You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Unless you want to argue that columns aren’t “journalism”.
A column is an opinion piece. Journalism involves doing some investigative work to ascertain the truth of what they're publishing as news (or at least it should, this has kinda fallen by the wayside in recent years).
As a columnist I could write an article tomorrow saying that the Ford Focus is shit and walk away with £100 in my pocket. As a journalist I should be reporting recall notices, failure rates, poor customer satisfaction surveys...
Of course, a problem arises when both are presented equally and readers can't tell the difference.
I wonder why you chose to ring fence paid posts only?
Because we expect to be able to hold the parties themselves to account & if they are paying for fake news to be spread that's really quite serious
I wonder why you chose to ring fence paid posts only?
I shared that part as that was the part that was judging the parties and it was the parties we were discussing spreading lies, not their supporters who they don't have control of.
And if Labour really had a gazillion willing supporters they wouldn't be losing in the polls would they.
Binners
But confiscating private assets is very much revolutionary socialism. And while it sounds great in theory, the practical immediate implications of it, seeing as we’re still part of a globalised economy, would be serious and long term.
But it was fine when state owned businesses, owned by all of us, were sold off for a pittance to a bunch of shysters?
I know which I find more palatable.....
Just admit it OOB the Tories are worse than Labour ffs its as clear as day.
Difference is, this time people know they are being lied to but are going to vote for it anyway.
Difference is, this time people know they are being lied to and refuse to admit it.
So we all agree people do know they are lies. Which makes sense - the lies only get shared by people who are debunking them. It's the repeated debunkings that generates airtime/sharing.
The whole point of political lies in the social media age is to generate widespread debunking, it wouldn't work if people believed them because they wouldn't get shared.
So yeah, as you both say, everyone knows they're being lied to and these days we're all media savvy enough to know why.
Owen Jones is a classic example of what’s wrong with the press. He’s a Labour Activist AND a Journalist. You can be one or the other IMHO, not both.
So where do you stand on being, say, the Mayor of London or an MP and writing fiction in the guise of a newspaper column?
What’s the difference? You’ve just given an example of *exactly* the same thing. Unless you want to argue that columns aren’t “journalism”.
A column is an opinion piece. Journalism involves doing some investigative work to ascertain the truth of what they’re publishing as news (or at least it should, this has kinda fallen by the wayside in recent years).
As a columnist I could write an article tomorrow saying that the Ford Focus is shit and walk away with £100 in my pocket. As a journalist I should be reporting recall notices, failure rates, poor customer satisfaction surveys…
Of course, a problem arises when both are presented equally and readers can’t tell the difference.
Ok, we'll let Boris off the hook on this one then.
Just admit it OOB the Tories are worse than Labour ffs its as clear as day.
I said I thought the Torys were worse a few posts back.
Because we expect to be able to hold the parties themselves to account & if they are paying for fake news to be spread that’s really quite serious
One party has few sharers so they have to pay to put their posts in front of people. Another party has plenty of willing sharers so they get the same exposure without paying. There's no difference.
I shared that part as that was the part that was judging the parties and it was the parties we were discussing spreading lies, not their supporters who they don’t have control of.
Their supporters are sharing lies from the party itself. The party just isn't paying for the exposure, they're getting that for free.
But it was fine when state owned businesses, owned by all of us, were sold off for a pittance to a bunch of shysters?
And not forgetting the fact that after they were given away, the private owners have hiked up prices way beyond inflation despite a reduction in investment and quality of delivery. If there's any theft of assets going on it's the naked rip off of the public in the interests of private shareholders.
I'm amazed there's not a national outcry, given that pretty much everyone I know, be they train commuters, broadband customers or gas and electricity consumers, are being ripped off by what are basically monopoly companies or cartels who can name their price with little accountability.
It's not a free market, it's a licence to print money, and just like the old monopolies in the pre-war period, they need to be broken up and run in the public interest, instead of the interests of private shareholders.
Which makes sense – the lies only get shared by people who are debunking them.
That's demonstrably not true. Look at the "on the other hand" post from a page or two back, or spend about 30 seconds on Facebook. Lisbon Treaty 2022, anyone? It's rife.
People know they're lies. They simply don't care.
At least we now know, were it ever in doubt, where Metfy gets their political guidance from.
