2024 UK General Election Thread

[Gavin Chipper]

Post stuff about the election here, and vote in the poll!

[Gavin Chipper]

Currently the Green Party is winning with 100% of the vote. If this is representative nationwide it would be a historic result.

[Marc Meakin]

Tories . Bringing back national service.
Labour . bring voting age down to 16.
I wonder who the gen Zers will vote for

[Gavin Chipper]

I haven't decided who I'm voting for yet. I'm not particularly inclined to vote for Labour under Keir Starmer. I'll have a look to see who's standing in my constituency at some point and make a decision. I certainly don't feel I need to vote for Labour just to keep the Tories out. It's a fairly safe Tory seat, and if it reaches the point where Labour could actually win here, they're definitely going to get a majority in the UK anyway. I tend to think that unless you feel it's critical to vote for the most realistic non-Tory, you should really vote for your favourite. For one thing it enables people to see a more accurate picture of people's views, and the more people that don't vote for the main parties, the more pressure there is for voting reform. Because First Past the Post really doesn't work with more than two parties.

It would be quite nice to see Labour win but for Keir Starmer to lose his seat. Obviously a massive long shot, but the hope is there. It will be interesting to see how well Andrew Feinstein does against him.

[Marc Meakin]

I haven't decided who I'm voting for yet. I'm not particularly inclined to vote for Labour under Keir Starmer. I'll have a look to see who's standing in my constituency at some point and make a decision. I certainly don't feel I need to vote for Labour just to keep the Tories out. It's a fairly safe Tory seat, and if it reaches the point where Labour could actually win here, they're definitely going to get a majority in the UK anyway. I tend to think that unless you feel it's critical to vote for the most realistic non-Tory, you should really vote for your favourite. For one thing it enables people to see a more accurate picture of people's views, and the more people that don't vote for the main parties, the more pressure there is for voting reform. Because First Past the Post really doesn't work with more than two parties.

It would be quite nice to see Labour win but for Keir Starmer to lose his seat. Obviously a massive long shot, but the hope is there. It will be interesting to see how well Andrew Feinstein does against him.

What is wrong with Kier Starmer.
He isn't the best Labour MP (Jess Phillips and Angela Rayner are better ) but surely an upgrade from Corbin ?

[Gavin Chipper]

I haven't decided who I'm voting for yet. I'm not particularly inclined to vote for Labour under Keir Starmer. I'll have a look to see who's standing in my constituency at some point and make a decision. I certainly don't feel I need to vote for Labour just to keep the Tories out. It's a fairly safe Tory seat, and if it reaches the point where Labour could actually win here, they're definitely going to get a majority in the UK anyway. I tend to think that unless you feel it's critical to vote for the most realistic non-Tory, you should really vote for your favourite. For one thing it enables people to see a more accurate picture of people's views, and the more people that don't vote for the main parties, the more pressure there is for voting reform. Because First Past the Post really doesn't work with more than two parties.

It would be quite nice to see Labour win but for Keir Starmer to lose his seat. Obviously a massive long shot, but the hope is there. It will be interesting to see how well Andrew Feinstein does against him.

What is wrong with Kier Starmer.
He isn't the best Labour MP (Jess Phillips and Angela Rayner are better ) but surely an upgrade from Corbin ?

There's a lot wrong with Keir Starmer. He's a very authoritarian leader and very much in the camp of politicians that just want to get elected rather than wanting to do any good. I don't think he's particularly left wing. And, perhaps most importantly, he has refused to speak out against anything Israel do. He's a spineless twat. Let's not forget this conversation:

A siege is appropriate? Cutting off power, cutting off water, Sir Keir?

I think Israel does have that right.

He went on to say it should be done within international law, but to refuse to criticise Israel at all in that situation shows where he stands. I recommend reading what Feinstein says about him in the link I gave.

[Marc Meakin]

1st debate next Tuesday at 9pm on ITV.
I'd try and get an audience ticket if I was you Gev.

