"Reform UK polling/seats: if they can get to 27/8% + they can be largest party in a hung Parliament. If 32/3% + they can win a majority outright. (Source: Electoral Calculus)."
Farage has the approval of about 30% of the voters, I believe. That means, in theory, that 27/8% is easily do-able and maybe even 32% if Labour continues to implode
Should that happen and they won a majority on 32% the very same people happy with Sir Kier getting a thumping majority on 33% would be bemoaning the death of democracy and demanding a change to the electoral system.
I think a scenario where Reform get high 30s, and Labour low 40s, is much more likely, akin to coalescence we saw with the 2017 election.
I just can't imagine a scenario where the possibility of a Reform government isn't met by furious tactical voting and turnout by everyone on the left. We saw how the right responded to the threat of Corbyn; we'd get that again with Farage.
Labour got 33.7% of the vote last time. You think they're going to increase their share of the vote by about 10%?
No. I just think that's more likely than Reform winning a majority with a low 30s result. Labour's vote was suppressed for a number of reasons - Gaza, inevitable victory - things that would become less important in the face of Farage.
A Reform victory on 34% is a fun thought experiment though, so I'm going to dig around in my spreadsheet and try and construct the scenario.
"Reform UK polling/seats: if they can get to 27/8% + they can be largest party in a hung Parliament. If 32/3% + they can win a majority outright. (Source: Electoral Calculus)."
Farage has the approval of about 30% of the voters, I believe. That means, in theory, that 27/8% is easily do-able and maybe even 32% if Labour continues to implode
Should that happen and they won a majority on 32% the very same people happy with Sir Kier getting a thumping majority on 33% would be bemoaning the death of democracy and demanding a change to the electoral system.
I think a scenario where Reform get high 30s, and Labour low 40s, is much more likely, akin to coalescence we saw with the 2017 election.
I just can't imagine a scenario where the possibility of a Reform government isn't met by furious tactical voting and turnout by everyone on the left. We saw how the right responded to the threat of Corbyn; we'd get that again with Farage.
Labour got 33.7% of the vote last time. You think they're going to increase their share of the vote by about 10%?
No. I just think that's more likely than Reform winning a majority with a low 30s result. Labour's vote was suppressed for a number of reasons - Gaza, inevitable victory - things that would become less important in the face of Farage.
A Reform victory on 34% is a fun thought experiment though, so I'm going to dig around in my spreadsheet and try and construct the scenario.
Delusional
Ok, set out how Reform win 300+ constituencies with 34%. You can make a shareable spreadsheet in google docs.
"Reform UK polling/seats: if they can get to 27/8% + they can be largest party in a hung Parliament. If 32/3% + they can win a majority outright. (Source: Electoral Calculus)."
Farage has the approval of about 30% of the voters, I believe. That means, in theory, that 27/8% is easily do-able and maybe even 32% if Labour continues to implode
Should that happen and they won a majority on 32% the very same people happy with Sir Kier getting a thumping majority on 33% would be bemoaning the death of democracy and demanding a change to the electoral system.
I think a scenario where Reform get high 30s, and Labour low 40s, is much more likely, akin to coalescence we saw with the 2017 election.
I just can't imagine a scenario where the possibility of a Reform government isn't met by furious tactical voting and turnout by everyone on the left. We saw how the right responded to the threat of Corbyn; we'd get that again with Farage.
I couldn't have Nigel Farage as my PM. I'd have to move overseas.
"Reform UK polling/seats: if they can get to 27/8% + they can be largest party in a hung Parliament. If 32/3% + they can win a majority outright. (Source: Electoral Calculus)."
Farage has the approval of about 30% of the voters, I believe. That means, in theory, that 27/8% is easily do-able and maybe even 32% if Labour continues to implode
Should that happen and they won a majority on 32% the very same people happy with Sir Kier getting a thumping majority on 33% would be bemoaning the death of democracy and demanding a change to the electoral system.
I think a scenario where Reform get high 30s, and Labour low 40s, is much more likely, akin to coalescence we saw with the 2017 election.
I just can't imagine a scenario where the possibility of a Reform government isn't met by furious tactical voting and turnout by everyone on the left. We saw how the right responded to the threat of Corbyn; we'd get that again with Farage.
I couldn't have Nigel Farage as my PM. I'd have to move overseas.
You know i didnt want Farage as pm myself either but now I see the advantages.
"Reform UK polling/seats: if they can get to 27/8% + they can be largest party in a hung Parliament. If 32/3% + they can win a majority outright. (Source: Electoral Calculus)."
Farage has the approval of about 30% of the voters, I believe. That means, in theory, that 27/8% is easily do-able and maybe even 32% if Labour continues to implode
Should that happen and they won a majority on 32% the very same people happy with Sir Kier getting a thumping majority on 33% would be bemoaning the death of democracy and demanding a change to the electoral system.
I think a scenario where Reform get high 30s, and Labour low 40s, is much more likely, akin to coalescence we saw with the 2017 election.
I just can't imagine a scenario where the possibility of a Reform government isn't met by furious tactical voting and turnout by everyone on the left. We saw how the right responded to the threat of Corbyn; we'd get that again with Farage.
I couldn't have Nigel Farage as my PM. I'd have to move overseas.
You know i didnt want Farage as pm myself either but now I see the advantages.
Lol, you are the wittiest troll we've had, I'll give you that.
"Reform UK polling/seats: if they can get to 27/8% + they can be largest party in a hung Parliament. If 32/3% + they can win a majority outright. (Source: Electoral Calculus)."
Farage has the approval of about 30% of the voters, I believe. That means, in theory, that 27/8% is easily do-able and maybe even 32% if Labour continues to implode
Should that happen and they won a majority on 32% the very same people happy with Sir Kier getting a thumping majority on 33% would be bemoaning the death of democracy and demanding a change to the electoral system.
I think a scenario where Reform get high 30s, and Labour low 40s, is much more likely, akin to coalescence we saw with the 2017 election.
I just can't imagine a scenario where the possibility of a Reform government isn't met by furious tactical voting and turnout by everyone on the left. We saw how the right responded to the threat of Corbyn; we'd get that again with Farage.
Labour got 33.7% of the vote last time. You think they're going to increase their share of the vote by about 10%?
The Tories increased their share of the vote in every election where they were the incumbent government the last time round, until 2024 (2015, 2017 and 2019).
It doesn't look likely now, but it's not impossible that Labour do the same and the mooted scenario is one way it might happen.
Reform are now closing in on having more members that the Conservative Party and are planning to hold a number of events at large venues early in the new year. Perhaps it’s the rebirth of the kind of mass membership politics that had been dying out in recent decades.
Err...is Reform even a membership organisation? What exactly does one get if one chooses to supply them with twenty-five of one's finest English sovereigns every December 22nd to become a 'paying registered supporter'. Asking for a friend...
"Reform UK polling/seats: if they can get to 27/8% + they can be largest party in a hung Parliament. If 32/3% + they can win a majority outright. (Source: Electoral Calculus)."
Farage has the approval of about 30% of the voters, I believe. That means, in theory, that 27/8% is easily do-able and maybe even 32% if Labour continues to implode
Should that happen and they won a majority on 32% the very same people happy with Sir Kier getting a thumping majority on 33% would be bemoaning the death of democracy and demanding a change to the electoral system.
I think a scenario where Reform get high 30s, and Labour low 40s, is much more likely, akin to coalescence we saw with the 2017 election.
I just can't imagine a scenario where the possibility of a Reform government isn't met by furious tactical voting and turnout by everyone on the left. We saw how the right responded to the threat of Corbyn; we'd get that again with Farage.
I couldn't have Nigel Farage as my PM. I'd have to move overseas.
That would be awful. Do you need some advice where to go? Message me any time, 24/7
Wasn't the "abuse" that William received more to do with the perception that he actually supports Trump, not just posting polls good for Trump?
Nah, bollocks; anyone who posted any sort of thesis about why Trump could or would win, and why regular posters were wrong about Harris winning, were subject to what counts by their standards as a pile-on.
"So, uh, just curious, when you say "I like freedom," is that code for MAGA, or am I reading too much into it?"
"Quick test: If I say "covfefe," do you a) laugh ironically, b) Google it, or c) salute an invisible flag?"
"Reform UK polling/seats: if they can get to 27/8% + they can be largest party in a hung Parliament. If 32/3% + they can win a majority outright. (Source: Electoral Calculus)."
Farage has the approval of about 30% of the voters, I believe. That means, in theory, that 27/8% is easily do-able and maybe even 32% if Labour continues to implode
Should that happen and they won a majority on 32% the very same people happy with Sir Kier getting a thumping majority on 33% would be bemoaning the death of democracy and demanding a change to the electoral system.
I think a scenario where Reform get high 30s, and Labour low 40s, is much more likely, akin to coalescence we saw with the 2017 election.
I just can't imagine a scenario where the possibility of a Reform government isn't met by furious tactical voting and turnout by everyone on the left. We saw how the right responded to the threat of Corbyn; we'd get that again with Farage.
Labour got 33.7% of the vote last time. You think they're going to increase their share of the vote by about 10%?
No. I just think that's more likely than Reform winning a majority with a low 30s result. Labour's vote was suppressed for a number of reasons - Gaza, inevitable victory - things that would become less important in the face of Farage.
A Reform victory on 34% is a fun thought experiment though, so I'm going to dig around in my spreadsheet and try and construct the scenario.
Delusional
Ok, set out how Reform win 300+ constituencies with 34%. You can make a shareable spreadsheet in google docs.
No, the delusional aspect was the idea the Labour vote was "suppressed". lol
As we have seen with the polling since the election Labour benefited from suspended disbelief which has now been non-suspended
Reform are now closing in on having more members that the Conservative Party and are planning to hold a number of events at large venues early in the new year. Perhaps it’s the rebirth of the kind of mass membership politics that had been dying out in recent decades.
Err...is Reform even a membership organisation? What exactly does one get if one chooses to supply them with twenty-five of one's finest English sovereigns every December 22nd to become a 'paying registered supporter'. Asking for a friend...
Surely, if British political history 2000-2024 teaches us anything, it is: do not underestimate Nigel Farage
It is entirely possible that Reform win a majority in 2029 on 34% of the vote.
It's also entirely possible that they end up in the mid 20s, and in third place as far as seats. And, indeed, that they end up going backwards.
Right now, things are very much in flux, and almost anything is possible - especially in a First Past The Post world, where there might be five parties with double digit shares of the vote (and maybe six in Scotland). That leads to an enormous amount of volatility.
My (half serious) prediction is that no party wins a majority in 2029, and the only viable two party coalition would be LibDem-Reform. This is based on (a) Reform winning in terms of vote share, but suffering from tactical voting; and (b) the LibDems coming fourth in vote share, but benefiting hugely from tactical voting.
(Edit to add: For the avoidance of doubt, I assume that Reform wins most seats, not the LibDems. I'm thinking something like 200 - 130 - 120 - 120 - 30 - 20 - 27)
It is entirely possible that Reform win a majority in 2029 on 34% of the vote.
It's also entirely possible that they end up in the mid 20s, and in third place as far as seats. And, indeed, that they end up going backwards.
Right now, things are very much in flux, and almost anything is possible - especially in a First Past The Post world, where there might be five parties with double digit shares of the vote (and maybe six in Scotland). That leads to an enormous amount of volatility.
My (half serious) prediction is that no party wins a majority in 2029, and the only viable two party coalition would be LibDem-Reform. This is based on (a) Reform winning in terms of vote share, but suffering from tactical voting; and (b) the LibDems coming fourth in vote share, but benefiting hugely from tactical voting.
In 2029 you might have a progressive Democrat in the White House and Le Pen and the AfD in power on the continent, with Farage campaigning for us to get closer to Europe.
