UK General Election 2024

[AlterEgo]

Really? I thought that Liz Truss was voted-in as party leader - and therefore Prime Minister - by the members of the Tory party?

According to my wife - who is a member of the labour Party - they quite often have a say in what happens in that party too.

Read the post you quoted again.

 

[D6130]

Read the post you quoted again.

Doh! Too much Chianti with my Sunday lunch again! Must go to the Italian equivalent of Specsavers Specsavers!

 

[edwin_m]

4.5 weeks since election was called, just 1.5 weeks to go.
This is what has landed on my doormat so far

2 leaflets from existing Conservative MP both highlighting various things she had done in last few years, nothing about policies, and would only know which party by reading small print at end.

1 leaflet from Lib Dem promoting their candidate, and policies and mentioning Ed Davey

Nothing from Labour, Green, or Reform

Can only assume from this, that in my part of the world, Labour don't care, Green and Reform probably don't have resources, Conservative candidate is disowning her party, LibDems are making an effort.

So because of Labours apparent we don't care about your part of the country approach, nobody I know in this area wants them. (I should point out live close to boundary of 2 other constituenciesand Labour doesn't seem to be making any effort there either based on lack of boards, comments, local news).

If you are where I think you are, I’ve been keeping an eye on tactical voting sites as I have relatives in the area. The recommendation has recently gone from undecided to LibDem.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

How voting for what we'll diplomatically call the populist right "keep Labour in check"? What do you think they'll think twice about with their 400+ seats, if Reform get four seats instead of one?

It amuses me no end that being "populist" is a dirty word. Shouldn't any political party offer something that will be popular with the electorate?
If Reform get a significant share of the vote (even if it only leads to a few seats), then perhaps Labour won't be so keen to cosy up too much to the corrupt and undemocratic EU. It will send a message of where public feeling lies.

Couldn't you vote Lib Dem and achieve the same thing but without the Reform baggage? Especially if (somewhat distant) predictions of the Lib Dems obtaining enough seats to become the official opposition come to fruition

Whoever you vote for, it's worth pointing out that each vote gives them more taxpayer funding whether they win in your constituency or not. You're handing Reform a little bit of cash here should they get at least two MPs, or one MP and more than 150k votes for the party, either of which is likely.

No, because the Lib Dems were spineless in coalition with the Tories so don't deserve my vote. They also want to rejoin the EU, which even as a remain voter back in 2016 will be extremely damaging to our democracy. I voted remain because I could see that leaving would be costly to the economy and would make travel more cumbersome... but not with the mindset that the EU was some sort of utopia. As mentioned above, the current structure of the EU is horribly undemocratic despite the "facade" of EU elections (which interestingly lurched to the right in the recent elections, yet it's predominantly leftists who want to rejoin)... but it's a darn sight easier to reform such a body from the inside than the outside.

However, we voted to leave, so going back in so quickly sends out a message that our votes only count if we vote the "correct" way. Those of us who voted Remain need to get over it and suck it up quite frankly. It's not what I wanted either, but we are where we are. In a democracy you don't always get your own way.

Does anyone, anywhere, read polling leaflets??!!

I do, in the hope that I'll find some comedic errors or contradictions- such as the one in 2019 from a small party called the "Christian People's Alliance" who claimed they'd protect freedom of speech... whilst pledging to introduce blasphemy laws in the very next paragraph!
This time, so far the only leaflet I've received is from Reform. It is of course a cut-and-paste job as others have posted, but at least they made the bare minimum effort. I can only assume that Labour are taking my vote for granted as they aren't particularly concerned with getting their candidate's name out there. In fact I haven't seen a single poster that mentions the name of the candidate in my constituency, though plenty in the neighbouring seat where the former incumbent is standing.