[Marc Meakin]

Farage on Question Time tomorrow

[Matt Rutherford]

Keir Starmer isn't the best by a long shot, however...I was eight when the Conservatives came to power. Having seen what they've done, ranging from education, to austerity, to Brexit, to the pandemic, I just want them gone. Thrown out, humiliated, numbers ground into the dust whilst we all stand around and collectively laugh as the Old Etonians limp away back to Daddy's trust fund to find another job (presumably feeding fossil fuel waste to baby seals)*

Get the Tories out first. Starmer has a litany of issues himself, but first Tories go, and then we see how it goes from there. At least the party (hopefully) in power this time has a manic left-wing fringe rather than a manic right-wing one

*This is mostly a joke-one hopes that's quite evident

[Ian Volante]

Keir Starmer isn't the best by a long shot, however...I was eight when the Conservatives came to power. Having seen what they've done, ranging from education, to austerity, to Brexit, to the pandemic, I just want them gone. Thrown out, humiliated, numbers ground into the dust whilst we all stand around and collectively laugh as the Old Etonians limp away back to Daddy's trust fund to find another job (presumably feeding fossil fuel waste to baby seals)*

Get the Tories out first. Starmer has a litany of issues himself, but first Tories go, and then we see how it goes from there. At least the party (hopefully) in power this time has a manic left-wing fringe rather than a manic right-wing one

*This is mostly a joke-one hopes that's quite evident

Don't forget you have to look forward too. It's not like we vote for who to remove first, then a few weeks later get to choose the winner after some more consideration. Ignore the past, where do we want to be in a year, ten years, and who do we want to get us there? The incumbents are history, don't waste your focus on them.

[Gavin Chipper]

Exactly. I very much doubt I'll be voting Labour unless the particular candidate in my constituency punches above the party weight.

[Gavin Chipper]

Starmer left-wing purge row is not dying down. Also let's not forget the bizarre incident when the Speaker of the House, Lindsay Hoyle, went against protocol, after supposedly being bullied into doing so by Keir Starmer.

Edit - interview with Faiza Shaheen. I'm not sure what's so bad about talking about pro-Israel lobby groups anyway. Just call out the BS conflation of Israel with Jews.

[Fiona T]

Labour's branding is weird. If it didn't say Labour on it I'd think the leaflets were Britain First or something.



Edit: googled to see if it was just me, and Britain First's leader thinks it looks like Britain First...

[Ben Wilson]

I would've expected Britain First to put a Labour pamphlet straight in the bin, but I imagine bins are a bit of a sensitive topic for Britain First right now.

[Marc Meakin]

With one week to go until nominations for parliamentary candidates have to be in Labour still need to find 4 and the Tories just shy of 200 , happy days

[Gavin Chipper]

Labour might need to find a few more with some last minute explusions coming up for not being pro-Israel enough.

[Marc Meakin]

Labour might need to find a few more with some last minute explusions coming up for not being pro-Israel enough.

I thought they gave the whip back to the racist anti-semite

[Matt Rutherford]

Keir Starmer isn't the best by a long shot, however...I was eight when the Conservatives came to power. Having seen what they've done, ranging from education, to austerity, to Brexit, to the pandemic, I just want them gone. Thrown out, humiliated, numbers ground into the dust whilst we all stand around and collectively laugh as the Old Etonians limp away back to Daddy's trust fund to find another job (presumably feeding fossil fuel waste to baby seals)*

Get the Tories out first. Starmer has a litany of issues himself, but first Tories go, and then we see how it goes from there. At least the party (hopefully) in power this time has a manic left-wing fringe rather than a manic right-wing one

*This is mostly a joke-one hopes that's quite evident

Don't forget you have to look forward too. It's not like we vote for who to remove first, then a few weeks later get to choose the winner after some more consideration. Ignore the past, where do we want to be in a year, ten years, and who do we want to get us there? The incumbents are history, don't waste your focus on them.

