Where do they get these people?

[B0ycey]

A 54pt share doesn't necessarily give a majority either, you clearly don't understand how a GE works.

Are you aware how a GE works more like? 54pt Labour lead, it was works out the Tories would get 63 seats if they are lucky. Above half the voter share in FPTP is a better advantage than PR in terms of seats given Labout would have around 380 seats under PR but over 500 under FPTP.

[Nick]

It does in marginals. I'm guessing those in the know must have worked out a 5pt drop is enough. Not that this matters now given we are talking about swings, switches and 54pt voter shares today.

A 54pt share doesn't necessarily give a majority either, you clearly don't understand how a GE works. 

[Sheepy]

It does in marginals. I'm guessing those in the know must have worked out a 5pt drop is enough. Not that this matters now given we are talking about swings, switches and 54pt voter shares today.

Bu then we have heard it all before we take great delight in making polls look like what they are, pure Westminster propaganda. 

[B0ycey]

What are on about? The Tories dropping any amount of points doesn't give Labour a majority. The only thing to give Labour a majority is them getting 326 seats, the Tories losing points doesn't necessarily give them that.

It does in marginals. I'm guessing those in the know must have worked out a 5pt drop is enough. Not that this matters now given we are talking about swings, switches and 54pt voter shares today.

[Nick]

If the Conservatives dropped another 5 percentage points then, Labour would have a majority even if they didn't increase their overall voter share as we have a FPTP system.

What are on about? The Tories dropping any amount of points doesn't give Labour a majority. The only thing to give Labour a majority is them getting 326 seats, the Tories losing points doesn't necessarily give them that. 

[Sheepy]

Sheepy, it isn't ONLY the members who vote in GE. Polling suggested that during the partygate scandal that Labour would form a coalition WITHOUT increasing their overall standing (maybe it was a percentage point up), because Tory voters either backed the Lib Dems or chosing not to vote. If the Conservatives dropped another 5 percentage points then, Labour would have a majority even if they didn't increase their overall voter share as we have a FPTP system. So they never actually needed Tory voters. They just need them not to vote. But that is moot now. Tory voters are now backing Starmer anyway. So win win for Starmer.

And just to clarify given membership means absolutely f**k all, I am talking about Tory voters, or more specifically those who voted Tory in 2019, not their members.

They were mainly populists who were led to believe the Tories would deliver, which now they have wised up and realised they were just being bullied by the Westminster party under the guise of a manifesto that were all lies. Just like every other branch of the Westminster party. The party membership is their core, the true believers, everyone else is fair game which the media use as bait every time. They know full well 90% of it is complete lies yet print it anyway.Except now they have millions who completely ignore them because at its base is just the usual bullying for your vote. So as you haven't noticed it is only the populists who refuse to be part of the usual Westminster party and media hype, we are rather calm about the whole thing, while you run around like a headless chicken trying to provoke them.

[B0ycey]

Exactly not a million guaranteed voters between them.  So where Boycey gets the idea it is one or the other of them is utter tosh. Even on here the arguing over policy small print between them is about even.

Sheepy, it isn't ONLY the members who vote in GE. Polling suggested that during the partygate scandal that Labour would form a coalition WITHOUT increasing their overall standing (maybe it was a percentage point up), because Tory voters either backed the Lib Dems or chosing not to vote. If the Conservatives dropped another 5 percentage points then, Labour would have a majority even if they didn't increase their overall voter share as we have a FPTP system. So they never actually needed Tory voters. They just need them not to vote. But that is moot now. Tory voters are now backing Starmer anyway. So win win for Starmer.

And just to clarify given membership means absolutely F@@@ all, I am talking about Tory voters, or more specifically those who voted Tory in 2019, not their members.

[Sheepy]

The Lib-Dems have 73,544 members. Labour has 415,000 members, The Conservatives have 172,437 members.

Exactly not a million guaranteed voters between them.  So where Boycey gets the idea it is one or the other of them is utter tosh. Even on here the arguing over policy small print between them is about even. 

[papasmurf]

The Tories at best have 200,000 members, the Labour party have shed the majority of its members and the Lib Dems party faithful even at £12 a year wouldn't fill a church hall.  I guess you are beating a broken drum.

The Lib-Dems have 73,544 members. Labour has 415,000 members, The Conservatives have 172,437 members.

[Sheepy]

Rackham, when BoJo went partying, Labours lead widened yet their percentage of the vote didn't increase. That is because Tories left the party and went yellow or were not going to vote at all. Under first passed the post it would have meant a coalition. If that trend continued for another 5 percentage points, given the Dems still would have been in third place, Labour would have a majority without even gaining ANY extra votes. Starmer doesn't need people to switch their vote to him. He just needs them to not vote Tory. A low turnout is good for him. Yet, the latest polls have shown that the Tory voter has now turned Red. Every poll since Starmers 33pt lead still is above 20pts for him.

The Tories at best have 200,000 members, the Labour party have shed the majority of its members and the Lib Dems party faithful even at £12 a year wouldn't fill a church hall.  I guess you are beating a broken drum.

[B0ycey]

Apologies for butting in, but I think you may find that without Tory voters turning to Labour, Starmer doesn't stand a cat in hells chance of forming a coalition let alone a government. Don't get carried away with today's polls, a week is a long time in politics and the next election is two years away.

Rackham, when BoJo went partying, Labours lead widened yet their percentage of the vote didn't increase. That is because Tories left the party and went yellow or were not going to vote at all. Under first passed the post it would have meant a coalition. If that trend continued for another 5 percentage points, given the Dems still would have been in third place, Labour would have a majority without even gaining ANY extra votes. Starmer doesn't need people to switch their vote to him. He just needs them to not vote Tory. A low turnout is good for him. Yet, the latest polls have shown that the Tory voter has now turned Red. Every poll since Starmers 33pt lead still is above 20pts for him.

[B0ycey]

I am a Conservative supporter — or a supporter of what I'd considered Conservative one nation ideals. But the Tory Party of today (or from about 2015) has been moving away from a political ideology I can buy into.

The two main parties are made up of a wide range of views. Labour — except under Blair — always looked like the Far Left could gain control — even under Kinnock. The Conservatives hardly attracted the Ultra Right — but it seems now to be appealing to Millwall type factions — and that's not for me.

Who I vote for doesn't matter in N16, but there's nowhere I feel I could put my vote, even if it did...

It's a shame you're a Tory Patman. Thought you were one of the more level-headed on here. It is funny, but those who have the strongest Tory values on here at the one who scream the loudest they aren't a Tory.

[patman post]

HelloRed and welcome to the forum.

I betcha that feeling's going to be short-lived...

[cromwell]

Apologies for butting in, but I think you may find that without Tory voters turning to Labour, Starmer doesn't stand a cat in hells chance of forming a coalition let alone a government. Don't get carried away with today's polls, a week is a long time in politics and the next election is two years away.

HelloRed and welcome to the forum.

[Red Rackham]

SW, Im not here to convince you to vote Labour so that isn't a problem for me at all. Starmer doesn't need Tory voters to get into number 10 anyway. He needs you to not vote at all. But as it happens, he is now getting Tory voters switching anyway. Just not the ones who post on here. On here, they are closet Tories. Tories who refuse to acknowledge they are Tories.

Apologies for butting in, but I think you may find that without Tory voters turning to Labour, Starmer doesn't stand a cat in hells chance of forming a coalition let alone a government. Don't get carried away with today's polls, a week is a long time in politics and the next election is two years away.