115
Tories facing general election wipeout with just 130 seats, says polling guru (www.independent.co.uk)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk
43 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Rishi Sunak’s Conservatives are facing their worst ever result at the general election and could be left with just 130 seats, according to Professor Sir John Curtice.

The country’s top polling guru warned of the bleak situation faced by the Tories as they head into winter with the news dominated by infighting over the prime minister’s Rwanda deportation plan.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 2 years ago (2 children)

and i say this as a trans person.

I'm not sure what this adds to your comment.

I completely disagree that it'll be "red Tories", his voting record is nothing like the "softer Tories". It just won't be as left as some people want.

All this doom and gloom about Starmer also plays right into the Tory smear playbook. If they can get everyone to talk about it then it doesn't matter how true or false it is. People who would have voted are now feeling "what's the point" and the Tories can win through disaffection.

Yeah it could be better with a different Labour leader, but fucking hell, it'll be a hell of a lot better than the past decade of rotating Tory failures we've had as PM.

Don't use headlines as basis for your opinion, use his voting record to show what he really believes.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25353/keir_starmer/holborn_and_st_pancras/votes

He has voted against restricting legal aid

He has voted against tuition fees.

He has voted against reducing welfare benefits

He has voted for increasing disability payments

That's not Tory.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    That's right. I was someone who fell into the "they're red tories" trap during the Blair years. We were spoilt and didn't know how good we had it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Blair was New Labour, which I suppose you could call them, Tories Lite, but that's kind of unnuanced.

    Regardless, "New Labour" essentially doesn't exist anymore.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Not "unnuanced", completely unjustified.

    Even New Labour has absolutely no relationship to the Tories, spending on services went up, standards of living went up, child poverty went down, the economy grew, everyone was better off.

    The only down point for the UK was during the global recession caused by the Americans, but that can't be blamed on Labour.

    Then the Tories came back, cut everything, reduced taxes, and it all went to shit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    The problem with that comparison is that the Tories have been shifting more and more right for a decade now.

    New Labour was supposed to combat Tory classic, not this new branch of wingnuts. You know the Tories of the '90s they did at least recognize that welfare was something they had to spend money on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    I'm not that young, I remember the 80's and 90's.

    Relative poverty levels increased in the 80's, were fairly flat in the early 90's and decreased while New Labour was in power. Afterwards it flattened and has been increasing.

    https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/improving-our-understanding-of-uk-poverty-will-require-better-data/

    Just because Tory now is a complete and utter mess, doesn't make New Labour the same as Thatcher and Major.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent