque to do what they want, but conversely it could just as well mean that there is more opportunity for dissenting opinion in the party itself just by the nature of having so many MPs. Regardless though, it's pretty clear to most people that the Conservative concerns of a large majority doesn't come from a principled respect for a democracy at risk, it's just because it's not their team that's reaping the benefits this time around.

Not a single Tory complained about Boris having an 80-seat majority, nor did they raise concerns about them changing the means of the local and police and crime commissioner elections to first past the post, a system that has heavily benefited the Conservative Party by handing them disproportionate amounts of power more so than it has done for Labour. The Conservatives have basically given up on trying to win the election and are now just trying to convince the voters not to hand Labour a big majority, but it looks like that's not worked.

The Conservatives’ “project fear” tactic deployed to scare voters with the threat of a Labour “supermajority” has spectacularly backfired, new polling has revealed.

According to findings from Techne UK for The Independent, twice as many people are “more likely” to vote Labour (26 per cent) than more likely to vote Conservative (13 per cent) as a result of the warning used by Rishi Sunak and senior Conservatives about handing Sir Keir Starmer too much power.

The tactic was also used to try to prevent Tory voters defecting to Reform, but almost one in 10 (9 per cent) said the warning had in fact made them “more likely” to vote for Nigel Farage’s party.

 

[Ediswan]

There is literally no difference between a majority of say 20 and one of 150 - a majority is a majority.

There is a difference in the case of a rebellion amongst MPs of the governing party. The larger the majority, the more rebels are needed to defeat the government.

All this talk of Dictatorships and Supermajorities is just a bit ridiculous.

Agreed.

 

[Vexed]

I'm currently very conflicted. This will be the first time I can vote and I definitely will.

I am in St Albans which is almost certainly going to be a Lib Dem hold. We've had plenty of campaign material delivered with the most from Lib Dems, and I only have positive things to say about the current MP (unlike the last pre-2019 one, Anne Main, who messed up a visit to my school before my time there and opposed same-sex marriage).

I broadly support the Lib Dems manifesto but it does not go far enough on climate change which is my most important issue. So I'm inclined to look elsewhere. I do not support some of the Green's manifesto as it is too left leaning in places, their general rhetoric being pro-NIMNY in rural seats, and then their frankly non-sensical nuclear policy. Increasing their vote share does/should send a message to other parties that they do not go far enough. I would actually be more likely to vote green it if they were a "proper" single issue party instead of having wide-ranging policies.

To expand on my point about not supporting Green nuclear policy, for energy I would more understanding if their primary reason for being anti-nuclear energy was cost, but it seems to be creating dangerous waste and weapons-grade nuclear material creation. Both of these can be mitigated. Nuclear is important as clean baseload energy and I expect will be for 30+ years until (if ever) we get very large scale energy storage sorted. I'm talking about being able to store enough energy for days on end so with a 100% renewable grid (without nuclear) can handle long cloudy and calm periods. Tidal/wave energy could be an alternative baseload but there hasn't been much success.

For their nuclear weapons policy, I would prefer a world without the but it's important to be pragmatic. Considering the global proliferation of nukes I think the UK strikes a good balance of having a small number of weapons ready to launch in a defensive capacity, but not enough to obliterate the whole world in an offensive which Russia & the US could.

The Conservatives have basically given up on trying to win the election and are now just trying to convince the voters not to hand Labour a big majority, but it looks like that's not worked.

Yes. They have repeatedly failed to think about optics. It seems like a massive faliure in Tory HQ to understand the general mood. They either have useless focus groups or choosing to ignore their feedback.

 

[WesternLancer]

I'd guess there's a lot more apathy, well over a million postal votes weren't returned in 2019. A person registering well ahead of an election may prefer to vote by post but on receipt of the ballot paper find none of the options appealing or decide not to bother voting.

There will be others who don't pass post boxes or struggle to get to them, be away when the pack is delivered who would have intended to vote and didn't manage to.

That just makes no sense to me.

Tho I accept it will be true in some cases. But I doubt in a majority of the unused pv’s

 

[PGAT]

I broadly support the Lib Dems manifesto but it does not go far enough on climate change which is my most important issue. So I'm inclined to look elsewhere.