I don't read the Sun regularly, but perhaps you should - they did cover Tom Watson not seeking reelection - and I would rather you didn't misgender me.
Anyway Corbyn has never found an anti Western group he couldn't sup with, that's what differentiates him from many of the decent men who have led Labour, and that is why he is a scumbag.
There’s no difference.
You don’t really believe that, do you?
If some Labour fan posts nonsense on here in this forum, you think that is the same as the Conservative Party paying to have adverts with proven lies in them appear on this site?
That’s demonstrably not true. Look at the “on the other hand” post from a page or two back, or spend about 30 seconds on Facebook. Lisbon Treaty 2022, anyone? It’s rife.
As far as I can see that wasn't shared by a mainstream political party, so not the tactic we're talking about. However, I googled it and the entire first page of google is repeated debunkings of it.
People know they’re lies.
Yes they do, that's what I'm saying.
I don’t read the Sun regularly, but perhaps you should
I'd rather stick pins in my eyes, though I read the headlines of most newspapers near-daily. I'd far rather do my own research from a multitude of sources than read what a given newspaper wants me to believe.
I would rather you didn’t misgender me.
How exactly did I do that? (Not knowing your gender in the first place)
You don’t really believe that, do you? If some Labour fan posts nonsense on here in this forum, you think that is the same as the Conservative Party paying to have adverts with proven lies in them appear on this site?
You're misunderstanding what's being compared here. The research is talking about lies posted by the parties themselves on FB. All those posts come from the party.
All that's different is how the post is exposed to people. If it's shared by 'people' rather than paid to be seen it's not counted in that statistic.
If JC makes a claim about the SNP on FB and his fans share it widely that doesn't count in that statistic. If JC makes a claim about the SNP on FB and he pays to get it seen it does count in that statistic.
Hence the need to point out that: “However, Labour’s supporters have been more likely to share unpaid-for electioneering posts than supporters of other parties.”
How exactly did I do that?
Their, they and them are now accepted as pronouns for someone who is non binary. I think that's what mefty is referring to.
So we all agree people do know they are lies.
Weren't you the one who kept repeating that Labour was going to steal the shares out of your pension? In fact didn't you move your investments out of the UK because you believed they would confiscate them, based on a column in the FT that claimed to have analyzed a policy that handn't been written, never mind published?
So did you know it was a lie and repeat it, knowingly spreading a lie or did you not know it was a lie?
What’s the difference? You’ve just given an example of *exactly* the same thing. Unless you want to argue that columns aren’t “journalism”
The difference is one was paid to be the Mayor and an MP and was paid to be a journo. He was a known and acknowledged liar and did so in his column whenever it benefitted him.
Owen is a journo, that as far as I know is a labour activist in his spare time, who had managed to keep his newspaper job by not lying and stomping all over the line ethically. That he approaches stories from the perspective of a labour supporter is acceptable, especially as he makes no secret if it. He doesn't pretend to be neutral while rubbishing the right.
Their, they and them are now accepted as pronouns for someone who is non binary. I think that’s what mefty is referring to.
I have no idea what gender Mefty is and I don't presume to assume. I deliberately use pronouns like "they" in situations where I don't know the gender of the person I'm addressing or referring to (when I remember to do so at least) precisely because they're gender-agnostic words.
I guess if I'd said "he" no-one would have batted an eyelid. There's probably a number of take-aways there...
I deliberately use pronouns like “they” in situations where I don’t know the gender of the person I’m addressing or referring to (when I remember to do so at least) precisely because they’re gender-agnostic words.
'they' used to be. Sadly not universally so anymore, depending on who exactly is reading 'them'
Could have been worse, zee, Zay, see was an alternative.
guess if I’d said “he” no-one would have batted an eyelid
The odds of that being true seem in your favour. Every now and then it'll be wrong.
MRP poll weights young people turn out on 2015 numbers.
And not forgetting the fact that after they were given away, the private owners have hiked up prices way beyond inflation despite a reduction in investment and quality of delivery. If there’s any theft of assets going on it’s the naked rip off of the public in the interests of private shareholders.
The problem with capitalism is that eventually you run out of public assets to flog off cheap to your mates.
I've been keeping half an eye on odds checker. The odds on a Tory majority have gone from around 75% to around 70% over the last day.
It may not seem like a massive change but when you account for the fact that most bets will have gone in already there must be a lot of people putting money on no overall majority or Labour majority.