 

[deltic]

No, because the Lib Dems were spineless in coalition with the Tories so don't deserve my vote. They also want to rejoin the EU, which even as a remain voter back in 2016 will be extremely damaging to our democracy. I voted remain because I could see that leaving would be costly to the economy and would make travel more cumbersome... but not with the mindset that the EU was some sort of utopia. As mentioned above, the current structure of the EU is horribly undemocratic despite the "facade" of EU elections (which interestingly lurched to the right in the recent elections, yet it's predominantly leftists who want to rejoin)... but it's a darn sight easier to reform such a body from the inside than the outside.

However, we voted to leave, so going back in so quickly sends out a message that our votes only count if we vote the "correct" way. Those of us who voted Remain need to get over it and suck it up quite frankly. It's not what I wanted either, but we are where we are. In a democracy you don't always get your own way.

Not sure how you can claim the Lib Dems were spineless - when you are a minority party in a coalition there is a limit to what you can achieve and we had the most stable 5 year government for a very long time.

We voted a Conservative government in 2019 - does that mean we cannot vote them out until a certain time has elapsed? We voted to leave the EU in 2016 and 8 years later the majority want to rejoin. How long should elapse before a referendum on rejoining should be held?

The EU is as democratic or undemocratic as most government organisations.

 

[AlterEgo]

It amuses me no end that being "populist" is a dirty word. Shouldn't any political party offer something that will be popular with the electorate?

Remember back in Covid when polls showed that there was apparently widespread support for keeping young adults on a curfew, closure of all social spaces, and seemingly endless lockdown?

That was apparently popular, but it would have caused such significant harm it would have been unconscionable to implement.

Populism doesn’t mean “popular”. It’s an othering term signalling a rejection of the elite, usually by appealing to base instincts. Reform only exists to harness people’s anger and insecurities, some of which may well be justified, but much of which isn’t.

It’s interesting to hear you suggest that a party which is campaigning to rejoin the Single Market and which has made it one of its headline policies is somehow participating in a revolutionary and undemocratic act. I can’t say I understand that at all!

 

[deltic]

4.5 weeks since election was called, just 1.5 weeks to go.
This is what has landed on my doormat so far

2 leaflets from existing Conservative MP both highlighting various things she had done in last few years, nothing about policies, and would only know which party by reading small print at end.

1 leaflet from Lib Dem promoting their candidate, and policies and mentioning Ed Davey

Nothing from Labour, Green, or Reform

Can only assume from this, that in my part of the world, Labour don't care, Green and Reform probably don't have resources, Conservative candidate is disowning her party, LibDems are making an effort.

So because of Labours apparent we don't care about your part of the country approach, nobody I know in this area wants them. (I should point out live close to boundary of 2 other constituenciesand Labour doesn't seem to be making any effort there either based on lack of boards, comments, local news).

Its not a case that Labour dont care its a case of targeting resources where they will have the most impact. The same applies to all political parties. This election is unusual in that so many seats are potentially in play. In most elections the result is determined in no more than 50-75 seats where all the effort is directed.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Not sure how you can claim the Lib Dems were spineless - when you are a minority party in a coalition there is a limit to what you can achieve and we had the most stable 5 year government for a very long time.

We voted a Conservative government in 2019 - does that mean we cannot vote them out until a certain time has elapsed? We voted to leave the EU in 2016 and 8 years later the majority want to rejoin. How long should elapse before a referendum on rejoining should be held?

The EU is as democratic or undemocratic as most government organisations.

Back in 2010 the Lib Dems put getting rid of tuition fees at the centre of their campaign, and as a result many young people voted for them. "I Agree With Nick" became one of the main 2010 election memes. Given that they held the balance of power within the coalition they should have stuck by one of their main election pledges and played hardball with their Conservative partners. The much smaller NI party whose name escapes me (was it the DUP?) who found themselves in a similar position after the 2017 election (albeit not in full coalition) were far less of a doormat than Clegg's Lib Dems. As much as I disagree with them on a long list of issues, they at least demonstrated a backbone of sorts- in Westminster at least.

