For Boris to enter Parliament, a Tory leader would have to enable it. Since he would obviously be an immediate rival, why would any foreseeable leader do any such thing?
On topic, Jenrick is really the key figure. He could plausibly defect and argue that he's concluded that the Tories are not able to change in the way he thinks they need to. The question for him is whether it would destroy his chances of ever being PM.
It would. He isn't particularly well trusted and is viewed cynically enough as it is, and this would add to that.
Jenrick isn't defecting.
He knows the party will ditch Kemi Badenoch if the polling remains like this and the party will turn to him.
Boris is available at 10/1
I topped up yesterday.
I don't think he wants it, too much hard work, and more pertinently he's earning more money than he ever has.
With a wife, young kids, and alimony, he needs it.
Consider it his wilderness years.
No, Johnson still nurses delusions of being the second Churchill. I expect that he will appear as a Conservative candidate at the next GE if not before. A desperate Tory party eclipsed by Reform may well choose that poison instead of the ignominy of being third fiddle.
He won't, CCHQ will block him, Kemi won't allow him on the approved parliamentary candidates list any more than Rishi would even if Cleverly or Jenrick might.
Remember even on the Election Maps average new voteshares the Tories still actually GAIN 45 seats on 2024 and remain almost 100 MPs more than Reform and a clear second. FPTP very much benefits the Tories and Labour still more than Reform and the LDs too who would also stay 4 MPs more than Reform
Rugby Union has 30 years' experience of believing the game is worth more than it is.
Rugby Union’s biggest advantage is that it isn’t quite as boring as golf.
Or Cricket?
If you need a national sport played in white, with arcane rituals nobody else understands, I recommend sumo wrestling. Basically cricket at warp speed.
Yes. Because Badenoch nor her most likely replacements have the foggiest idea how to resolve it. Being Diet Reform was never going to work but they're kind of stuck there with diminishing returns unless somehow they can install Cleverly as leader, recalibrate and start making different arguments to the country.
I was told about a couple of fascinating snippets about a focus group conducted earlier on this month.
1) The focus group summed Kemi Badenoch as saying 'Reform are right so vote for us'
and
2) Boris Johnson and the Tories are blamed by those who voted for Brexit for promising to reduced immigration then overseeing record breaking immigration. It has permanently lost for the Tories around 40% of voters who voted Tory for the first time in 2017/19.
Boris ended EU free movement, Rishi raised wage requirements for visas for non EU immigrants
For Boris to enter Parliament, a Tory leader would have to enable it. Since he would obviously be an immediate rival, why would any foreseeable leader do any such thing?
Desperate times may call for very desperate measures...
If Jenrick defected to Reform I reckon he and Farage would fall out pretty quickly. The party ain't big enough for the both of them.
This is a major problem for Farage.
A USA Presidential run can be all about an individual, a UK HoC campaign requires a team with the party leader being only first among equals.
Who would Reform's Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary etc be ?
It’s no secret Rupert Lowe is the one the Reform activists like. He will be over 70 by the time of the next election but he could easily appeal to what’s left of the Conservative core vote in a way Farage probably can’t.
I suspect he will, pace Trump, try the tired old schtick of bringing business skills into Government.
Anyone in her party who tweets or speaks on camera saying Trump is the new messiah and England should worship him and Musk she should sack immediately. Braverman out etc
Paint Reform as Trump Party (English branch). Make Farage own Trump.
If/when Trump chaos 2.0 wrecks world economy and american civil peace and order she will reap the rewards.
As I say, it's a gamble. But she is running out of options.
That's not a gamble, it's a left wing person's political wet dream. No remotely impartial or informed strategist would suggest something so stupid.
It gets to the basic problem the Tories have though, which can be seen if you look at each party's voters view of Trump and Musk. A majority still saying they'll vote Tory hold profoundly negative views of Trump. Reform is the only party whose voters have a net positive view. That correlates with a form of anti-establishment, anti-institutional thinking that views all mainstream politicians and parties as having failed and radical right-wingers as the answer.
So going down the 'let's be more Reformy' route maybe a dead end - because you can't be the insurgents, you're the Conservative Party and have ruled Britain for two thirds of the last 50 years. And by being more Reform you may lose your remaining institutionalist voters while not gaining much in the way of those who support Reform because they want to smash up the system.
It still might be a longshot but their best bet might be ditching the populism - which partly damns your selves - and trying to rebrand as an institutionalist alternative to Labour and the Lib Dems with a more right-wing economic bent. Because it's difficult to see how you get your populist 2019 Boris voters back now Reform are a serious rival.
Right wing policies are not 'Reformy' - they are Tory policies. Reducing immigration to the low tens of thousands was a policy that was central to the manifestos of repeated Conservative election victories, and they repeatedly blew it. The same for reducing taxes, a tough approach to law and order, and shrinking the size of the state. The only reason there is 'an insurgency' is because the Tories have promised these policies, repeatedly failed to deliver.
I would also argue that the old consensus in politics is dying - look at the way Starmer and Reeves are now scrambling for growth. Why would you want to get on board that sinking ship?
And that's a problem for the Tories currently - Labour have been terrible but by and large they've continued the policies of the Sunak Government. Net Zero, lax immigration, low growth, high taxes - they have all been accelerated by Labour but they were well underway with the Tories.
Crossover is at about 24% for Reform and Tories. But there is more to look at. In GE 2024 the Tories got just over 24%. Reform got just under 15%. Labour got 34.7%. And are now at about 26%.
So in totality the Tories are flat since July, Reform have surged and Labour have collapsed.
Among the (recently) impossible futures now at least thinkable are: Reform crossover with Labour - might be soon.
Centrist Labour and Tories (and LDs?) discovering, like FF and FG in RoI, that they have crucial things in common like opposition to the excesses of Trumpianism and uncosted populism. (Joint Lab/One Nation Con/LD/SNP declaration of intent to join EFTA/EEA anyone?)
Bandwagon Reform - just like the Trumpian bandwagon effect we are watching open mouthed, including defections from everywhere.
The resurrection of Boris.
Looking at that graph, from the GE to now there has been an effective 18 point swing from Lab to Reform or 2.25 points a month. They are now 1.9 points apart. If that trend continues as a straight line we'd get crossover in a month.
Reality is that it's probably more of a log curve - the softest Lab support is the easiest to peel away, all other things being equal the nearer the core vote they get the slower you would expect them to decline. Historically (2015—2024) Lab seem to have bottomed out at about 24-25%, so the key question is how much lower than that can they drop now if Farage is eating up their red wall core vote? Certainly there isn't much of a obvious curving trend evidenced in the graph, which suggests they probably have a way further to fall yet.
Top tip - just because one vote share goes up and one goes down does not mean that there is a direct transfer of votes between them.
The polling is clear about where the Reform vote is coming from, and where the Labour vote has gone.
Forgive my ignorance, but when you get a graph which shows the Tories flat, the LDs flat, the Greens virtually flat, Labour droping like a stone and Reform off like a meteor, what do you think is happening?
I would be entirely willing to believe Reform were stealing Tory votes except that for them to remain flat they have to gaining votes somewhere. Are you arguing that the Ref increase is all ex-Tory, and being offset in the Tory pot by Lab-> Tory switching?
Same problem with the Lib-dems, but the other way round - I'd expect some Lab -> Lib switching, but if that's occuring, where are the existing Lib voters going? Ref seems unlikely, but then they are putting on votes from somewhere.
You would expect Reform to appeal to certain types of Red Wall traditional Labour voters. Working Class, Socially Conservative, not very keen on immigration. IMHO, it's fairly obvious that a lot of these voters will be those who switched to Boris in 2019, returned to Lab in 2024 and are now indicating they will vote Reform. I'd be genuinely fascinated if someone has a coherent alternative analysis, because I honestly can't see one from the information available.
There are almost always significant voter flows between parties. I was trying to find the most recent chart that was showing this (someone might be able to help here - I can't remember the polling company?), but from memory I think it showed Labour losing votes in all directions, with the Tories gaining some from Lab and them going out the back end to Reform - but with not as big a direct transfer between Lab/Reform as you'd think from just looking at headline polling figures.
Anyone in her party who tweets or speaks on camera saying Trump is the new messiah and England should worship him and Musk she should sack immediately. Braverman out etc
Paint Reform as Trump Party (English branch). Make Farage own Trump.
If/when Trump chaos 2.0 wrecks world economy and american civil peace and order she will reap the rewards.
