Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Guest MattP

FT General Election Poll 2019

FT General Election 2019  

501 members have voted

  1. 1. Which party will be getting your vote?

    • Conservative
      155
    • Labour
      188
    • Liberal Democrats
      93
    • Brexit Party
      17
    • Green Party
      26
    • Other
      22


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, The Guvnor said:

It is pointless and the fact that Labour are even considering this as a credible leave alternative to remain is a joke.

 

I too don't know a single vote leaver who would remotely entertain voting in another ref for a CU SM Brexit as they all agree it aint Brexit it's BRINO.

 

Agreed it would be a complete farce and total stitch up to leave voters.

I don't think Labour have thought it through either - imagine how ridiculous a government would look putting together a deal that would probably have to agree isn't worth voting for and then be so overwhelmingly rejected by the public after that.

 

I mean who in the party would campaign for it? You would be pretty much ending your career.

 

They know they can't get an overall majority so they can do this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, HappyHamza said:

This is drivel of the highest order.

 

Corporation tax was 28% when Britain was last booming  - under Labour. Its now 19%. France is 34% and Germany is 30%, for comparison. 

 

What brings business to advanced economies is the infrastructure and educational background of the locals.  If business wants those things then it's common sense that they have a value.  So business is prepared to pay more for better infrastructure.

 

If you can't run your business at 26% corporation tax - still lower than it was in 2010 and less than European rivals - then the problem is your business abilities.

That above is in fact the Drivel of the highest possible order.

 

Booming.....haha 2008 when Labour were in charge of the meltdown of public finances and the under regulation of banking playing a part in the crash, the bail out, unsustainable public spending, spiralling welfare, uncontrolled migration, failing businesses, rising unemployment, OOOOOKKKK THEN let's have some more of those great times. 

 

Forgive me if I, and many other business leaders wont take lectures from socialists like yourself on this one.

 

We already have an advanced economy with services, infrastructure and educated people, trying to operate with in our fiscal means. Lets not pretend we dont already spend billions on healthcare, welfare, education and infrastructure. Labour policies will reduce aspiration as those at the top will pay most of their salary in tax, those at the bottom will win, those in the middle (most) will be screwed as their wages wont rise, prices will a lot, taxes will a lot, if they are lucky enough to keep their jobs. Its loose loose loose under Labour for the many.

 

I dont care what France and Germany are doing, their economies are vastly different Manufacturing economies currently performing worse than ours and will continue to fall behind our with regressive taxation like that. High taxation a service based economy is a stupid idea as it removes spending power and drives inflation.

 

Labours policies will bankrupt the nation again. I really hope people dont fall for their nonsense incoherent drivel.

Edited by Foxin_Mad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One other thing about the Labour party.

 

How has it got itself into a position where it's going into elections now not able to win majorities? 

 

Do their voters even care about this? Corbyn has a sniff of power only propped up by others and it doesn't seem to matter.

 

To be in opposition for nearly a decade and be reliant on support from the Lib Dems and the SNP is pathetic. It was only 18 years ago they were winning landslides, let alone comfortable majorities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

One other thing about the Labour party.

 

How has it got itself into a position where it's going into elections now not able to win majorities? 

 

Do their voters even care about this? Corbyn has a sniff of power only propped up by others and it doesn't seem to matter.

 

To be in opposition for nearly a decade and be reliant on support from the Lib Dems and the SNP is pathetic. It was only 18 years ago they were winning landslides, let alone comfortable majorities. 

Because the majority of their policies are incoherent or just plain bonkers. 

 

Only the tribalists or anyone but the Tories brigade can be short sighted enough to even consider them as an option.

 

If you a moderate there are more moderate parties, if you are a extreme lefty the greens have more coherent policies. Labour is a mess, the leadership is a dishonest shambles.

 

I dont like Boris or the current Tory party but they would in my view be less bad for the majority of people, when Labour talk of the many, they dont actually mean 'the many' they will sting the middle classes with taxation, inflation and job losses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

Because the majority of their policies are incoherent or just plain bonkers. 

 

Only the tribalists or anyone but the Tories brigade can be short sighted enough to even consider them as an option.