Wasn't the "abuse" that William received more to do with the perception that he actually supports Trump, not just posting polls good for Trump?
Nah, bollocks; anyone who posted any sort of thesis about why Trump could or would win, and why regular posters were wrong about Harris winning, were subject to what counts by their standards as a pile-on.
"So, uh, just curious, when you say "I like freedom," is that code for MAGA, or am I reading too much into it?"
"Quick test: If I say "covfefe," do you a) laugh ironically, b) Google it, or c) salute an invisible flag?"
"Do you own a red hat? Don’t lie. We can tell."
That sort of thing. At the very mildest end.
Are these actual quotes?
The middle one is quite good. I'm hoping that was me.
"Reform UK polling/seats: if they can get to 27/8% + they can be largest party in a hung Parliament. If 32/3% + they can win a majority outright. (Source: Electoral Calculus)."
Farage has the approval of about 30% of the voters, I believe. That means, in theory, that 27/8% is easily do-able and maybe even 32% if Labour continues to implode
Should that happen and they won a majority on 32% the very same people happy with Sir Kier getting a thumping majority on 33% would be bemoaning the death of democracy and demanding a change to the electoral system.
I think a scenario where Reform get high 30s, and Labour low 40s, is much more likely, akin to coalescence we saw with the 2017 election.
I just can't imagine a scenario where the possibility of a Reform government isn't met by furious tactical voting and turnout by everyone on the left. We saw how the right responded to the threat of Corbyn; we'd get that again with Farage.
Labour got 33.7% of the vote last time. You think they're going to increase their share of the vote by about 10%?
No. I just think that's more likely than Reform winning a majority with a low 30s result. Labour's vote was suppressed for a number of reasons - Gaza, inevitable victory - things that would become less important in the face of Farage.
A Reform victory on 34% is a fun thought experiment though, so I'm going to dig around in my spreadsheet and try and construct the scenario.
That's a fair point but Labour have been so diabolical I can't see them inflating their vote back up to 40% after this term in office.
It's true they'll still get a decent share, though. They are delivering for millions of public sector workers and trade unionists.
Wasn't the "abuse" that William received more to do with the perception that he actually supports Trump, not just posting polls good for Trump?
Nah, bollocks; anyone who posted any sort of thesis about why Trump could or would win, and why regular posters were wrong about Harris winning, were subject to what counts by their standards as a pile-on.
"So, uh, just curious, when you say "I like freedom," is that code for MAGA, or am I reading too much into it?"
"Quick test: If I say "covfefe," do you a) laugh ironically, b) Google it, or c) salute an invisible flag?"
"Do you own a red hat? Don’t lie. We can tell."
That sort of thing. At the very mildest end.
Are these actual quotes?
I don’t recognise any of them from the discussion around the election.
It is entirely possible that Reform win a majority in 2029 on 34% of the vote.
It's also entirely possible that they end up in the mid 20s, and in third place as far as seats. And, indeed, that they end up going backwards.
Right now, things are very much in flux, and almost anything is possible - especially in a First Past The Post world, where there might be five parties with double digit shares of the vote (and maybe six in Scotland). That leads to an enormous amount of volatility.
My (half serious) prediction is that no party wins a majority in 2029, and the only viable two party coalition would be LibDem-Reform. This is based on (a) Reform winning in terms of vote share, but suffering from tactical voting; and (b) the LibDems coming fourth in vote share, but benefiting hugely from tactical voting.
(Edit to add: For the avoidance of doubt, I assume that Reform wins most seats, not the LibDems. I'm thinking something like 200 - 130 - 120 - 120 - 30 - 20 - 27)
A Reform/LibDem coalition would be immensely good fun.
I shall try and find that chap from the HAC and get Operation Angel rolling….
"Reform UK polling/seats: if they can get to 27/8% + they can be largest party in a hung Parliament. If 32/3% + they can win a majority outright. (Source: Electoral Calculus)."
Farage has the approval of about 30% of the voters, I believe. That means, in theory, that 27/8% is easily do-able and maybe even 32% if Labour continues to implode
Should that happen and they won a majority on 32% the very same people happy with Sir Kier getting a thumping majority on 33% would be bemoaning the death of democracy and demanding a change to the electoral system.
I think a scenario where Reform get high 30s, and Labour low 40s, is much more likely, akin to coalescence we saw with the 2017 election.
I just can't imagine a scenario where the possibility of a Reform government isn't met by furious tactical voting and turnout by everyone on the left. We saw how the right responded to the threat of Corbyn; we'd get that again with Farage.
I couldn't have Nigel Farage as my PM. I'd have to move overseas.
That would be awful. Do you need some advice where to go? Message me any time, 24/7
Thank you but I hope it's a bridge that remains uncrossed.
"Reform UK polling/seats: if they can get to 27/8% + they can be largest party in a hung Parliament. If 32/3% + they can win a majority outright. (Source: Electoral Calculus)."
Farage has the approval of about 30% of the voters, I believe. That means, in theory, that 27/8% is easily do-able and maybe even 32% if Labour continues to implode
Should that happen and they won a majority on 32% the very same people happy with Sir Kier getting a thumping majority on 33% would be bemoaning the death of democracy and demanding a change to the electoral system.
I think a scenario where Reform get high 30s, and Labour low 40s, is much more likely, akin to coalescence we saw with the 2017 election.
I just can't imagine a scenario where the possibility of a Reform government isn't met by furious tactical voting and turnout by everyone on the left. We saw how the right responded to the threat of Corbyn; we'd get that again with Farage.
I couldn't have Nigel Farage as my PM. I'd have to move overseas.
That would be awful. Do you need some advice where to go? Message me any time, 24/7
Thank you but I hope it's a bridge that remains uncrossed.
It'd be Borneo, I think. I have links there.
I'm curious if you are serious. You barely move beyond NW3, would a Farage government genuinely be so bad you'd move to another country?
"Reform UK polling/seats: if they can get to 27/8% + they can be largest party in a hung Parliament. If 32/3% + they can win a majority outright. (Source: Electoral Calculus)."
Farage has the approval of about 30% of the voters, I believe. That means, in theory, that 27/8% is easily do-able and maybe even 32% if Labour continues to implode
Should that happen and they won a majority on 32% the very same people happy with Sir Kier getting a thumping majority on 33% would be bemoaning the death of democracy and demanding a change to the electoral system.
I think a scenario where Reform get high 30s, and Labour low 40s, is much more likely, akin to coalescence we saw with the 2017 election.
I just can't imagine a scenario where the possibility of a Reform government isn't met by furious tactical voting and turnout by everyone on the left. We saw how the right responded to the threat of Corbyn; we'd get that again with Farage.
Labour got 33.7% of the vote last time. You think they're going to increase their share of the vote by about 10%?
No. I just think that's more likely than Reform winning a majority with a low 30s result. Labour's vote was suppressed for a number of reasons - Gaza, inevitable victory - things that would become less important in the face of Farage.
A Reform victory on 34% is a fun thought experiment though, so I'm going to dig around in my spreadsheet and try and construct the scenario.
Delusional
Ok, set out how Reform win 300+ constituencies with 34%. You can make a shareable spreadsheet in google docs.
No, the delusional aspect was the idea the Labour vote was "suppressed". lol
As we have seen with the polling since the election Labour benefited from suspended disbelief which has now been non-suspended
I think it was, just from a quick scan of turnout in inner-cities v marginals, for example. I also know that quite a few of my friends stayed at home given the inevitability of the victory, or voted Green instead.
But you could invert my argument and say people only voted Labour when it really mattered for kicking out the Tories.
"Reform UK polling/seats: if they can get to 27/8% + they can be largest party in a hung Parliament. If 32/3% + they can win a majority outright. (Source: Electoral Calculus)."
Farage has the approval of about 30% of the voters, I believe. That means, in theory, that 27/8% is easily do-able and maybe even 32% if Labour continues to implode
Should that happen and they won a majority on 32% the very same people happy with Sir Kier getting a thumping majority on 33% would be bemoaning the death of democracy and demanding a change to the electoral system.
I think a scenario where Reform get high 30s, and Labour low 40s, is much more likely, akin to coalescence we saw with the 2017 election.
I just can't imagine a scenario where the possibility of a Reform government isn't met by furious tactical voting and turnout by everyone on the left. We saw how the right responded to the threat of Corbyn; we'd get that again with Farage.
Labour got 33.7% of the vote last time. You think they're going to increase their share of the vote by about 10%?
No. I just think that's more likely than Reform winning a majority with a low 30s result. Labour's vote was suppressed for a number of reasons - Gaza, inevitable victory - things that would become less important in the face of Farage.
A Reform victory on 34% is a fun thought experiment though, so I'm going to dig around in my spreadsheet and try and construct the scenario.
That's a fair point but Labour have been so diabolical I can't see them inflating their vote back up to 40% after this term in office.
It's true they'll still get a decent share, though. They are delivering for millions of public sector workers and trade unionists.
The question is whether the Left vote remains efficient, while the Right vote remains inefficient.
Because that's the challenge for the Right: currently, there's a lot of movement between Lab, LD, and Green for who beats the Tories.
By contrast, there is very little movement between the Conservative and Reform for who beats the party of the Left. And, indeed, it is possible you could see Left wing supporters vote tactically for Conservatives to keep Reform out. Or, for that matter, internationalist Conservatives (like TSE) voting Labour to keep Reform out.
Which is why I suspect that Reform might struggle to turn first place in votes nationwide into first place in seats.
Wasn't the "abuse" that William received more to do with the perception that he actually supports Trump, not just posting polls good for Trump?
Nah, bollocks; anyone who posted any sort of thesis about why Trump could or would win, and why regular posters were wrong about Harris winning, were subject to what counts by their standards as a pile-on.
"So, uh, just curious, when you say "I like freedom," is that code for MAGA, or am I reading too much into it?"
"Quick test: If I say "covfefe," do you a) laugh ironically, b) Google it, or c) salute an invisible flag?"
"Do you own a red hat? Don’t lie. We can tell."
That sort of thing. At the very mildest end.
Are these actual quotes?
I don’t recognise any of them from the discussion around the election.
It's satire.
But the threads from October speak for themselves. Trawl through them at your leisure.
It is entirely possible that Reform win a majority in 2029 on 34% of the vote.
It's also entirely possible that they end up in the mid 20s, and in third place as far as seats. And, indeed, that they end up going backwards.
Right now, things are very much in flux, and almost anything is possible - especially in a First Past The Post world, where there might be five parties with double digit shares of the vote (and maybe six in Scotland). That leads to an enormous amount of volatility.
My (half serious) prediction is that no party wins a majority in 2029, and the only viable two party coalition would be LibDem-Reform. This is based on (a) Reform winning in terms of vote share, but suffering from tactical voting; and (b) the LibDems coming fourth in vote share, but benefiting hugely from tactical voting.
In 2029 you might have a progressive Democrat in the White House and Le Pen and the AfD in power on the continent, with Farage campaigning for us to get closer to Europe.
Ah in which case forget Borneo. I could plump for Vermont instead.
Yep: no question about the rabbit hole that he's gone down is there?
Musk is definitely adopting some radical views, however Libs of Tok Tok is usually quite scrupulous, and I am guessing all those headlines are true. So does that constitute rabbit-holing?
"Reform UK polling/seats: if they can get to 27/8% + they can be largest party in a hung Parliament. If 32/3% + they can win a majority outright. (Source: Electoral Calculus)."
Farage has the approval of about 30% of the voters, I believe. That means, in theory, that 27/8% is easily do-able and maybe even 32% if Labour continues to implode
Should that happen and they won a majority on 32% the very same people happy with Sir Kier getting a thumping majority on 33% would be bemoaning the death of democracy and demanding a change to the electoral system.