Also Referenda are quite different in nature to General Elections. They're a single-issue question. If we're going to keep asking the same question over and over until we get the result that some of us want, nothing else will ever get done.

Remember back in Covid when polls showed that there was apparently widespread support for keeping young adults on a curfew, closure of all social spaces, and seemingly endless lockdown?

That was apparently popular, but it would have caused such significant harm it would have been unconscionable to implement.

Populism doesn’t mean “popular”. It’s an othering term signalling a rejection of the elite, usually by appealing to base instincts. Reform only exists to harness people’s anger and insecurities, some of which may well be justified, but much of which isn’t.

It’s interesting to hear you suggest that a party which is campaigning to rejoin the Single Market and which has made it one of its headline policies is somehow participating in a revolutionary and undemocratic act. I can’t say I understand that at all!

I thought rejection of "elites" was more of a left-wing thing, it certainly was in my student days (slogans like tax the rich, all property is theft, etc.). Is Sir Kier Starmer's position on private education and private health care not an attack on so-called "elites"?

Also the lockdowns were hugely unpopular in large swathes of the country even from the beginning, but any attempt to question it was silenced or misinterpreted as "you just want to kill grandma!". It took me a while to see the harm that was being caused, not least because I suffered a (not directly Covid-related) bereavement right at the start so was quite keen on not having to function in normal society for a while... the fact that I didn't voice my objections sooner, and worse was cheering for the "received wisdom" that lockdowns and face-masks were both necessary and desirable, is a shame I'll carry with me for a long time.

 

[AlterEgo]

I thought rejection of "elites" was more of a left-wing thing, it certainly was in my student days (slogans like tax the rich, all property is theft, etc.).

You’ve not really been paying attention to the populist right in anglophone countries over the last 10 years then.

Is Sir Kier Starmer's position on private education and private health care not an attack on so-called "elites"?

Whoever said anything about attacking anyone? Populism is a rejection of supposed elites and their political control over the country, not some sort of policy measure attacking people with a few quid.

That you think merely taxing things might be an attack invites the question about what you think Reform's manifesto amounts to on some minority groups.

 

[edwin_m]

It amuses me no end that being "populist" is a dirty word. Shouldn't any political party offer something that will be popular with the electorate?
If Reform get a significant share of the vote (even if it only leads to a few seats), then perhaps Labour won't be so keen to cosy up too much to the corrupt and undemocratic EU. It will send a message of where public feeling lies.

No, because the Lib Dems were spineless in coalition with the Tories so don't deserve my vote. They also want to rejoin the EU, which even as a remain voter back in 2016 will be extremely damaging to our democracy. I voted remain because I could see that leaving would be costly to the economy and would make travel more cumbersome... but not with the mindset that the EU was some sort of utopia. As mentioned above, the current structure of the EU is horribly undemocratic despite the "facade" of EU elections (which interestingly lurched to the right in the recent elections, yet it's predominantly leftists who want to rejoin)... but it's a darn sight easier to reform such a body from the inside than the outside.

However, we voted to leave, so going back in so quickly sends out a message that our votes only count if we vote the "correct" way. Those of us who voted Remain need to get over it and suck it up quite frankly. It's not what I wanted either, but we are where we are. In a democracy you don't always get your own way.

Perhaps you’re not aware that majority opinion turned against leaving in 2017 and there was even a poll reported this week giving 52:48 for rejoining. Which by your logic is therefore the populist position, though impossible to achieve for many years.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Perhaps you’re not aware that majority opinion turned against leaving in 2017 and there was even a poll reported this week giving 52:48 for rejoining. Which by your logic is therefore the populist position, though impossible to achieve for many years.

