Best Of

"Robert Jenrick claims one of the reasons he defected to Reform is that the Conservative party is aiming for a ‘60 seat strategy’ which will leave the Tories grubbing around for votes in the ‘posh’ parts of Southern England – and even then only in the seats where the Lib Dems aren’t hoovering up anti-Labour protest votes.

Now, leaked papers circulating among Tory MPs have been passed to The Spectator detailing exactly how that strategy would work. Three core groups of voters have been identified by the party’s strategists, led by Stephen Gilbert. These are described as ‘Potential Conservatives’, ‘persuasion voters’ and ‘tactical voters.’"

https://spectator.com/article/revealed-inside-the-tories-60-seat-election-strategy/

So "core Conservatives" are "motivated by demonstrating competence". That's an ask, right there, although Kemi is improving I suppose, and there's always voter amnesia. But, as even the Spectator admits, the LibDems are doing pretty well at moving into that market.

Seeking to defend only half of their already-record-low tally of seats is a remarkably pessimistic strategy, although maybe a realistic one.

It's notable that the biggest obstacle they may face with their own 'potential' supporters next time is the feeling that "they cannot win" - the card they've played for generations against a myriad of smaller parties. Karma at last....

Seeking to put the economy at the heart of their strategy whilst remaining blindly opposed to any sort of closer economic co-operation with the EU isn't an approach over solid ground.

Attacking Labour as the party of welfare, however, is clearly a strong attack line focused on a clear weak spot for the government.

If Tory canvassers are going to come round to claim that their party has "learned from its mistakes", I'll be interested to hear precisely how?

Oh!
When I read "60-seat strategy" I assumed that was +60 seats, looking at winning back 60 target seats. Not only holding on to 60 seats total.

But now, after your comment, I look at the article and it really is 60 seats total. Cor. And indeed. Blimey.

"Robert Jenrick claims one of the reasons he defected to Reform is that the Conservative party is aiming for a ‘60 seat strategy’ which will leave the Tories grubbing around for votes in the ‘posh’ parts of Southern England – and even then only in the seats where the Lib Dems aren’t hoovering up anti-Labour protest votes.

Now, leaked papers circulating among Tory MPs have been passed to The Spectator detailing exactly how that strategy would work. Three core groups of voters have been identified by the party’s strategists, led by Stephen Gilbert. These are described as ‘Potential Conservatives’, ‘persuasion voters’ and ‘tactical voters.’"

https://spectator.com/article/revealed-inside-the-tories-60-seat-election-strategy/

Interesting, thank you

There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.

Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.

Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.

If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?

No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.

We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.

Voters really don’t like being taken for mugs by the politicians.

Trying to engineer a by-election to get a mayor back into Parliament looks awfully like a stitchup, but will the Tories and Lib Dems want to stand aside or run paper candidates to let Reform challenge Burnham and keep their momentum running? Will Greens and WhateverTheyCallThemselvesThisWeek Party want to run hard and risk a Reform win?

I actually like Burnham, he has done well in Manchester, and deserves huge praise for the way he pushed forward the Hillsborough Inquiry after being booed at the Anfield memorial service while sports minister.

Still not sure that trying to fix a by-election works though.

If he can’t win a byelection against Reform in GM then his platform is dead on arrival.

Lots of hurdles for Burnham.

I personally fail to see all the Labour MPs waving him along as he sails into the leadership. Are they really likely to feel that they are collectively so useless?

I suspect the safest thing to do is to let Burnham try to become an MP and hope that he fails at one of the hurdles between being mayor and becoming PM.

Stopping him will just make SKS and so look desperate and even weaker than they currently are...

If Starmer announces an all-women shortlist, does Burnham turn up to hustings in a dress and announce that he identifies as a woman this week, then stand back and watch as all Hell breaks loose among the activists?

I think Burnham's sensible move is to enjoy being Mayor of Manchester, where he has been transformative, and decide that he wants to enjoy his next 20 years of life rather than let himself be destroyed in politics.

In terms of achievements, I think that Regional Mayors, and entrepreneurial cities somewhat on the Victorian pattern, are perhaps more important for the future of the country rather than rat-fights in the Westminster sack.