I think a scenario where Reform get high 30s, and Labour low 40s, is much more likely, akin to coalescence we saw with the 2017 election.
I just can't imagine a scenario where the possibility of a Reform government isn't met by furious tactical voting and turnout by everyone on the left. We saw how the right responded to the threat of Corbyn; we'd get that again with Farage.
Labour got 33.7% of the vote last time. You think they're going to increase their share of the vote by about 10%?
No. I just think that's more likely than Reform winning a majority with a low 30s result. Labour's vote was suppressed for a number of reasons - Gaza, inevitable victory - things that would become less important in the face of Farage.
A Reform victory on 34% is a fun thought experiment though, so I'm going to dig around in my spreadsheet and try and construct the scenario.
That's a fair point but Labour have been so diabolical I can't see them inflating their vote back up to 40% after this term in office.
It's true they'll still get a decent share, though. They are delivering for millions of public sector workers and trade unionists.
It's December 2024. Up to 4 and a half years until the next election. Its practically impossible to declare that something political is impossible. We have had the absurd and the impossible cued up ready to pile on top of each other repeatedly.
Who knows what is going to happen. Think of something utterly absurd, say "that can't possibly happen" and then remember the succession of events since 2015.
Starmer could win a landslide. Starmer could get abducted by aliens. Who can tell.
"Reform UK polling/seats: if they can get to 27/8% + they can be largest party in a hung Parliament. If 32/3% + they can win a majority outright. (Source: Electoral Calculus)."
Farage has the approval of about 30% of the voters, I believe. That means, in theory, that 27/8% is easily do-able and maybe even 32% if Labour continues to implode
Should that happen and they won a majority on 32% the very same people happy with Sir Kier getting a thumping majority on 33% would be bemoaning the death of democracy and demanding a change to the electoral system.
I think a scenario where Reform get high 30s, and Labour low 40s, is much more likely, akin to coalescence we saw with the 2017 election.
I just can't imagine a scenario where the possibility of a Reform government isn't met by furious tactical voting and turnout by everyone on the left. We saw how the right responded to the threat of Corbyn; we'd get that again with Farage.
I couldn't have Nigel Farage as my PM. I'd have to move overseas.
That would be awful. Do you need some advice where to go? Message me any time, 24/7
Thank you but I hope it's a bridge that remains uncrossed.
It is entirely possible that Reform win a majority in 2029 on 34% of the vote.
It's also entirely possible that they end up in the mid 20s, and in third place as far as seats. And, indeed, that they end up going backwards.
Right now, things are very much in flux, and almost anything is possible - especially in a First Past The Post world, where there might be five parties with double digit shares of the vote (and maybe six in Scotland). That leads to an enormous amount of volatility.
My (half serious) prediction is that no party wins a majority in 2029, and the only viable two party coalition would be LibDem-Reform. This is based on (a) Reform winning in terms of vote share, but suffering from tactical voting; and (b) the LibDems coming fourth in vote share, but benefiting hugely from tactical voting.
(Edit to add: For the avoidance of doubt, I assume that Reform wins most seats, not the LibDems. I'm thinking something like 200 - 130 - 120 - 120 - 30 - 20 - 27)
A Reform/LibDem coalition would be immensely good fun.
I shall try and find that chap from the HAC and get Operation Angel rolling….
A Reform Tory or even a Reform Labour deal is more likely than a Reform/LD deal, the LDs would also do a deal with Labour or even the Tories over Reform. Reform and the LDs are at polar opposites of the Brexit divide.
Though Reform and the LDs do agree on scrapping the tractor tax and restoring winter fuel allowance for pensioners and on opposing development on greenbelt land, so their MPs could find themselves going through the same lobbies on some issues
"Reform UK polling/seats: if they can get to 27/8% + they can be largest party in a hung Parliament. If 32/3% + they can win a majority outright. (Source: Electoral Calculus)."
Farage has the approval of about 30% of the voters, I believe. That means, in theory, that 27/8% is easily do-able and maybe even 32% if Labour continues to implode
Should that happen and they won a majority on 32% the very same people happy with Sir Kier getting a thumping majority on 33% would be bemoaning the death of democracy and demanding a change to the electoral system.
I think a scenario where Reform get high 30s, and Labour low 40s, is much more likely, akin to coalescence we saw with the 2017 election.
I just can't imagine a scenario where the possibility of a Reform government isn't met by furious tactical voting and turnout by everyone on the left. We saw how the right responded to the threat of Corbyn; we'd get that again with Farage.
Labour got 33.7% of the vote last time. You think they're going to increase their share of the vote by about 10%?
No. I just think that's more likely than Reform winning a majority with a low 30s result. Labour's vote was suppressed for a number of reasons - Gaza, inevitable victory - things that would become less important in the face of Farage.
A Reform victory on 34% is a fun thought experiment though, so I'm going to dig around in my spreadsheet and try and construct the scenario.
That's a fair point but Labour have been so diabolical I can't see them inflating their vote back up to 40% after this term in office.
It's true they'll still get a decent share, though. They are delivering for millions of public sector workers and trade unionists.
It's December 2024. Up to 4 and a half years until the next election. Its practically impossible to declare that something political is impossible. We have had the absurd and the impossible cued up ready to pile on top of each other repeatedly.
Who knows what is going to happen. Think of something utterly absurd, say "that can't possibly happen" and then remember the succession of events since 2015.
Starmer could win a landslide. Starmer could get abducted by aliens. Who can tell.
Cf Terence McKenna's brilliant Novelty Theory. My new favourite theory
Everything will keep getting weirder and weirder until we reach a mega-incredible Singularity of Weirdosity
"Reform UK polling/seats: if they can get to 27/8% + they can be largest party in a hung Parliament. If 32/3% + they can win a majority outright. (Source: Electoral Calculus)."
Farage has the approval of about 30% of the voters, I believe. That means, in theory, that 27/8% is easily do-able and maybe even 32% if Labour continues to implode
Should that happen and they won a majority on 32% the very same people happy with Sir Kier getting a thumping majority on 33% would be bemoaning the death of democracy and demanding a change to the electoral system.
I think a scenario where Reform get high 30s, and Labour low 40s, is much more likely, akin to coalescence we saw with the 2017 election.
I just can't imagine a scenario where the possibility of a Reform government isn't met by furious tactical voting and turnout by everyone on the left. We saw how the right responded to the threat of Corbyn; we'd get that again with Farage.
I couldn't have Nigel Farage as my PM. I'd have to move overseas.
That would be awful. Do you need some advice where to go? Message me any time, 24/7
Thank you but I hope it's a bridge that remains uncrossed.
It'd be Borneo, I think. I have links there.
I'm curious if you are serious. You barely move beyond NW3, would a Farage government genuinely be so bad you'd move to another country?
What makes you think he would improve Britain as a country?
Yep: no question about the rabbit hole that he's gone down is there?
Musk is definitely adopting some radical views, however Libs of Tok Tok is usually quite scrupulous, and I am guessing all those headlines are true. So does that constitute rabbit-holing?
Well, I will bet you that there will have been at least one Syrian refugee who is a doctor, and who saved a German's life in the last week. And he's not highlighting that story.
"Reform UK polling/seats: if they can get to 27/8% + they can be largest party in a hung Parliament. If 32/3% + they can win a majority outright. (Source: Electoral Calculus)."
Farage has the approval of about 30% of the voters, I believe. That means, in theory, that 27/8% is easily do-able and maybe even 32% if Labour continues to implode
Should that happen and they won a majority on 32% the very same people happy with Sir Kier getting a thumping majority on 33% would be bemoaning the death of democracy and demanding a change to the electoral system.
I think a scenario where Reform get high 30s, and Labour low 40s, is much more likely, akin to coalescence we saw with the 2017 election.
I just can't imagine a scenario where the possibility of a Reform government isn't met by furious tactical voting and turnout by everyone on the left. We saw how the right responded to the threat of Corbyn; we'd get that again with Farage.
Labour got 33.7% of the vote last time. You think they're going to increase their share of the vote by about 10%?
No. I just think that's more likely than Reform winning a majority with a low 30s result. Labour's vote was suppressed for a number of reasons - Gaza, inevitable victory - things that would become less important in the face of Farage.
A Reform victory on 34% is a fun thought experiment though, so I'm going to dig around in my spreadsheet and try and construct the scenario.
That's a fair point but Labour have been so diabolical I can't see them inflating their vote back up to 40% after this term in office.
It's true they'll still get a decent share, though. They are delivering for millions of public sector workers and trade unionists.
It's December 2024. Up to 4 and a half years until the next election. Its practically impossible to declare that something political is impossible. We have had the absurd and the impossible cued up ready to pile on top of each other repeatedly.
Who knows what is going to happen. Think of something utterly absurd, say "that can't possibly happen" and then remember the succession of events since 2015.
Starmer could win a landslide. Starmer could get abducted by aliens. Who can tell.
Perhaps both are true. In sympathy for his abduction by aliens the British public grant him a landslide in absentia.
Can anyone tell me off teh top of their how the various main UK political parties are organised.
Unincorporated Associations, Co-operatives, Companies Limited by Guarantee etc?
I can go and find it, but does anyone know already?
(Clearly we know that RefUK are a Limited Compavy.)
The other political parties are unincorporated organisations which register with the electoral commission under section 22 of the PPERA.
I think @Cicero is mostly correct. Repeated questions to Copilot and my own Googling leads me to think that Reform is a limited company, the others (Lab, LD, SNP, Plaid etc) are unincorporated associations, except possibly for the Conservative Party - see below for a discussion of this.
Unincorporated Associations An unincorporated association operates based on its own rules and constitution rather than being governed by company law. It is a bunch of people and associations organised by agreed rules that it sets down in its constitution. It is not a legal entity separate from its members
The Structure Of Reform UK Reform UK Party Limited (formerly the Brexit Party Limited) is a limited company (not a PLC: its shares aren't traded). Unlike unincorporated associations it can legally take a profit and it does not have to elect its leader. It currently has three officers (Company Secretary is Mehrtash A'Zami, Company Directors are Farage and Tice).
Reform intends (hmmm) to change its stucture, I think to a company limited by guarantee.
The Structure Of The Conservative And Unionist Party The Inland Revenue tried to tax the Conservative Party as if it was an unincorporated association. The Party took it to court and after some appeals it was adjudged that it was NOT an unincorporated association. I don't know what its legal structure is: Wikipedia describes it as a sui-generis "mixed-money, common-object body with regular spending for political purposes". I think @HYUFD may be able to assist, especially if the Cameron reforms changed it.
"Reform UK polling/seats: if they can get to 27/8% + they can be largest party in a hung Parliament. If 32/3% + they can win a majority outright. (Source: Electoral Calculus)."
Farage has the approval of about 30% of the voters, I believe. That means, in theory, that 27/8% is easily do-able and maybe even 32% if Labour continues to implode
Should that happen and they won a majority on 32% the very same people happy with Sir Kier getting a thumping majority on 33% would be bemoaning the death of democracy and demanding a change to the electoral system.
I think a scenario where Reform get high 30s, and Labour low 40s, is much more likely, akin to coalescence we saw with the 2017 election.
I just can't imagine a scenario where the possibility of a Reform government isn't met by furious tactical voting and turnout by everyone on the left. We saw how the right responded to the threat of Corbyn; we'd get that again with Farage.
Labour got 33.7% of the vote last time. You think they're going to increase their share of the vote by about 10%?
No. I just think that's more likely than Reform winning a majority with a low 30s result. Labour's vote was suppressed for a number of reasons - Gaza, inevitable victory - things that would become less important in the face of Farage.