I'm well aware of discontent with how things panned out, both from those who voted remain and those who voted to leave... indeed one of the reasons the "leave" vote won was a degree of complacency and apathy among "soft" remainers. In part I blame the media for this, as there was a widespread downplaying of the likelihood of the leave side winning out. I'll not go into the details of the referendum too much, lest we anger the moderators for being off-topic, but running a second referendum (or even unilaterally rejoining the single market, as I suspect both Starmer and the Lib Dem bloke would wish to do if they thought they'd get away with it) would at best be a Phyrric victory.

There's already a huge amount of distrust of our officials and politicians among the population, so going back on the referendum result would do a huge amount of harm. Then again some people have astonishingly short memories, so perhaps it would all be forgotten within five years!

 

[SynthD]

It seems very odd the amount of noise that’s made about Reform being structured as a company. Surely there’s enough in their policies to disagree with rather than something that’s essentially irrelevant?

The criticism about their structure largely died out once their policies were announced. Reform were, not just as a new party would be, light on details up to that point. And beyond.

 

[52290]

Reading this thread I'm sure if the Tories could find someone willing to change their name to Kier Starmer and stand him in Keir Starmer's constituency then there might be an unforeseen electoral disaster for Labour!

 

[Howardh]

Perhaps you’re not aware that majority opinion turned against leaving in 2017 and there was even a poll reported this week giving 52:48 for rejoining. Which by your logic is therefore the populist position, though impossible to achieve for many years.

There are probably steps we can do virtually straight away whilst outside the EU/EEA/Single Market/Customs Union with agreement with our EU counterparts; eg, get talking about a proper (free) trade deal, which I don't think we currently have. That would prevent a number of delays at ports, reduce red tape and so on? Would take months but it's a start, and we could start almost immediately.

After that I think we ned to get people moving, I know the Single Market allows freedom of movement, but also allows us to keep Sterling if we joined (??). I don't think the obstacles in the way of joining the SM are as tough as joining the EU; and personally I'd be happy if we simply joined the SM and not rejoin the EU.

EFTA countries are in the SM, and I don't envisage the UK joining EFTA (we're too big!) however, as we are a combination of four countries plus Isle of Man, Channel Islands and Gibraltar at a stretch; we could argue that if a circle is put round current EFTA with an arrow to EEA, then the same could apply to our countries?

But where was that "bespoke" or "oven ready" deal we (didn't) have? can we not revisit that and maybe get that free movement of goods and some kind of restricted free movement of people, so those (a) retired can go to Europe and vice-versa with no visa issues (b) workers can seek and work as they wish subject to quota restrictions (ie 100k in, 100k out) with students allowed to work during holidays anywhere in Europe as a right?

 

[JonathanH]

Reading this thread I'm sure if the Tories could find someone willing to change their name to Kier Starmer and stand him in Keir Starmer's constituency then there might be an unforeseen electoral disaster for Labour!

Nominations are closed and candidates are in place.

 

[Gloster]

Reading this thread I'm sure if the Tories could find someone willing to change their name to Kier Starmer and stand him in Keir Starmer's constituency then there might be an unforeseen electoral disaster for Labour!

I think that would be in breach of the Representation of the People Act 1983 as it would be intended to mislead or confuse electors. It is not entirely clear as the situation has probably never occurred. Whether the same is true if the other candidate had held the name for a considerable period is also unclear. (“I’m Starmer.” “No, I’m Starmer” ‘I’m Starmer”…)

 

[simonw]

Nominations are closed and candidates are in place.

I think that would be in breach of the Representation of the People Act 1983 as it would be intended to mislead or confuse electors. It is not entirely clear as the situation has probably never occurred. Whether the same is true if the other candidate had held the name for a considerable period is also unclear. (“I’m Starmer.” “No, I’m Starmer” ‘I’m Starmer”…)

I believe @52290 was making the point that a lot of people on this thread appear unable to spell the first name of the leader of the Labour Party's name correctly.

 

[birchesgreen]

Reading this thread I'm sure if the Tories could find someone willing to change their name to Kier Starmer and stand him in Keir Starmer's constituency then there might be an unforeseen electoral disaster for Labour!