 

If you a moderate there are more moderate parties, if you are a extreme lefty the greens have more coherent policies. Labour is a mess, the leadership is a dishonest shambles.

 

I dont like Boris or the current Tory party but they would in my view be less bad for the majority of people, when Labour talk of the many, they dont actually mean 'the many' they will sting the middle classes with taxation, inflation and job losses. 

I'm no fan of corbyn, but I'd vote labour over Tory all day long in this GE based purely on policies and trust. That's based on my opinion of the major issues the country faces. You obviously come from a different point of view and whilst I disagree with you, I respect that view without being so derisory of your views.

 

I can't believe I'm making this point again but Labour did not cause the 2008 GLOBAL Crisis and had little choice but to bail out the banks as the alternative would have cost an awful lot more. Before the crisis hit, we were looking pretty rosy under a Labour government. 

 

Even more recently, Ed Milliband fought an election with some innovative policy ideas which he was ridiculed for. Interestingly, the Torys have taken many of those policies forward and all of a sudden they are great ideas. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Foxin_Mad said:

Not this argument again. 

 

Yes they will. Tax that high is bad for business. The tax alone might just about keep the economy going badly. They have other far more damaging policies too. Redistribution of land and property, rationalisation at below market value, seizure of private enterprises for the 'many' workers shares, more power to unions. Increased minimum wage, 4 day working week

People are not productive for 40 hour weeks, that’s patent bullshit. It’s such outdated thinking and 4 day weeks can and would save businesses money. They have been shown to increase productivity.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RobHawk said:

I'm no fan of corbyn, but I'd vote labour over Tory all day long in this GE based purely on policies and trust. That's based on my opinion of the major issues the country faces. You obviously come from a different point of view and whilst I disagree with you, I respect that view without being so derisory of your views.

 

I can't believe I'm making this point again but Labour did not cause the 2008 GLOBAL Crisis and had little choice but to bail out the banks as the alternative would have cost an awful lot more. Before the crisis hit, we were looking pretty rosy under a Labour government. 

 

Even more recently, Ed Milliband fought an election with some innovative policy ideas which he was ridiculed for. Interestingly, the Torys have taken many of those policies forward and all of a sudden they are great ideas. 

I cant agree but respect your views. Corbyn is one of the most dishonest out there caught lying so many times, changes his mind based on the wind I wouldn't trust him full stop.

 

I cant agree completely on 2008 either, although there were some global conditions which were outside control of the government, they also created a perfect storm increasing borrowing after 2001, increasing taxation, not regulating huge banks and take overs, increased immigration, little house building creating housing bubble and rising prices. That said they did ok during their time in power.

 

To be fair I would vote for a moderate Labour party now but we dont have one, some of their current policies are frankly horrific for business, they are policies of the past for a reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

People are not productive for 40 hour weeks, that’s patent bullshit. It’s such outdated thinking and 4 day weeks can and would save businesses money. They have been shown to increase productivity.

Really do elaborate? Flexible working increases productivity yes, 4 day weeks no. Patent bullshit as you say.

 

At the end of the day if a modern competitive manufacturing business needs workers 7 days a week for 40 hrs a day to produce their wares to be competitive with overseas manufacturers, they are going to need nearly twice as many staff on (presumably) the same salaries, on top of a £10+ minimum wage for unskilled workers which will then lead to the skilled workers feeling undervalued so then you either increase their pay or loose productivity due to morale. Each time profits are slipping or losses are occuring. British business loses its competivity overnight, this will lead to the loss on nearly all manufacturing jobs overseas I suspect. At the very least prices will increase negating the impact of any pay rises possibly out stripping them unless in good old socialist style you expect all business to run for the good of the people not for profit. 

 

Its absolutely a nonsense policy. No-one will need to worry about jobs because there wont be any.

 

I've modelled, I know others in the local area who have factored similar. 18 months of Labour and there would be 10s of millions of job losses, 2008 would look like a game. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

I cant agree but respect your views. Corbyn is one of the most dishonest out there caught lying so many times, changes his mind based on the wind I wouldn't trust him full stop.

 

I cant agree completely on 2008 either, although there were some global conditions which were outside control of the government, they also created a perfect storm increasing borrowing after 2001, increasing taxation, not regulating huge banks and take overs, increased immigration, little house building creating housing bubble and rising prices. That said they did ok during their time in power.