True, but, entirely realistically, who else can win? If we didn't have FPTP, or the system that we do, then there'd be other candidates multitudes better. Where I am, Labour or (less likely) Lib Dem are least worst ones whose vote wouldn't be (in effect) a proxy votes for Conservatives by taking a vote away from their biggest opposition. Starmer is not who I think will take us in the best direction in a year, ten years time. However, he is one of two who will set that direction, and of those two, by the far the least two.

In short, the choice is in this election is akin between being punched in the stomach or bisected with a chainsaw. I'm gonna take the stomach and hope for the best

[Gavin Chipper]

I think Labour are going to win by a landslide and unless something changes massively in the polls before election day, I don't think they need any help. If anything, a smaller majority will probably be better.

[Ian Volante]

Keir Starmer isn't the best by a long shot, however...I was eight when the Conservatives came to power. Having seen what they've done, ranging from education, to austerity, to Brexit, to the pandemic, I just want them gone. Thrown out, humiliated, numbers ground into the dust whilst we all stand around and collectively laugh as the Old Etonians limp away back to Daddy's trust fund to find another job (presumably feeding fossil fuel waste to baby seals)*

Get the Tories out first. Starmer has a litany of issues himself, but first Tories go, and then we see how it goes from there. At least the party (hopefully) in power this time has a manic left-wing fringe rather than a manic right-wing one

*This is mostly a joke-one hopes that's quite evident

Don't forget you have to look forward too. It's not like we vote for who to remove first, then a few weeks later get to choose the winner after some more consideration. Ignore the past, where do we want to be in a year, ten years, and who do we want to get us there? The incumbents are history, don't waste your focus on them.

True, but, entirely realistically, who else can win? If we didn't have FPTP, or the system that we do, then there'd be other candidates multitudes better. Where I am, Labour or (less likely) Lib Dem are least worst ones whose vote wouldn't be (in effect) a proxy votes for Conservatives by taking a vote away from their biggest opposition. Starmer is not who I think will take us in the best direction in a year, ten years time. However, he is one of two who will set that direction, and of those two, by the far the least two.

In short, the choice is in this election is akin between being punched in the stomach or bisected with a chainsaw. I'm gonna take the stomach and hope for the best

By that logic, it makes more sense to vote for your own personal/local key issues, and let the big picture take care of itself. We only get a say in our own area anyway.

[Marc Meakin]

Farage is standing.
I think he might just win a few seats
He is probably the only right wing option

[Gavin Chipper]

Well he's standing in Clacton. I don't see him winning more than that one!

But I'm not sure Reform will do better than UKIP used to in terms of actually winning seats.

[Marc Meakin]

Well he's standing in Clacton. I don't see him winning more than that one!

But I'm not sure Reform will do better than UKIP used to in terms of actually winning seats.

You can put a fag paper between most of the policies of the main 2 parties so Farage represents a choice of the centre right/far right

[Marc Meakin]

Tonight's debate.
Why is Sunak trying to scare voters with project fear.
I'm soon to become a pensioner and I am prepared to pay more taxes in order to sort out the NHS and Climate change.
As long as they rich pay most of the tax increases .
Let's have a 50% tax band for those on more than 100K per
year

[Rhys Benjamin]

Sunak clearly won that debate. Starmer looked rattled, especially when he said he would not go private for ideological reasons even for a family member. It is a ludicrous position to take - to be a bed blocker when you can afford private healthcare is letting your country down because of your own ideological purity.

[Paul Worsley]

I think Sunak ran rings round Starmer. The Conservatives could win as many as 100 seats on July 4th.

[Callum Todd]

Agreed Sunak outperformed Starmer, although both came across fairly poorly.

[Elliott Mellor]

Agreed Sunak outperformed Starmer, although both came across fairly poorly.

Were we watching the same debate? Sunak came across as a petulant child, with little more to his armoury than "tax tax tax". I certainly don't think Starmer cruised, but he came across far better than Sunak to me.