I actually put more faith in odds than opinion polls these days.
I actually put more faith in odds than opinion polls these days
Weren't the odds for the 2017 election somewhat out?
Hung Parliament was below Conservative majority.
(Interesting analysis though.)
I actually put more faith in odds than opinion polls these days.
The bookies mostly use polling data, PaddyPower (for instance) called the Trump/Clinton election wrong like everyone else.
And not forgetting the fact that after they were given away, the private owners have hiked up prices way beyond inflation despite a reduction in investment and quality of delivery. If there’s any theft of assets going on it’s the naked rip off of the public in the interests of private shareholders.
Who allowed this to happen and who benefited from it? Ask Sid.
The very same people who will now vote this bunch back in.
The bookies mostly use polling data, PaddyPower (for instance) called the Trump/Clinton election wrong like everyone else.
Actually, at this point, all they are doing is balancing their books.
What I'm interested in is the movement since there is often a lag between the actual odds and the true odds. If the shortening of the odds on no overall majority continues up until the exit polls are released then the true odds are likely to be somewhat shorter than what they end up as, if that makes any sense.
I think direction of movement is a very useful indicator.
So we all agree people do know they are lies.
Weren’t you the one who kept repeating that Labour was going to steal the shares out of your pension? In fact didn’t you move your investments out of the UK because you believed they would confiscate them, based on a column in the FT that claimed to have analyzed a policy that handn’t been written, never mind published?
So did you know it was a lie and repeat it, knowingly spreading a lie or did you not know it was a lie?
Nobody is lying about the "Inclusive Ownership Fund". Not Labour, not McDonnell not the press. It was Labour policy when we discussed it expressed in John McDonnells own words, it still is their policy and it's also in their manifesto:
Their, they and them are now accepted as pronouns for someone who is non binary. I think that’s what mefty is referring to.
They are also acceptable pronouns where a persons gender is not known.
I hate quoting Webster but given it's the source for most of the recent Google news it seems appropriate:
c —used to refer to a single person whose gender is intentionally not revealed
A student was found with a knife and a BB gun in their backpack Monday, district spokeswoman Renee Murphy confirmed. The student, whose name has not been released, will be disciplined according to district policies, Murphy said. They also face charges from outside law enforcement, she said.
— Olivia Krauthd —used to refer to a single person whose gender identity is nonbinary (see NONBINARY sense c)
I knew certain things about … the person I was interviewing.… They had adopted their gender-neutral name a few years ago, when they began to consciously identify as nonbinary — that is, neither male nor female. They were in their late 20s, working as an event planner, applying to graduate school.
— Amy Harmon
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/they
I think direction of movement is a very useful indicator.
Definitely agree with this, but assuming yougov are bang on, even tho Tories had a terrible couple of days they lost 40 seats in that model over 2 week period , at that rate they'd only expect to lose another 6 seats between now and then.
Economist comes out for the Libdems:
Today it, (Labour) would seize 10% of large firms� equity, to be held in funds paying out mostly to the exchequer rather than to the workers who are meant to be the beneficiaries. It would phase in a four-day week, supposedly with no loss of pay. The list of industries to be nationalised seems only to grow. Drug patents could be forcibly licensed. The bill for a rapid increase in spending would fall on the rich and companies, whose tax burden would go from the lowest in the g7 to the highest. It is an attempt to deal with 21st-century problems using policies that failed in the 20th.
Nor has Mr Corbyn done anything to dampen concerns about his broader worldview. A critic of Western foreign policy and sympathiser with dictators in Iran and Venezuela who oppose it, he blamed nato for Russia�s invasion of Ukraine in 2014. Last year he suggested samples of a nerve agent used to poison a Russian former spy in Salisbury should be sent to Moscow, so Vladimir Putin could see if it was his. Under such a prime minister, Britain could not rely on receiving American intelligence. Nor has Mr Corbyn dealt with the anti-Semitism that has taken root in Labour on his watch. Some Remainers might swallow this as the price of a second Brexit referendum, which Mr Corbyn has at last promised. We have long argued for such a vote. Yet Mr Corbyn�s ruinous plans at home and bankrupt views abroad mean that this newspaper cannot support Labour.