As I say, it's a gamble. But she is running out of options.
That's not a gamble, it's a left wing person's political wet dream. No remotely impartial or informed strategist would suggest something so stupid.
It gets to the basic problem the Tories have though, which can be seen if you look at each party's voters view of Trump and Musk. A majority still saying they'll vote Tory hold profoundly negative views of Trump. Reform is the only party whose voters have a net positive view. That correlates with a form of anti-establishment, anti-institutional thinking that views all mainstream politicians and parties as having failed and radical right-wingers as the answer.
So going down the 'let's be more Reformy' route maybe a dead end - because you can't be the insurgents, you're the Conservative Party and have ruled Britain for two thirds of the last 50 years. And by being more Reform you may lose your remaining institutionalist voters while not gaining much in the way of those who support Reform because they want to smash up the system.
It still might be a longshot but their best bet might be ditching the populism - which partly damns your selves - and trying to rebrand as an institutionalist alternative to Labour and the Lib Dems with a more right-wing economic bent. Because it's difficult to see how you get your populist 2019 Boris voters back now Reform are a serious rival.
Right wing policies are not 'Reformy' - they are Tory policies. Reducing immigration to the low tens of thousands was a policy that was central to the manifestos of repeated Conservative election victories, and they repeatedly blew it. The same for reducing taxes, a tough approach to law and order, and shrinking the size of the state. The only reason there is 'an insurgency' is because the Tories have promised these policies, repeatedly failed to deliver.
I would also argue that the old consensus in politics is dying - look at the way Starmer and Reeves are now scrambling for growth. Why would you want to get on board that sinking ship?
And that's a problem for the Tories currently - Labour have been terrible but by and large they've continued the policies of the Sunak Government. Net Zero, lax immigration, low growth, high taxes - they have all been accelerated by Labour but they were well underway with the Tories.
Rishi cut immigration more than Boris to be fair to him and never targeted pensioners, small businesses and farmers like Labour have
For those interested, some newly published research on public attitudes to immigration. Largely confirms everything you'd expect, from attitudinal divides along age and educational lines, to a substantial uptick in support for migration in specified professions.
If Jenrick defected to Reform I reckon he and Farage would fall out pretty quickly. The party ain't big enough for the both of them.
This is a major problem for Farage.
A USA Presidential run can be all about an individual, a UK HoC campaign requires a team with the party leader being only first among equals.
Who would Reform's Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary etc be ?
It’s no secret Rupert Lowe is the one the Reform activists like. He will be over 70 by the time of the next election but he could easily appeal to what’s left of the Conservative core vote in a way Farage probably can’t.
I suspect he will, pace Trump, try the tired old schtick of bringing business skills into Government.
Trump benefitted from years of free advertising via The Apprentice, which fed a myth that he was a great businessman. I don't think someone with a regular business background, successful or not, can deliver the same schtick. Look what happened with Romney!
Yes. Because Badenoch nor her most likely replacements have the foggiest idea how to resolve it. Being Diet Reform was never going to work but they're kind of stuck there with diminishing returns unless somehow they can install Cleverly as leader, recalibrate and start making different arguments to the country.
I was told about a couple of fascinating snippets about a focus group conducted earlier on this month.
1) The focus group summed Kemi Badenoch as saying 'Reform are right so vote for us'
and
2) Boris Johnson and the Tories are blamed by those who voted for Brexit for promising to reduced immigration then overseeing record breaking immigration. It has permanently lost for the Tories around 40% of voters who voted Tory for the first time in 2017/19.
“Permanently”? I genuinely laughed out loud at that.
Boris makes people lose all their usual critical faculties.
I recall all the “strange death of Tory England” articles written around 2005 or so, and the last rites for Labour in 2019.
If Jenrick defected to Reform I reckon he and Farage would fall out pretty quickly. The party ain't big enough for the both of them.
This is a major problem for Farage.
A USA Presidential run can be all about an individual, a UK HoC campaign requires a team with the party leader being only first among equals.
Who would Reform's Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary etc be ?
It’s no secret Rupert Lowe is the one the Reform activists like. He will be over 70 by the time of the next election but he could easily appeal to what’s left of the Conservative core vote in a way Farage probably can’t.
I suspect he will, pace Trump, try the tired old schtick of bringing business skills into Government.
