As for Lib Dems overtaking Conservatives, that needs about 25 gains by the Peril on the Yellow-Blue battlefield. That means overturning majorities of 8000/8% or so, and winning in places like Surrey East and New Forest West.
A few months ago, that would have seemed crazy, but if the Lib Dems can properly lean into their new status as the party of Nice Britain, kind of like the Aussie Teals, who knows? The Conservatives have got to do something about those seats, because 70 Lib Dems are already a pretty effective block on a Conservative majority.
Let's get real. The people who are going to be hurting most under this Government are going to be in those seats the LibDems took from the Tories. They are going to have ZERO sway to stop Labour hurting their voters.
There's huge poential for buyers' remorse from those who voted LibDem and feel they are being shafted by this Government. LibDems are going to be on defence, not offence, next time out.
Quite so. Labour will be ripping those voters to shreds like the Xenomorph Queen did to Bishop.
I like the complacency here by Tories regarding the seats the LDs won off them. 4 - 5 years is a long time and the pendulum may swing back and obliterate the LDs once more because of whatever.
But if you want then back you are going to have to work them or rely on luck.
As @Cicero said there are some impressive LDs elected and they haven't stopped working the seats since the election. Interestingly in Guildford we have continued canvassing and the results show a big increase in support. Now that is probably just a winners bonus that will fade and I assume only happening in seats we won because there is no obvious national swing. But if the Tories want it back they are either going to have to rely on the luck of changing fortunes or work their arses off, which they weren't able to do at the General Election because of lack of volunteers.
Next year is the Counties. The Tories are likely to take a hammering there because they are defending gains. I fully expect the Tories to lose Surrey County Council for only the second time ever and in 1993 they were still the largest party. I suspect they won't be in 2025 and there is an outside chance the LDs may take it. That will be a challenge for the new leader early in their leadership.
If things are going to change it is going to take time. 4 - 5 years may be enough. It might not be and it may get worse.
Be interesting to see if the SNP end up suspending the whip from John Mason but not from Angus Robertson.
Thing is, neither the Palestinians, nor Israelis give a flying fuck about what the Scottish people/government thinks.
The Government in Westminster and wider British opinion is viewed as pretty irrelevant, also.
We're fundamentally blamed for Balfour, the mandate period and how it came to an end. Just about the only thing both sides can agree on is that our opinions don't matter.
At least the Scottish government don't pretend they are big shots going to Israel to be publicly humiliated as irrelevant tossers pretending to be big shots. They saved the cash and did it locally so only the twats in UK see it rather than the whole world getting a laugh at Lammy pretending to be a world diplomat rather than a dipstick nonentity.
As for Lib Dems overtaking Conservatives, that needs about 25 gains by the Peril on the Yellow-Blue battlefield. That means overturning majorities of 8000/8% or so, and winning in places like Surrey East and New Forest West.
A few months ago, that would have seemed crazy, but if the Lib Dems can properly lean into their new status as the party of Nice Britain, kind of like the Aussie Teals, who knows? The Conservatives have got to do something about those seats, because 70 Lib Dems are already a pretty effective block on a Conservative majority.
Lib Dems becoming second party I think depends on Labour winning further seats from the Conservatives, which by is by no means impossible. It does depend on what happens with Reform, Labour remaining a lot more popular relative to the Conservatives and continued Labour/LD/Green tactical voting.
On the other hand I could also Lib Dems winning more seats off the Conservatives as that party wins seats off Labour if Labour goes into decline. The Lib Dems will become challengers at Labour's expense in some Tory seats.
Why would this form of Labour government, pursuing classic socialism, appeal even further to Tory voters?
Some people have taken leave of their senses.
This is a genuine question, for all Tories. Why do you think the Tories had their worst result in terms of seats since 1761?
Your response to any pushback on why the Tories can't recover - or do even worse - is simply to ask this question.
The election is over now and a new administration is in power that is rapidly making enemies. To anchor back to your safe space of political discourse shows your lack of understanding, not mine.
As for Lib Dems overtaking Conservatives, that needs about 25 gains by the Peril on the Yellow-Blue battlefield. That means overturning majorities of 8000/8% or so, and winning in places like Surrey East and New Forest West.
A few months ago, that would have seemed crazy, but if the Lib Dems can properly lean into their new status as the party of Nice Britain, kind of like the Aussie Teals, who knows? The Conservatives have got to do something about those seats, because 70 Lib Dems are already a pretty effective block on a Conservative majority.
Lib Dems becoming second party I think depends on Labour winning further seats from the Conservatives, which by is by no means impossible. It does depend on what happens with Reform, Labour remaining a lot more popular relative to the Conservatives and continued Labour/LD/Green tactical voting.
On the other hand I could also Lib Dems winning more seats off the Conservatives as that party wins seats off Labour if Labour goes into decline. The Lib Dems will become challengers at Labour's expense in some Tory seats.
Why would this form of Labour government, pursuing classic socialism, appeal even further to Tory voters?
Some people have taken leave of their senses.
This is a genuine question, for all Tories. Why do you think the Tories had their worst result in terms of seats since 1761?
A few ideas from a non-Tory:
1) Covid, especially Partygate;
2) Ukraine and inflation;
3) The first proper* three PM Parliament since 1868;
4) Truss;
5) Mad right wing shit like Rwanda and obsessions with LEZ charges rather than building houses and sorting public services;
6) Dire and worsening crises in multiple public services - health, education, courts, social care, roads, railways etc.
You will notice I haven't included Brexit because I think despite what its acolytes on either side say that mostly is an irrelevance.
Bottom line is, I think the Tories were going to lose this election from Partygate onwards. They just didn't get how badly that played. Heck, some of the sillier ones are still lamenting that Massive resigned over it.
But they did a remarkable job of making a bad situation very much worse with a huge number of astonishing unforced errors.
*Not including the rather unusual circumstances of 1935-45, and the 1900-1906 Parliament where the first act of the incoming PM was to dissolve parliament. In 1865-68 there were a remarkable four Prime Ministers.
Luntz: "“She’s bringing out people who are not interested in voting for either Trump or Biden. So the entire electoral pool has changed,” Luntz said. “And if it continues in this direction, you have to start to consider Democrats winning the Senate and Democrats winning the House."
As for Lib Dems overtaking Conservatives, that needs about 25 gains by the Peril on the Yellow-Blue battlefield. That means overturning majorities of 8000/8% or so, and winning in places like Surrey East and New Forest West.
A few months ago, that would have seemed crazy, but if the Lib Dems can properly lean into their new status as the party of Nice Britain, kind of like the Aussie Teals, who knows? The Conservatives have got to do something about those seats, because 70 Lib Dems are already a pretty effective block on a Conservative majority.
Let's get real. The people who are going to be hurting most under this Government are going to be in those seats the LibDems took from the Tories. They are going to have ZERO sway to stop Labour hurting their voters.
There's huge poential for buyers' remorse from those who voted LibDem and feel they are being shafted by this Government. LibDems are going to be on defence, not offence, next time out.
Quite so. Labour will be ripping those voters to shreds like the Xenomorph Queen did to Bishop.
Only voting Ripley-Tory can stop it.
Was I meant to understand any of that?
Essentially that Conservative recovery plans are still at the bizarre fantasy stage.
I like the complacency here by Tories regarding the seats the LDs won off them. 4 - 5 years is a long time and the pendulum may swing back and obliterate the LDs once more because of whatever.
But if you want then back you are going to have to work them or rely on luck.
As @Cicero said there are some impressive LDs elected and they haven't stopped working the seats since the election. Interestingly in Guildford we have continued canvassing and the results show a big increase in support. Now that is probably just a winners bonus that will fade and I assume only happening in seats we won because there is no obvious national swing. But if the Tories want it back they are either going to have to rely on the luck of changing fortunes or work their arses off, which they weren't able to do at the General Election because of lack of volunteers.
Next year is the Counties. The Tories are likely to take a hammering there because they are defending gains. I fully expect the Tories to lose Surrey County Council for only the second time ever and in 1993 they were still the largest party. I suspect they won't be in 2025 and there is an outside chance the LDs may take it. That will be a challenge for the new leader early in their leadership.
If things are going to change it is going to take time. 4 - 5 years may be enough. It might not be and it may get worse.
You and @Cicero are core praetorian activist guard of the Liberal Democrats, so it's no wonder you want to big up your seats.
To hold them you'd have to move much further to the Right than you'd ever be comfortable doing, and that'd involve things like consistently voting with the Tories against Labour budget measures.
Instead, I expect little Sir Echo with a bit more sandals. You know, the usual.
While we're doing movie analogies, it takes some serious political savvy to attack the Irish, in front of a police audience.
Vance: Has anybody seen the movie "Gangs of New York?." That is what I'm talking about, with these ethnic enclaves in our country, it can lead to higher crime rates. https://x.com/Acyn/status/1824490793815642554
As for Lib Dems overtaking Conservatives, that needs about 25 gains by the Peril on the Yellow-Blue battlefield. That means overturning majorities of 8000/8% or so, and winning in places like Surrey East and New Forest West.
A few months ago, that would have seemed crazy, but if the Lib Dems can properly lean into their new status as the party of Nice Britain, kind of like the Aussie Teals, who knows? The Conservatives have got to do something about those seats, because 70 Lib Dems are already a pretty effective block on a Conservative majority.
Lib Dems becoming second party I think depends on Labour winning further seats from the Conservatives, which by is by no means impossible. It does depend on what happens with Reform, Labour remaining a lot more popular relative to the Conservatives and continued Labour/LD/Green tactical voting.
On the other hand I could also Lib Dems winning more seats off the Conservatives as that party wins seats off Labour if Labour goes into decline. The Lib Dems will become challengers at Labour's expense in some Tory seats.
Why would this form of Labour government, pursuing classic socialism, appeal even further to Tory voters?
Some people have taken leave of their senses.
This is a genuine question, for all Tories. Why do you think the Tories had their worst result in terms of seats since 1761?
Because - similar to what Pigeon says - it was increasingly difficult to identify any sections of the electorate who benefitted from Conservative government, aside from home-owning pensioners.
HYUFD gave a fascinating (if possibly coincidental) view of what appeared to be Conservative strategic thinking over the past five years: with every setback "it doesn't matter if that part of the electorate doesn't vote Conservative, as long as [2019 Con voters/2019 Con voters in Con seats/2019 Con voters in marginal Con seats/2019 Con voters in enough marginal Con seats] vote Conservative.
I don't actually know if it's possible any more to build a broad based coalition for a single party in our splintered landscape which reaches 40-odd percent. But it was as if they'd given up trying.
As for Lib Dems overtaking Conservatives, that needs about 25 gains by the Peril on the Yellow-Blue battlefield. That means overturning majorities of 8000/8% or so, and winning in places like Surrey East and New Forest West.
A few months ago, that would have seemed crazy, but if the Lib Dems can properly lean into their new status as the party of Nice Britain, kind of like the Aussie Teals, who knows? The Conservatives have got to do something about those seats, because 70 Lib Dems are already a pretty effective block on a Conservative majority.
Let's get real. The people who are going to be hurting most under this Government are going to be in those seats the LibDems took from the Tories. They are going to have ZERO sway to stop Labour hurting their voters.
There's huge poential for buyers' remorse from those who voted LibDem and feel they are being shafted by this Government. LibDems are going to be on defence, not offence, next time out.
Quite so. Labour will be ripping those voters to shreds like the Xenomorph Queen did to Bishop.
Only voting Ripley-Tory can stop it.
Was I meant to understand any of that?
Essentially that Conservative recovery plans are still at the bizarre fantasy stage.
Patel illicits a response from voters, more than any of the others. If the Tories want to remain relevant, then clearly there is only one option:
#Priti4Leader
Given Patel has the worst negatives with voters by far she is the LDs ideal Tory leader
All of the current Tory candidates are good for the Lib Dems. Patel is simply loathed, Badenoch is Patel without the broomstick accessory, but with a growing reputation for underhand dealings, Jenrick is conventional, but the cartoons nastiness makes him very Marmite even amongst Tory supporters and disliked elsewhere. Tugendhat is amiable but comes across as chinless, while Cleverly is a man for whom the very word "hapless" could have been coined. Even if the next Tory leader makes it to the next general election -not a given- the chances of any of these people becoming PM is vanishingly small. So the polls are right, why should anyone care?
Meanwhile there are some very serious new MPs on the Lib Dem benches (a surprising number of ex military, incidentally) and they have hit the ground running with perma-campaigns in held seats and plans to increase the national vote share and take the fight to the next tier of seats. I don´t think I have ever seen the party so fired up.
Meanwhile every day another more Tory members shuffle off this mortal coil and are not replaced. The leadership election should be the perfect time to recruit, but if anyone is doing that, it is not having much impact. If the Tories lose only another 25 seats to the Lib Dems, then Sir Edward Davey is the Leader of His Majesty´s Loyal Opposition and the Tories are done. At this point one can even wonder if the Tories are up for the fight. Europe doing to the Conservative and Unionist Party what Ireland and Asquithian High mindedness did to the Liberal Party.
Interestingly the LDs have continued campaigning in Guildford as if the election was still to happen. A constituency wide leaflet out and daily canvassing.
The Today programme this morning was covering the issue of Tories dying off rather than people moving Conservative as they get older. Didn't seem clear what that was based upon however.
Re the quality of the new MPs I only know a few, but the ones I know are quite impressive. Keep an eye on Chris Coghlan, a young Paddy Ashdown clone.
2nd para, 1st sentence is a factual statement. 2nd statement is me casting doubt on the opinion being expressed in that report. The idea of old Tories dying off has been spun many times before so I am not convinced it is true even this time, but it was what was being reported.
3rd statement is my opinion, but how would you know it is pants? You don't know who the ones I know are and you almost certainly don't know them personally 500 miles away and a quick look at Chris Coghlan's CV will tell you why he looks like a young Paddy Ashdown clone whether you like him or rate him at all.
"Doomsday for Republicans" - Senate race polling is very encouraging for Democrats.
Plus, Trump's lead in Florida is down to 3% (from 6%)
Isn't that good for Trump? Considering he gets the same nber of EC whether he wins FL by 1 vote or a million
There were 3 polls this week, giving Trump leads of 3%, 5%, and 8% in Florida (compared to 3% in 2020). I doubt it’s in play.
The national polling gives Harris an average lead of 1-1.5%. It remains very close.
Remember, just because we want Trump to lose does not mean Americans do.
Hmmmm.
Given he's lost the popular vote in both elections he's run in before, and looks near certain to do so again regardless of the EC outcome, I think we can safely say most Americans want him to lose.
As for Lib Dems overtaking Conservatives, that needs about 25 gains by the Peril on the Yellow-Blue battlefield. That means overturning majorities of 8000/8% or so, and winning in places like Surrey East and New Forest West.
A few months ago, that would have seemed crazy, but if the Lib Dems can properly lean into their new status as the party of Nice Britain, kind of like the Aussie Teals, who knows? The Conservatives have got to do something about those seats, because 70 Lib Dems are already a pretty effective block on a Conservative majority.
Let's get real. The people who are going to be hurting most under this Government are going to be in those seats the LibDems took from the Tories. They are going to have ZERO sway to stop Labour hurting their voters.
There's huge poential for buyers' remorse from those who voted LibDem and feel they are being shafted by this Government. LibDems are going to be on defence, not offence, next time out.
Quite so. Labour will be ripping those voters to shreds like the Xenomorph Queen did to Bishop.
Only voting Ripley-Tory can stop it.
Was I meant to understand any of that?
Essentially that Conservative recovery plans are still at the bizarre fantasy stage.
As for Lib Dems overtaking Conservatives, that needs about 25 gains by the Peril on the Yellow-Blue battlefield. That means overturning majorities of 8000/8% or so, and winning in places like Surrey East and New Forest West.
A few months ago, that would have seemed crazy, but if the Lib Dems can properly lean into their new status as the party of Nice Britain, kind of like the Aussie Teals, who knows? The Conservatives have got to do something about those seats, because 70 Lib Dems are already a pretty effective block on a Conservative majority.
Lib Dems becoming second party I think depends on Labour winning further seats from the Conservatives, which by is by no means impossible. It does depend on what happens with Reform, Labour remaining a lot more popular relative to the Conservatives and continued Labour/LD/Green tactical voting.
On the other hand I could also Lib Dems winning more seats off the Conservatives as that party wins seats off Labour if Labour goes into decline. The Lib Dems will become challengers at Labour's expense in some Tory seats.
Why would this form of Labour government, pursuing classic socialism, appeal even further to Tory voters?
Some people have taken leave of their senses.
This is a genuine question, for all Tories. Why do you think the Tories had their worst result in terms of seats since 1761?
A few ideas from a non-Tory:
1) Covid, especially Partygate;
2) Ukraine and inflation;
3) The first proper* three PM Parliament since 1868;
4) Truss;
5) Mad right wing shit like Rwanda and obsessions with LEZ charges rather than building houses and sorting public services;
6) Dire and worsening crises in multiple public services - health, education, courts, social care, roads, railways etc.
You will notice I haven't included Brexit because I think despite what its acolytes on either side say that mostly is an irrelevance.
Bottom line is, I think the Tories were going to lose this election from Partygate onwards. They just didn't get how badly that played. Heck, some of the sillier ones are still lamenting that Massive resigned over it.
But they did a remarkable job of making a bad situation very much worse with a huge number of astonishing unforced errors.
*Not including the rather unusual circumstances of 1935-45, and the 1900-1906 Parliament where the first act of the incoming PM was to dissolve parliament. In 1865-68 there were a remarkable four Prime Ministers.
That's pretty much it.
I'd add general money grifting, unwillingness to accept responsibility for their actions, sleaze and misconduct.
Conservative politicians looked like people you wouldn't want as a neighbour and wouldn't want as a boss.
In which case why would you want them as your government or even as your MP.
There were some exceptions to this rule which might account for some better than average constituency results.
“I’m trying to do a focus group tonight with undecided voters under the age of 27 for a major news outlet. And I can’t recruit young women to this, because they don’t exist as undecided voters,” he said.
Isn't that more of a problem (of sorts) for Harris? If you've won every undecided in the voter group most likely to be sympathetic to your campaign, and it's only shifted you in the polling from miles behind to toss up, to make any further progress will require you to appeal to voter groups less likely to find you appealing, which is going to be harder.
As for Lib Dems overtaking Conservatives, that needs about 25 gains by the Peril on the Yellow-Blue battlefield. That means overturning majorities of 8000/8% or so, and winning in places like Surrey East and New Forest West.
A few months ago, that would have seemed crazy, but if the Lib Dems can properly lean into their new status as the party of Nice Britain, kind of like the Aussie Teals, who knows? The Conservatives have got to do something about those seats, because 70 Lib Dems are already a pretty effective block on a Conservative majority.
Lib Dems becoming second party I think depends on Labour winning further seats from the Conservatives, which by is by no means impossible. It does depend on what happens with Reform, Labour remaining a lot more popular relative to the Conservatives and continued Labour/LD/Green tactical voting.
On the other hand I could also Lib Dems winning more seats off the Conservatives as that party wins seats off Labour if Labour goes into decline. The Lib Dems will become challengers at Labour's expense in some Tory seats.
Why would this form of Labour government, pursuing classic socialism, appeal even further to Tory voters?
Some people have taken leave of their senses.
Socialism itself isn't the problem. I don't think the majority of people have a principled objection to tax and spend. What tends to rile people is tax-and-piss-up-the-wall.
I think socialism is the problem.
I don't think that's how most British people are wired. They're open to a little more tax on public services if it delivers better outcomes, a bit like paying more for good service, but it ends there.
Hm. I reckon there is quite a market in this country for Scandi-style socialism. Most people would perveive themselves as net gainers (taxes would rise on me but mostly on someone else). But it's never been offered, or convincingly sold. British left-wingery has been of the angry "more power to the unions" or "more money to public sector workers" or "more laws to promote the interests of favoured minorities" or the like, which voters rightly perceive as mainly beneficial to someone else or no one at all.
FWIW, I'm pretty sceptical of the Scandi system as applied to Britain. But I think there's a market for it.
As for Lib Dems overtaking Conservatives, that needs about 25 gains by the Peril on the Yellow-Blue battlefield. That means overturning majorities of 8000/8% or so, and winning in places like Surrey East and New Forest West.
A few months ago, that would have seemed crazy, but if the Lib Dems can properly lean into their new status as the party of Nice Britain, kind of like the Aussie Teals, who knows? The Conservatives have got to do something about those seats, because 70 Lib Dems are already a pretty effective block on a Conservative majority.
Lib Dems becoming second party I think depends on Labour winning further seats from the Conservatives, which by is by no means impossible. It does depend on what happens with Reform, Labour remaining a lot more popular relative to the Conservatives and continued Labour/LD/Green tactical voting.
On the other hand I could also Lib Dems winning more seats off the Conservatives as that party wins seats off Labour if Labour goes into decline. The Lib Dems will become challengers at Labour's expense in some Tory seats.
Why would this form of Labour government, pursuing classic socialism, appeal even further to Tory voters?
Some people have taken leave of their senses.
This is a genuine question, for all Tories. Why do you think the Tories had their worst result in terms of seats since 1761?
A few ideas from a non-Tory:
1) Covid, especially Partygate;
2) Ukraine and inflation;
3) The first proper* three PM Parliament since 1868;
4) Truss;
5) Mad right wing shit like Rwanda and obsessions with LEZ charges rather than building houses and sorting public services;
6) Dire and worsening crises in multiple public services - health, education, courts, social care, roads, railways etc.
You will notice I haven't included Brexit because I think despite what its acolytes on either side say that mostly is an irrelevance.
Bottom line is, I think the Tories were going to lose this election from Partygate onwards. They just didn't get how badly that played. Heck, some of the sillier ones are still lamenting that Massive resigned over it.
But they did a remarkable job of making a bad situation very much worse with a huge number of astonishing unforced errors.
*Not including the rather unusual circumstances of 1935-45, and the 1900-1906 Parliament where the first act of the incoming PM was to dissolve parliament. In 1865-68 there were a remarkable four Prime Ministers.
That's pretty much it.
I'd add general money grifting, unwillingness to accept responsibility for their actions, sleaze and misconduct.
Conservative politicians looked like people you wouldn't want as a neighbour and wouldn't want as a boss.
In which case why would you want them as your government or even as your MP.
There were some exceptions to this rule which might account for some better than average constituency results.
Some of them looked like people you would not want anywhere near your children.
Patel illicits a response from voters, more than any of the others. If the Tories want to remain relevant, then clearly there is only one option:
#Priti4Leader
Given Patel has the worst negatives with voters by far she is the LDs ideal Tory leader
All of the current Tory candidates are good for the Lib Dems. Patel is simply loathed, Badenoch is Patel without the broomstick accessory, but with a growing reputation for underhand dealings, Jenrick is conventional, but the cartoons nastiness makes him very Marmite even amongst Tory supporters and disliked elsewhere. Tugendhat is amiable but comes across as chinless, while Cleverly is a man for whom the very word "hapless" could have been coined. Even if the next Tory leader makes it to the next general election -not a given- the chances of any of these people becoming PM is vanishingly small. So the polls are right, why should anyone care?
Meanwhile there are some very serious new MPs on the Lib Dem benches (a surprising number of ex military, incidentally) and they have hit the ground running with perma-campaigns in held seats and plans to increase the national vote share and take the fight to the next tier of seats. I don´t think I have ever seen the party so fired up.
Meanwhile every day another more Tory members shuffle off this mortal coil and are not replaced. The leadership election should be the perfect time to recruit, but if anyone is doing that, it is not having much impact. If the Tories lose only another 25 seats to the Lib Dems, then Sir Edward Davey is the Leader of His Majesty´s Loyal Opposition and the Tories are done. At this point one can even wonder if the Tories are up for the fight. Europe doing to the Conservative and Unionist Party what Ireland and Asquithian High mindedness did to the Liberal Party.
Interestingly the LDs have continued campaigning in Guildford as if the election was still to happen. A constituency wide leaflet out and daily canvassing.
The Today programme this morning was covering the issue of Tories dying off rather than people moving Conservative as they get older. Didn't seem clear what that was based upon however.
Re the quality of the new MPs I only know a few, but the ones I know are quite impressive. Keep an eye on Chris Coghlan, a young Paddy Ashdown clone.
2nd para, 1st sentence is a factual statement. 2nd statement is me casting doubt on the opinion being expressed in that report. The idea of old Tories dying off has been spun many times before so I am not convinced it is true even this time, but it was what was being reported.
3rd statement is my opinion, but how would you know it is pants? You don't know who the ones I know are and you almost certainly don't know them personally 500 miles away and a quick look at Chris Coghlan's CV will tell you why he looks like a young Paddy Ashdown clone whether you like him or rate him at all.
Interesting discussion on a point I have been making for quite some while: Trump's campaign to Make America Great Again is based on him talking America down - and it is not what Americans want to hear.
Be interesting to see if the SNP end up suspending the whip from John Mason but not from Angus Robertson.
Thing is, neither the Palestinians, nor Israelis give a flying fuck about what the Scottish people/government thinks.
The Government in Westminster and wider British opinion is viewed as pretty irrelevant, also.
We're fundamentally blamed for Balfour, the mandate period and how it came to an end. Just about the only thing all sides can agree on is that our opinions don't matter.
Sorry, I've taken some time to reconsider my post and concluded that it wasn't up to my usual standards of accuracy.