The Conservatives, too, have grown scarier since 2017. Mr Johnson has ditched the Brexit deal negotiated by Theresa May and struck a worse one, in effect lopping off Northern Ireland so that Britain can leave the European Union�s customs union. The public are so sick of the whole fiasco that his promise to �get Brexit done� wins votes. But he would do no such thing (see article). After Britain had left the eu early next year, the hard work of negotiating a trade agreement would begin. Mr Johnson says he would do this by the end of 2020 or leave without one. No-deal is thus still on the table�and a real prospect, since getting a deal in less than a year looks hard. The best estimates suggest that leaving without a deal would make average incomes 8% lower than they would otherwise have been after ten years.
Brexit is not the only problem with Mr Johnson�s new-look Tories. He has purged moderates and accelerated the shift from an economically and socially liberal party into an economically interventionist and culturally conservative one. Angling for working-class, Leave-voting seats in the north, he has proposed extra state aid, buy-British government procurement and a sketchy tax-and-spending plan that does not add up. Also, he has absorbed the fatal lesson of the Brexit campaign: that there is no penalty for lying or breaking the rules. He promised not to suspend Parliament, then did; he promised not to extend the Brexit talks, then did. This chicanery corrodes trust in democracy. Like Mr Corbyn he has normalised prejudice, by displaying his own and failing to investigate it in his party (both men are thought racist by 30% of voters). For all these reasons this newspaper cannot support the Conservatives.
That leaves a low bar for the Liberal Democrats, and they clear it. They, too, have become more extreme since we backed them in 2017. Under a new leader, Jo Swinson, they have gone beyond the idea of a second referendum for an irresponsible promise to reverse Brexit unilaterally. This has deservedly backfired. Yet their economic approach�a moderate increase in spending, paid for by broad-based tax increases�is the most sensible of the main parties, and is the only one to be honest about the cost of an ageing society. On climate change and social policy they strike the best balance between ambition and realism. As last time, they are the only choice for anyone who rejects both the hard Brexit of the Conservatives and the hard-left plans of Labour.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/12/05/britains-nightmare-before-christmas
I'm torn now. Telling Piers Morgan (well, his representative) to **** off on live telly - good or bad?
Link to tweet with naughty language!
If it's that important to people maybe they should push to have an option to somehow include their sex in the username display. Next to the 'member' there could be an optional Male, Female, or Non-Binary
Or just change their usernames. mefty_I_am_a_man_by_the_way, for example.
Definitely agree with this, but assuming yougov are bang on, even tho Tories had a terrible couple of days they lost 40 seats in that model over 2 week period , at that rate they’d only expect to lose another 6 seats between now and then.
Well I don't think (hope) they will be bang-on, and I think we maybe have some exponential stuff going off in this last couple of days - plus MOE hopefully going our way. Also the younger vote improving over 2015 weighting.
Fingers crossed.
I’m torn now. Telling Piers Morgan (well, his representative) to **** off on live telly – good or bad?
Definition of flustered live on TV.
Basically I'm waiting for Boris to tell a black asthmatic young kid to eff off live on TV and nick his phone and bike.
Basically I’m waiting for Boris to tell a black asthmatic young kid to eff off live on TV and nick his phone and bike.
hope not, last thing we need is boris getting a last minute boost in the polls.
Have we ever had a weaker man who wanted to be PM than Johnson?
hope not, last thing we need is boris getting a last minute boost in the polls.
🙂
Have we ever had a weaker man who wanted to be PM than Johnson?
Yep and the narrative was he was a strong leader that was going to campaign really well.
MSM calling this a dirty election from ALL sides. What bullshit. It's clearly been a dirty Tory campaign.
newsnight should be doing forensic analysis of their own tory fake news stooge rather than some random face book lady.
24 hrs to go
Polls tilting against them , awful mishandling of the Leeds general story, health secretary caught lying again
All Johnson has to do is not do anything stupid, especially not live on Good Morning Britain
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1204692739373355008?s=19
A fridge too far?
All Quiet on the Question Front
Local polling to us is showing the seat is going to go Tory. 4,500 majority for our present Labour MP looks like being overturned and we’ll be getting some Tory sock-puppet instead.