Lowe has no charisma and would lose redwall voters
If Jenrick defected to Reform I reckon he and Farage would fall out pretty quickly. The party ain't big enough for the both of them.
This is a major problem for Farage.
A USA Presidential run can be all about an individual, a UK HoC campaign requires a team with the party leader being only first among equals.
Who would Reform's Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary etc be ?
It’s no secret Rupert Lowe is the one the Reform activists like. He will be over 70 by the time of the next election but he could easily appeal to what’s left of the Conservative core vote in a way Farage probably can’t.
I suspect he will, pace Trump, try the tired old schtick of bringing business skills into Government.
Trump benefitted from years of free advertising via The Apprentice, which fed a myth that he was a great businessman. I don't think someone with a regular business background, successful or not, can deliver the same schtick. Look what happened with Romney!
They won't win anything in and around Southampton if Lowe is in a leadership role. About as popular there as John Mr Portsmouth FC Westwood.
Crossover is at about 24% for Reform and Tories. But there is more to look at. In GE 2024 the Tories got just over 24%. Reform got just under 15%. Labour got 34.7%. And are now at about 26%.
So in totality the Tories are flat since July, Reform have surged and Labour have collapsed.
Among the (recently) impossible futures now at least thinkable are: Reform crossover with Labour - might be soon.
Centrist Labour and Tories (and LDs?) discovering, like FF and FG in RoI, that they have crucial things in common like opposition to the excesses of Trumpianism and uncosted populism. (Joint Lab/One Nation Con/LD/SNP declaration of intent to join EFTA/EEA anyone?)
Bandwagon Reform - just like the Trumpian bandwagon effect we are watching open mouthed, including defections from everywhere.
The resurrection of Boris.
Looking at that graph, from the GE to now there has been an effective 18 point swing from Lab to Reform or 2.25 points a month. They are now 1.9 points apart. If that trend continues as a straight line we'd get crossover in a month.
Reality is that it's probably more of a log curve - the softest Lab support is the easiest to peel away, all other things being equal the nearer the core vote they get the slower you would expect them to decline. Historically (2015—2024) Lab seem to have bottomed out at about 24-25%, so the key question is how much lower than that can they drop now if Farage is eating up their red wall core vote? Certainly there isn't much of a obvious curving trend evidenced in the graph, which suggests they probably have a way further to fall yet.
Top tip - just because one vote share goes up and one goes down does not mean that there is a direct transfer of votes between them.
The polling is clear about where the Reform vote is coming from, and where the Labour vote has gone.
Forgive my ignorance, but when you get a graph which shows the Tories flat, the LDs flat, the Greens virtually flat, Labour droping like a stone and Reform off like a meteor, what do you think is happening?
I would be entirely willing to believe Reform were stealing Tory votes except that for the Tories to then remain flat they have to be gaining votes somewhere. Are you arguing that the Ref increase is all ex-Tory, and being offset in the Tory pot by Lab-> Tory switching?
Same problem with the Lib-dems, but the other way round - I'd expect some Lab -> Lib switching, but if that's occuring, where are the existing Lib voters going? Ref seems unlikely, but then they are putting on votes from somewhere.
You would expect Reform to appeal to certain types of Red Wall traditional Labour voters. Working Class, Socially Conservative, not very keen on immigration. IMHO, it's fairly obvious that a lot of these voters will be those who switched to Boris in 2019, returned to Lab in 2024 and are now indicating they will vote Reform. I'd be genuinely fascinated if someone has a coherent alternative analysis, because I honestly can't see one from the information available.
Labour has lost about 10% of its 2024 vote to Reform, whereas the Tories have lost about 20% to Reform. But it's offset by the fact they have gained some voters back from Labour. Reform also retains a higher percent of its 2024 vote than the main two parties, whereas a good chunk of Labour's is WNV/DK.
Anyone in her party who tweets or speaks on camera saying Trump is the new messiah and England should worship him and Musk she should sack immediately. Braverman out etc
Paint Reform as Trump Party (English branch). Make Farage own Trump.
If/when Trump chaos 2.0 wrecks world economy and american civil peace and order she will reap the rewards.
As I say, it's a gamble. But she is running out of options.
That's not a gamble, it's a left wing person's political wet dream. No remotely impartial or informed strategist would suggest something so stupid.