A Reform victory on 34% is a fun thought experiment though, so I'm going to dig around in my spreadsheet and try and construct the scenario.
That's a fair point but Labour have been so diabolical I can't see them inflating their vote back up to 40% after this term in office.
It's true they'll still get a decent share, though. They are delivering for millions of public sector workers and trade unionists.
Just for my fun model - where do you think the Reform vote would come from for a 34% share?
I'm assuming 1/3rd from the Tories, 1/3rd from Labour and 1/3rd from non-voters. But I also kinda think the people who voted Tory in July '24 really are Tories 4ever, so the rest of the Reform vote will have to come from Labour.
"Reform UK polling/seats: if they can get to 27/8% + they can be largest party in a hung Parliament. If 32/3% + they can win a majority outright. (Source: Electoral Calculus)."
Farage has the approval of about 30% of the voters, I believe. That means, in theory, that 27/8% is easily do-able and maybe even 32% if Labour continues to implode
Should that happen and they won a majority on 32% the very same people happy with Sir Kier getting a thumping majoI'm not rity on 33% would be bemoaning the death of democracy and demanding a change to the electoral system.
I think a scenario where Reform get high 30s, and Labour low 40s, is much more likely, akin to coalescence we saw with the 2017 election.
I just can't imagine a scenario where the possibility of a Reform government isn't met by furious tactical voting and turnout by everyone on the left. We saw how the right responded to the threat of Corbyn; we'd get that again with Farage.
I couldn't have Nigel Farage as my PM. I'd have to move overseas.
That would be awful. Do you need some advice where to go? Message me any time, 24/7
Thank you but I hope it's a bridge that remains uncrossed.
It'd be Borneo, I think. I have links there.
I'm curious if you are serious. You barely move beyond NW3, would a Farage government genuinely be so bad you'd move to another country?
What makes you think he would improve Britain as a country?
What makes you think I believe Farage would improve Britain as a country (apart from @kinabalu bugging out: clearly a positive)
It is entirely possible that Reform win a majority in 2029 on 34% of the vote.
It's also entirely possible that they end up in the mid 20s, and in third place as far as seats. And, indeed, that they end up going backwards.
Right now, things are very much in flux, and almost anything is possible - especially in a First Past The Post world, where there might be five parties with double digit shares of the vote (and maybe six in Scotland). That leads to an enormous amount of volatility.
My (half serious) prediction is that no party wins a majority in 2029, and the only viable two party coalition would be LibDem-Reform. This is based on (a) Reform winning in terms of vote share, but suffering from tactical voting; and (b) the LibDems coming fourth in vote share, but benefiting hugely from tactical voting.
(Edit to add: For the avoidance of doubt, I assume that Reform wins most seats, not the LibDems. I'm thinking something like 200 - 130 - 120 - 120 - 30 - 20 - 27)
A Reform/LibDem coalition would be immensely good fun.
I shall try and find that chap from the HAC and get Operation Angel rolling….
A Reform Tory or even a Reform Labour deal is more likely than a Reform/LD deal, the LDs would also do a deal with Labour or even the Tories over Reform. Reform and the LDs are at polar opposites of the Brexit divide.
Though Reform and the LDs do agree on scrapping the tractor tax and restoring winter fuel allowance for pensioners and on opposing development on greenbelt land, so their MPs could find themselves going through the same lobbies on some issues
I'm not suggesting a Reform-LD coalition would actually happen. I'm just pointing out that on FPTP, you can end up with some pretty wild results.
And it's far from impossible for Reform to get 34% of the vote, and 200-odd seats, while the LDs end up in the mid-teens with 130, while Labour and the Conservatives are mired in the mid-20s and end up around 115-20 seats apiece.
In that scenario, what's the viable government? Lab + LD + SNP doesn't get there. And nor does Reform + Con + DUP.
If true, this would be an interesting test for the UK government:
"Asma al-Assad asks for divorce and wants to leave Russia 🇷🇺. According to the newspaper, Asma al-Assad, who holds British citizenship expressed her dissatisfaction with living conditions in the 🇷🇺 capital Moscow and she want to return to London."
So gassing babies, torture in prisons and mass executions by her husband's military and secret police was fine as long as she resided in the Presidential Palace in sunny Damascus with her husband's credit card.
Living in a Moscow flat in winter though is beyond the pale
Yep: no question about the rabbit hole that he's gone down is there?
Musk is definitely adopting some radical views, however Libs of Tok Tok is usually quite scrupulous, and I am guessing all those headlines are true. So does that constitute rabbit-holing?
Well, I will bet you that there will have been at least one Syrian refugee who is a doctor, and who saved a German's life in the last week. And he's not highlighting that story.
Were it not for the Syrian doctors, Germany would have been forced to train more of its own. We cannot consider him or her in isolation. Fewer anecdotes, more data no?
Can anyone tell me off teh top of their how the various main UK political parties are organised.
Unincorporated Associations, Co-operatives, Companies Limited by Guarantee etc?
I can go and find it, but does anyone know already?
(Clearly we know that RefUK are a Limited Compavy.)
The other political parties are unincorporated organisations which register with the electoral commission under section 22 of the PPERA.
I think @Cicero is mostly correct. Repeated questions to Copilot and my own Googling leads me to think that Reform is a limited company, the others (Lab, LD, SNP, Plaid etc) are unincorporated associations, except possibly for the Conservative Party - see below for a discussion of this.
Unincorporated Associations An unincorporated association operates based on its own rules and constitution rather than being governed by company law. It is a bunch of people and associations organised by agreed rules that it sets down in its constitution. It is not a legal entity separate from its members
The Structure Of Reform UK Reform UK Party Limited (formerly the Brexit Party Limited) is a limited company (not a PLC: its shares aren't traded). Unlike unincorporated associations it can legally take a profit and it does not have to elect its leader. It currently has three officers (Company Secretary is Mehrtash A'Zami, Company Directors are Farage and Tice).
Reform intends (hmmm) to change its stucture, I think to a company limited by guarantee.
The Structure Of The Conservative And Unionist Party The Inland Revenue tried to tax the Conservative Party as if it was an unincorporated association. The Party took it to court and after some appeals it was adjudged that it was NOT an unincorporated association. I don't know what its legal structure is: Wikipedia describes it as a sui-generis "mixed-money, common-object body with regular spending for political purposes". I think @HYUFD may be able to assist, especially if the Cameron reforms changed it.
"Reform UK polling/seats: if they can get to 27/8% + they can be largest party in a hung Parliament. If 32/3% + they can win a majority outright. (Source: Electoral Calculus)."
Farage has the approval of about 30% of the voters, I believe. That means, in theory, that 27/8% is easily do-able and maybe even 32% if Labour continues to implode
Should that happen and they won a majority on 32% the very same people happy with Sir Kier getting a thumping majority on 33% would be bemoaning the death of democracy and demanding a change to the electoral system.
I think a scenario where Reform get high 30s, and Labour low 40s, is much more likely, akin to coalescence we saw with the 2017 election.
I just can't imagine a scenario where the possibility of a Reform government isn't met by furious tactical voting and turnout by everyone on the left. We saw how the right responded to the threat of Corbyn; we'd get that again with Farage.
I couldn't have Nigel Farage as my PM. I'd have to move overseas.
That would be awful. Do you need some advice where to go? Message me any time, 24/7
Thank you but I hope it's a bridge that remains uncrossed.
It'd be Borneo, I think. I have links there.
I'm curious if you are serious. You barely move beyond NW3, would a Farage government genuinely be so bad you'd move to another country?
What makes you think he would improve Britain as a country?
Yep: no question about the rabbit hole that he's gone down is there?
Musk is definitely adopting some radical views, however Libs of Tok Tok is usually quite scrupulous, and I am guessing all those headlines are true. So does that constitute rabbit-holing?
Well, I will bet you that there will have been at least one Syrian refugee who is a doctor, and who saved a German's life in the last week. And he's not highlighting that story.
Were it not for the Syrian doctors, Germany would have been forced to train more of its own. We cannot consider him or her in isolation. Fewer anecdotes, more data no?
Well yes.
Human beings have a habit of having a theory ("Japanese people are having less babies because of masks during Covid") then Googling for it, finding anecdotes, and presenting it as fact.
One should draw stories out of data, not start with the story and then seek evidence for it.
"Reform UK polling/seats: if they can get to 27/8% + they can be largest party in a hung Parliament. If 32/3% + they can win a majority outright. (Source: Electoral Calculus)."
Farage has the approval of about 30% of the voters, I believe. That means, in theory, that 27/8% is easily do-able and maybe even 32% if Labour continues to implode
Should that happen and they won a majority on 32% the very same people happy with Sir Kier getting a thumping majority on 33% would be bemoaning the death of democracy and demanding a change to the electoral system.
I think a scenario where Reform get high 30s, and Labour low 40s, is much more likely, akin to coalescence we saw with the 2017 election.
I just can't imagine a scenario where the possibility of a Reform government isn't met by furious tactical voting and turnout by everyone on the left. We saw how the right responded to the threat of Corbyn; we'd get that again with Farage.
I couldn't have Nigel Farage as my PM. I'd have to move overseas.
That would be awful. Do you need some advice where to go? Message me any time, 24/7
Thank you but I hope it's a bridge that remains uncrossed.
It'd be Borneo, I think. I have links there.
I'm curious if you are serious. You barely move beyond NW3, would a Farage government genuinely be so bad you'd move to another country?
What makes you think he would improve Britain as a country?
Yep: no question about the rabbit hole that he's gone down is there?
Musk is definitely adopting some radical views, however Libs of Tok Tok is usually quite scrupulous, and I am guessing all those headlines are true. So does that constitute rabbit-holing?
Well, I will bet you that there will have been at least one Syrian refugee who is a doctor, and who saved a German's life in the last week. And he's not highlighting that story.
Were it not for the Syrian doctors, Germany would have been forced to train more of its own. We cannot consider him or her in isolation. Fewer anecdotes, more data no?
Well yes.
Human beings have a habit of having a theory ("Japanese people are having less babies because of masks during Covid") then Googling for it, finding anecdotes, and presenting it as fact.
One should draw stories out of data, not start with the story and then seek evidence for it.
Sadly, that's not how the human brain works.
Yours is the reasoning of a sarcastic 14 year old
Isaac Newton notices apple falling
Isaac Newton makes a story out of it "mass attracts mass" - reinforces it by googling it (ie, in his age, thinking and looking at sources)
Isaac Newton presents Theory of Gravity
This is how theories are BORN. Some are good, some are bad
Yep: no question about the rabbit hole that he's gone down is there?
Musk is definitely adopting some radical views, however Libs of Tok Tok is usually quite scrupulous, and I am guessing all those headlines are true. So does that constitute rabbit-holing?
Those headlines "are true" in as much as they are real headlines from the Mail, ZeroHedge and The Publica.
Whether any of those websites and their headlines should be taken seriously is another question entirely.
"Reform UK polling/seats: if they can get to 27/8% + they can be largest party in a hung Parliament. If 32/3% + they can win a majority outright. (Source: Electoral Calculus)."
Farage has the approval of about 30% of the voters, I believe. That means, in theory, that 27/8% is easily do-able and maybe even 32% if Labour continues to implode
Should that happen and they won a majority on 32% the very same people happy with Sir Kier getting a thumping majoI'm not rity on 33% would be bemoaning the death of democracy and demanding a change to the electoral system.
I think a scenario where Reform get high 30s, and Labour low 40s, is much more likely, akin to coalescence we saw with the 2017 election.
I just can't imagine a scenario where the possibility of a Reform government isn't met by furious tactical voting and turnout by everyone on the left. We saw how the right responded to the threat of Corbyn; we'd get that again with Farage.