I don’t think you will find much better climate-wise. Labour and Conservatives have taken a meh approach and Reform basically put a middle finger up to the climate

 

[Mikw]

Have any parties stated any policies that would eliminate food bank usage? It’s not as if it’s solely a UK problem, that well-known bastion of the small state, France, apparently have 3 million people reliant on them.

It's the "Big Society" in action, isn't it? Where volunteers and charity take over from the state. More needed than ever now, which is tragic. Even more so with the proposed £40 billion welfare cuts, and the speeding up of Universal Credit "mass migration". Those sick and disabled people on ESA are now about to be migrated despite originally being told it wouldn't be for a few years yet. I can only see food bank usage mushrooming even more. Some foodbanks have become "welfare centres" where volunteer advisers are on hand to help people in their fight against the cuts.
This shouldn't be necessary, but sadly i can only see it getting worse in terms of the need for them

 

[Vexed]

I don’t think you will find much better climate-wise. Labour and Conservatives have taken a meh approach and Reform basically put a middle finger up to the climate

Yes, unfortunately. Lib Dems are the best of the main parties.

It's a difficult decision between them and Green - I change my mind about which is slightly more acceptable almost every time I think about it...

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I don’t think you will find much better climate-wise. Labour and Conservatives have taken a meh approach and Reform basically put a middle finger up to the climate

Given Ed Miliband has been rather conspicuous by his absence on the campaign trail over the last few weeks tells me Labour have relegated the climate change agenda and other issues to the 2nd division but the LDs have pushed it far more effectively.

 

[AM9]

I'm currently very conflicted. This will be the first time I can vote and I definitely will.

I am in St Albans which is almost certainly going to be a Lib Dem hold. We've had plenty of campaign material delivered with the most from Lib Dems, and I only have positive things to say about the current MP (unlike the last pre-2019 one, Anne Main, who messed up a visit to my school before my time there and opposed same-sex marriage).

I broadly support the Lib Dems manifesto but it does not go far enough on climate change which is my most important issue. So I'm inclined to look elsewhere. I do not support some of the Green's manifesto as it is too left leaning in places, their general rhetoric being pro-NIMNY in rural seats, and then their frankly non-sensical nuclear policy. Increasing their vote share does/should send a message to other parties that they do not go far enough. I would actually be more likely to vote green it if they were a "proper" single issue party instead of having wide-ranging policies.

To expand on my point about not supporting Green nuclear policy, for energy I would more understanding if their primary reason for being anti-nuclear energy was cost, but it seems to be creating dangerous waste and weapons-grade nuclear material creation. Both of these can be mitigated. Nuclear is important as clean baseload energy and I expect will be for 30+ years until (if ever) we get very large scale energy storage sorted. I'm talking about being able to store enough energy for days on end so with a 100% renewable grid (without nuclear) can handle long cloudy and calm periods. Tidal/wave energy could be an alternative baseload but there hasn't been much success.

For their nuclear weapons policy, I would prefer a world without the but it's important to be pragmatic. Considering the global proliferation of nukes I think the UK strikes a good balance of having a small number of weapons ready to launch in a defensive capacity, but not enough to obliterate the whole world in an offensive which Russia & the US could.


Yes. They have repeatedly failed to think about optics. It seems like a massive faliure in Tory HQ to understand the general mood. They either have useless focus groups or choosing to ignore their feedback.

As a fellow resident in the St Albans constituency, I believe that there is no other sensible candidate to vote for. Daisy Cooper lives in St Albans and has been quite a good local representative since 2019, despite performing well as the deputy leader of the Lib Dems party. You are right that her predecessor had a poor record as an MP, with some much criticised creative expenses claims for living costs. She was also a committed Brexiteer that certainly contributed to her defeat in 2019.
A vote for anybody else in St Albans this time would change nothing.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

tactical voting will deliver that. You know what to do!

Of course you do realise that anyone who wants the LibDems to be the official opposition should vote LibDem in Sheffield Hallam (where the race is between Labour and the LibDems)