To be fair; both sides are also united over an irrational shared hatred of bacon.
As for Lib Dems overtaking Conservatives, that needs about 25 gains by the Peril on the Yellow-Blue battlefield. That means overturning majorities of 8000/8% or so, and winning in places like Surrey East and New Forest West.
A few months ago, that would have seemed crazy, but if the Lib Dems can properly lean into their new status as the party of Nice Britain, kind of like the Aussie Teals, who knows? The Conservatives have got to do something about those seats, because 70 Lib Dems are already a pretty effective block on a Conservative majority.
Lib Dems becoming second party I think depends on Labour winning further seats from the Conservatives, which by is by no means impossible. It does depend on what happens with Reform, Labour remaining a lot more popular relative to the Conservatives and continued Labour/LD/Green tactical voting.
On the other hand I could also Lib Dems winning more seats off the Conservatives as that party wins seats off Labour if Labour goes into decline. The Lib Dems will become challengers at Labour's expense in some Tory seats.
Why would this form of Labour government, pursuing classic socialism, appeal even further to Tory voters?
Some people have taken leave of their senses.
Socialism itself isn't the problem. I don't think the majority of people have a principled objection to tax and spend. What tends to rile people is tax-and-piss-up-the-wall.
I think socialism is the problem.
I don't think that's how most British people are wired. They're open to a little more tax on public services if it delivers better outcomes, a bit like paying more for good service, but it ends there.
Hm. I reckon there is quite a market in this country for Scandi-style socialism. Most people would perveive themselves as net gainers (taxes would rise on me but mostly on someone else). But it's never been offered, or convincingly sold. British left-wingery has been of the angry "more power to the unions" or "more money to public sector workers" or "more laws to promote the interests of favoured minorities" or the like, which voters rightly perceive as mainly beneficial to someone else or no one at all.
FWIW, I'm pretty sceptical of the Scandi system as applied to Britain. But I think there's a market for it.
It also depends on a very high level of mutual trust and confidence.
As for Lib Dems overtaking Conservatives, that needs about 25 gains by the Peril on the Yellow-Blue battlefield. That means overturning majorities of 8000/8% or so, and winning in places like Surrey East and New Forest West.
A few months ago, that would have seemed crazy, but if the Lib Dems can properly lean into their new status as the party of Nice Britain, kind of like the Aussie Teals, who knows? The Conservatives have got to do something about those seats, because 70 Lib Dems are already a pretty effective block on a Conservative majority.
Lib Dems becoming second party I think depends on Labour winning further seats from the Conservatives, which by is by no means impossible. It does depend on what happens with Reform, Labour remaining a lot more popular relative to the Conservatives and continued Labour/LD/Green tactical voting.
On the other hand I could also Lib Dems winning more seats off the Conservatives as that party wins seats off Labour if Labour goes into decline. The Lib Dems will become challengers at Labour's expense in some Tory seats.
Why would this form of Labour government, pursuing classic socialism, appeal even further to Tory voters?
Some people have taken leave of their senses.
This is a genuine question, for all Tories. Why do you think the Tories had their worst result in terms of seats since 1761?
A few ideas from a non-Tory:
1) Covid, especially Partygate;
2) Ukraine and inflation;
3) The first proper* three PM Parliament since 1868;
4) Truss;
5) Mad right wing shit like Rwanda and obsessions with LEZ charges rather than building houses and sorting public services;
6) Dire and worsening crises in multiple public services - health, education, courts, social care, roads, railways etc.
You will notice I haven't included Brexit because I think despite what its acolytes on either side say that mostly is an irrelevance.
Bottom line is, I think the Tories were going to lose this election from Partygate onwards. They just didn't get how badly that played. Heck, some of the sillier ones are still lamenting that Massive resigned over it.
But they did a remarkable job of making a bad situation very much worse with a huge number of astonishing unforced errors.
*Not including the rather unusual circumstances of 1935-45, and the 1900-1906 Parliament where the first act of the incoming PM was to dissolve parliament. In 1865-68 there were a remarkable four Prime Ministers.
Bottom line: if the government of 2019-24 wasn't a bunch of rascals who deserved to be kicked out (as FPTP advocates put it), how bad does a government need to be to deserve being kicked out?
(Me, I suspect there's a more fundamental problem for the Conservatives than that. Their only properly working majority in my voting lifetime has been 2019; 1992 and 2015 were both a bit squeaky bum for comfort. If the only way of winning big is to choose Boris Bloody Johnson and wait for the other lot to be led by JCorbz, then you have a problem.)
On the POTUS markets, Walz is 450-1 for next president. It's unlikely but not that unlikely. I've taken £20 at the price.
Yes, I've got a couple of £ on that. Although BF rules are not actually next president but winner of the vote as declared by AP on election day/night (or by congress if legal challenge).
Patel illicits a response from voters, more than any of the others. If the Tories want to remain relevant, then clearly there is only one option:
#Priti4Leader
Given Patel has the worst negatives with voters by far she is the LDs ideal Tory leader
All of the current Tory candidates are good for the Lib Dems. Patel is simply loathed, Badenoch is Patel without the broomstick accessory, but with a growing reputation for underhand dealings, Jenrick is conventional, but the cartoons nastiness makes him very Marmite even amongst Tory supporters and disliked elsewhere. Tugendhat is amiable but comes across as chinless, while Cleverly is a man for whom the very word "hapless" could have been coined. Even if the next Tory leader makes it to the next general election -not a given- the chances of any of these people becoming PM is vanishingly small. So the polls are right, why should anyone care?
Meanwhile there are some very serious new MPs on the Lib Dem benches (a surprising number of ex military, incidentally) and they have hit the ground running with perma-campaigns in held seats and plans to increase the national vote share and take the fight to the next tier of seats. I don´t think I have ever seen the party so fired up.
Meanwhile every day another more Tory members shuffle off this mortal coil and are not replaced. The leadership election should be the perfect time to recruit, but if anyone is doing that, it is not having much impact. If the Tories lose only another 25 seats to the Lib Dems, then Sir Edward Davey is the Leader of His Majesty´s Loyal Opposition and the Tories are done. At this point one can even wonder if the Tories are up for the fight. Europe doing to the Conservative and Unionist Party what Ireland and Asquithian High mindedness did to the Liberal Party.
Interestingly the LDs have continued campaigning in Guildford as if the election was still to happen. A constituency wide leaflet out and daily canvassing.
The Today programme this morning was covering the issue of Tories dying off rather than people moving Conservative as they get older. Didn't seem clear what that was based upon however.
Re the quality of the new MPs I only know a few, but the ones I know are quite impressive. Keep an eye on Chris Coghlan, a young Paddy Ashdown clone.
2nd para, 1st sentence is a factual statement. 2nd statement is me casting doubt on the opinion being expressed in that report. The idea of old Tories dying off has been spun many times before so I am not convinced it is true even this time, but it was what was being reported.
3rd statement is my opinion, but how would you know it is pants? You don't know who the ones I know are and you almost certainly don't know them personally 500 miles away and a quick look at Chris Coghlan's CV will tell you why he looks like a young Paddy Ashdown clone whether you like him or rate him at all.
So what bit was actually pants then?
The jest went right over your head then?
Oh I just got it. Doh.
Well I wasted a huge number of words defending my post that didn't need defending.
On the POTUS markets, Walz is 450-1 for next president. It's unlikely but not that unlikely. I've taken £20 at the price.
Yes, I've got a couple of £ on that. Although BF rules are not actually next president but winner of the vote as declared by AP on election day/night (or by congress if legal challenge).
There's bound to be legal challenge if the Harris/Walz ticket is ahead though, which gives more time for events to occur.
“I’m trying to do a focus group tonight with undecided voters under the age of 27 for a major news outlet. And I can’t recruit young women to this, because they don’t exist as undecided voters,” he said.
And this was before Trump attacked veterans for being maimed or dead.
Also, if he prefers healthier more beautiful people in the White House then he has to vote Harris over Trump.
Trump is perfectly right to say that he has the right to make personal attacks on Harris, and it's fair because she makes personal attacks on him. He doesn't seem to understand that personal attacks is ground that favours Harris.
And personal attacks helped him win the 2016 primaries against the odds, they helped him win against Clinton in 2016 against the odds, and maybe were helping against Biden in 2024. So I expect him to keep them going. This is good news for Harris, I think - Trump surely loses a "who is fit to govern?" election.
As for Lib Dems overtaking Conservatives, that needs about 25 gains by the Peril on the Yellow-Blue battlefield. That means overturning majorities of 8000/8% or so, and winning in places like Surrey East and New Forest West.
A few months ago, that would have seemed crazy, but if the Lib Dems can properly lean into their new status as the party of Nice Britain, kind of like the Aussie Teals, who knows? The Conservatives have got to do something about those seats, because 70 Lib Dems are already a pretty effective block on a Conservative majority.
Lib Dems becoming second party I think depends on Labour winning further seats from the Conservatives, which by is by no means impossible. It does depend on what happens with Reform, Labour remaining a lot more popular relative to the Conservatives and continued Labour/LD/Green tactical voting.
On the other hand I could also Lib Dems winning more seats off the Conservatives as that party wins seats off Labour if Labour goes into decline. The Lib Dems will become challengers at Labour's expense in some Tory seats.
Why would this form of Labour government, pursuing classic socialism, appeal even further to Tory voters?
Some people have taken leave of their senses.
Socialism itself isn't the problem. I don't think the majority of people have a principled objection to tax and spend. What tends to rile people is tax-and-piss-up-the-wall.
I think socialism is the problem.
I don't think that's how most British people are wired. They're open to a little more tax on public services if it delivers better outcomes, a bit like paying more for good service, but it ends there.
Hm. I reckon there is quite a market in this country for Scandi-style socialism. Most people would perveive themselves as net gainers (taxes would rise on me but mostly on someone else). But it's never been offered, or convincingly sold. British left-wingery has been of the angry "more power to the unions" or "more money to public sector workers" or "more laws to promote the interests of favoured minorities" or the like, which voters rightly perceive as mainly beneficial to someone else or no one at all.
FWIW, I'm pretty sceptical of the Scandi system as applied to Britain. But I think there's a market for it.
It also depends on a very high level of mutual trust and confidence.
That's true, and that's an interesting subject in its own right. A high trust society is one of the most important factors - possibly the most important - in delivering happiness and prosperity. Britain used to be amongst the highest-trust socities in the world, and my gut feeling is that this has been slipping. I would very much like to see this addressed, although I have only the haziest ideas how.
I like the complacency here by Tories regarding the seats the LDs won off them. 4 - 5 years is a long time and the pendulum may swing back and obliterate the LDs once more because of whatever.
But if you want then back you are going to have to work them or rely on luck.
As @Cicero said there are some impressive LDs elected and they haven't stopped working the seats since the election. Interestingly in Guildford we have continued canvassing and the results show a big increase in support. Now that is probably just a winners bonus that will fade and I assume only happening in seats we won because there is no obvious national swing. But if the Tories want it back they are either going to have to rely on the luck of changing fortunes or work their arses off, which they weren't able to do at the General Election because of lack of volunteers.
Next year is the Counties. The Tories are likely to take a hammering there because they are defending gains. I fully expect the Tories to lose Surrey County Council for only the second time ever and in 1993 they were still the largest party. I suspect they won't be in 2025 and there is an outside chance the LDs may take it. That will be a challenge for the new leader early in their leadership.
If things are going to change it is going to take time. 4 - 5 years may be enough. It might not be and it may get worse.
You and @Cicero are core praetorian activist guard of the Liberal Democrats, so it's no wonder you want to big up your seats.
To hold them you'd have to move much further to the Right than you'd ever be comfortable doing, and that'd involve things like consistently voting with the Tories against Labour budget measures.
Instead, I expect little Sir Echo with a bit more sandals. You know, the usual.
I was trying to be factual. The Tories might recover well and then we will be defending seats and losing them and not going for more gains. But I accept that. But by the sounds of it we are planning for both scenarios (moving forward or trying to defend) whereas the Tories seem (from the posts here) to be just relying on it just sorting itself out by Labour's popularity dropping. The latter is a given in time, the former not. For instance we had to work really hard at squeezing the Labour at this election because of their popularity. It was a real challenge even in obvious target seats, not helped by the stupid polls predicting Labour winning places like Wantage and Didcot and Guildford and Woking, etc. That will be easier next time and with other opportunities opening up as labour's fortunes inevitably fall.
In terms of moving to the right I am a liberal not a social democrat so I might be biased here, but I hope the LDs provide a distinctive opposition. They certainly won't be Labour's little helpers.
We will see and it may become academic, but the Tories shouldn't rely on it all working out in the end. It may do and that will be our loss, but if it doesn't that will be their own fault if they do nothing about it and just rely on fate.
As for Lib Dems overtaking Conservatives, that needs about 25 gains by the Peril on the Yellow-Blue battlefield. That means overturning majorities of 8000/8% or so, and winning in places like Surrey East and New Forest West.
A few months ago, that would have seemed crazy, but if the Lib Dems can properly lean into their new status as the party of Nice Britain, kind of like the Aussie Teals, who knows? The Conservatives have got to do something about those seats, because 70 Lib Dems are already a pretty effective block on a Conservative majority.
Lib Dems becoming second party I think depends on Labour winning further seats from the Conservatives, which by is by no means impossible. It does depend on what happens with Reform, Labour remaining a lot more popular relative to the Conservatives and continued Labour/LD/Green tactical voting.
On the other hand I could also Lib Dems winning more seats off the Conservatives as that party wins seats off Labour if Labour goes into decline. The Lib Dems will become challengers at Labour's expense in some Tory seats.
Why would this form of Labour government, pursuing classic socialism, appeal even further to Tory voters?
Some people have taken leave of their senses.
This is a genuine question, for all Tories. Why do you think the Tories had their worst result in terms of seats since 1761?
Your response to any pushback on why the Tories can't recover - or do even worse - is simply to ask this question.
The election is over now and a new administration is in power that is rapidly making enemies. To anchor back to your safe space of political discourse shows your lack of understanding, not mine.
Actually it's a genuine question. I think it is entirely possible for the Conservatives to get a majority again. But given the low base they are starting from, it's reasonable to ask what they are going to do differently from now on, which in turn depends on understanding what went so disastrously wrong in recent elections.
I could put your response down to Conservatives in denial. There's undoubtedly a lot of that. If that's all there is, I wouldn't hold a lot of hope for a majority soon. But I would expect some in the party to be thinking about how to change it so they can improve their situation.
On the POTUS markets, Walz is 450-1 for next president. It's unlikely but not that unlikely. I've taken £20 at the price.
Yes, I've got a couple of £ on that. Although BF rules are not actually next president but winner of the vote as declared by AP on election day/night (or by congress if legal challenge).
There's bound to be legal challenge if the Harris/Walz ticket is ahead though, which gives more time for events to occur.
As for Lib Dems overtaking Conservatives, that needs about 25 gains by the Peril on the Yellow-Blue battlefield. That means overturning majorities of 8000/8% or so, and winning in places like Surrey East and New Forest West.
A few months ago, that would have seemed crazy, but if the Lib Dems can properly lean into their new status as the party of Nice Britain, kind of like the Aussie Teals, who knows? The Conservatives have got to do something about those seats, because 70 Lib Dems are already a pretty effective block on a Conservative majority.
Lib Dems becoming second party I think depends on Labour winning further seats from the Conservatives, which by is by no means impossible. It does depend on what happens with Reform, Labour remaining a lot more popular relative to the Conservatives and continued Labour/LD/Green tactical voting.
On the other hand I could also Lib Dems winning more seats off the Conservatives as that party wins seats off Labour if Labour goes into decline. The Lib Dems will become challengers at Labour's expense in some Tory seats.
Why would this form of Labour government, pursuing classic socialism, appeal even further to Tory voters?
Some people have taken leave of their senses.
Socialism itself isn't the problem. I don't think the majority of people have a principled objection to tax and spend. What tends to rile people is tax-and-piss-up-the-wall.
I think socialism is the problem.
I don't think that's how most British people are wired. They're open to a little more tax on public services if it delivers better outcomes, a bit like paying more for good service, but it ends there.
Hm. I reckon there is quite a market in this country for Scandi-style socialism. Most people would perveive themselves as net gainers (taxes would rise on me but mostly on someone else). But it's never been offered, or convincingly sold. British left-wingery has been of the angry "more power to the unions" or "more money to public sector workers" or "more laws to promote the interests of favoured minorities" or the like, which voters rightly perceive as mainly beneficial to someone else or no one at all.
FWIW, I'm pretty sceptical of the Scandi system as applied to Britain. But I think there's a market for it.
It also depends on a very high level of mutual trust and confidence.
You'd probably need innate cultural conservatism to be partnered with it to make it work.
As for Lib Dems overtaking Conservatives, that needs about 25 gains by the Peril on the Yellow-Blue battlefield. That means overturning majorities of 8000/8% or so, and winning in places like Surrey East and New Forest West.
A few months ago, that would have seemed crazy, but if the Lib Dems can properly lean into their new status as the party of Nice Britain, kind of like the Aussie Teals, who knows? The Conservatives have got to do something about those seats, because 70 Lib Dems are already a pretty effective block on a Conservative majority.
Lib Dems becoming second party I think depends on Labour winning further seats from the Conservatives, which by is by no means impossible. It does depend on what happens with Reform, Labour remaining a lot more popular relative to the Conservatives and continued Labour/LD/Green tactical voting.
On the other hand I could also Lib Dems winning more seats off the Conservatives as that party wins seats off Labour if Labour goes into decline. The Lib Dems will become challengers at Labour's expense in some Tory seats.
Why would this form of Labour government, pursuing classic socialism, appeal even further to Tory voters?
Some people have taken leave of their senses.
Socialism itself isn't the problem. I don't think the majority of people have a principled objection to tax and spend. What tends to rile people is tax-and-piss-up-the-wall.
I think socialism is the problem.
I don't think that's how most British people are wired. They're open to a little more tax on public services if it delivers better outcomes, a bit like paying more for good service, but it ends there.
Hm. I reckon there is quite a market in this country for Scandi-style socialism. Most people would perveive themselves as net gainers (taxes would rise on me but mostly on someone else). But it's never been offered, or convincingly sold. British left-wingery has been of the angry "more power to the unions" or "more money to public sector workers" or "more laws to promote the interests of favoured minorities" or the like, which voters rightly perceive as mainly beneficial to someone else or no one at all.
FWIW, I'm pretty sceptical of the Scandi system as applied to Britain. But I think there's a market for it.
It also depends on a very high level of mutual trust and confidence.
That's true, and that's an interesting subject in its own right. A high trust society is one of the most important factors - possibly the most important - in delivering happiness and prosperity. Britain used to be amongst the highest-trust socities in the world, and my gut feeling is that this has been slipping. I would very much like to see this addressed, although I have only the haziest ideas how.
Oh sure things like covid and the riots have dealt a hammer blow to social trust. A recent poll said 85% of brits wanted to leave the country.
The sentences for the riots havent helped with many receiving 3 years just for social media posts. This again has led to an atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust especially over 2 tier policing.
BRITISH ARMY VETERAN JAILED FOR 12 MONTHS FOR ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
Video footage showed him making a nuisance of himself, however the Judge Robert Linford queried the charge of Violent Disorder stating
“You are the person that provides me with the most difficulty because it cannot be levelled that you hit anyone, neither have you thrown anything, neither is it said you spat at anyone
The Judge however accepted that anybody a party to the disorder has to receive a custodial sentence
This is yet another outrageous case where the defendant did nothing wrong. People are being jailed for simply being present.
Starmer’s purge of patriots is absolutely disgusting!
I’ve been thinking about this a lot over the last few weeks.
I’ve seen people I know—some I consider friends—arrested and charged simply for stating their opinions on social media.
Here are a few conclusions I’ve come to:
1. Those in power are terrified of people who speak the truth.
They’ve employed every mechanism within the political, media, and judicial systems to demonise and punish these individuals—not because of what they did or said, but because their words and actions directly challenged the direction those in power are trying to take.
The people in power have a specific agenda, and over the last year, they’ve been losing their grip on the population.
Fewer people are paying attention to mainstream media (MSM) and the usual messaging, and more are turning to social media and citizen journalism for information that truly matters to them.
These individuals were made into public examples—punished to serve as a warning to anyone else who might dare to question authority.
The goal was to regain control, and they may believe they’ve succeeded.
2.Those arrested and charged have often received extremely poor legal advice.
Many have pleaded guilty, likely out of fear that a guilty verdict in a higher court would result in a much harsher sentence.
Others may have felt they couldn’t afford the financial burden of defending themselves in open court.
The absurd, overreaching show trials we’ve witnessed, ending in outrageous sentences, might never have happened if people had a) understood the law better, and b) had the means to mount a proper defense.
Justice is supposed to be decided by 12 jurors who weigh the evidence and reach a verdict.
In most cases, the charges would likely have been dismissed.
Believe it or not, our jury system works. That’s why they don’t want you to access it.
3.This government is attempting to terrify the population into silence through outrageous show trials and ridiculous punitive sentencing.
It might work for a very short time, but the festering resentment caused by the government’s refusal to address the fundamental issues driving the spiralling decline in community cohesion is only growing stronger.
In fact, these issues are being completely ignored.
The lack of control over immigration is putting immense strain on our society.
You can’t negotiate for a better standard of living if thousands are coming into the country willing to work for your wage or lower.
It’s a race to poverty, where only the global profiteers win.
Two-tier justice creates animosity, friction, and hatred.
We must have the same justice for all, irrespective of creed, colour, or religion—otherwise, justice becomes nothing more than a facade for political doctrine.
As a country, we must be a safe haven for those who are persecuted and provide an opportunity for them to live in a peaceful society.
As for Lib Dems overtaking Conservatives, that needs about 25 gains by the Peril on the Yellow-Blue battlefield. That means overturning majorities of 8000/8% or so, and winning in places like Surrey East and New Forest West.
A few months ago, that would have seemed crazy, but if the Lib Dems can properly lean into their new status as the party of Nice Britain, kind of like the Aussie Teals, who knows? The Conservatives have got to do something about those seats, because 70 Lib Dems are already a pretty effective block on a Conservative majority.
Lib Dems becoming second party I think depends on Labour winning further seats from the Conservatives, which by is by no means impossible. It does depend on what happens with Reform, Labour remaining a lot more popular relative to the Conservatives and continued Labour/LD/Green tactical voting.
On the other hand I could also Lib Dems winning more seats off the Conservatives as that party wins seats off Labour if Labour goes into decline. The Lib Dems will become challengers at Labour's expense in some Tory seats.
Why would this form of Labour government, pursuing classic socialism, appeal even further to Tory voters?
Some people have taken leave of their senses.
Socialism itself isn't the problem. I don't think the majority of people have a principled objection to tax and spend. What tends to rile people is tax-and-piss-up-the-wall.
I think socialism is the problem.
I don't think that's how most British people are wired. They're open to a little more tax on public services if it delivers better outcomes, a bit like paying more for good service, but it ends there.
Hm. I reckon there is quite a market in this country for Scandi-style socialism. Most people would perveive themselves as net gainers (taxes would rise on me but mostly on someone else). But it's never been offered, or convincingly sold. British left-wingery has been of the angry "more power to the unions" or "more money to public sector workers" or "more laws to promote the interests of favoured minorities" or the like, which voters rightly perceive as mainly beneficial to someone else or no one at all.
FWIW, I'm pretty sceptical of the Scandi system as applied to Britain. But I think there's a market for it.
It also depends on a very high level of mutual trust and confidence.
That's true, and that's an interesting subject in its own right. A high trust society is one of the most important factors - possibly the most important - in delivering happiness and prosperity. Britain used to be amongst the highest-trust socities in the world, and my gut feeling is that this has been slipping. I would very much like to see this addressed, although I have only the haziest ideas how.
If I cranked up my personal trust levels my bike would be gone in a week and I would have given most of my money to an awfully nice chap from Lagos who got in touch the other day. Fascinating family history.
As for Lib Dems overtaking Conservatives, that needs about 25 gains by the Peril on the Yellow-Blue battlefield. That means overturning majorities of 8000/8% or so, and winning in places like Surrey East and New Forest West.
A few months ago, that would have seemed crazy, but if the Lib Dems can properly lean into their new status as the party of Nice Britain, kind of like the Aussie Teals, who knows? The Conservatives have got to do something about those seats, because 70 Lib Dems are already a pretty effective block on a Conservative majority.
Lib Dems becoming second party I think depends on Labour winning further seats from the Conservatives, which by is by no means impossible. It does depend on what happens with Reform, Labour remaining a lot more popular relative to the Conservatives and continued Labour/LD/Green tactical voting.
On the other hand I could also Lib Dems winning more seats off the Conservatives as that party wins seats off Labour if Labour goes into decline. The Lib Dems will become challengers at Labour's expense in some Tory seats.
Why would this form of Labour government, pursuing classic socialism, appeal even further to Tory voters?
Some people have taken leave of their senses.
This is a genuine question, for all Tories. Why do you think the Tories had their worst result in terms of seats since 1761?
Because - similar to what Pigeon says - it was increasingly difficult to identify any sections of the electorate who benefitted from Conservative government, aside from home-owning pensioners.
HYUFD gave a fascinating (if possibly coincidental) view of what appeared to be Conservative strategic thinking over the past five years: with every setback "it doesn't matter if that part of the electorate doesn't vote Conservative, as long as [2019 Con voters/2019 Con voters in Con seats/2019 Con voters in marginal Con seats/2019 Con voters in enough marginal Con seats] vote Conservative.
I don't actually know if it's possible any more to build a broad based coalition for a single party in our splintered landscape which reaches 40-odd percent. But it was as if they'd given up trying.
This makes sense. Boris Johnson made a pitch to Red Wall voters to expand the Tories base but they seem to have lost them again , while simultaneously losing Blue Wall to the Lib Dems. The debate seems to be about whether to pitch back to the Red Wall by peeling off Reform voters. But that would embed a solid phalanx of up to 100 Lib Dem seats in the South that would otherwise be Tory, which would probably not be susceptible to any collapse in support for Labour.
One of my British followers, Wayne O'Rourke, who runs the @WayneGB88 account was just sentenced to prison. Three years. For memes.
The judge decided that his humorous, snarky posts had stirred up racial hatred. The one post that got him was him urging people to protest in Southport. Apparently telling people to protest is illegal in the UK, if a judge decides it.
He tried to defend himself by explaining that his posts were intended to be darkly humorous. The judge did not find that funny. Tyrannical.
O'Rourke had a clean criminal record with zero previous convictions. He left his job to work as a full time caretaker for his partner. This is all very inhumane.
Sadly the uks stock has gone down significantly in the world now. Ive spoken to many in the usa who cant belueve whats going on.
Today sometime you will get banned for being a troll. if you want to avoid that try having a discussion with someone and not make an endless stream of posts. You will last longer than the normal few hours most last.
As for Lib Dems overtaking Conservatives, that needs about 25 gains by the Peril on the Yellow-Blue battlefield. That means overturning majorities of 8000/8% or so, and winning in places like Surrey East and New Forest West.
A few months ago, that would have seemed crazy, but if the Lib Dems can properly lean into their new status as the party of Nice Britain, kind of like the Aussie Teals, who knows? The Conservatives have got to do something about those seats, because 70 Lib Dems are already a pretty effective block on a Conservative majority.
Lib Dems becoming second party I think depends on Labour winning further seats from the Conservatives, which by is by no means impossible. It does depend on what happens with Reform, Labour remaining a lot more popular relative to the Conservatives and continued Labour/LD/Green tactical voting.
On the other hand I could also Lib Dems winning more seats off the Conservatives as that party wins seats off Labour if Labour goes into decline. The Lib Dems will become challengers at Labour's expense in some Tory seats.
Why would this form of Labour government, pursuing classic socialism, appeal even further to Tory voters?
Some people have taken leave of their senses.
This is a genuine question, for all Tories. Why do you think the Tories had their worst result in terms of seats since 1761?
Because - similar to what Pigeon says - it was increasingly difficult to identify any sections of the electorate who benefitted from Conservative government, aside from home-owning pensioners.
HYUFD gave a fascinating (if possibly coincidental) view of what appeared to be Conservative strategic thinking over the past five years: with every setback "it doesn't matter if that part of the electorate doesn't vote Conservative, as long as [2019 Con voters/2019 Con voters in Con seats/2019 Con voters in marginal Con seats/2019 Con voters in enough marginal Con seats] vote Conservative.
I don't actually know if it's possible any more to build a broad based coalition for a single party in our splintered landscape which reaches 40-odd percent. But it was as if they'd given up trying.
This makes sense. Boris Johnson made a pitch to Red Wall voters to expand the Tories base but they seem to have lost them again , while simultaneously losing Blue Wall to the Lib Dems. The debate seems to be about whether to pitch back to the Red Wall by peeling off Reform voters. But that would embed a solid phalanx of up to 100 Lib Dem seats in the South that would otherwise be Tory, which would probably not be susceptible to any collapse in support for Labour.
Those seats were lost partly because of Reform, partly because of stay at home Tories, not through a load of Tories falling in love with the twat on the bouncy castle.
Sadly the uks stock has gone down significantly in the world now. Ive spoken to many in the usa who cant belueve whats going on.
Today sometime you will get banned for being a troll. if you want to avoid that try having a discussion with someone and not make an endless stream of posts. You will last longer than the normal few hours most last.
“I’m trying to do a focus group tonight with undecided voters under the age of 27 for a major news outlet. And I can’t recruit young women to this, because they don’t exist as undecided voters,” he said.
On scones, it seems to me that Samwise Gamgee's song in LOTR "The Bone that he Boned from it's owner" would have been less repetitive and much better if it had featured a correctly pronounced Scone.
On the header, this polling fits with my notion that for the next 5 or 10 years the Tories and their Chaos are a sunk cost, and that the most important thing is to not concern ourselves with them *too* much (betting apart).
They have been reduced by the voters to a tinny wibbling noise rattling the firmly sealed lid of the dustbin of history. 90% of the energy needs to go on "where next", and not distractions.
On scones, it seems to me that Samwise Gamgees song in LOTR "The Bone that he Boned from it's owner" would have been less repetitive if it had featured a correctly pronounced Scone.
The arranger of Surrey Pride, Stephen Ireland, 40, has been arrested for the rape of a boy under 13, multiple sexual assaults, voyeurism, & making indecent photographs of youngsters as well as plotting to kidnap a child.
On scones, it seems to me that Samwise Gamgee's song in LOTR "The Bone that he Boned from it's owner" would have been less repetitive and much better if it had featured a correctly pronounced Scone.
On the header, this polling fits with my notion that for the next 5 or 10 years the Tories and their Chaos are a sunk cost, and that the most important thing is to not concern ourselves with them *too* much (betting apart).
They have been reduced by the voters to a tinny wibbling noise rattling the firmly sealed lid of the dustbin of history. 90% of the energy needs to go on "where next", and not distractions.
Oh sure tories are finished. We may yet even see the emergence of something to the right of reform.
Donald Trump has a table full of groceries next to him with before and after prices to illustrate inflation.
He then starts rambling wistfully about how nice some of them look, especially 'the Cheerios. I haven't seen Cheerios in a long time, I'm going to take them back to my cottage and have a lot of fun with them.'
What the actual fuckety fuck? I mean, sharks were bad enough, but - for real? He makes campaign speeches on the economy and says he hasn't seen cheerios in ages?
In 2 days the situation in the special military operation zone changed dramatically. Western countries suffered multi-billion dollar losses, losing a huge number of HIMARS, PATRIOT and IRIS-T air defense systems. Apparently, Ukraine and its allies will not be able to restore their combat capability after such losses in the near future.
DISASTER5 PATRIOT Launchers, 1 IRIS-T And SU-24 Destroyed By Iskanders Military Summary And Analysis For 2024.08.17
On a more serious note, a piece in the Herald Scotland today by Neil Mackay on previous parallels to far right involvement in the current riots. He has experience of 30 years of investigative journalism about such movements.
Worth a read.
NEIL MACKAY'S BIG READ What my insight on far right reveals about unrest that sparked riots https://archive.ph/Wh36D
This is an interesting article, but the final paragraph seeks to create an equivalence between extreme racists, and 'hateful rhetoric' about immigration coming from the Reform party, the Conservative party, and the 'mainstream media'. It is quite typical of the outlook of the liberal elite.
I cannot claim to be an expert on the extreme far right but I would suggest that a better way of addressing the threat it poses is through addressing people's legitimate fears and concern about immigration and integration; not dismissing it as hateful rhetoric that needs to be crushed.
I don't see that "people's legitimate fears and concern about immigration and integration" is essentially a cause to the recrudescence of the far right. I'd put it the other way round - that is a stick that is used to leverage up support and is used as a recruiting / grooming tool.
The same stick has been used in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s and 2020s, regardless of the level of immigration. And I dare say in the 1900s, 1910s, 1920s and 1930 too. That *is* hateful rhetoric, and we need to name it for what it is.
I don't think reducing immigration, whatever other reasons there are for doing it, will make the slightest but of difference to that.
I think we need to distinguish the process. What I think I detect happening at present is a repeat of the process of mainstreaming and gaining respectability, by somewhat different means, that Nick Griffin's BNP attempted in the period up to 2010.
We need to consider the role that RefUK, fringe or ex-Tories, and people around Tommy Robinson are protagonists, followers, fellow travellers, useful idiots, or people with something worthwhile to say.
And then how to address it. Protagonists are trying to build up "Two Tier Kier" as 'The Authoritarian Socialist Enemy', however their economic and other policies are more left than right - so there is overlap.
As for Lib Dems overtaking Conservatives, that needs about 25 gains by the Peril on the Yellow-Blue battlefield. That means overturning majorities of 8000/8% or so, and winning in places like Surrey East and New Forest West.
A few months ago, that would have seemed crazy, but if the Lib Dems can properly lean into their new status as the party of Nice Britain, kind of like the Aussie Teals, who knows? The Conservatives have got to do something about those seats, because 70 Lib Dems are already a pretty effective block on a Conservative majority.
Lib Dems becoming second party I think depends on Labour winning further seats from the Conservatives, which by is by no means impossible. It does depend on what happens with Reform, Labour remaining a lot more popular relative to the Conservatives and continued Labour/LD/Green tactical voting.
On the other hand I could also Lib Dems winning more seats off the Conservatives as that party wins seats off Labour if Labour goes into decline. The Lib Dems will become challengers at Labour's expense in some Tory seats.
Why would this form of Labour government, pursuing classic socialism, appeal even further to Tory voters?
Some people have taken leave of their senses.
This is a genuine question, for all Tories. Why do you think the Tories had their worst result in terms of seats since 1761?
Because - similar to what Pigeon says - it was increasingly difficult to identify any sections of the electorate who benefitted from Conservative government, aside from home-owning pensioners.
HYUFD gave a fascinating (if possibly coincidental) view of what appeared to be Conservative strategic thinking over the past five years: with every setback "it doesn't matter if that part of the electorate doesn't vote Conservative, as long as [2019 Con voters/2019 Con voters in Con seats/2019 Con voters in marginal Con seats/2019 Con voters in enough marginal Con seats] vote Conservative.
I don't actually know if it's possible any more to build a broad based coalition for a single party in our splintered landscape which reaches 40-odd percent. But it was as if they'd given up trying.
This makes sense. Boris Johnson made a pitch to Red Wall voters to expand the Tories base but they seem to have lost them again , while simultaneously losing Blue Wall to the Lib Dems. The debate seems to be about whether to pitch back to the Red Wall by peeling off Reform voters. But that would embed a solid phalanx of up to 100 Lib Dem seats in the South that would otherwise be Tory, which would probably not be susceptible to any collapse in support for Labour.
Those seats were lost partly because of Reform, partly because of stay at home Tories, not through a load of Tories falling in love with the twat on the bouncy castle.
The Lib Dems won entirely because of 2019 Conservative voters switching to their party in 2024. Not enough people voted Reform to make even a theoretical difference.
There will be a handful of closely won seats where Reform votes made a difference but most of the Lib Dem victories follow the same pattern as above.
In 2 days the situation in the special military operation zone changed dramatically. Western countries suffered multi-billion dollar losses, losing a huge number of HIMARS, PATRIOT and IRIS-T air defense systems. Apparently, Ukraine and its allies will not be able to restore their combat capability after such losses in the near future.
DISASTER5 PATRIOT Launchers, 1 IRIS-T And SU-24 Destroyed By Iskanders Military Summary And Analysis For 2024.08.17
One of my British followers, Wayne O'Rourke, who runs the @WayneGB88 account was just sentenced to prison. Three years. For memes.
The judge decided that his humorous, snarky posts had stirred up racial hatred. The one post that got him was him urging people to protest in Southport. Apparently telling people to protest is illegal in the UK, if a judge decides it.
He tried to defend himself by explaining that his posts were intended to be darkly humorous. The judge did not find that funny. Tyrannical.
O'Rourke had a clean criminal record with zero previous convictions. He left his job to work as a full time caretaker for his partner. This is all very inhumane.
Sounds to me like the chap was in a difficult place and stumbled into a very dark but profitable business model.
"His defence barrister, Lucia Harrington, said the defendant did not set up his account with the intention of encouraging such material and became "caught up in the media frenzy".
Miss Harrington said O'Rourke had previously worked as a parcel sorter but left work to become his partner's carer.
She added that O'Rourke now wanted to re-educate himself about things that he had got wrong."
If genuine ^ he may well be a great candidate for rehabilitation.
I like the complacency here by Tories regarding the seats the LDs won off them. 4 - 5 years is a long time and the pendulum may swing back and obliterate the LDs once more because of whatever.
But if you want then back you are going to have to work them or rely on luck.
As @Cicero said there are some impressive LDs elected and they haven't stopped working the seats since the election. Interestingly in Guildford we have continued canvassing and the results show a big increase in support. Now that is probably just a winners bonus that will fade and I assume only happening in seats we won because there is no obvious national swing. But if the Tories want it back they are either going to have to rely on the luck of changing fortunes or work their arses off, which they weren't able to do at the General Election because of lack of volunteers.
Next year is the Counties. The Tories are likely to take a hammering there because they are defending gains. I fully expect the Tories to lose Surrey County Council for only the second time ever and in 1993 they were still the largest party. I suspect they won't be in 2025 and there is an outside chance the LDs may take it. That will be a challenge for the new leader early in their leadership.
If things are going to change it is going to take time. 4 - 5 years may be enough. It might not be and it may get worse.
You and @Cicero are core praetorian activist guard of the Liberal Democrats, so it's no wonder you want to big up your seats.
To hold them you'd have to move much further to the Right than you'd ever be comfortable doing, and that'd involve things like consistently voting with the Tories against Labour budget measures.
Instead, I expect little Sir Echo with a bit more sandals. You know, the usual.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I'd certainly be comfortable with a LibDem party which accommodated elements of one nation conservatism. Social liberalism and economic pragmatism (something neither Labour nor the Tories have had much truck with this century) would be a very appealing combination.
Donald Trump has a table full of groceries next to him with before and after prices to illustrate inflation.
He then starts rambling wistfully about how nice some of them look, especially 'the Cheerios. I haven't seen Cheerios in a long time, I'm going to take them back to my cottage and have a lot of fun with them.'
What the actual fuckety fuck? I mean, sharks were bad enough, but - for real? He makes campaign speeches on the economy and says he hasn't seen cheerios in ages?
One of my British followers, Wayne O'Rourke, who runs the @WayneGB88 account was just sentenced to prison. Three years. For memes.
The judge decided that his humorous, snarky posts had stirred up racial hatred. The one post that got him was him urging people to protest in Southport. Apparently telling people to protest is illegal in the UK, if a judge decides it.
He tried to defend himself by explaining that his posts were intended to be darkly humorous. The judge did not find that funny. Tyrannical.
O'Rourke had a clean criminal record with zero previous convictions. He left his job to work as a full time caretaker for his partner. This is all very inhumane.
In 2 days the situation in the special military operation zone changed dramatically. Western countries suffered multi-billion dollar losses, losing a huge number of HIMARS, PATRIOT and IRIS-T air defense systems. Apparently, Ukraine and its allies will not be able to restore their combat capability after such losses in the near future.
DISASTER5 PATRIOT Launchers, 1 IRIS-T And SU-24 Destroyed By Iskanders Military Summary And Analysis For 2024.08.17
Sadly the uks stock has gone down significantly in the world now. Ive spoken to many in the usa who cant belueve whats going on.
Today sometime you will get banned for being a troll. if you want to avoid that try having a discussion with someone and not make an endless stream of posts. You will last longer than the normal few hours most last.
Just having a discussion my friend.
I did try and tell you how to avoid the ban. Sadly you took no notice.
It remains a source of amusement that Russians still seem unable to distinguish between fairly obvious decoys, and real systems.
There was a suggestion they'd finally managed to take out a HIMARs the other day - they'd certainly tracked it launching missiles - but the video was inconclusive.
Sadly the uks stock has gone down significantly in the world now. Ive spoken to many in the usa who cant belueve whats going on.
Today sometime you will get banned for being a troll. if you want to avoid that try having a discussion with someone and not make an endless stream of posts. You will last longer than the normal few hours most last.
Just having a discussion my friend.
"This is worrying" "Just having a discussion" "As a cyclist"
Funny how you see these same expressions across different social media platforms.
On scones, it seems to me that Samwise Gamgee's song in LOTR "The Bone that he Boned from it's owner" would have been less repetitive and much better if it had featured a correctly pronounced Scone.
On the header, this polling fits with my notion that for the next 5 or 10 years the Tories and their Chaos are a sunk cost, and that the most important thing is to not concern ourselves with them *too* much (betting apart).
They have been reduced by the voters to a tinny wibbling noise rattling the firmly sealed lid of the dustbin of history. 90% of the energy needs to go on "where next", and not distractions.
Oh sure tories are finished. We may yet even see the emergence of something to the right of reform.
United Ruzzia isn't allowed to organise as a party in the UK. Too fascist you see.
On Radio 4 a few minutes ago. Paraphrasing: If anyone had said a few years ago that we would see British tanks invading Russia you would have called them bonkers.
As for Lib Dems overtaking Conservatives, that needs about 25 gains by the Peril on the Yellow-Blue battlefield. That means overturning majorities of 8000/8% or so, and winning in places like Surrey East and New Forest West.
A few months ago, that would have seemed crazy, but if the Lib Dems can properly lean into their new status as the party of Nice Britain, kind of like the Aussie Teals, who knows? The Conservatives have got to do something about those seats, because 70 Lib Dems are already a pretty effective block on a Conservative majority.
Lib Dems becoming second party I think depends on Labour winning further seats from the Conservatives, which by is by no means impossible. It does depend on what happens with Reform, Labour remaining a lot more popular relative to the Conservatives and continued Labour/LD/Green tactical voting.
On the other hand I could also Lib Dems winning more seats off the Conservatives as that party wins seats off Labour if Labour goes into decline. The Lib Dems will become challengers at Labour's expense in some Tory seats.
Why would this form of Labour government, pursuing classic socialism, appeal even further to Tory voters?
Some people have taken leave of their senses.
This is a genuine question, for all Tories. Why do you think the Tories had their worst result in terms of seats since 1761?
Your response to any pushback on why the Tories can't recover - or do even worse - is simply to ask this question.
The election is over now and a new administration is in power that is rapidly making enemies. To anchor back to your safe space of political discourse shows your lack of understanding, not mine.
Actually it's a genuine question. I think it is entirely possible for the Conservatives to get a majority again. But given the low base they are starting from, it's reasonable to ask what they are going to do differently from now on, which in turn depends on understanding what went so disastrously wrong in recent elections.
I could put your response down to Conservatives in denial. There's undoubtedly a lot of that. If that's all there is, I wouldn't hold a lot of hope for a majority soon. But I would expect some in the party to be thinking about how to change it so they can improve their situation.
Conservatives in denial, fuck off. There's no-one less in denial than me. I've explained on here multiple times where I think they've gone wrong and what they need to do to fix it, and full well you know it.
What you want me to do is to go is the meme that they're doomed, hated and to stick the boot in for your delectation and pleasure.
That bit, I simply don't agree with. And that bothers you.
I like the complacency here by Tories regarding the seats the LDs won off them. 4 - 5 years is a long time and the pendulum may swing back and obliterate the LDs once more because of whatever.
But if you want then back you are going to have to work them or rely on luck.
As @Cicero said there are some impressive LDs elected and they haven't stopped working the seats since the election. Interestingly in Guildford we have continued canvassing and the results show a big increase in support. Now that is probably just a winners bonus that will fade and I assume only happening in seats we won because there is no obvious national swing. But if the Tories want it back they are either going to have to rely on the luck of changing fortunes or work their arses off, which they weren't able to do at the General Election because of lack of volunteers.
Next year is the Counties. The Tories are likely to take a hammering there because they are defending gains. I fully expect the Tories to lose Surrey County Council for only the second time ever and in 1993 they were still the largest party. I suspect they won't be in 2025 and there is an outside chance the LDs may take it. That will be a challenge for the new leader early in their leadership.
If things are going to change it is going to take time. 4 - 5 years may be enough. It might not be and it may get worse.
You and @Cicero are core praetorian activist guard of the Liberal Democrats, so it's no wonder you want to big up your seats.
To hold them you'd have to move much further to the Right than you'd ever be comfortable doing, and that'd involve things like consistently voting with the Tories against Labour budget measures.
Instead, I expect little Sir Echo with a bit more sandals. You know, the usual.
I was trying to be factual. The Tories might recover well and then we will be defending seats and losing them and not going for more gains. But I accept that. But by the sounds of it we are planning for both scenarios (moving forward or trying to defend) whereas the Tories seem (from the posts here) to be just relying on it just sorting itself out by Labour's popularity dropping. The latter is a given in time, the former not. For instance we had to work really hard at squeezing the Labour at this election because of their popularity. It was a real challenge even in obvious target seats, not helped by the stupid polls predicting Labour winning places like Wantage and Didcot and Guildford and Woking, etc. That will be easier next time and with other opportunities opening up as labour's fortunes inevitably fall.
In terms of moving to the right I am a liberal not a social democrat so I might be biased here, but I hope the LDs provide a distinctive opposition. They certainly won't be Labour's little helpers.
We will see and it may become academic, but the Tories shouldn't rely on it all working out in the end. It may do and that will be our loss, but if it doesn't that will be their own fault if they do nothing about it and just rely on fate.
Fair enough, an interesting post I did not expect.
If the Liberals can develop an interesting opposition then perhaps more options could be on the table. But, I'll believe that when I see it.
I like the complacency here by Tories regarding the seats the LDs won off them. 4 - 5 years is a long time and the pendulum may swing back and obliterate the LDs once more because of whatever.
But if you want then back you are going to have to work them or rely on luck.
As @Cicero said there are some impressive LDs elected and they haven't stopped working the seats since the election. Interestingly in Guildford we have continued canvassing and the results show a big increase in support. Now that is probably just a winners bonus that will fade and I assume only happening in seats we won because there is no obvious national swing. But if the Tories want it back they are either going to have to rely on the luck of changing fortunes or work their arses off, which they weren't able to do at the General Election because of lack of volunteers.
Next year is the Counties. The Tories are likely to take a hammering there because they are defending gains. I fully expect the Tories to lose Surrey County Council for only the second time ever and in 1993 they were still the largest party. I suspect they won't be in 2025 and there is an outside chance the LDs may take it. That will be a challenge for the new leader early in their leadership.
If things are going to change it is going to take time. 4 - 5 years may be enough. It might not be and it may get worse.
You and @Cicero are core praetorian activist guard of the Liberal Democrats, so it's no wonder you want to big up your seats.
To hold them you'd have to move much further to the Right than you'd ever be comfortable doing, and that'd involve things like consistently voting with the Tories against Labour budget measures.
Instead, I expect little Sir Echo with a bit more sandals. You know, the usual.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I'd certainly be comfortable with a LibDem party which accommodated elements of one nation conservatism. Social liberalism and economic pragmatism (something neither Labour nor the Tories have had much truck with this century) would be a very appealing combination.
It's funny that nobody is making a pitch for the "you know, the 2010-15 government wasn't so bad" vote. Given what happened in 2015, it's sort of understandable that the Lib Dems aren't saying it out loud, I guess.
On Radio 4 a few minutes ago. Paraphrasing: If anyone had said a few years ago that we would see British tanks invading Russia you would have called them bonkers.
As the joke goes, the Russian army has gone from being the second best in the world to the second best in Ukraine. Now it's the second best in Russia.
I like the complacency here by Tories regarding the seats the LDs won off them. 4 - 5 years is a long time and the pendulum may swing back and obliterate the LDs once more because of whatever.
But if you want then back you are going to have to work them or rely on luck.
As @Cicero said there are some impressive LDs elected and they haven't stopped working the seats since the election. Interestingly in Guildford we have continued canvassing and the results show a big increase in support. Now that is probably just a winners bonus that will fade and I assume only happening in seats we won because there is no obvious national swing. But if the Tories want it back they are either going to have to rely on the luck of changing fortunes or work their arses off, which they weren't able to do at the General Election because of lack of volunteers.
Next year is the Counties. The Tories are likely to take a hammering there because they are defending gains. I fully expect the Tories to lose Surrey County Council for only the second time ever and in 1993 they were still the largest party. I suspect they won't be in 2025 and there is an outside chance the LDs may take it. That will be a challenge for the new leader early in their leadership.
If things are going to change it is going to take time. 4 - 5 years may be enough. It might not be and it may get worse.
You and @Cicero are core praetorian activist guard of the Liberal Democrats, so it's no wonder you want to big up your seats.
To hold them you'd have to move much further to the Right than you'd ever be comfortable doing, and that'd involve things like consistently voting with the Tories against Labour budget measures.
Instead, I expect little Sir Echo with a bit more sandals. You know, the usual.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I'd certainly be comfortable with a LibDem party which accommodated elements of one nation conservatism. Social liberalism and economic pragmatism (something neither Labour nor the Tories have had much truck with this century) would be a very appealing combination.
But, the constituency to which it would appeal is a small one and heavily overrepresented on here.
I like the complacency here by Tories regarding the seats the LDs won off them. 4 - 5 years is a long time and the pendulum may swing back and obliterate the LDs once more because of whatever.
But if you want then back you are going to have to work them or rely on luck.
As @Cicero said there are some impressive LDs elected and they haven't stopped working the seats since the election. Interestingly in Guildford we have continued canvassing and the results show a big increase in support. Now that is probably just a winners bonus that will fade and I assume only happening in seats we won because there is no obvious national swing. But if the Tories want it back they are either going to have to rely on the luck of changing fortunes or work their arses off, which they weren't able to do at the General Election because of lack of volunteers.
Next year is the Counties. The Tories are likely to take a hammering there because they are defending gains. I fully expect the Tories to lose Surrey County Council for only the second time ever and in 1993 they were still the largest party. I suspect they won't be in 2025 and there is an outside chance the LDs may take it. That will be a challenge for the new leader early in their leadership.
If things are going to change it is going to take time. 4 - 5 years may be enough. It might not be and it may get worse.
You and @Cicero are core praetorian activist guard of the Liberal Democrats, so it's no wonder you want to big up your seats.
To hold them you'd have to move much further to the Right than you'd ever be comfortable doing, and that'd involve things like consistently voting with the Tories against Labour budget measures.
Instead, I expect little Sir Echo with a bit more sandals. You know, the usual.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I'd certainly be comfortable with a LibDem party which accommodated elements of one nation conservatism. Social liberalism and economic pragmatism (something neither Labour nor the Tories have had much truck with this century) would be a very appealing combination.
It's funny that nobody is making a pitch for the "you know, the 2010-15 government wasn't so bad" vote. Given what happened in 2015, it's sort of understandable that the Lib Dems aren't saying it out loud, I guess.
The 2010-15 Government was reasonably stable, both in terms of membership (idiots like Huhne aside) and policy. It was entirely wrong on tuition fees and children's issues (two child policy and, especially, Sure Start) and indeed on financial cutbacks generally, though.
As for Lib Dems overtaking Conservatives, that needs about 25 gains by the Peril on the Yellow-Blue battlefield. That means overturning majorities of 8000/8% or so, and winning in places like Surrey East and New Forest West.
A few months ago, that would have seemed crazy, but if the Lib Dems can properly lean into their new status as the party of Nice Britain, kind of like the Aussie Teals, who knows? The Conservatives have got to do something about those seats, because 70 Lib Dems are already a pretty effective block on a Conservative majority.
Lib Dems becoming second party I think depends on Labour winning further seats from the Conservatives, which by is by no means impossible. It does depend on what happens with Reform, Labour remaining a lot more popular relative to the Conservatives and continued Labour/LD/Green tactical voting.
On the other hand I could also Lib Dems winning more seats off the Conservatives as that party wins seats off Labour if Labour goes into decline. The Lib Dems will become challengers at Labour's expense in some Tory seats.
Why would this form of Labour government, pursuing classic socialism, appeal even further to Tory voters?
Some people have taken leave of their senses.
This is a genuine question, for all Tories. Why do you think the Tories had their worst result in terms of seats since 1761?
Because - similar to what Pigeon says - it was increasingly difficult to identify any sections of the electorate who benefitted from Conservative government, aside from home-owning pensioners.
HYUFD gave a fascinating (if possibly coincidental) view of what appeared to be Conservative strategic thinking over the past five years: with every setback "it doesn't matter if that part of the electorate doesn't vote Conservative, as long as [2019 Con voters/2019 Con voters in Con seats/2019 Con voters in marginal Con seats/2019 Con voters in enough marginal Con seats] vote Conservative.
I don't actually know if it's possible any more to build a broad based coalition for a single party in our splintered landscape which reaches 40-odd percent. But it was as if they'd given up trying.
This makes sense. Boris Johnson made a pitch to Red Wall voters to expand the Tories base but they seem to have lost them again , while simultaneously losing Blue Wall to the Lib Dems. The debate seems to be about whether to pitch back to the Red Wall by peeling off Reform voters. But that would embed a solid phalanx of up to 100 Lib Dem seats in the South that would otherwise be Tory, which would probably not be susceptible to any collapse in support for Labour.
Those seats were lost partly because of Reform, partly because of stay at home Tories, not through a load of Tories falling in love with the twat on the bouncy castle.
The Lib Dems won entirely because of 2019 Conservative voters switching to their party in 2024. Not enough people voted Reform to make even a theoretical difference.
There will be a handful of closely won seats where Reform votes made a difference but most of the Lib Dem victories follow the same pattern as above.
This is why the Tories need to look like a national party with experienced, credible, competent leadership. Cleverly best fits the bill for the time being as being someone who can unite. Going down a right-wing rabbit hole is exactly what Sir Keir and Sir Ed want, and would embolden Farage to boot.
One of my British followers, Wayne O'Rourke, who runs the @WayneGB88 account was just sentenced to prison. Three years. For memes.
The judge decided that his humorous, snarky posts had stirred up racial hatred. The one post that got him was him urging people to protest in Southport. Apparently telling people to protest is illegal in the UK, if a judge decides it.
He tried to defend himself by explaining that his posts were intended to be darkly humorous. The judge did not find that funny. Tyrannical.
O'Rourke had a clean criminal record with zero previous convictions. He left his job to work as a full time caretaker for his partner. This is all very inhumane.
Sounds to me like the chap was in a difficult place and stumbled into a very dark but profitable business model.
"His defence barrister, Lucia Harrington, said the defendant did not set up his account with the intention of encouraging such material and became "caught up in the media frenzy".
Miss Harrington said O'Rourke had previously worked as a parcel sorter but left work to become his partner's carer.
She added that O'Rourke now wanted to re-educate himself about things that he had got wrong."
If genuine ^ he may well be a great candidate for rehabilitation.
That last is a good observation. However that mitigation seems to be quite fictional as to what the guy actually did with his account.
One thing with 2011 rioters who received exemplary sentences, is that some went into long term crime having been to "prison university". Of course, some of those would have been established repeat offenders who were continuing the pattern, having bandwagon-jumped on the riots.
The changed emphasis on rehabilitation will get a chance to show if it can be effective, and for whom.
As for Lib Dems overtaking Conservatives, that needs about 25 gains by the Peril on the Yellow-Blue battlefield. That means overturning majorities of 8000/8% or so, and winning in places like Surrey East and New Forest West.
A few months ago, that would have seemed crazy, but if the Lib Dems can properly lean into their new status as the party of Nice Britain, kind of like the Aussie Teals, who knows? The Conservatives have got to do something about those seats, because 70 Lib Dems are already a pretty effective block on a Conservative majority.
Let's get real. The people who are going to be hurting most under this Government are going to be in those seats the LibDems took from the Tories. They are going to have ZERO sway to stop Labour hurting their voters.
There's huge poential for buyers' remorse from those who voted LibDem and feel they are being shafted by this Government. LibDems are going to be on defence, not offence, next time out.
Buy why would anybody go Tory? They remain a policy vacuum, and where they even have policies, they are messy and unpopular ones. The party organisation is in financial and membersip meltdown the leadership candidates are weak to actively repellent. What should the Tories even survive, let alone prosper?
I like the complacency here by Tories regarding the seats the LDs won off them. 4 - 5 years is a long time and the pendulum may swing back and obliterate the LDs once more because of whatever.
But if you want then back you are going to have to work them or rely on luck.
As @Cicero said there are some impressive LDs elected and they haven't stopped working the seats since the election. Interestingly in Guildford we have continued canvassing and the results show a big increase in support. Now that is probably just a winners bonus that will fade and I assume only happening in seats we won because there is no obvious national swing. But if the Tories want it back they are either going to have to rely on the luck of changing fortunes or work their arses off, which they weren't able to do at the General Election because of lack of volunteers.
Next year is the Counties. The Tories are likely to take a hammering there because they are defending gains. I fully expect the Tories to lose Surrey County Council for only the second time ever and in 1993 they were still the largest party. I suspect they won't be in 2025 and there is an outside chance the LDs may take it. That will be a challenge for the new leader early in their leadership.
If things are going to change it is going to take time. 4 - 5 years may be enough. It might not be and it may get worse.
You and @Cicero are core praetorian activist guard of the Liberal Democrats, so it's no wonder you want to big up your seats.
To hold them you'd have to move much further to the Right than you'd ever be comfortable doing, and that'd involve things like consistently voting with the Tories against Labour budget measures.
Instead, I expect little Sir Echo with a bit more sandals. You know, the usual.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I'd certainly be comfortable with a LibDem party which accommodated elements of one nation conservatism. Social liberalism and economic pragmatism (something neither Labour nor the Tories have had much truck with this century) would be a very appealing combination.
But, the constituency to which it would appeal is a small one and heavily overrepresented on here.
The constituency for economic pragmatism is small ?
That would at least explain why our economy is such a mess, but I have more faith in the electorate - should they ever be offered the option - than do you, apparently. It hasn't really been tried, as warmed over Thatcherism, opposed by socialism-lite has been our economic landscape for the last forty years. Punctuated by the utterly foolish distraction of Brexit.
And I get that social liberalism winds you up, but there's probably a majority of the electorate which at least accept, if not enthusiastically support it.
I like the complacency here by Tories regarding the seats the LDs won off them. 4 - 5 years is a long time and the pendulum may swing back and obliterate the LDs once more because of whatever.
But if you want then back you are going to have to work them or rely on luck.
As @Cicero said there are some impressive LDs elected and they haven't stopped working the seats since the election. Interestingly in Guildford we have continued canvassing and the results show a big increase in support. Now that is probably just a winners bonus that will fade and I assume only happening in seats we won because there is no obvious national swing. But if the Tories want it back they are either going to have to rely on the luck of changing fortunes or work their arses off, which they weren't able to do at the General Election because of lack of volunteers.
Next year is the Counties. The Tories are likely to take a hammering there because they are defending gains. I fully expect the Tories to lose Surrey County Council for only the second time ever and in 1993 they were still the largest party. I suspect they won't be in 2025 and there is an outside chance the LDs may take it. That will be a challenge for the new leader early in their leadership.
If things are going to change it is going to take time. 4 - 5 years may be enough. It might not be and it may get worse.
You and @Cicero are core praetorian activist guard of the Liberal Democrats, so it's no wonder you want to big up your seats.
To hold them you'd have to move much further to the Right than you'd ever be comfortable doing, and that'd involve things like consistently voting with the Tories against Labour budget measures.
Instead, I expect little Sir Echo with a bit more sandals. You know, the usual.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I'd certainly be comfortable with a LibDem party which accommodated elements of one nation conservatism. Social liberalism and economic pragmatism (something neither Labour nor the Tories have had much truck with this century) would be a very appealing combination.
It's funny that nobody is making a pitch for the "you know, the 2010-15 government wasn't so bad" vote. Given what happened in 2015, it's sort of understandable that the Lib Dems aren't saying it out loud, I guess.
The 2010-15 Government was reasonably stable, both in terms of membership (idiots like Huhne aside) and policy. It was entirely wrong on tuition fees and children's issues (two child policy and, especially, Sure Start) and indeed on financial cutbacks generally, though.
Two child cap was after the 2015 election, wasn't it? Agree on Sure Start, though.
As for austerity in general, something had to happen and none of it would have been pretty. But it has become harder to justify as a five year response to a crisis has rolled out three times as long.
Sadly the uks stock has gone down significantly in the world now. Ive spoken to many in the usa who cant belueve whats going on.
Today sometime you will get banned for being a troll. if you want to avoid that try having a discussion with someone and not make an endless stream of posts. You will last longer than the normal few hours most last.
Just having a discussion my friend.
"This is worrying" "Just having a discussion" "As a cyclist"
Funny how you see these same expressions across different social media platforms.
Comments
But if you want then back you are going to have to work them or rely on luck.
As @Cicero said there are some impressive LDs elected and they haven't stopped working the seats since the election. Interestingly in Guildford we have continued canvassing and the results show a big increase in support. Now that is probably just a winners bonus that will fade and I assume only happening in seats we won because there is no obvious national swing. But if the Tories want it back they are either going to have to rely on the luck of changing fortunes or work their arses off, which they weren't able to do at the General Election because of lack of volunteers.
Next year is the Counties. The Tories are likely to take a hammering there because they are defending gains. I fully expect the Tories to lose Surrey County Council for only the second time ever and in 1993 they were still the largest party. I suspect they won't be in 2025 and there is an outside chance the LDs may take it. That will be a challenge for the new leader early in their leadership.
If things are going to change it is going to take time. 4 - 5 years may be enough. It might not be and it may get worse.
The election is over now and a new administration is in power that is rapidly making enemies. To anchor back to your safe space of political discourse shows your lack of understanding, not mine.
1) Covid, especially Partygate;
2) Ukraine and inflation;
3) The first proper* three PM Parliament since 1868;
4) Truss;
5) Mad right wing shit like Rwanda and obsessions with LEZ charges rather than building houses and sorting public services;
6) Dire and worsening crises in multiple public services - health, education, courts, social care, roads, railways etc.
You will notice I haven't included Brexit because I think despite what its acolytes on either side say that mostly is an irrelevance.
Bottom line is, I think the Tories were going to lose this election from Partygate onwards. They just didn't get how badly that played. Heck, some of the sillier ones are still lamenting that Massive resigned over it.
But they did a remarkable job of making a bad situation very much worse with a huge number of astonishing unforced errors.
*Not including the rather unusual circumstances of 1935-45, and the 1900-1906 Parliament where the first act of the incoming PM was to dissolve parliament. In 1865-68 there were a remarkable four Prime Ministers.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4828533-luntz-trump-committing-political-suicide-harris-intensity-advantage/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/08/16/no-chance-rayner-will-meet-housebuilding-target-bosses-warn/
To hold them you'd have to move much further to the Right than you'd ever be comfortable doing, and that'd involve things like consistently voting with the Tories against Labour budget measures.
Instead, I expect little Sir Echo with a bit more sandals. You know, the usual.
Vance: Has anybody seen the movie "Gangs of New York?." That is what I'm talking about, with these ethnic enclaves in our country, it can lead to higher crime rates.
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1824490793815642554
HYUFD gave a fascinating (if possibly coincidental) view of what appeared to be Conservative strategic thinking over the past five years: with every setback "it doesn't matter if that part of the electorate doesn't vote Conservative, as long as [2019 Con voters/2019 Con voters in Con seats/2019 Con voters in marginal Con seats/2019 Con voters in enough marginal Con seats] vote Conservative.
I don't actually know if it's possible any more to build a broad based coalition for a single party in our splintered landscape which reaches 40-odd percent. But it was as if they'd given up trying.
The national polling gives Harris an average lead of 1-1.5%. It remains very close.
Remember, just because we want Trump to lose does not mean Americans do.
1st para is factual
2nd para, 1st sentence is a factual statement. 2nd statement is me casting doubt on the opinion being expressed in that report. The idea of old Tories dying off has been spun many times before so I am not convinced it is true even this time, but it was what was being reported.
3rd statement is my opinion, but how would you know it is pants? You don't know who the ones I know are and you almost certainly don't know them personally 500 miles away and a quick look at Chris Coghlan's CV will tell you why he looks like a young Paddy Ashdown clone whether you like him or rate him at all.
So what bit was actually pants then?
Given he's lost the popular vote in both elections he's run in before, and looks near certain to do so again regardless of the EC outcome, I think we can safely say most Americans want him to lose.
I'd add general money grifting, unwillingness to accept responsibility for their actions, sleaze and misconduct.
Conservative politicians looked like people you wouldn't want as a neighbour and wouldn't want as a boss.
In which case why would you want them as your government or even as your MP.
There were some exceptions to this rule which might account for some better than average constituency results.
FWIW, I'm pretty sceptical of the Scandi system as applied to Britain. But I think there's a market for it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvoKCNmnhCY
To be fair; both sides are also united over an irrational shared hatred of bacon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfhFunPO4bQ
(Me, I suspect there's a more fundamental problem for the Conservatives than that. Their only properly working majority in my voting lifetime has been 2019; 1992 and 2015 were both a bit squeaky bum for comfort. If the only way of winning big is to choose Boris Bloody Johnson and wait for the other lot to be led by JCorbz, then you have a problem.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida
Well I wasted a huge number of words defending my post that didn't need defending.
Sorry @malcolmg .
Decent pun as well, which makes it worse.
Trump is perfectly right to say that he has the right to make personal attacks on Harris, and it's fair because she makes personal attacks on him. He doesn't seem to understand that personal attacks is ground that favours Harris.
And personal attacks helped him win the 2016 primaries against the odds, they helped him win against Clinton in 2016 against the odds, and maybe were helping against Biden in 2024. So I expect him to keep them going. This is good news for Harris, I think - Trump surely loses a "who is fit to govern?" election.
@Casino_Royale
First para - agree, we are
I was trying to be factual. The Tories might recover well and then we will be defending seats and losing them and not going for more gains. But I accept that. But by the sounds of it we are planning for both scenarios (moving forward or trying to defend) whereas the Tories seem (from the posts here) to be just relying on it just sorting itself out by Labour's popularity dropping. The latter is a given in time, the former not. For instance we had to work really hard at squeezing the Labour at this election because of their popularity. It was a real challenge even in obvious target seats, not helped by the stupid polls predicting Labour winning places like Wantage and Didcot and Guildford and Woking, etc. That will be easier next time and with other opportunities opening up as labour's fortunes inevitably fall.
In terms of moving to the right I am a liberal not a social democrat so I might be biased here, but I hope the LDs provide a distinctive opposition. They certainly won't be Labour's little helpers.
We will see and it may become academic, but the Tories shouldn't rely on it all working out in the end. It may do and that will be our loss, but if it doesn't that will be their own fault if they do nothing about it and just rely on fate.
I could put your response down to Conservatives in denial. There's undoubtedly a lot of that. If that's all there is, I wouldn't hold a lot of hope for a majority soon. But I would expect some in the party to be thinking about how to change it so they can improve their situation.
BRITISH ARMY VETERAN JAILED FOR 12 MONTHS FOR ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
Video footage showed him making a nuisance of himself, however the Judge Robert Linford queried the charge of Violent Disorder stating
“You are the person that provides me with the most difficulty because it cannot be levelled that you hit anyone, neither have you thrown anything, neither is it said you spat at anyone
The Judge however accepted that anybody a party to the disorder has to receive a custodial sentence
This is yet another outrageous case where the defendant did nothing wrong. People are being jailed for simply being present.
Starmer’s purge of patriots is absolutely disgusting!
#TwoTierBritain #StarmersBritain
https://x.com/JamesPGoddard90/status/1823683444599324925
I’ve been thinking about this a lot over the last few weeks.
I’ve seen people I know—some I consider friends—arrested and charged simply for stating their opinions on social media.
Here are a few conclusions I’ve come to:
1. Those in power are terrified of people who speak the truth.
They’ve employed every mechanism within the political, media, and judicial systems to demonise and punish these individuals—not because of what they did or said, but because their words and actions directly challenged the direction those in power are trying to take.
The people in power have a specific agenda, and over the last year, they’ve been losing their grip on the population.
Fewer people are paying attention to mainstream media (MSM) and the usual messaging, and more are turning to social media and citizen journalism for information that truly matters to them.
These individuals were made into public examples—punished to serve as a warning to anyone else who might dare to question authority.
The goal was to regain control, and they may believe they’ve succeeded.
2.Those arrested and charged have often received extremely poor legal advice.
Many have pleaded guilty, likely out of fear that a guilty verdict in a higher court would result in a much harsher sentence.
Others may have felt they couldn’t afford the financial burden of defending themselves in open court.
The absurd, overreaching show trials we’ve witnessed, ending in outrageous sentences, might never have happened if people had a) understood the law better, and b) had the means to mount a proper defense.
Justice is supposed to be decided by 12 jurors who weigh the evidence and reach a verdict.
In most cases, the charges would likely have been dismissed.
Believe it or not, our jury system works. That’s why they don’t want you to access it.
3.This government is attempting to terrify the population into silence through outrageous show trials and ridiculous punitive sentencing.
It might work for a very short time, but the festering resentment caused by the government’s refusal to address the fundamental issues driving the spiralling decline in community cohesion is only growing stronger.
In fact, these issues are being completely ignored.
The lack of control over immigration is putting immense strain on our society.
You can’t negotiate for a better standard of living if thousands are coming into the country willing to work for your wage or lower.
It’s a race to poverty, where only the global profiteers win.
Two-tier justice creates animosity, friction, and hatred.
We must have the same justice for all, irrespective of creed, colour, or religion—otherwise, justice becomes nothing more than a facade for political doctrine.
As a country, we must be a safe haven for those who are persecuted and provide an opportunity for them to live in a peaceful society.
People are
One of my British followers, Wayne O'Rourke, who runs the
@WayneGB88
account was just sentenced to prison. Three years. For memes.
The judge decided that his humorous, snarky posts had stirred up racial hatred. The one post that got him was him urging people to protest in Southport. Apparently telling people to protest is illegal in the UK, if a judge decides it.
He tried to defend himself by explaining that his posts were intended to be darkly humorous. The judge did not find that funny. Tyrannical.
O'Rourke had a clean criminal record with zero previous convictions. He left his job to work as a full time caretaker for his partner. This is all very inhumane.
https://x.com/stillgray/status/1824574726175441083
On scones, it seems to me that Samwise Gamgee's song in LOTR "The Bone that he Boned from it's owner" would have been less repetitive and much better if it had featured a correctly pronounced Scone.
On the header, this polling fits with my notion that for the next 5 or 10 years the Tories and their Chaos are a sunk cost, and that the most important thing is to not concern ourselves with them *too* much (betting apart).
They have been reduced by the voters to a tinny wibbling noise rattling the firmly sealed lid of the dustbin of history. 90% of the energy needs to go on "where next", and not distractions.
The arranger of Surrey Pride, Stephen Ireland, 40, has been arrested for the rape of a boy under 13, multiple sexual assaults, voyeurism, & making indecent photographs of youngsters as well as plotting to kidnap a child.
He also championed LGBT education for children.
https://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13752045/Surrey-Pride-LGBT-Stephen-Ireland-child-sex-offence-charges.html
https://x.com/DaveAtherton20/status/1824720061124202642
The winter chill starting in Moscow yet?
DISASTER5 PATRIOT Launchers, 1 IRIS-T And SU-24 Destroyed By Iskanders Military Summary And Analysis For 2024.08.17
PREMIRE: 12:30 PM GMT +3
https://x.com/MilitarySummary/status/1824731970439664071
The same stick has been used in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s and 2020s, regardless of the level of immigration. And I dare say in the 1900s, 1910s, 1920s and 1930 too. That *is* hateful rhetoric, and we need to name it for what it is.
I don't think reducing immigration, whatever other reasons there are for doing it, will make the slightest but of difference to that.
I think we need to distinguish the process. What I think I detect happening at present is a repeat of the process of mainstreaming and gaining respectability, by somewhat different means, that Nick Griffin's BNP attempted in the period up to 2010.
We need to consider the role that RefUK, fringe or ex-Tories, and people around Tommy Robinson are protagonists, followers, fellow travellers, useful idiots, or people with something worthwhile to say.
And then how to address it. Protagonists are trying to build up "Two Tier Kier" as 'The Authoritarian Socialist Enemy', however their economic and other policies are more left than right - so there is overlap.
In 2024:
LD: 26K votes
Con: 13K
Reform: 8K
Lab: 3K
In 2019:
Con: 30K
LD: 10K
Lab: 8K
The Lib Dems won entirely because of 2019 Conservative voters switching to their party in 2024. Not enough people voted Reform to make even a theoretical difference.
There will be a handful of closely won seats where Reform votes made a difference but most of the Lib Dem victories follow the same pattern as above.
Yet.
Sounds to me like the chap was in a difficult place and stumbled into a very dark but profitable business model.
"His defence barrister, Lucia Harrington, said the defendant did not set up his account with the intention of encouraging such material and became "caught up in the media frenzy".
Miss Harrington said O'Rourke had previously worked as a parcel sorter but left work to become his partner's carer.
She added that O'Rourke now wanted to re-educate himself about things that he had got wrong."
If genuine ^ he may well be a great candidate for rehabilitation.
I'd certainly be comfortable with a LibDem party which accommodated elements of one nation conservatism.
Social liberalism and economic pragmatism (something neither Labour nor the Tories have had much truck with this century) would be a very appealing combination.
There was a suggestion they'd finally managed to take out a HIMARs the other day - they'd certainly tracked it launching missiles - but the video was inconclusive.
"Just having a discussion"
"As a cyclist"
Funny how you see these same expressions across different social media platforms.
What you want me to do is to go is the meme that they're doomed, hated and to stick the boot in for your delectation and pleasure.
That bit, I simply don't agree with. And that bothers you.
Tough.
If the Liberals can develop an interesting opposition then perhaps more options could be on the table. But, I'll believe that when I see it.
It would nice if there was some truth in this.
It was entirely wrong on tuition fees and children's issues (two child policy and, especially, Sure Start) and indeed on financial cutbacks generally, though.
One thing with 2011 rioters who received exemplary sentences, is that some went into long term crime having been to "prison university". Of course, some of those would have been established repeat offenders who were continuing the pattern, having bandwagon-jumped on the riots.
The changed emphasis on rehabilitation will get a chance to show if it can be effective, and for whom.
The whip has been withdrawn from John Mason.
That would at least explain why our economy is such a mess, but I have more faith in the electorate - should they ever be offered the option - than do you, apparently.
It hasn't really been tried, as warmed over Thatcherism, opposed by socialism-lite has been our economic landscape for the last forty years. Punctuated by the utterly foolish distraction of Brexit.
And I get that social liberalism winds you up, but there's probably a majority of the electorate which at least accept, if not enthusiastically support it.
As for austerity in general, something had to happen and none of it would have been pretty. But it has become harder to justify as a five year response to a crisis has rolled out three times as long.