I couldn't have Nigel Farage as my PM. I'd have to move overseas.
That would be awful. Do you need some advice where to go? Message me any time, 24/7
Thank you but I hope it's a bridge that remains uncrossed.
It'd be Borneo, I think. I have links there.
I'm curious if you are serious. You barely move beyond NW3, would a Farage government genuinely be so bad you'd move to another country?
What makes you think he would improve Britain as a country?
What makes you think I believe Farage would improve Britain as a country (apart from @kinabalu bugging out: clearly a positive)
A fair point. I was just getting the impression (perhaps incorrectly?) that you were excited by the prospect of a Farage/Reform government. Tumescent, perhaps?
"Reform UK polling/seats: if they can get to 27/8% + they can be largest party in a hung Parliament. If 32/3% + they can win a majority outright. (Source: Electoral Calculus)."
Farage has the approval of about 30% of the voters, I believe. That means, in theory, that 27/8% is easily do-able and maybe even 32% if Labour continues to implode
Should that happen and they won a majority on 32% the very same people happy with Sir Kier getting a thumping majority on 33% would be bemoaning the death of democracy and demanding a change to the electoral system.
I think a scenario where Reform get high 30s, and Labour low 40s, is much more likely, akin to coalescence we saw with the 2017 election.
I just can't imagine a scenario where the possibility of a Reform government isn't met by furious tactical voting and turnout by everyone on the left. We saw how the right responded to the threat of Corbyn; we'd get that again with Farage.
Labour got 33.7% of the vote last time. You think they're going to increase their share of the vote by about 10%?
No. I just think that's more likely than Reform winning a majority with a low 30s result. Labour's vote was suppressed for a number of reasons - Gaza, inevitable victory - things that would become less important in the face of Farage.
A Reform victory on 34% is a fun thought experiment though, so I'm going to dig around in my spreadsheet and try and construct the scenario.
That's a fair point but Labour have been so diabolical I can't see them inflating their vote back up to 40% after this term in office.
It's true they'll still get a decent share, though. They are delivering for millions of public sector workers and trade unionists.
It's December 2024. Up to 4 and a half years until the next election. Its practically impossible to declare that something political is impossible. We have had the absurd and the impossible cued up ready to pile on top of each other repeatedly.
Who knows what is going to happen. Think of something utterly absurd, say "that can't possibly happen" and then remember the succession of events since 2015.
Starmer could win a landslide. Starmer could get abducted by aliens. Who can tell.
Perhaps both are true. In sympathy for his abduction by aliens the British public grant him a landslide in absentia.
Remember that the Tories put out adverts during the election that Starmer would eat your pets. Perhaps the aliens will eat Starmer.
During the US election, some Republican campaigners reported that they needed to tone down the anecdotes about woke policies because some of them seemed so preposterous that people didn't believe them, even though they were true. I wonder if there's an element of that in @rcs1000's reactions to stories about continental Europe at the moment.
Yep: no question about the rabbit hole that he's gone down is there?
Musk is definitely adopting some radical views, however Libs of Tok Tok is usually quite scrupulous, and I am guessing all those headlines are true. So does that constitute rabbit-holing?
Those headlines "are true" in as much as they are real headlines from the Mail, ZeroHedge and The Publica.
Whether any of those websites and their headlines should be taken seriously is another question entirely.
Libs of Tik Tok is highly controversial and disliked by many. She (an orthodox Jewish woman in America) definitely has an agenda
However, one of the reasons she is disliked is because she sources her stories carefully, and verifies them, and thereby discomforts and agitates her political foes (time and again). Given her record I would be surprised if these are lies. But it could be the case
Can anyone tell me off teh top of their how the various main UK political parties are organised.
Unincorporated Associations, Co-operatives, Companies Limited by Guarantee etc?
I can go and find it, but does anyone know already?
(Clearly we know that RefUK are a Limited Compavy.)
The other political parties are unincorporated organisations which register with the electoral commission under section 22 of the PPERA.
I think @Cicero is mostly correct. Repeated questions to Copilot and my own Googling leads me to think that Reform is a limited company, the others (Lab, LD, SNP, Plaid etc) are unincorporated associations, except possibly for the Conservative Party - see below for a discussion of this.
Unincorporated Associations An unincorporated association operates based on its own rules and constitution rather than being governed by company law. It is a bunch of people and associations organised by agreed rules that it sets down in its constitution. It is not a legal entity separate from its members
The Structure Of Reform UK Reform UK Party Limited (formerly the Brexit Party Limited) is a limited company (not a PLC: its shares aren't traded). Unlike unincorporated associations it can legally take a profit and it does not have to elect its leader. It currently has three officers (Company Secretary is Mehrtash A'Zami, Company Directors are Farage and Tice).
Reform intends (hmmm) to change its stucture, I think to a company limited by guarantee.
The Structure Of The Conservative And Unionist Party The Inland Revenue tried to tax the Conservative Party as if it was an unincorporated association. The Party took it to court and after some appeals it was adjudged that it was NOT an unincorporated association. I don't know what its legal structure is: Wikipedia describes it as a sui-generis "mixed-money, common-object body with regular spending for political purposes". I think @HYUFD may be able to assist, especially if the Cameron reforms changed it.
(Note: not all PLCs companies are traded. It is perfectly possible to have a PLC with unlisted shares.)
Fair point, but they still have tradeable shares. A limited company with untradable shares is a private limited company: a different thing. Or have things changed since my Economics courses?
If true, this would be an interesting test for the UK government:
"Asma al-Assad asks for divorce and wants to leave Russia 🇷🇺. According to the newspaper, Asma al-Assad, who holds British citizenship expressed her dissatisfaction with living conditions in the 🇷🇺 capital Moscow and she want to return to London."
So gassing babies, torture in prisons and mass executions by her husband's military and secret police was fine as long as she resided in the Presidential Palace in sunny Damascus with her husband's credit card.
Living in a Moscow flat in winter though is beyond the pale
Yep, my sympathy for her could be parcelled up inside a proton.
However: could the government legally keep her out? And would they want to? Might she be able to provide us with some useful intelligence and/or leverage?
It is entirely possible that Reform win a majority in 2029 on 34% of the vote.
It's also entirely possible that they end up in the mid 20s, and in third place as far as seats. And, indeed, that they end up going backwards.
Right now, things are very much in flux, and almost anything is possible - especially in a First Past The Post world, where there might be five parties with double digit shares of the vote (and maybe six in Scotland). That leads to an enormous amount of volatility.
My (half serious) prediction is that no party wins a majority in 2029, and the only viable two party coalition would be LibDem-Reform. This is based on (a) Reform winning in terms of vote share, but suffering from tactical voting; and (b) the LibDems coming fourth in vote share, but benefiting hugely from tactical voting.
(Edit to add: For the avoidance of doubt, I assume that Reform wins most seats, not the LibDems. I'm thinking something like 200 - 130 - 120 - 120 - 30 - 20 - 27)
A Reform/LibDem coalition would be immensely good fun.
I shall try and find that chap from the HAC and get Operation Angel rolling….
A Reform Tory or even a Reform Labour deal is more likely than a Reform/LD deal, the LDs would also do a deal with Labour or even the Tories over Reform. Reform and the LDs are at polar opposites of the Brexit divide.
Though Reform and the LDs do agree on scrapping the tractor tax and restoring winter fuel allowance for pensioners and on opposing development on greenbelt land, so their MPs could find themselves going through the same lobbies on some issues
I'm not suggesting a Reform-LD coalition would actually happen. I'm just pointing out that on FPTP, you can end up with some pretty wild results.
And it's far from impossible for Reform to get 34% of the vote, and 200-odd seats, while the LDs end up in the mid-teens with 130, while Labour and the Conservatives are mired in the mid-20s and end up around 115-20 seats apiece.
In that scenario, what's the viable government? Lab + LD + SNP doesn't get there. And nor does Reform + Con + DUP.
In that scenario Farage would likely become PM with Tory confidence and supply, with Kemi DPM and Foreign Secretary. Reform + Con + DUP/TUV/UUP has the numbers
Yep: no question about the rabbit hole that he's gone down is there?
Musk is definitely adopting some radical views, however Libs of Tok Tok is usually quite scrupulous, and I am guessing all those headlines are true. So does that constitute rabbit-holing?
Well, I will bet you that there will have been at least one Syrian refugee who is a doctor, and who saved a German's life in the last week. And he's not highlighting that story.
Were it not for the Syrian doctors, Germany would have been forced to train more of its own. We cannot consider him or her in isolation. Fewer anecdotes, more data no?
Well yes.
Human beings have a habit of having a theory ("Japanese people are having less babies because of masks during Covid") then Googling for it, finding anecdotes, and presenting it as fact.
One should draw stories out of data, not start with the story and then seek evidence for it.
Sadly, that's not how the human brain works.
I do wonder, by the way, whether these Syrian doctors speak German, or whether they are put in positions where they start with English, and learn German as they go. Does anyone know?
Yep: no question about the rabbit hole that he's gone down is there?
Musk is definitely adopting some radical views, however Libs of Tok Tok is usually quite scrupulous, and I am guessing all those headlines are true. So does that constitute rabbit-holing?
Those headlines "are true" in as much as they are real headlines from the Mail, ZeroHedge and The Publica.
Whether any of those websites and their headlines should be taken seriously is another question entirely.
Libs of Tik Tok is highly controversial and disliked by many. She (an orthodox Jewish woman in America) definitely has an agenda
However, one of the reasons she is disliked is because she sources her stories carefully, and verifies them, and thereby discomforts and agitates her political foes (time and again). Given her record I would be surprised if these are lies. But it could be the case
Its not Libs of Tik Tok I have an issue with, its their sources.
The Mail, ZeroHedge and The Publica all have a track record of being willing to play fast and loose with the truth in the pursuit of extreme headlines.
So snipping their headlines is questionable. Yes they're genuine headlines, but genuine headlines from dodgy sources.
Yep: no question about the rabbit hole that he's gone down is there?
Musk is definitely adopting some radical views, however Libs of Tok Tok is usually quite scrupulous, and I am guessing all those headlines are true. So does that constitute rabbit-holing?
Well, I will bet you that there will have been at least one Syrian refugee who is a doctor, and who saved a German's life in the last week. And he's not highlighting that story.
Were it not for the Syrian doctors, Germany would have been forced to train more of its own. We cannot consider him or her in isolation. Fewer anecdotes, more data no?
Well yes.
Human beings have a habit of having a theory ("Japanese people are having less babies because of masks during Covid") then Googling for it, finding anecdotes, and presenting it as fact.
One should draw stories out of data, not start with the story and then seek evidence for it.
Sadly, that's not how the human brain works.
I've started to categorise research accordingly
Level 1: Google Research: an individual seeks evidence to support a theory and finds it
Level 2: Activist Research: an organisation selects studies to support a cause, reinterpreting them if necessary
Level 3: Academic Research: considerably slower, more likely to be right (or at least unargued, which is a different thing)
Yep: no question about the rabbit hole that he's gone down is there?
Have you ever heard of the iq communication gap. That is when the iq gap between 2 people exceeds 30 points communication starts to break down. Whats Musks iq perhaps 160. This means to anyone below 130 iq he sounds a blithering idiot whereas actually he is speaking from a higher level of consciousness.
Yep: no question about the rabbit hole that he's gone down is there?
Have you ever heard of the iq communication gap. That is when the iq gap between 2 people exceeds 30 points communication starts to break down. Whats Musks iq perhaps 160. This means to anyone below 130 iq he sounds a blithering idiot whereas actually he is speaking from a higher level of consciousness.