 

To be fair I would vote for a moderate Labour party now but we dont have one, some of their current policies are frankly horrific for business, they are policies of the past for a reason.

Just on the 2008 comment, hindsight is a wonderful thing when you know a completely unexpected or predicted global meltdown is going to happen. 

 

We were doing very well as a country, yes we borrowed but that investment was needed and if it hadn't of been for the global crash I'm sure we'd have continued to prosper.

 

As for banking de-regulation, again hindsight. The Tories supported the deregulation and actually wanted to go further.

 

It's easy to look back and criticise, and there were elements of the last labour government I strongly disagreed with, such as the Iraq war, but they certainly did alot more good than bad imho and unfortunately, I can't say the same for a single Tory government in my lifetime.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, RobHawk said:

Just on the 2008 comment, hindsight is a wonderful thing when you know a completely unexpected or predicted global meltdown is going to happen. 

 

We were doing very well as a country, yes we borrowed but that investment was needed and if it hadn't of been for the global crash I'm sure we'd have continued to prosper.

 

As for banking de-regulation, again hindsight. The Tories supported the deregulation and actually wanted to go further.

 

It's easy to look back and criticise, and there were elements of the last labour government I strongly disagreed with, such as the Iraq war, but they certainly did alot more good than bad imho and unfortunately, I can't say the same for a single Tory government in my lifetime.

It's all a matter of perspective I suppose.

 

We will never know but countries with no deficit, faired much better than us in the crash, the fabled German and Australia to name a few. I feel problems were brewing under Brown as taxation was too high to sustain business and private sustainable growth. Employment in the public sector was too high and still is IMO. As I say I would much rather Brown than the current lot who would destroy everything, this isn't new labour is dinosaur labour.

 

I would say the increased personal allowances, better pensions savings plans, record low unemployment and low inflation, along with steady but sustainable growth along with a reduced deficit is an achievement from the recent government's despite their many failings. Of course no government is perfect. I would rather despite the Brexit fiasco relative stability and status quo instead of a complete and utter economic earthquake.

 

I just dont really see how socialism works, if they want everyone to be the same on the same pay, why have and invest billions in education? Why have jobs? Why go into a senior role if most of your pay is taxed? Is the end game to give us all an allowance from state run businesses run for the good of the many, it just doesn't add up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

It's all a matter of perspective I suppose.

 

We will never know but countries with no deficit, faired much better than us in the crash, the fabled German and Australia to name a few. I feel problems were brewing under Brown as taxation was too high to sustain business and private sustainable growth. Employment in the public sector was too high and still is IMO. As I say I would much rather Brown than the current lot who would destroy everything, this isn't new labour is dinosaur labour.

 

I would say the increased personal allowances, better pensions savings plans, record low unemployment and low inflation, along with steady but sustainable growth along with a reduced deficit is an achievement from the recent government's despite their many failings. Of course no government is perfect. I would rather despite the Brexit fiasco relative stability and status quo instead of a complete and utter economic earthquake.

 

I just dont really see how socialism works, if they want everyone to be the same on the same pay, why have and invest billions in education? Why have jobs? Why go into a senior role if most of your pay is taxed? Is the end game to give us all an allowance from state run businesses run for the good of the many, it just doesn't add up.

I personally don't agree with socialism but what has clearly happened over the last 12 years in my view, is that the gap between the richest and poorest in society has widened and more importantly social mobility has not been improved. 

 

I don't beleive this rhetoric of us being some socialist state like venuzuela if Corbyn gets in, as anything he wants to do still needs to go through parliament. 

 

But I do beleive his policies overall are going to be better for more of our society than Boris'. 

 

Just the fact that the torys appear to be running scared from having a "chancellor's debate" where they can debate the cost of manifesto pledges and instead of calculating their own costs are misrepresenting labours instead shows me that the torys cannot be trusted. 

 

We've had austerity for years but all.of a sudden there's a manic money tree and they don't want to debate how or where that money is coming from? 