"7.5 million isn't lower than 7.2 million, so how are they coming down?"
"Well they're coming down from when they were even higher than that!"

[Elliott Mellor]

Sunak clearly won that debate. Starmer looked rattled, especially when he said he would not go private for ideological reasons even for a family member. It is a ludicrous position to take - to be a bed blocker when you can afford private healthcare is letting your country down because of your own ideological purity.

It was a lose/lose question really. If he said yes, then people would be saying he didn't believe in public services; if he said no (as he did), people were going to take the stance you have.

Sunak seemed by far the most rattled and certainly the most insincere. I'd be extremely surprised if the majority of the audience thought he won that.

[Marc Meakin]

Sunak is clearly better in front of the camera than Starmer.
Plus Starmer is not a fiscal man like Sunak.
Was disappointed that Starmer didn't use "change " more often
Also these £2000 a year figure was plucked from nowhere but I was disappointed that Starmer didn't dismiss it at first .

I think Starmer will do better at the next one as the manifestos will be out.

BTW, who the fuck came up with 45 seconds on each subject.
Etchingham was shite and didn't reign in Sunak more.

Also my spell checker keeps changing Sunak to snake lol

[Martin Hurst]

Sunak clearly won that debate. Starmer looked rattled, especially when he said he would not go private for ideological reasons even for a family member. It is a ludicrous position to take - to be a bed blocker when you can afford private healthcare is letting your country down because of your own ideological purity.

It was a lose/lose question really. If he said yes, then people would be saying he didn't believe in public services; if he said no (as he did), people were going to take the stance you have.

Sunak seemed by far the most rattled and certainly the most insincere. I'd be extremely surprised if the majority of the audience thought he won that.

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/ ... -snap-poll

[Elliott Mellor]

Sunak clearly won that debate. Starmer looked rattled, especially when he said he would not go private for ideological reasons even for a family member. It is a ludicrous position to take - to be a bed blocker when you can afford private healthcare is letting your country down because of your own ideological purity.

It was a lose/lose question really. If he said yes, then people would be saying he didn't believe in public services; if he said no (as he did), people were going to take the stance you have.

Sunak seemed by far the most rattled and certainly the most insincere. I'd be extremely surprised if the majority of the audience thought he won that.

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/ ... -snap-poll

Starmer comes out ahead on 7 of the 10 individual components there (and often by a fairly large margin) so I'm not sure how they're claiming this as a Sunak win.

[Martin Hurst]

It was a lose/lose question really. If he said yes, then people would be saying he didn't believe in public services; if he said no (as he did), people were going to take the stance you have.

Sunak seemed by far the most rattled and certainly the most insincere. I'd be extremely surprised if the majority of the audience thought he won that.

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/ ... -snap-poll

Starmer comes out ahead on 7 of the 10 individual components there (and often by a fairly large margin) so I'm not sure how they're claiming this as a Sunak win.

I would assume "they" are claiming a Sunak win as he got more votes on the "Who do viewers think won tonight's debate?" question.

I think it is quite funny that every comment on every forum I have seen on the debate today from Tory lovers says "Sunak won the debate, I can't believe anyone thinks otherwise" and from Tory haters says "Starmer won the debate, I can't believe anyone thinks otherwise", with anyone subjective shot down.

[Elliott Mellor]

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/ ... -snap-poll

Starmer comes out ahead on 7 of the 10 individual components there (and often by a fairly large margin) so I'm not sure how they're claiming this as a Sunak win.

I would assume "they" are claiming a Sunak win as he got more votes on the "Who do viewers think won tonight's debate?" question.

I think it is quite funny that every comment on every forum I have seen on the debate today from Tory lovers says "Sunak won the debate, I can't believe anyone thinks otherwise" and from Tory haters says "Starmer won the debate, I can't believe anyone thinks otherwise", with anyone subjective shot down.