"Reform UK polling/seats: if they can get to 27/8% + they can be largest party in a hung Parliament. If 32/3% + they can win a majority outright. (Source: Electoral Calculus)."
Farage has the approval of about 30% of the voters, I believe. That means, in theory, that 27/8% is easily do-able and maybe even 32% if Labour continues to implode
Should that happen and they won a majority on 32% the very same people happy with Sir Kier getting a thumping majority on 33% would be bemoaning the death of democracy and demanding a change to the electoral system.
I think a scenario where Reform get high 30s, and Labour low 40s, is much more likely, akin to coalescence we saw with the 2017 election.
I just can't imagine a scenario where the possibility of a Reform government isn't met by furious tactical voting and turnout by everyone on the left. We saw how the right responded to the threat of Corbyn; we'd get that again with Farage.
I couldn't have Nigel Farage as my PM. I'd have to move overseas.
That would be awful. Do you need some advice where to go? Message me any time, 24/7
Thank you but I hope it's a bridge that remains uncrossed.
It'd be Borneo, I think. I have links there.
I'm curious if you are serious. You barely move beyond NW3, would a Farage government genuinely be so bad you'd move to another country?
What makes you think he would improve Britain as a country?
Can't be much worse than Starmer & Reeves!
Yes, basically, that's where I am. I am now pro-Reform not because I think they will "improve the country" - maybe that's too much to ask - but because they can hardly be worse than the recent Labour and Tory governments (it would be really hard to outdo Starmer, Truss, or TMay in crapness, for instance), but they might simply slow the decline while also doing some good shit - seriously clamping down on the boats, on migration, on Wokeness
It is a vote of despair, more than protest, let alone hope. But that is what it feels like, to be European, at the moment. Votes of despair
Yep: no question about the rabbit hole that he's gone down is there?
Have you ever heard of the iq communication gap. That is when the iq gap between 2 people exceeds 30 points communication starts to break down. Whats Musks iq perhaps 160. This means to anyone below 130 iq he sounds a blithering idiot whereas actually he is speaking from a higher level of consciousness.
Yep: no question about the rabbit hole that he's gone down is there?
Have you ever heard of the iq communication gap. That is when the iq gap between 2 people exceeds 30 points communication starts to break down. Whats Musks iq perhaps 160. This means to anyone below 130 iq he sounds a blithering idiot whereas actually he is speaking from a higher level of consciousness.
Or he's a twat.
You sure it is not 28-dimensional chess, or something?
Yep: no question about the rabbit hole that he's gone down is there?
Have you ever heard of the iq communication gap. That is when the iq gap between 2 people exceeds 30 points communication starts to break down. Whats Musks iq perhaps 160. This means to anyone below 130 iq he sounds a blithering idiot whereas actually he is speaking from a higher level of consciousness.
Or he's a twat.
You sure it is not 28-dimensional chess, or something?
If he's smart, then he is capable of speaking in a way that stupid people can understand. It is the thing I have most trouble with
Yep: no question about the rabbit hole that he's gone down is there?
Musk is definitely adopting some radical views, however Libs of Tok Tok is usually quite scrupulous, and I am guessing all those headlines are true. So does that constitute rabbit-holing?
Those headlines "are true" in as much as they are real headlines from the Mail, ZeroHedge and The Publica.
Whether any of those websites and their headlines should be taken seriously is another question entirely.
Libs of Tik Tok is highly controversial and disliked by many. She (an orthodox Jewish woman in America) definitely has an agenda
However, one of the reasons she is disliked is because she sources her stories carefully, and verifies them, and thereby discomforts and agitates her political foes (time and again). Given her record I would be surprised if these are lies. But it could be the case
Its not Libs of Tik Tok I have an issue with, its their sources.
The Mail, ZeroHedge and The Publica all have a track record of being willing to play fast and loose with the truth in the pursuit of extreme headlines.
So snipping their headlines is questionable. Yes they're genuine headlines, but genuine headlines from dodgy sources.
I mean, at this point, I just don't fucking care what "@BartholomewRoberts of Newent" thinks about ANYTHING
Yep: no question about the rabbit hole that he's gone down is there?
Musk is definitely adopting some radical views, however Libs of Tok Tok is usually quite scrupulous, and I am guessing all those headlines are true. So does that constitute rabbit-holing?
Those headlines "are true" in as much as they are real headlines from the Mail, ZeroHedge and The Publica.
Whether any of those websites and their headlines should be taken seriously is another question entirely.
Libs of Tik Tok is highly controversial and disliked by many. She (an orthodox Jewish woman in America) definitely has an agenda
However, one of the reasons she is disliked is because she sources her stories carefully, and verifies them, and thereby discomforts and agitates her political foes (time and again). Given her record I would be surprised if these are lies. But it could be the case
Here's the reality: some of the truth is lies, some of the lies are the truth.
There absolutely are some disinformation merchants out there spreading bullshit and fermenting as much discontent as possible. But they're so successful because the "truth" is clearly full of factual holes.
Are muslims invading "Christian" Europe to rape white girls and impose Sharia law. No. Are the authorities far too sensitive to the handful of people who are scumbags because of their ethnicity? Sure.
Yep: no question about the rabbit hole that he's gone down is there?
Have you ever heard of the iq communication gap. That is when the iq gap between 2 people exceeds 30 points communication starts to break down. Whats Musks iq perhaps 160. This means to anyone below 130 iq he sounds a blithering idiot whereas actually he is speaking from a higher level of consciousness.
Or he's a twat.
You sure it is not 28-dimensional chess, or something?
If he's smart, then he is capable of speaking in a way that stupid people can understand. It is the thing I have most trouble with
Actually not true. He is extremely intelligent but Asperger's (or so he says, and all his mannerisms check out). So he does see stuff that others don't, and he can extrapolate much further, quicker and deeper than yer average PBer, let alone the average dumb fuck human. Hence his incredible success. BUT he is really bad at communication - thin skinned, cranky, awkward, often a strange sense of humour (classic Aspie) and thus he sometimes has trouble relating to those 20+ IQ points lower than him, this is a common problem with very smart people. He needs PR dudes
Also, being very smart does not make him infallible, far from it. Very smart people believe absurd and untrue things all the time. In fact, in my life, I've generally heard the most insane theories of the world from the absolute brightest. Dumb people lack the imagination to be really inventive in their lunacies
Yep: no question about the rabbit hole that he's gone down is there?
Have you ever heard of the iq communication gap. That is when the iq gap between 2 people exceeds 30 points communication starts to break down. Whats Musks iq perhaps 160. This means to anyone below 130 iq he sounds a blithering idiot whereas actually he is speaking from a higher level of consciousness.
Or he's a twat.
You sure it is not 28-dimensional chess, or something?
If he's smart, then he is capable of speaking in a way that stupid people can understand. It is the thing I have most trouble with
Actually not true. He is extremely intelligent but Asperger's (or so he says, and all his mannerisms check out). So he does see stuff that others don't, and he can extrapolate much further, quicker and deeper than yer average PBer, let alone the average dumb fuck human. Hence his incredible success. BUT he is really bad at communication - thin skinned, cranky, awkward, often a strange sense of humour (classic Aspie) and thus he sometimes has trouble relating to those 20+ IQ points lower than him, this is a common problem with very smart people. He needs PR dudes
Also, being very smart does not make him infallible, far from it. Very smart people believe absurd and untrue things all the time. In fact, in my life, I've generally heard the most insane theories of the world from the absolute brightest. Dumb people lack the imagination to be really inventive in their lunacies
Yep: no question about the rabbit hole that he's gone down is there?
Have you ever heard of the iq communication gap. That is when the iq gap between 2 people exceeds 30 points communication starts to break down. Whats Musks iq perhaps 160. This means to anyone below 130 iq he sounds a blithering idiot whereas actually he is speaking from a higher level of consciousness.
What a funny coincidence, there's another member here who has an unnatural obsession with IQ.
Yep: no question about the rabbit hole that he's gone down is there?
Have you ever heard of the iq communication gap. That is when the iq gap between 2 people exceeds 30 points communication starts to break down. Whats Musks iq perhaps 160. This means to anyone below 130 iq he sounds a blithering idiot whereas actually he is speaking from a higher level of consciousness.
Or he's a twat.
You sure it is not 28-dimensional chess, or something?
If he's smart, then he is capable of speaking in a way that stupid people can understand. It is the thing I have most trouble with
Actually not true. He is extremely intelligent but Asperger's (or so he says, and all his mannerisms check out). So he does see stuff that others don't, and he can extrapolate much further, quicker and deeper than yer average PBer, let alone the average dumb fuck human. Hence his incredible success. BUT he is really bad at communication - thin skinned, cranky, awkward, often a strange sense of humour (classic Aspie) and thus he sometimes has trouble relating to those 20+ IQ points lower than him, this is a common problem with very smart people. He needs PR dudes
Also, being very smart does not make him infallible, far from it. Very smart people believe absurd and untrue things all the time. In fact, in my life, I've generally heard the most insane theories of the world from the absolute brightest. Dumb people lack the imagination to be really inventive in their lunacies
At best an insensitive uncaring fcukwit.
Well, maybe, but also probably the greatest entrepreneur of our time and one of the top ten greatest human engineers/innovators of ALL time. So that's a thing
Yep: no question about the rabbit hole that he's gone down is there?
Have you ever heard of the iq communication gap. That is when the iq gap between 2 people exceeds 30 points communication starts to break down. Whats Musks iq perhaps 160. This means to anyone below 130 iq he sounds a blithering idiot whereas actually he is speaking from a higher level of consciousness.
What a funny coincidence, there's another member here who has an unnatural obsession with IQ.
OOOH it's me, isn't it? It's me, I've invented another PB sockpuppet, and I'm pretending they're not me. It's because I'm a Zio, with deep links to Mossad
Toyota and "Merry Christmas": The car company is now running a commercial that may show a small shift.
In the commercial, a couple sees a sign advertising a reward for a lost dog. As they are driving, they see the dog, rescue it, and take it back to the family that owns it. The dog runs to a little girl, who hugs it. Her father takes out his billfold to offer the reward. The rescuers refuse, saying the happiness they see is reward enough. The father -- I think -- says "Merry Christmas", as the rescuers begin to walk away.
A company like Toyota would have a good idea of what is acceptable enough to most Americans to help sell their cars.
(There is a twist in the commercial that is quite common in the commercials I see in this area: The rescuing couple is mixed race, the man black and the woman white.)
It is entirely possible that Reform win a majority in 2029 on 34% of the vote.
It's also entirely possible that they end up in the mid 20s, and in third place as far as seats. And, indeed, that they end up going backwards.
Right now, things are very much in flux, and almost anything is possible - especially in a First Past The Post world, where there might be five parties with double digit shares of the vote (and maybe six in Scotland). That leads to an enormous amount of volatility.
My (half serious) prediction is that no party wins a majority in 2029, and the only viable two party coalition would be LibDem-Reform. This is based on (a) Reform winning in terms of vote share, but suffering from tactical voting; and (b) the LibDems coming fourth in vote share, but benefiting hugely from tactical voting.
(Edit to add: For the avoidance of doubt, I assume that Reform wins most seats, not the LibDems. I'm thinking something like 200 - 130 - 120 - 120 - 30 - 20 - 27)
A Reform/LibDem coalition would be immensely good fun.
I shall try and find that chap from the HAC and get Operation Angel rolling….
A Reform Tory or even a Reform Labour deal is more likely than a Reform/LD deal, the LDs would also do a deal with Labour or even the Tories over Reform. Reform and the LDs are at polar opposites of the Brexit divide.