 

Add onto that this Russia report that's being sat on, and the lack of information about how Boris' Brexit deal will financially effect the country and I'm wondering how they can have such a big lead in the polls. The answer of course is personality politics, with some help from major news outlets, I'm not sure the majority of the electorate knows, understands or more likely cares about things.

 

Sorry off on a tangent there, but again on here within a sensible political discussion it does come back to perspective and with all I've just written above, I'm no fan of Corbyn myself but is the lesser of two evils in my eyes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, RobHawk said:

I personally don't agree with socialism but what has clearly happened over the last 12 years in my view, is that the gap between the richest and poorest in society has widened and more importantly social mobility has not been improved. 

 

I don't beleive this rhetoric of us being some socialist state like venuzuela if Corbyn gets in, as anything he wants to do still needs to go through parliament. 

 

But I do beleive his policies overall are going to be better for more of our society than Boris'. 

 

Just the fact that the torys appear to be running scared from having a "chancellor's debate" where they can debate the cost of manifesto pledges and instead of calculating their own costs are misrepresenting labours instead shows me that the torys cannot be trusted. 

 

We've had austerity for years but all.of a sudden there's a manic money tree and they don't want to debate how or where that money is coming from? 

 

Add onto that this Russia report that's being sat on, and the lack of information about how Boris' Brexit deal will financially effect the country and I'm wondering how they can have such a big lead in the polls. The answer of course is personality politics, with some help from major news outlets, I'm not sure the majority of the electorate knows, understands or more likely cares about things.

 

Sorry off on a tangent there, but again on here within a sensible political discussion it does come back to perspective and with all I've just written above, I'm no fan of Corbyn myself but is the lesser of two evils in my eyes.

Thing is mate, those who buy into the Just World fallacy and as an extension absolute personal responsibility think that disparity is a good thing, or at the very least acceptable. The idea being that if you work hard by yourself, you will get prosperous and if you do the right things, you will be rewarded...and if you stay poor, you're evidently lazy and undeserving because if you were not, you wouldn't be poor, right? What other people do doesn't come into it, it's all about you and what you do.

 

There is no such thing as society, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RobHawk said:

Just the fact that the torys appear to be running scared from having a "chancellor's debate" where they can debate the cost of manifesto pledges and instead of calculating their own costs are misrepresenting labours instead shows me that the torys cannot be trusted. 

 

We've had austerity for years but all.of a sudden there's a manic money tree and they don't want to debate how or where that money is coming from? 

When have we ever had a chancellor’s debate? Why on earth would the Tories agree to it when they are ahead in the polls? Labour are only keen because they have nothing to lose. Who the hell would watch it anyway! I don’t think we should have leaders debates either as all it becomes is sound bite politics.

 

As for the manifesto pledges being challenged, I am glad the Tories are doing it as it appears that Labour have gone full retard with their spending commitments.  Of course the Tories represent the worse case scenario, it’s an election after all. Besides it may keep Labour honest so they cannot just get away with saying ‘we’ll sort it’ as they did last time with tuition fees at the last election.
 

There is only a certain amount of money you can extract from the richest in society before we all end up having to pay and I believe that what Labour are going massively over that threshold.  Given the Tories are increasing borrowing too it’s hardly finding a magic money tree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Foxin_Mad said:

I cant agree but respect your views. Corbyn is one of the most dishonest out there caught lying so many times, changes his mind based on the wind I wouldn't trust him full stop.

 

I cant agree completely on 2008 either, although there were some global conditions which were outside control of the government, they also created a perfect storm increasing borrowing after 2001, increasing taxation, not regulating huge banks and take overs, increased immigration, little house building creating housing bubble and rising prices. That said they did ok during their time in power.

 

To be fair I would vote for a moderate Labour party now but we dont have one, some of their current policies are frankly horrific for business, they are policies of the past for a reason.

 

7 hours ago, Foxin_Mad said:

Really do elaborate? Flexible working increases productivity yes, 4 day weeks no. Patent bullshit as you say.