That's probably because humans have inherent biases and different stances based upon their political beliefs. Where one stands depends upon where one sits. There aren't an awful lot of people who are truly politically impartial, and so you get a distribution of people with rather more at opposing ends and comparatively few in the middle.

I certainly thought Starmer came across much the better person, but that's not a claim that I'm a huge fan of his, just a reflection of my own personal beliefs (see: Starmer far more in touch with ordinary people, which I am one of.)

Winning a debate isn't the same as having the qualities needed for being a good leader. Both of them tiptoed around points instead of giving straight answers, but based purely on debate effectiveness and maturity, Sunak was lagging way behind for me.

[Martin Hurst]

Starmer comes out ahead on 7 of the 10 individual components there (and often by a fairly large margin) so I'm not sure how they're claiming this as a Sunak win.

I would assume "they" are claiming a Sunak win as he got more votes on the "Who do viewers think won tonight's debate?" question.

I think it is quite funny that every comment on every forum I have seen on the debate today from Tory lovers says "Sunak won the debate, I can't believe anyone thinks otherwise" and from Tory haters says "Starmer won the debate, I can't believe anyone thinks otherwise", with anyone subjective shot down.

That's probably because humans have inherent biases and different stances based upon their political beliefs. Where one stands depends upon where one sits. There aren't an awful lot of people who are truly politically impartial, and so you get a distribution of people with rather more at opposing ends and comparatively few in the middle.

I think certainly now with social media etc. a lot more people nowadays have stronger political views which over time and with the continual effectiveness of divisiveness tactics has led to a lot more polarisation (hence the rising of far left and far right movements which used to be "home" only for a handful of loon elements which had little real impact).

In the "old days" people weren't as exposed and therefore generally simply weren't as interested on a day to day basis (PMQs wasn't even allowed to be filmed at all until 1989, which seems quite incredible looking back now). The pool of "floaters" was bigger and at general election time in an inevitable vote between two centre-ish options it was a case of "if things are going well vote for the incumbent, or if things aren't going well, vote for the other lot". I think even with fewer "floaters" this still ultimately currently decides elections (hence why the Tories are going to get a whoppering at polling time) but it will be interesting to see how this develops over the decades.

[Marc Meakin]

Moving forward I can't see the tories getting back in for the foreseeable future (if at all )
The Tory faithful are dying off and if Starmer gets his way 16 year old will vote and with VAT on public schools even tory boys may diminish.
I can see tge Tory right breaking away or joining Reform

[Gavin Chipper]

I'd say it was a bit of a car crash all round, including the debate structure, which seemed arbitrary and disjointed at times. Sometimes it was "Answer this question, but don't elaborate and then we'll move on." What's the point?

As for a winner, I don't think either of them really "won", but I'd certainly disagree with those saying that Sunak definitely won. He got quite a lot of mileage early on from saying Labour would tax everyone an extra £2000, but eventually Starmer rubbished that, and yet Sunak carried on with it, so I think that ultimately backfired. Sunak tried to make Starmer look weak by taking on the role of the adjudicator and demanding he answer specific questions, and Starmer was often a bit rubbish at dealing with them. But Sunak had nothing to say about the 14 years of failure and how he had to avoid talking about the Tories' record, and he would deflect by trying to corner Starmer.

It did all seem a bit strange having this debate before the manifestos are out.

[Gavin Chipper]

I think Sunak ran rings round Starmer. The Conservatives could win as many as 100 seats on July 4th.

Damning him with faint praise.

[Elliott Mellor]

I'd say it was a bit of a car crash all round, including the debate structure, which seemed arbitrary and disjointed at times. Sometimes it was "Answer this question, but don't elaborate and then we'll move on." What's the point?

As for a winner, I don't think either of them really "won", but I'd certainly disagree with those saying that Sunak definitely won. He got quite a lot of mileage early on from saying Labour would tax everyone an extra £2000, but eventually Starmer rubbished that, and yet Sunak carried on with it, so I think that ultimately backfired. Sunak tried to make Starmer look weak by taking on the role of the adjudicator and demanding he answer specific questions, and Starmer was often a bit rubbish at dealing with them. But Sunak had nothing to say about the 14 years of failure and how he had to avoid talking about the Tories' record, and he would deflect by trying to corner Starmer.

