Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Liz fucking Truss then.....


Bjornebye
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

That's really interesting, Rapey. I thought Lib Dems were coming across quite well recently. @Strontium, what's happening there mate? 

 

First off, I don't think Labour's lead over the Tories is actually as big as 33%. YouGov have a tendency to overstate these things a bit. Survation have Labour's lead at 21% (49/28) which feels more realistic. I'd also point out that a lot of Lib Dem voters in 2019 will have been Labour voters anyway who voted tactically. There will undoubtedly be a lot of tactical voting too when we finally get to the 2024 election. People will be voting first and foremost to get the Tories out. They're showing all the hallmarks of a party that has been in power too long. A 1997-style result looks fairly possible at this point. And if you remember what happened in 1997, the Lib Dems actually got 1% fewer votes than in 1992, but still went from 20 MPs to 46. TLDR; vote share is less important than vote distribution (which is why the SNP get 48 MPs on less than 4% of the vote).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

I don't follow these things very closely, but I don't recall ever seeing a Government polling at 21%.

A couple of Blair's polls before and after 1997 had the Tories that low- https://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-1992-1997

 

Won't last obviously, but it's funny as fuck and will cause these cunts to panic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gnasher said:

Her advisors must be as stupid as she is. She should've had a one on one with Kuensburg or Mason, they'd have let her waffle out the soundbites to be used to her advantage in the main bulletins and wouldn't have pushed back.

According to the BBC today was a long standing commitment that is traditional for Tory leaders prior to the Tory conference. I've never heard of it myself, but then why would you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

According to the BBC today was a long standing commitment that is traditional for Tory leaders prior to the Tory conference. I've never heard of it myself, but then why would you? 


They should have broken with tradition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Nelly-Matip said:

Fingers crossed…

 

 

 

Well that's clearly bollocks. But it won't matter in the grand scheme of things. The damage they've caused will be so difficult to come back from, might take at least 20 years, who knows. And by then they'll have got their act together as they always do. 

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.

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.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...