Fantastic! 🙄
What’s really worrying is what it says about what’s happening in the northern seats the Tory’s are targeting
Present odds for labour being the largest party: 15/1
Present odds for the Conservatives being the largest party: 1.03/1
Labour Majority: 26/1
Hung parliament: 3.25/1
Conservative majority: 1.4/1
What’s really worrying is what it says about what’s happening in the northern seats the Tory’s are targeting
No surprise, it's the price of securing remain metropolitan seats. They couldn't do both. I've said for a long time that labour needed to listen more to northern leave voters, but it's an impossible problem to solve.
Rule no. 1, never take your base for granted. Won't be a problem after this election as they won't be coming back. Labour's new base is the under 30s, and it's going to take a while for the demographics to tip the balance the other way.
No surprise, it’s the price of securing remain metropolitan seats. They couldn’t do both.
But there's a strong possibility they could do neither
Labour’s new base is the under 30s
The ones who don't actually bother voting?
If he was actually telling just Piers to Eff off, I’d have perhaps a little sympathy. But he was actually telling us all to, really. Scrutiny? Questions? ‘Eff off old chap, don’t be such a bore...’
With the possibility of a hung parliment still just about there, I think of the words of Brian Stimpson... “It's not the despair, Laura. I can take the despair. It's the hope I can't stand.".
The Fresh PM of Frigidaire.
Present odds for labour being the largest party: 15/1
Present odds for the Conservatives being the largest party: 1.03/1
Labour Majority: 26/1
Hung parliament: 3.25/1
Conservative majority: 1.4/1
Bookies got it wrong in 2017.
https://twitter.com/centrist_phone/status/1204542231446802442?s=09
With the possibility of a hung parliment still just about there, I think of the words of Brian Stimpson… “It’s not the despair, Laura. I can take the despair. It’s the hope I can’t stand.”.
This
Their, they and them are now accepted as pronouns for someone who is non binary.
When did this happen? They didn't tell me. Their communication on these issues needs improving. How do I contact them?
If Lab get to just ~37% on polling day (on current trends this seems plausible and likely) the following happens:
1) They could take ~10 seats from Con in the South
2) They save all but ~10 seats in the Red Wall
3) LD's take ~5 seats from Con
4) SNP take ~6 seats from Con
I agree with his conclusion (it's too close to call) but not the workings. Under FPTP there's no need for any significant relationship between votes and seats. It's entirely possible to win less overall votes than the other parties and *still* win more seats. Jezzers national vote share could drop and he could still win the seats he need by a country mile.
We can't predict where the seats are going, because we don't know what the balance of Brexit/Party alleigence are in each constituency. So you can't sensibly argue that if National polling moves by X a specific set of seats will change by Y.
he didn't look very "Churchillian" in the GMTV video, Johnson reaction to a minor crisis of an impromptu interview is runaway.
I agree with his conclusion (it’s too close to call) but not the workings. Under FPTP there’s no need for any significant relationship between votes and seats. It’s entirely possible to win less overall votes than the other parties and *still* win more seats.
I think that guy is probably aware of this!
My own boring story of how I've put my money where my mouth is in my belief in the likelihood of a hung parliament.
Currently, what with Norway being outside the customs union, we have to pay duty and a processing fee on any imported goods. The limit is 350 NOK (around £35) meaning that if the value of goods plus shipping is less than that you don't pay any tax or fees, neither in the country you bought it from or in Norway.
I just ordered a new chain and cassette which came to a grand total of 344.47 NOK from CRC. This is far closer to the limit than I like. The reason being that they judge the value based on the exchange rate when the goods enter the country, not when I buy them.
So, if the value of the goods when they reach customs is 349,49 NOK I don't pay any extra, whereas if it is 350,01 NOK I will have to pay an extra 257 NOK (it's logical bureaucratic things like this you can look forward to after the UK leaves the customs union).
If there is no overall majority then I expect the Pound to plummet. If Johnson gets his majority then presumably it will go up and I will get stung with the import charges.
So there we go, that's the really really boring explanation of my skin in the game for this election (you know, except for the fact I lose the benefits of freedom of movement and might have to move back to my parents house in Glasgow if it all goes completely tits up).
The bastard! I know he's targeting northern seats, but he's using pies as props. PIES!!!
How dare he?! Thats taking cultural appropriation a step too far
He looks like the kind of man who'd put a puff pastry lid on a casserole and call it a pie
I'm a bit confused about some o the nubemrs I've been seeing. One of the tactical vote websites had an advert on Facebook for my constituency showing tories on 43% labour on 30% and the lib dems on 16% - Can they really get to a consituency level that well? I looked and in 2017 the libs had 2% and in 2015 3.5%, while in 2010 they had 19%, I can't really see them jumping up again.