It gets to the basic problem the Tories have though, which can be seen if you look at each party's voters view of Trump and Musk. A majority still saying they'll vote Tory hold profoundly negative views of Trump. Reform is the only party whose voters have a net positive view. That correlates with a form of anti-establishment, anti-institutional thinking that views all mainstream politicians and parties as having failed and radical right-wingers as the answer.
So going down the 'let's be more Reformy' route maybe a dead end - because you can't be the insurgents, you're the Conservative Party and have ruled Britain for two thirds of the last 50 years. And by being more Reform you may lose your remaining institutionalist voters while not gaining much in the way of those who support Reform because they want to smash up the system.
It still might be a longshot but their best bet might be ditching the populism - which partly damns your selves - and trying to rebrand as an institutionalist alternative to Labour and the Lib Dems with a more right-wing economic bent. Because it's difficult to see how you get your populist 2019 Boris voters back now Reform are a serious rival.
Right wing policies are not 'Reformy' - they are Tory policies. Reducing immigration to the low tens of thousands was a policy that was central to the manifestos of repeated Conservative election victories, and they repeatedly blew it. The same for reducing taxes, a tough approach to law and order, and shrinking the size of the state. The only reason there is 'an insurgency' is because the Tories have promised these policies, repeatedly failed to deliver.
I would also argue that the old consensus in politics is dying - look at the way Starmer and Reeves are now scrambling for growth. Why would you want to get on board that sinking ship?
And that's a problem for the Tories currently - Labour have been terrible but by and large they've continued the policies of the Sunak Government. Net Zero, lax immigration, low growth, high taxes - they have all been accelerated by Labour but they were well underway with the Tories.
Rishi cut immigration more than Boris to be fair to him and never targeted pensioners, small businesses and farmers like Labour have
That is not true - there was already a deeply ingrained very anti-farmer/food production policy in the UK. Subsidies for rewilding, cash rewards for leaving the industry etc. - listen to the farmers on the protests, they will laugh if you tell them the anti-farmer stuff started with SKS. Like everything else, it has just accelerated.
If Jenrick defected to Reform I reckon he and Farage would fall out pretty quickly. The party ain't big enough for the both of them.
This is a major problem for Farage.
A USA Presidential run can be all about an individual, a UK HoC campaign requires a team with the party leader being only first among equals.
Who would Reform's Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary etc be ?
It’s no secret Rupert Lowe is the one the Reform activists like. He will be over 70 by the time of the next election but he could easily appeal to what’s left of the Conservative core vote in a way Farage probably can’t.
I suspect he will, pace Trump, try the tired old schtick of bringing business skills into Government.
Trump benefitted from years of free advertising via The Apprentice, which fed a myth that he was a great businessman. I don't think someone with a regular business background, successful or not, can deliver the same schtick. Look what happened with Romney!
This is itself a bit of a myth. Trump's name was synonymous with bling and business long before the Apprentice.
The dude reading from the card seems so much more serious. And his trousers reach his ankles. Both of which are plus points in my book for anyone heading up Homeland Security.
He also seems to have the most enormous feet (wait till the end). I have no idea what that signifies.
"When you've got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow." (LBJ)
What was their legal position to refuse entry of Columbian citizens to Columbia?
The President wanted to be consulted. He didn't want them to be dumped in handcuffs. He's now going to send his presidential plane to pick them up. It's not a total capitulation.
Rugby Union has 30 years' experience of believing the game is worth more than it is.
Rugby Union’s biggest advantage is that it isn’t quite as boring as golf.
Rugby Union is terrific.
One hell of a sport.
Rugby Sevens maybe. Rugby Union is mostly large men standing around or bumping into each other. It hasn’t been exciting since Wales in the 1960s and 1970s or Jonah Lomu.
I was doing consultancy work for a back row forward who had played for Ospreys and Wasps. He didn't get a cap because of Gatlands Welsh regions rule. He retired about five years ago. He said at the start of his career he would have around 15 collisions a game by the end he reckoned it was about 50 to 60. I can't watch 80 minutes of rolling mauls and gaining yards by weight advantage and a kicking game followed by a maul.