It did all seem a bit strange having this debate before the manifestos are out.

Sunak could have answered every question with "fuck you all" and there would still be people who would say he won the debate (and similarly for Starmer). To me, Sunak had very little in his weaponry - regurgitating the same few points over and over again, even when they were demonstrably inaccurate. Starmer came across a bit better I thought, and at least seemed to show a bit more human emotion as opposed to being a robot. Starmer landed quite a few blows with regards to how you can't just ignore the last 14 years (especially when the tories love to dig up historic information when trying to criticise Labour.) It's very difficult to say "we have a future plan, we're very trustworthy!" when the recent track record of the party is exactly the opposite.

[Marc Meakin]

That awful Question about the Euros at the end was cringe.
Maybe Kier Should have said something about Scotland

[Philip A]

My prediction:

Labour: 480 seats
Conservatives: 60 seats
Reform: 1 seat

[Phil H]

It was a lose/lose question

I thought he could have said "It's a poor indictment of the Conservatives that this question needs to arise, and I'm determined to change that... "

[Phil H]

I'd say it was a bit of a car crash all round, including the debate structure, which seemed arbitrary and disjointed at times. Sometimes it was "Answer this question, but don't elaborate and then we'll move on." What's the point?

As for a winner, I don't think either of them really "won", but I'd certainly disagree with those saying that Sunak definitely won. He got quite a lot of mileage early on from saying Labour would tax everyone an extra £2000, but eventually Starmer rubbished that, and yet Sunak carried on with it, so I think that ultimately backfired. Sunak tried to make Starmer look weak by taking on the role of the adjudicator and demanding he answer specific questions, and Starmer was often a bit rubbish at dealing with them. But Sunak had nothing to say about the 14 years of failure and how he had to avoid talking about the Tories' record, and he would deflect by trying to corner Starmer.

This is close enough to my take.

[Marc Meakin]

https://youtu.be/Rp1n7tzFCCE?si=8UssOo8tpAS6ceMz

Jonathan Pie telling it straight

[Ian Volante]

As usual, I'll support any candidate primarily on the basis of whether they support reform of the voting system.

Everything else is secondary. I'm sick of having the choice of voting for someone I'm not that interested in if I want to maximise the utility of that vote, or to go with what I actually want to vote for and to have that vote likely make sod-all immediate difference.

[Gavin Chipper]

That could mean voting for Reform...

(Though Greens and Lib Dems would presumably save you from having to do so.)

[Gavin Chipper]

Double Down News is quite good at exposing politicians. There's a recent video on there by Andrew Feinstein, who's standing against Keir Starmer in his constituency.

(And no, it's not Phil Reynolds.)

[Phil H]

Johnson, Truss and Sunak - all amazingly bad, but in such different ways!

[Gavin Chipper]

By the way, Sunak was allowed to get away with saying he wouldn't allow a foreign court to stop the Rwanda deportations. International is not the same as foreign. He should have been pulled up on that. Tories lie about this foreign court thing all the time.

[Marc Meakin]

Well tonight's debate was shit.
The Greens didn't back Farage with voting reform .
Mordant spent the 90 minutes interrupting Angela Rayner.
Though after Sunaks own goal about the D Day fiasco Mordent was on the back foot.
The Scottish guy probably made most sense

[Callum Todd]

It was at least a novelty to see a candidate give shoplifting advice on live national TV.

[Marc Meakin]

It was at least a novelty to see a candidate give shoplifting advice on live national TV.

As a shop worker , I can see he is right about how blaze (can't find the accent ) shoplifters are these days

[Gavin Chipper]

I find it funny that Farage supports proportional representation. Obviously he needs to for his party to get seats, but it's very much counter to what he stands for generally. He believes in things great British traditions (like First Past the Post) and not "woke" or progressive policies, which surely proportional representation is.