Though Reform and the LDs do agree on scrapping the tractor tax and restoring winter fuel allowance for pensioners and on opposing development on greenbelt land, so their MPs could find themselves going through the same lobbies on some issues
I'm not suggesting a Reform-LD coalition would actually happen. I'm just pointing out that on FPTP, you can end up with some pretty wild results.
And it's far from impossible for Reform to get 34% of the vote, and 200-odd seats, while the LDs end up in the mid-teens with 130, while Labour and the Conservatives are mired in the mid-20s and end up around 115-20 seats apiece.
In that scenario, what's the viable government? Lab + LD + SNP doesn't get there. And nor does Reform + Con + DUP.
I'd query even Ref+LD being "viable" in those circumstances.
If true, this would be an interesting test for the UK government:
"Asma al-Assad asks for divorce and wants to leave Russia 🇷🇺. According to the newspaper, Asma al-Assad, who holds British citizenship expressed her dissatisfaction with living conditions in the 🇷🇺 capital Moscow and she want to return to London."
So gassing babies, torture in prisons and mass executions by her husband's military and secret police was fine as long as she resided in the Presidential Palace in sunny Damascus with her husband's credit card.
Living in a Moscow flat in winter though is beyond the pale
Yep, my sympathy for her could be parcelled up inside a proton.
However: could the government legally keep her out? And would they want to? Might she be able to provide us with some useful intelligence and/or leverage?
They could revoke her U.K. passport and citizenship.
On thread: These results sound entirely what I would expect. TSE's comment us also reasonable (though I'd still rank covid higher), though it is of a level of complexity that I am not surprised that people don't instinctively identify it as the most significant. Not my most interesting contribution ever, but it's nice to find no reason to quibble.
Yep: no question about the rabbit hole that he's gone down is there?
Have you ever heard of the iq communication gap. That is when the iq gap between 2 people exceeds 30 points communication starts to break down. Whats Musks iq perhaps 160. This means to anyone below 130 iq he sounds a blithering idiot whereas actually he is speaking from a higher level of consciousness.
What a funny coincidence, there's another member here who has an unnatural obsession with IQ.
Actual intelligence is a bit like being “hard” or being “cool”.
Very hard to define, but anyone who bangs on about how much they have, doesn’t have any.
If true, this would be an interesting test for the UK government:
"Asma al-Assad asks for divorce and wants to leave Russia 🇷🇺. According to the newspaper, Asma al-Assad, who holds British citizenship expressed her dissatisfaction with living conditions in the 🇷🇺 capital Moscow and she want to return to London."
So gassing babies, torture in prisons and mass executions by her husband's military and secret police was fine as long as she resided in the Presidential Palace in sunny Damascus with her husband's credit card.
Living in a Moscow flat in winter though is beyond the pale
Yep, my sympathy for her could be parcelled up inside a proton.
However: could the government legally keep her out? And would they want to? Might she be able to provide us with some useful intelligence and/or leverage?
They could revoke her U.K. passport and citizenship.
If they did, it would be interesting to see who would complain.
Though if the Syrians also revoked her passport, than she might be stateless. And I don't like that...
Yep: no question about the rabbit hole that he's gone down is there?
Have you ever heard of the iq communication gap. That is when the iq gap between 2 people exceeds 30 points communication starts to break down. Whats Musks iq perhaps 160. This means to anyone below 130 iq he sounds a blithering idiot whereas actually he is speaking from a higher level of consciousness.
Telegraph Lord Mandelson is set to call on Nigel Farage to help him win over Donald Trump’s administration.
Britain’s new ambassador to the US is ready to engage with the Reform UK leader as part of efforts to persuade Mr Trump not to go to war with Britain on tariffs.
Yep: no question about the rabbit hole that he's gone down is there?
Have you ever heard of the iq communication gap. That is when the iq gap between 2 people exceeds 30 points communication starts to break down. Whats Musks iq perhaps 160. This means to anyone below 130 iq he sounds a blithering idiot whereas actually he is speaking from a higher level of consciousness.
Or he's a twat.
You sure it is not 28-dimensional chess, or something?
If he's smart, then he is capable of speaking in a way that stupid people can understand. It is the thing I have most trouble with
Actually not true. He is extremely intelligent but Asperger's (or so he says, and all his mannerisms check out). So he does see stuff that others don't, and he can extrapolate much further, quicker and deeper than yer average PBer, let alone the average dumb fuck human. Hence his incredible success. BUT he is really bad at communication - thin skinned, cranky, awkward, often a strange sense of humour (classic Aspie) and thus he sometimes has trouble relating to those 20+ IQ points lower than him, this is a common problem with very smart people. He needs PR dudes
Also, being very smart does not make him infallible, far from it. Very smart people believe absurd and untrue things all the time. In fact, in my life, I've generally heard the most insane theories of the world from the absolute brightest. Dumb people lack the imagination to be really inventive in their lunacies
At best an insensitive uncaring fcukwit.
Well, maybe, but also probably the greatest entrepreneur of our time and one of the top ten greatest human engineers/innovators of ALL time. So that's a thing
Does he design all the stuff himself , when you are rich you pay poorer people to design things for you.
Off thread, just been to the oddest party. Ended up discussing religion and society with an odd mix of immigrants and WWCs. Some very interesting views from people who more usually advance opinions on football and boxing, which is also nice. Also - possibly of note to those who have had spiritual experiences in the past such as @Leon - a Sri Lankan who was born Buddhist after some probing telling me about the spiritual experience which led him to becoming a Christian. To cut a long story short, he was going through a break up, saw a cross outside a church, and said to Jesus "if you're so all-knowing, help me sort my life out". And He did. Doesn't shift the dial on my sprituality. But nice to hear a story with a happy outcome.
"Reform UK polling/seats: if they can get to 27/8% + they can be largest party in a hung Parliament. If 32/3% + they can win a majority outright. (Source: Electoral Calculus)."
Farage has the approval of about 30% of the voters, I believe. That means, in theory, that 27/8% is easily do-able and maybe even 32% if Labour continues to implode
Should that happen and they won a majority on 32% the very same people happy with Sir Kier getting a thumping majority on 33% would be bemoaning the death of democracy and demanding a change to the electoral system.
I think a scenario where Reform get high 30s, and Labour low 40s, is much more likely, akin to coalescence we saw with the 2017 election.
I just can't imagine a scenario where the possibility of a Reform government isn't met by furious tactical voting and turnout by everyone on the left. We saw how the right responded to the threat of Corbyn; we'd get that again with Farage.
I couldn't have Nigel Farage as my PM. I'd have to move overseas.
That would be awful. Do you need some advice where to go? Message me any time, 24/7
Thank you but I hope it's a bridge that remains uncrossed.
It'd be Borneo, I think. I have links there.
I'm curious if you are serious. You barely move beyond NW3, would a Farage government genuinely be so bad you'd move to another country?
What makes you think he would improve Britain as a country?
Can't be much worse than Starmer & Reeves!
Yes, basically, that's where I am. I am now pro-Reform not because I think they will "improve the country" - maybe that's too much to ask - but because they can hardly be worse than the recent Labour and Tory governments (it would be really hard to outdo Starmer, Truss, or TMay in crapness, for instance), but they might simply slow the decline while also doing some good shit - seriously clamping down on the boats, on migration, on Wokeness
It is a vote of despair, more than protest, let alone hope. But that is what it feels like, to be European, at the moment. Votes of despair
I’m not pro Reform. I am tempted to vote for them in the local elections. I think they’ll take a few seats in Durham. A wake up call to the other parties.
12 months ago I’d have said Labour would romp it here. Not now.
Telegraph Lord Mandelson is set to call on Nigel Farage to help him win over Donald Trump’s administration.
Britain’s new ambassador to the US is ready to engage with the Reform UK leader as part of efforts to persuade Mr Trump not to go to war with Britain on tariffs.
During the US election, some Republican campaigners reported that they needed to tone down the anecdotes about woke policies because some of them seemed so preposterous that people didn't believe them, even though they were true. I wonder if there's an element of that in @rcs1000's reactions to stories about continental Europe at the moment.
Perhaps he saw the numbers for actual pet cats eaten by actual Haitians.
Telegraph Lord Mandelson is set to call on Nigel Farage to help him win over Donald Trump’s administration.
Britain’s new ambassador to the US is ready to engage with the Reform UK leader as part of efforts to persuade Mr Trump not to go to war with Britain on tariffs.
Yep: no question about the rabbit hole that he's gone down is there?
Musk is definitely adopting some radical views, however Libs of Tok Tok is usually quite scrupulous, and I am guessing all those headlines are true. So does that constitute rabbit-holing?
Well, I will bet you that there will have been at least one Syrian refugee who is a doctor, and who saved a German's life in the last week. And he's not highlighting that story.
Were it not for the Syrian doctors, Germany would have been forced to train more of its own. We cannot consider him or her in isolation. Fewer anecdotes, more data no?
Well yes.
Human beings have a habit of having a theory ("Japanese people are having less babies because of masks during Covid") then Googling for it, finding anecdotes, and presenting it as fact.
One should draw stories out of data, not start with the story and then seek evidence for it.
Sadly, that's not how the human brain works.
It's a big universe. You don't know what data to look for until you have a hypothesis (a better word than story in this context).
Here's two examples of outlandish but perfectly possible stories (hypotheses) where you are unlikely to look for data until you have the hypothesis:
If life started on earth once, it is by far the most likely place to look for evidence that it happened more than once.
Perhaps the laws or regularities of physics are different in different parts of the universe.
"Reform UK polling/seats: if they can get to 27/8% + they can be largest party in a hung Parliament. If 32/3% + they can win a majority outright. (Source: Electoral Calculus)."
Farage has the approval of about 30% of the voters, I believe. That means, in theory, that 27/8% is easily do-able and maybe even 32% if Labour continues to implode
Should that happen and they won a majority on 32% the very same people happy with Sir Kier getting a thumping majority on 33% would be bemoaning the death of democracy and demanding a change to the electoral system.
I think a scenario where Reform get high 30s, and Labour low 40s, is much more likely, akin to coalescence we saw with the 2017 election.
I just can't imagine a scenario where the possibility of a Reform government isn't met by furious tactical voting and turnout by everyone on the left. We saw how the right responded to the threat of Corbyn; we'd get that again with Farage.
Labour got 33.7% of the vote last time. You think they're going to increase their share of the vote by about 10%?
No. I just think that's more likely than Reform winning a majority with a low 30s result. Labour's vote was suppressed for a number of reasons - Gaza, inevitable victory - things that would become less important in the face of Farage.
A Reform victory on 34% is a fun thought experiment though, so I'm going to dig around in my spreadsheet and try and construct the scenario.
That's a fair point but Labour have been so diabolical I can't see them inflating their vote back up to 40% after this term in office.
It's true they'll still get a decent share, though. They are delivering for millions of public sector workers and trade unionists.
It's December 2024. Up to 4 and a half years until the next election. Its practically impossible to declare that something political is impossible. We have had the absurd and the impossible cued up ready to pile on top of each other repeatedly.
Who knows what is going to happen. Think of something utterly absurd, say "that can't possibly happen" and then remember the succession of events since 2015.
Starmer could win a landslide. Starmer could get abducted by aliens. Who can tell.
That’s timing isn’t the realistic scenario
If things are going well then Starmer calls an election in 3.5 years (summer 2028) in which case your scenario doesn’t hold.
If we get to this point (6 months from the next election) then things are not going well and although “something might turn up”, something never does
Telegraph Lord Mandelson is set to call on Nigel Farage to help him win over Donald Trump’s administration.
Britain’s new ambassador to the US is ready to engage with the Reform UK leader as part of efforts to persuade Mr Trump not to go to war with Britain on tariffs.
Where's the Foreign Secretary?
I think Mandelson is a pretty pragmatic chap.