I'm wondering whether it total rubbsih fiures designed to try and get libs to vote labour as they would be able to block a tory take? Annoying I can't remember which website the advert was from.
Bit difficult to say anything without knowing which constituency we're talking about.
He looks like the kind of man who’d put a puff pastry lid on a casserole and call it a pie
If he was, he'd be in the SNP.
The ones who don’t actually bother voting?
That is indeed the problem. Lots of labour MPs in northern and midlands seats were screaming that labour was abandoning working class leave voters, and it looks like they may have been right. If labour lose because of that, then you can be sure that in the following post-mortem the conclusion drawn won't be that labour should have been more pro-remain as Tom Watson et al wanted.
> sigh <
Telling people that Brexit is probably a good idea, but that you may or may not do it, when your opponents promise they will come what may… how does that work for anyone? Not challenging the lies of 2016, so that the same team can use the same techniques in 2019, how was that ever going to work for Labour?
type Jon Worth & your constituency into youtube & he has a video for ever constituency thats up for grabs & an explanation of why & how you should vote
The oaf who swore at GMTV on johnson's behalf this morning is robert oxley, johnson's press sec.
One of his previous roles was head of media for vote leave.
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/robert-oxley-a3b7b7109
Cheers @kimbers - I know how to vote (labour) - my constituency (Gower) is a straight two horse race. I was just slightly surprised at the predicted levels of support of Lib Dems. My fist thoguht was 'shit.. but if the lib supporters vote labour we'll be ok,' now wondering if the accuracy of a constituency level poll is such that the actual result could be either way
now wondering if the accuracy of a constituency level poll is such that the actual result could be either way
Constituency polls are notorously unreliable. ...and if it's just a projection based on national polls it's completely meaningless AFAIC.
In my constituency I'm guessing from people I know and the colour of the campaign signs I see dotted around. I don't trust any predictions and you just can't tell from previous results (but you can maybe get clues from what happened to the UKIP voters).
Telling people that Brexit is probably a good idea, but that you may or may not do it, when your opponents promise they will come what may… how does that work for anyone?
Agree. AIUI ~60pc of Tory voters are Leavers and ~60pc of Labour voters are remainers. The Torys risked walking away from 30pc of their voters in the hope they'd harvest leave Votes, Labout should have risked walking away from 30pc of their voters in the hope they'd harvest remain votes. My gut feel is they couldn't do that because a) The leadership are leavers b) Corbyn/Momentum don't welcome new voters, they're all about pleasig the leftie core and c) the Manifesto doesn't welcome new voters it's all about pleasing the leftie core.
...but Boris is really bad and the Lib vote has collapsed so in spite of all that Labour could well be forming the next Government in this slow motion battle between the unpopular popularists.
has Blowjo pissed in Armando Iannucci's shoes ? as he really doesn't like him.
Boris Johnson has failed to show up for an appearance on Jeremy Vince. Every other leader has done it. They're giving him a right slating
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/elect-me-you-little-shts-20191211191668
One of the few "news sources" that I still trust... 😉
I believe you have just named a new political era Outofbreath - "Unpopulism". That's pure genius and I shall use it widely.
Boris Johnson has failed to show up for an appearance on Jeremy Vince. Every other leader has done it. They’re giving him a right slating
It really is damage limitation with him.
He just can't hack it.
Let's get him out!
I believe you have just named a new political era Outofbreath – “Unpopulism”. That’s pure genius and I shall use it widely.
Love it, but the credit goes to you for “Unpopulism”.
In other news, 15 former Labour MPs having a pop at Jezza in Northern Constituencies:
Not sure this actually sways voters, mind you the guys that wrote it obviously think it might.
Have we ever had a weaker man who wanted to be PM than Johnson?
John Major in 1992
Got a huge number of votes IIRC. But he was up against a divisive Labour leader
HTH
Blowjo makes John Major look like a Colossus, and for all he's faults you'd couldn't accuse him of being a coward.
www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/12/the-largest-vote-swings-in-british-general-election-history-censored-out-by-the-bbc-and-mainstream-media/
More MRP Poll analysis.