[Marc Meakin]

I find it funny that Farage supports proportional representation. Obviously he needs to for his party to get seats, but it's very much counter to what he stands for generally. He believes in things great British traditions (like First Past the Post) and not "woke" or progressive policies, which surely proportional representation is.

The Greens are also for it but I think the thought of Carla Denyer agreeing with Farage on anything would stick in her craw.

I'm guessing Reform man's change.
The only thing that didn't resonate with me was his endorsement of the French system of National health.

Though FWIW I agree we need change and tax breaks for companies that have private pension schemes is the way forward and charging working people for GP appointments also with the caveat that you only payer missed appointments

[Gavin Chipper]

Starmer is such a slimy twat, accusing the Tories of producing a "Jeremy Corbyn style manifesto". It was just the Labour manifesto, and Starmer was in the shadow cabinet at the time. Corbyn didn't personally produce it, and he wouldn't have been able to get away with putting in a load of "far left" policies anyway. This is just zero-principles Starmer just trying to score points by bashing the losing Labour party of the past, which he was part of. Absolute dickhead.

[Marc Meakin]

Starmer is such a slimy twat, accusing the Tories of producing a "Jeremy Corbyn style manifesto". It was just the Labour manifesto, and Starmer was in the shadow cabinet at the time. Corbyn didn't personally produce it, and he wouldn't have been able to get away with putting in a load of "far left" policies anyway. This is just zero-principles Starmer just trying to score points by bashing the losing Labour party of the past, which he was part of. Absolute dickhead.

Future Labour Prime Minister in ditching socialist principles shock !!
Socialism hadn't worked since the 1970s
It's took the PLP nearly 40 years to get it.
Then they tried again 10 years ago or so but they now realise that centre left is where its at

[Gavin Chipper]

Starmer is such a slimy twat, accusing the Tories of producing a "Jeremy Corbyn style manifesto". It was just the Labour manifesto, and Starmer was in the shadow cabinet at the time. Corbyn didn't personally produce it, and he wouldn't have been able to get away with putting in a load of "far left" policies anyway. This is just zero-principles Starmer just trying to score points by bashing the losing Labour party of the past, which he was part of. Absolute dickhead.

Future Labour Prime Minister in ditching socialist principles shock !!
Socialism hadn't worked since the 1970s
It's took the PLP nearly 40 years to get it.
Then they tried again 10 years ago or so but they now realise that centre left is where its at

How do you define socialism? Remember, this wasn't a "Corbyn manifesto" and certainly wasn't as socialist as it might have been if he was in sole charge. Starmer just doesn't want to get on the wrong side of the newspapers. Parties are generally to the right of the views of the voters, but if they go any further left, the Murdoch press gives them a roasting. If people don't know whose policies they're looking at, they suddenly become socialist! I wouldn't call Starmer centre left anyway.

[Marc Meakin]

If you remember back in 1997 the Sun backed B Liar and that was the final hurdle overcome.
It shows you how bad the Tories are when Kier Starmer who probably isn't even the 5th best Labour politician is going to outdo 1997.
It's true to say this mirrors Brexit in so much as people are voting against the status quo rather than what is being offered instead.
Though I'm guessing it will be closer to 13% than 3%

Anyway , Gev , what do you think about the Fib Dems manifesto ?

[Gavin Chipper]

I've not seen it yet.

[Elliott Mellor]

If you remember back in 1997 the Sun backed B Liar and that was the final hurdle overcome.
It shows you how bad the Tories are when Kier Starmer who probably isn't even the 5th best Labour politician is going to outdo 1997.
It's true to say this mirrors Brexit in so much as people are voting against the status quo rather than what is being offered instead.
Though I'm guessing it will be closer to 13% than 3%

Anyway , Gev , what do you think about the Fib Dems manifesto ?

These nicknames are so original, it must have taken you ages to think them up.