He will do what’s right for Britain, not petty party political advantage. I thought it a decent appointment.
Telegraph Lord Mandelson is set to call on Nigel Farage to help him win over Donald Trump’s administration.
Britain’s new ambassador to the US is ready to engage with the Reform UK leader as part of efforts to persuade Mr Trump not to go to war with Britain on tariffs.
Where's the Foreign Secretary?
Mandelson will be the Foreign Secretary as far as US relations are concerned, and that is the biggy
Telegraph Lord Mandelson is set to call on Nigel Farage to help him win over Donald Trump’s administration.
Britain’s new ambassador to the US is ready to engage with the Reform UK leader as part of efforts to persuade Mr Trump not to go to war with Britain on tariffs.
Where's the Foreign Secretary?
I think Mandelson is a pretty pragmatic chap.
He will do what’s right for Britain, not petty party political advantage. I thought it a decent appointment.
Unsurprisingly social media is somewhat hostile.
That's pretty much exactly my view. Indeed, the willingness to coopt Farage is a clear example of that.
The question really is how Farage handles it. Does he help a Government he generally dislikes for the benefit of the UK? Or does he see partisan political advantage in making it harder for the US and UK to come to an arrangement.
Can anyone tell me off teh top of their how the various main UK political parties are organised.
Unincorporated Associations, Co-operatives, Companies Limited by Guarantee etc?
I can go and find it, but does anyone know already?
(Clearly we know that RefUK are a Limited Compavy.)
The other political parties are unincorporated organisations which register with the electoral commission under section 22 of the PPERA.
I think @Cicero is mostly correct. Repeated questions to Copilot and my own Googling leads me to think that Reform is a limited company, the others (Lab, LD, SNP, Plaid etc) are unincorporated associations, except possibly for the Conservative Party - see below for a discussion of this.
Unincorporated Associations An unincorporated association operates based on its own rules and constitution rather than being governed by company law. It is a bunch of people and associations organised by agreed rules that it sets down in its constitution. It is not a legal entity separate from its members
The Structure Of Reform UK Reform UK Party Limited (formerly the Brexit Party Limited) is a limited company (not a PLC: its shares aren't traded). Unlike unincorporated associations it can legally take a profit and it does not have to elect its leader. It currently has three officers (Company Secretary is Mehrtash A'Zami, Company Directors are Farage and Tice).
Reform intends (hmmm) to change its stucture, I think to a company limited by guarantee.
The Structure Of The Conservative And Unionist Party The Inland Revenue tried to tax the Conservative Party as if it was an unincorporated association. The Party took it to court and after some appeals it was adjudged that it was NOT an unincorporated association. I don't know what its legal structure is: Wikipedia describes it as a sui-generis "mixed-money, common-object body with regular spending for political purposes". I think @HYUFD may be able to assist, especially if the Cameron reforms changed it.
On a technical point, the difference between a limited company and a PLC is nothing to do with whether shares are publicly traded or not. There are multiple examples of private PLCs.
Comments
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1870901817367834656
He's like the pub bore you have to tolerate because he owns the pub.
(Musk, I mean, Leon)
It doesn't look likely now, but it's not impossible that Labour do the same and the mooted scenario is one way it might happen.
As we have seen with the polling since the election Labour benefited from suspended disbelief which has now been non-suspended
It's also entirely possible that they end up in the mid 20s, and in third place as far as seats. And, indeed, that they end up going backwards.
Right now, things are very much in flux, and almost anything is possible - especially in a First Past The Post world, where there might be five parties with double digit shares of the vote (and maybe six in Scotland). That leads to an enormous amount of volatility.
My (half serious) prediction is that no party wins a majority in 2029, and the only viable two party coalition would be LibDem-Reform. This is based on (a) Reform winning in terms of vote share, but suffering from tactical voting; and (b) the LibDems coming fourth in vote share, but benefiting hugely from tactical voting.
(Edit to add: For the avoidance of doubt, I assume that Reform wins most seats, not the LibDems. I'm thinking something like 200 - 130 - 120 - 120 - 30 - 20 - 27)
It's true they'll still get a decent share, though. They are delivering for millions of public sector workers and trade unionists.
I shall try and find that chap from the HAC and get Operation Angel rolling….
It'd be Borneo, I think. I have links there.
But you could invert my argument and say people only voted Labour when it really mattered for kicking out the Tories.
Because that's the challenge for the Right: currently, there's a lot of movement between Lab, LD, and Green for who beats the Tories.
By contrast, there is very little movement between the Conservative and Reform for who beats the party of the Left. And, indeed, it is possible you could see Left wing supporters vote tactically for Conservatives to keep Reform out. Or, for that matter, internationalist Conservatives (like TSE) voting Labour to keep Reform out.
Which is why I suspect that Reform might struggle to turn first place in votes nationwide into first place in seats.
But the threads from October speak for themselves. Trawl through them at your leisure.
Who knows what is going to happen. Think of something utterly absurd, say "that can't possibly happen" and then remember the succession of events since 2015.
Starmer could win a landslide. Starmer could get abducted by aliens. Who can tell.
Though Reform and the LDs do agree on scrapping the tractor tax and restoring winter fuel allowance for pensioners and on opposing development on greenbelt land, so their MPs could find themselves going through the same lobbies on some issues
Everything will keep getting weirder and weirder until we reach a mega-incredible Singularity of Weirdosity
Unincorporated Associations
An unincorporated association operates based on its own rules and constitution rather than being governed by company law. It is a bunch of people and associations organised by agreed rules that it sets down in its constitution. It is not a legal entity separate from its members
The Structure Of Reform UK
Reform UK Party Limited (formerly the Brexit Party Limited) is a limited company (not a PLC: its shares aren't traded). Unlike unincorporated associations it can legally take a profit and it does not have to elect its leader. It currently has three officers (Company Secretary is Mehrtash A'Zami, Company Directors are Farage and Tice).
Reform intends (hmmm) to change its stucture, I think to a company limited by guarantee.
The Structure Of The Conservative And Unionist Party
The Inland Revenue tried to tax the Conservative Party as if it was an unincorporated association. The Party took it to court and after some appeals it was adjudged that it was NOT an unincorporated association. I don't know what its legal structure is: Wikipedia describes it as a sui-generis "mixed-money, common-object body with regular spending for political purposes". I think @HYUFD may be able to assist, especially if the Cameron reforms changed it.
Reform
https://www.politicallyinclined.co.uk/why-is-reform-party-uk-a-limited-company/
https://1library.net/article/the-legal-status-of-political-parties-in-britain.zln8jlgq
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_UK#Funding_and_structure
https://www.siccode.co.uk/sic2007/code-94920
https://consoc.org.uk/how-to-constitute-a-political-party/
Conservatives
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_Board
https://www.conservatives.com/organisation/party-structure-and-organisation
Conservative and Unionist Central Office v Burrell [1981]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_and_Unionist_Central_Office_v_Burrell
https://lawprof.co/trust/unincorporated-association-cases/conservative-central-office-v-burrell-1982-1-wlr-522/
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1981/2.html
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff87960d03e7f57ec10e1
I'm assuming 1/3rd from the Tories, 1/3rd from Labour and 1/3rd from non-voters. But I also kinda think the people who voted Tory in July '24 really are Tories 4ever, so the rest of the Reform vote will have to come from Labour.
And it's far from impossible for Reform to get 34% of the vote, and 200-odd seats, while the LDs end up in the mid-teens with 130, while Labour and the Conservatives are mired in the mid-20s and end up around 115-20 seats apiece.
In that scenario, what's the viable government? Lab + LD + SNP doesn't get there. And nor does Reform + Con + DUP.
Living in a Moscow flat in winter though is beyond the pale
Human beings have a habit of having a theory ("Japanese people are having less babies because of masks during Covid") then Googling for it, finding anecdotes, and presenting it as fact.
One should draw stories out of data, not start with the story and then seek evidence for it.
Sadly, that's not how the human brain works.
Isaac Newton notices apple falling
Isaac Newton makes a story out of it "mass attracts mass" - reinforces it by googling it (ie, in his age, thinking and looking at sources)
Isaac Newton presents Theory of Gravity
This is how theories are BORN. Some are good, some are bad
Whether any of those websites and their headlines should be taken seriously is another question entirely.
However, one of the reasons she is disliked is because she sources her stories carefully, and verifies them, and thereby discomforts and agitates her political foes (time and again). Given her record I would be surprised if these are lies. But it could be the case
However: could the government legally keep her out? And would they want to? Might she be able to provide us with some useful intelligence and/or leverage?
The Mail, ZeroHedge and The Publica all have a track record of being willing to play fast and loose with the truth in the pursuit of extreme headlines.
So snipping their headlines is questionable. Yes they're genuine headlines, but genuine headlines from dodgy sources.
It is a vote of despair, more than protest, let alone hope. But that is what it feels like, to be European, at the moment. Votes of despair
There absolutely are some disinformation merchants out there spreading bullshit and fermenting as much discontent as possible. But they're so successful because the "truth" is clearly full of factual holes.
Are muslims invading "Christian" Europe to rape white girls and impose Sharia law. No. Are the authorities far too sensitive to the handful of people who are scumbags because of their ethnicity? Sure.
Also, being very smart does not make him infallible, far from it. Very smart people believe absurd and untrue things all the time. In fact, in my life, I've generally heard the most insane theories of the world from the absolute brightest. Dumb people lack the imagination to be really inventive in their lunacies
I expect for such a great Christmas movie that everyone on this site loves, that this place will be dead between 9pm and 11pm.
Die Hard is on telly whenever you want it, on Disney+
In the commercial, a couple sees a sign advertising a reward for a lost dog. As they are driving, they see the dog, rescue it, and take it back to the family that owns it. The dog runs to a little girl, who hugs it. Her father takes out his billfold to offer the reward. The rescuers refuse, saying the happiness they see is reward enough. The father -- I think -- says "Merry Christmas", as the rescuers begin to walk away.
A company like Toyota would have a good idea of what is acceptable enough to most Americans to help sell their cars.
(There is a twist in the commercial that is quite common in the commercials I see in this area: The rescuing couple is mixed race, the man black and the woman white.)
Not my most interesting contribution ever, but it's nice to find no reason to quibble.
Very hard to define, but anyone who bangs on about how much they have, doesn’t have any.
Though if the Syrians also revoked her passport, than she might be stateless. And I don't like that...
https://x.com/d08890/status/1870839471169822957?s=61
Lord Mandelson is set to call on Nigel Farage to help him win over Donald Trump’s administration.
Britain’s new ambassador to the US is ready to engage with the Reform UK leader as part of efforts to persuade Mr Trump not to go to war with Britain on tariffs.
Where's the Foreign Secretary?
Doesn't shift the dial on my sprituality. But nice to hear a story with a happy outcome.
12 months ago I’d have said Labour would romp it here. Not now.
And almost identical to whites.
(The US has nicer neighbors than those three nations.)
Unsurprisingly the Current govt has been gifted this legacy from the previous clowns.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/society/2024/12/dover-sick-town-of-england
Here's two examples of outlandish but perfectly possible stories (hypotheses) where you are unlikely to look for data until you have the hypothesis:
If life started on earth once, it is by far the most likely place to look for evidence that it happened more than once.
Perhaps the laws or regularities of physics are different in different parts of the universe.
If things are going well then Starmer calls an election in 3.5 years (summer 2028) in which case your scenario doesn’t hold.
If we get to this point (6 months from the next election) then things are not going well and although “something might turn up”, something never does
Unsurprisingly social media is somewhat hostile.
The question really is how Farage handles it. Does he help a Government he generally dislikes for the benefit of the UK? Or does he see partisan political advantage in making it harder for the US and UK to come to an arrangement.