Dominic Cummins is that you?

 

[Gloster]

I believe @52290 was making the point that a lot of people on this thread appear unable to spell the first name of the leader of the Labour Party's name correctly.

But it still might be intended to mislead or confuse.

 

[simonw]

But it still might be intended to mislead or confuse.

It would be, if he meant it to actually happen. However, I don't think he intend it to happen. I think he said it in jest.

 

[Whistler40145]

How much of an impact will the betting situation have on the Election?

 

[simonw]

How much of an impact will the betting situation have on the Election?

I think it's just one more nail in the coffin.

 

[traintimemf]

I think the suggestion is that the company structure is there to benefit Farage personally, but in any case their manifesto is offensive and calculated to make life harder for plenty of minority groups.

I have been wondering about this though, since he is offering a ‘contract’ to the people, as director of a ltd company, surely he is exposing himself to legal action if he gets elected based on breaches of said contract, this oddity & choice of words may backfire on him…

If there are any people on here with legal knowledge, can they confirm?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It amuses me no end that being "populist" is a dirty word. Shouldn't any political party offer something that will be popular with the electorate?

But populist goes beyond the meaning of popular. It carries connotations of offering simplistic solutions or inventing so-called 'elites' as enemies etc. That certainly describes Farage and much of what Reform stand for - for example with the denial of established science on climate change or their unfunded promises of tax cuts.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any time anywhere in the World where electing a 'populist' party to be the Government has ended well.

They also want to rejoin the EU,

I think you're right that most LibDem members probably would like to rejoin the EU, but that policy is not in the LibDem manifesto and rejoining is not something the LibDems are currently offering, so I'm not sure it's reasonable to hold that against the LibDems this time round. (It was certainly a reasonable criticism of them in 2019)

 

[JamesT]

I have been wondering about this though, since he is offering a ‘contract’ to the people, as director of a ltd company, surely he is exposing himself to legal action if he gets elected based on breaches of said contract, this oddity & choice of words may backfire on him…

If there are any people on here with legal knowledge, can they confirm?

https://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/...pre-election-statements-and-manifesto-pledges looks a fairly relevant article.

Conclusion

24. It is clear, then, that politicians cannot be held in law to their pre-election pledges. Whatever scope may have been thought to have been left over in the Bromley case was firmly closed down in Begbie. That was for good reasons of both principle and pragmatism: an administration cannot be bound by statements made by bodies or individuals which do not constitute public bodies as a matter of public law; and to give binding legal effect to such statements risks fixing constituents with unanticipated adverse consequences. There is certainly scope for pre-election promises to be given effect by post-election adoption but Domb illustrates the level of carefully scrutiny which the courts will apply to such suggestions.

I don’t believe describing their manifesto as a contract has any bearing on that. Also, Farage is not going to be anywhere near forming a government.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I think it's just one more nail in the coffin.

It’s going to be more metal than wood at this rate

 

[D1537]

I think that would be in breach of the Representation of the People Act 1983 as it would be intended to mislead or confuse electors. It is not entirely clear as the situation has probably never occurred. Whether the same is true if the other candidate had held the name for a considerable period is also unclear. (“I’m Starmer.” “No, I’m Starmer” ‘I’m Starmer”…)

A similar thing happened in the Euro elections in the 1990s. A candidate (Richard Huggett) stood as a "Literal Democrat" and got 10,000 votes - the Tories won by 700. He later tried it again and tried to use a similar name as a defending candidate in a General Election seat (but was made to stand under his own name by a court action). This time he only got 640 votes and the Liberal Democrat won - by just 2 votes, though the election had to be re-run and this time the Lib Dem won easily and Huggett only got 59 votes.

After that the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 was passed. So for example you can't stand as "Independent Conservative" - it has to be "Independent". Although it all kicked off again in 2014 when a candidate who had been rejected by UKIP registered a party as "UK Independence Now".