Back in my school days the scrum won the ball in either a scrum or a maul, got the ball to the scrum half, the scrum half would feed the fly half/ outside half and along the three quarter line. That is the sort of rugby that led to "that try" for the Babas. When I was at school we would play some schools where a big fat kid would be played at scrum half, not for his pace but for his weight. Today's rugby follows that pattern. Rugby League is more of a spectacle these days.
Association football on the other hand since the seventies has got faster and far more skillful.
If Jenrick defected to Reform I reckon he and Farage would fall out pretty quickly. The party ain't big enough for the both of them.
This is a major problem for Farage.
A USA Presidential run can be all about an individual, a UK HoC campaign requires a team with the party leader being only first among equals.
Who would Reform's Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary etc be ?
It’s no secret Rupert Lowe is the one the Reform activists like. He will be over 70 by the time of the next election but he could easily appeal to what’s left of the Conservative core vote in a way Farage probably can’t.
I suspect he will, pace Trump, try the tired old schtick of bringing business skills into Government.
Trump benefitted from years of free advertising via The Apprentice, which fed a myth that he was a great businessman. I don't think someone with a regular business background, successful or not, can deliver the same schtick. Look what happened with Romney!
This is itself a bit of a myth. Trump's name was synonymous with bling and business long before the Apprentice.
One point TRis Entertainment made is that Trump's background also includes a lot of US "pro sports" and that there were echoes of this in the campaign and also inauguration, with the merch, the red MAGA hats, and even throwing pens into the crowd watching him sign executive orders.
Rugby Union has 30 years' experience of believing the game is worth more than it is.
Rugby Union’s biggest advantage is that it isn’t quite as boring as golf.
Rugby Union is terrific.
One hell of a sport.
Rugby Sevens maybe. Rugby Union is mostly large men standing around or bumping into each other. It hasn’t been exciting since Wales in the 1960s and 1970s or Jonah Lomu.
I was doing consultancy work for a back row forward who had played for Ospreys and Wasps. He didn't get a cap because of Gatlands Welsh regions rule. He retired about five years ago. He said at the start of his career he would have around 15 collisions a game by the end he reckoned it was about 50 to 60. I can't watch 80 minutes of rolling mauls and gaining yards by weight advantage and a kicking game followed by a maul.
Back in my school days the scrum won the ball in either a scrum or a maul, got the ball to the scrum half, the scrum half would feed the fly half/ outside half and along the three quarter line. That is the sort of rugby that led to "that try" for the Babas. When I was at school we would play some schools where a big fat kid would be played at scrum half, not for his pace but for his weight. Today's rugby follows that pattern. Rugby League is more of a spectacle these days.
Association football on the other hand since the seventies has got faster and far more skillful.
I wonder if that rise in collisions is behind, or a major factor in, the dramatic increase in players ending up with some form of brain damage/early onset dementia.
Anyone in her party who tweets or speaks on camera saying Trump is the new messiah and England should worship him and Musk she should sack immediately. Braverman out etc
Paint Reform as Trump Party (English branch). Make Farage own Trump.
If/when Trump chaos 2.0 wrecks world economy and american civil peace and order she will reap the rewards.
As I say, it's a gamble. But she is running out of options.
That's not a gamble, it's a left wing person's political wet dream. No remotely impartial or informed strategist would suggest something so stupid.
It gets to the basic problem the Tories have though, which can be seen if you look at each party's voters view of Trump and Musk. A majority still saying they'll vote Tory hold profoundly negative views of Trump. Reform is the only party whose voters have a net positive view. That correlates with a form of anti-establishment, anti-institutional thinking that views all mainstream politicians and parties as having failed and radical right-wingers as the answer.
So going down the 'let's be more Reformy' route maybe a dead end - because you can't be the insurgents, you're the Conservative Party and have ruled Britain for two thirds of the last 50 years. And by being more Reform you may lose your remaining institutionalist voters while not gaining much in the way of those who support Reform because they want to smash up the system.
It still might be a longshot but their best bet might be ditching the populism - which partly damns your selves - and trying to rebrand as an institutionalist alternative to Labour and the Lib Dems with a more right-wing economic bent. Because it's difficult to see how you get your populist 2019 Boris voters back now Reform are a serious rival.