 

At the end of the day if a modern competitive manufacturing business needs workers 7 days a week for 40 hrs a day to produce their wares to be competitive with overseas manufacturers, they are going to need nearly twice as many staff on (presumably) the same salaries, on top of a £10+ minimum wage for unskilled workers which will then lead to the skilled workers feeling undervalued so then you either increase their pay or loose productivity due to morale. Each time profits are slipping or losses are occuring. British business loses its competivity overnight, this will lead to the loss on nearly all manufacturing jobs overseas I suspect. At the very least prices will increase negating the impact of any pay rises possibly out stripping them unless in good old socialist style you expect all business to run for the good of the people not for profit. 

 

Its absolutely a nonsense policy. No-one will need to worry about jobs because there wont be any.

 

I've modelled, I know others in the local area who have factored similar. 18 months of Labour and there would be 10s of millions of job losses, 2008 would look like a game. 

 

 

Tens of millions of job losses lol

I can't work out whether you're lying to us or to yourself. 

 

On 2008 - labour was running a smallish deficit to pay for capital expenditure but less than the growth rate. It was entirely sustainable in the short/medium term. A GLOBAL crisis caused by bankers like Sajid Javid (at Deutchbank) selling collateralised debt obligations led to tax revenues - particularly from financial services which is a huge proportion of the UK economy thanks to Thatcher destroying everything else - dropping like a stone. We were so exposed because of the size of our finance hub, not because of the small starting deficit. By trying to claim that a global crisis was Labour's fault you just look ridiculous. 

 

On 4 day weeks - https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/microsoft-4-day-work-week-boosts-productivity-2019-11

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Salisbury Fox said:

When have we ever had a chancellor’s debate? Why on earth would the Tories agree to it when they are ahead in the polls? Labour are only keen because they have nothing to lose. Who the hell would watch it anyway! I don’t think we should have leaders debates either as all it becomes is sound bite politics.

 

As for the manifesto pledges being challenged, I am glad the Tories are doing it as it appears that Labour have gone full retard with their spending commitments.  Of course the Tories represent the worse case scenario, it’s an election after all. Besides it may keep Labour honest so they cannot just get away with saying ‘we’ll sort it’ as they did last time with tuition fees at the last election.
 

There is only a certain amount of money you can extract from the richest in society before we all end up having to pay and I believe that what Labour are going massively over that threshold.  Given the Tories are increasing borrowing too it’s hardly finding a magic money tree.

I think a chancellor's debate would be great as after the years of austerity the finances of our country are mightily important. 

 

I suggest you watch Javid on Marr last week. The guy was useless and Marr showed him up big time. 

 

You may not realise this, but a big difference between labour and the torys in this election campaign is that Labour produce a plan alongside their manifesto to detail how they will pay for their pledges whilst the torys don't. I wonder why that is? 

 

The torys being trusted with our economy is an absolute fallacy and Javid is more.interested in labours spending pledges than detailing how he'll pay for his own.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Thing is mate, those who buy into the Just World fallacy and as an extension absolute personal responsibility think that disparity is a good thing, or at the very least acceptable. The idea being that if you work hard by yourself, you will get prosperous and if you do the right things, you will be rewarded...and if you stay poor, you're evidently lazy and undeserving because if you were not, you wouldn't be poor, right? What other people do doesn't come into it, it's all about you and what you do.

 

There is no such thing as society, after all.

Yeah I know mate. Isn't it funny how all those educated at eton, work harder than everyone else in the country though. 🤔🤔🤔

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RobHawk said:

I think a chancellor's debate would be great as after the years of austerity the finances of our country are mightily important. 

 

I suggest you watch Javid on Marr last week. The guy was useless and Marr showed him up big time. 

 

You may not realise this, but a big difference between labour and the torys in this election campaign is that Labour produce a plan alongside their manifesto to detail how they will pay for their pledges whilst the torys don't. I wonder why that is? 

 

The torys being trusted with our economy is an absolute fallacy and Javid is more.interested in labours spending pledges than detailing how he'll pay for his own.

I agree Javid appears useless - but you can't seriously actually want to see John McDonnell taking charge of the treasury? He's an open Marxist who has been sacked for trying to set an illegal budget.

 

The only reason Labour manifestos are "fully costed" is because they seriously think they can squeeze the richest like a orange - as we have always learnt the reality is completely different.