​

 

[Gloster]

After that the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 was passed. So for example you can't stand as "Independent Conservative" - it has to be "Independent". Although it all kicked off again in 2014 when a candidate who had been rejected by UKIP registered a party as "UK Independence Now".

The problem is that the 1998 act only seems to apply to names of parties: it does not seem to apply to the candidates’ names.

How much of an impact will the betting situation have on the Election?

I agree that it is just one more thing, but it is something that is simple to understand and likely to be seen as dodgy.

 

[52290]

I believe @52290 was making the point that a lot of people on this thread appear unable to spell the first name of the leader of the Labour Party's name correctly.

I was trying to do that in a jocular sort of way. I do recall, however, many years ago when the Tories put up Robert Atkins to stand against the sitting Labour MP, Ronald Atkins in a Preston constituency. Labour still won the seat, despite calling foul but Robert migrated a few miles further south across the Ribble to become my MP.

 

[Enthusiast]

We voted to leave the EU in 2016 and 8 years later the majority want to rejoin. How long should elapse before a referendum on rejoining should be held?

It took three and a half years after the referendum for the UK to leave the EU, followed by yet another year of "transition". During that time Parliament was often in chaos. Add in a period of campaigning before the referendum and the thick end of five years elapsed. Any attempt to rejoin, or even to rejoin the SM and/or Customs Union will take a similar amount of time, if not longer. During that time, Parliament will be castrated again by the incessant bickering which will undoubtedly accompany all that.

Any party even considering beginning to reverse such a large constitutional change in such a short time would be very wary of the chaos that might then again ensue. That is why I believe there is no political appetite for that - and nor there should be. The country has other, far more pressing issues.

Perhaps you’re not aware that majority opinion turned against leaving in 2017 and there was even a poll reported this week giving 52:48 for rejoining. Which by your logic is therefore the populist position, though impossible to achieve for many years.

In 2017 nobody knew on what terms we would be leaving and few, if any, adverse effects of the vote were apparent (despite the dire warnings of "the immediate effects of a vote to leave"). In fact there were constant rumours that we might not leave at all. I don't know anybody who voted to leave who has subsequently changed their minds. I imagine (though don't claim to know) that the majority of those who, in 2017, allegedly modified the 52:48 vote into a 48:52 opinion, were those who were among the 28% who did not vote and who belatedly realised that their apathy resulted in them not seeing their desired outcome.

There's already a huge amount of distrust of our officials and politicians among the population, so going back on the referendum result would do a huge amount of harm. Then again some people have astonishingly short memories, so perhaps it would all be forgotten within five years!

If the vote had been to remain by 52:48 the matter would have been forgotten in six months. The referendum would now be a dim and distant memory from eight years ago. Covid in between then and now would have been a far more significant memory for most people. There would have been nothing like the continuous carping and criticism of the referendum decision that we have seen. There would be no constant campaign for a re-run. "The people have spoken" would have been the response.

That's why I find it incredible that rejoining the EU or even the SM/CU should be an issue in this General Election. It is significant that neither of the main parties have any appetite for it (though who knows which way politicians will turn after they have been elected). Apart from anything else, it's unlikely the EU would relish the idea of another five years (or probably more) of acrimonious negotiation with "perfidious Albion". The LibDems of course have made a firm commitment to rejoin. I can recall the Good Doctor Cable's proud pronouncement the morning after the referendum, declaring that there was no need to worry because "We can reverse this". So that's no surprise but at least they are consistent.

But where was that "bespoke" or "oven ready" deal we (didn't) have? can we not revisit that and maybe get that free movement of goods and some kind of restricted free movement of people, so those (a) retired can go to Europe and vice-versa with no visa issues (b) workers can seek and work as they wish subject to quota restrictions (ie 100k in, 100k out) with students allowed to work during holidays anywhere in Europe as a right?

Nice try. But the EU