 

That's before we even get onto wanting his murdering buddies in the IRA to be "honoured" - I get hating the Tories but if you trust him with anything you've got a screw loose, he's the most malevolent man to sit in parliament since Oswald Mosley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Given Brexit, Trump and the last Oz election...does anyone believe polls anymore?

All three of those were within the margin of error.

 

Funny how people never mention the Canadian election, the Irish abortion vote, German election, Spanish election last week - all pretty much nailed by the pollsters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

All three of those were within the margin of error.

 

Funny how people never mention the Canadian election, the Irish abortion vote, German election, Spanish election last week - all pretty much nailed by the pollsters.

Yeah, people like to give Nate Silver and those who work like him a hard time but most of the time polling tends to get it at least within the margin of error - various political entities wouldn't spend so much on it if that wasn't the case.

Edited by leicsmac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, RobHawk said:

I think a chancellor's debate would be great as after the years of austerity the finances of our country are mightily important. 

 

I suggest you watch Javid on Marr last week. The guy was useless and Marr showed him up big time. 

 

You may not realise this, but a big difference between labour and the torys in this election campaign is that Labour produce a plan alongside their manifesto to detail how they will pay for their pledges whilst the torys don't. I wonder why that is? 

 

The torys being trusted with our economy is an absolute fallacy and Javid is more.interested in labours spending pledges than detailing how he'll pay for his own.

I have seen the interview and I don’t rate Javid at all, but that doesn’t make Labour’s economics any better.  Of course Labour want a debate as it is easy to say what people want to hear rather than what they don’t. Labour’s whole plan is predicated on so many different factors that make it unrealistic and is a huge risk to pensions and prosperity.  Where is the investment going to come from if companies are to give a percentage of their businesses away to the workers and Labour decide how much money a business is worth.  This is South American economics at best, trouble is Labour have not realised that the world has moved on from the 70s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Salisbury Fox said:

I have seen the interview and I don’t rate Javid at all, but that doesn’t make Labour’s economics any better.  Of course Labour want a debate as it is easy to say what people want to hear rather than what they don’t. Labour’s whole plan is predicated on so many different factors that make it unrealistic and is a huge risk to pensions and prosperity.  Where is the investment going to come from if companies are to give a percentage of their businesses away to the workers and Labour decide how much money a business is worth.  This is South American economics at best, trouble is Labour have not realised that the world has moved on from the 70s.

You could well be correct, and the last thing the UK needs is a CIA-sponsored coup right now, right? :ph34r:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Probably been posted for past elections, but always interesting to see where people end up

 

https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

 

This is me

 

I'm Gandhi, only slightly more libertarian and anarchic. Gandhi with a vengeance. 

personalised chart

 

Some of those questions were definitely written between a mixture of Jim Davidson and Jacob Rees Mogg. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ozleicester said:

Given Brexit, Trump and the last Oz election...does anyone believe polls anymore?

 

As others have said, final polls showed the Brexit & Trump votes being close. True, they predicted a narrow win for Remain & Clinton, but they weren't far out.

 

The margin in most national polls (8-12%) definitely suggests a Tory majority.....but I wouldn't make such assumptions from national polls if the lead in most polls slips to 4-7%.

Because there are going to be big differences in what happens in different regions - and how regional differences offset each other will determine the result.

 

It's already reasonable to assume that:

- The Tories (& Labour) will lose seats to the SNP in Scotland

- The Tories will lose seats to the Lib Dems in the South

- The Tories will gain seats from Labour in the North/Midlands

- The Tories will probably gain a few seats from Labour in Remain areas (due to Lab->LD switchers - Con vote falling, but Lab vote falling more & LD vote not rising enough)

 

The current lead suggests Tory gains will outnumber Tory losses by enough to give them a majority.....but they absolutely need that to happen. If they even "break even" & lose about as many as they win, they'll probably be out of office.

Could be a mess if the Tories do "break even", Labour lose a lot of seats and the SNP & Lib Dems gain a lot....

 

If the Con-Lab gap does close, reliable regional & particularly polls for marginal constituencies should tell us a lot.

 

Worth bearing in mind the 2017 "starting point" (national vote):

-  Con 42.3%

-  Lab 40.0%

-     LD 7.4%

-  SNP 3.0%

- UKIP 1.8%

- Green 1.6%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...