Right wing policies are not 'Reformy' - they are Tory policies. Reducing immigration to the low tens of thousands was a policy that was central to the manifestos of repeated Conservative election victories, and they repeatedly blew it. The same for reducing taxes, a tough approach to law and order, and shrinking the size of the state. The only reason there is 'an insurgency' is because the Tories have promised these policies, repeatedly failed to deliver.
I would also argue that the old consensus in politics is dying - look at the way Starmer and Reeves are now scrambling for growth. Why would you want to get on board that sinking ship?
And that's a problem for the Tories currently - Labour have been terrible but by and large they've continued the policies of the Sunak Government. Net Zero, lax immigration, low growth, high taxes - they have all been accelerated by Labour but they were well underway with the Tories.
Rishi cut immigration more than Boris to be fair to him and never targeted pensioners, small businesses and farmers like Labour have
That is not true - there was already a deeply ingrained very anti-farmer/food production policy in the UK. Subsidies for rewilding, cash rewards for leaving the industry etc. - listen to the farmers on the protests, they will laugh if you tell them the anti-farmer stuff started with SKS. Like everything else, it has just accelerated.
A bit of rewilding was a drop in the ocean compared to the imposition of 20% IHT on agricultural land over £1 million
If Jenrick defected to Reform I reckon he and Farage would fall out pretty quickly. The party ain't big enough for the both of them.
This is a major problem for Farage.
A USA Presidential run can be all about an individual, a UK HoC campaign requires a team with the party leader being only first among equals.
Who would Reform's Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary etc be ?
It’s no secret Rupert Lowe is the one the Reform activists like. He will be over 70 by the time of the next election but he could easily appeal to what’s left of the Conservative core vote in a way Farage probably can’t.
I suspect he will, pace Trump, try the tired old schtick of bringing business skills into Government.
Trump benefitted from years of free advertising via The Apprentice, which fed a myth that he was a great businessman. I don't think someone with a regular business background, successful or not, can deliver the same schtick. Look what happened with Romney!
This is itself a bit of a myth. Trump's name was synonymous with bling and business long before the Apprentice.
It was but because Trump was better at self-publicizing himself as a businessman than he was at the actual business bit.
If Jenrick defected to Reform I reckon he and Farage would fall out pretty quickly. The party ain't big enough for the both of them.
This is a major problem for Farage.
A USA Presidential run can be all about an individual, a UK HoC campaign requires a team with the party leader being only first among equals.
Who would Reform's Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary etc be ?
It’s no secret Rupert Lowe is the one the Reform activists like. He will be over 70 by the time of the next election but he could easily appeal to what’s left of the Conservative core vote in a way Farage probably can’t.
I suspect he will, pace Trump, try the tired old schtick of bringing business skills into Government.
Trump benefitted from years of free advertising via The Apprentice, which fed a myth that he was a great businessman. I don't think someone with a regular business background, successful or not, can deliver the same schtick. Look what happened with Romney!
This is itself a bit of a myth. Trump's name was synonymous with bling and business long before the Apprentice.
I was watching a YouTube video today on Biblical scholarship. This made the distinction between myth as stories involving the Gods and legend, fictional events that happened to a real person. So, really, neither of us should be talking about myths here. They're legends.
If Jenrick defected to Reform I reckon he and Farage would fall out pretty quickly. The party ain't big enough for the both of them.
This is a major problem for Farage.
A USA Presidential run can be all about an individual, a UK HoC campaign requires a team with the party leader being only first among equals.
Who would Reform's Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary etc be ?
It’s no secret Rupert Lowe is the one the Reform activists like. He will be over 70 by the time of the next election but he could easily appeal to what’s left of the Conservative core vote in a way Farage probably can’t.
I suspect he will, pace Trump, try the tired old schtick of bringing business skills into Government.
Trump benefitted from years of free advertising via The Apprentice, which fed a myth that he was a great businessman. I don't think someone with a regular business background, successful or not, can deliver the same schtick. Look what happened with Romney!
This is itself a bit of a myth. Trump's name was synonymous with bling and business long before the Apprentice.
It was but because Trump was better at self-publicizing himself as a businessman than he was at the actual business bit.
The rumour is Farage will be taking Trump to Clacton for a heroes welcome in the most MAGA part of the UK
Donald Trump nearly stood as the Reform Party's presidential candidate and I wonder if it is this coincidence in names that eased the relationship between Trump and Farage. (The American one had been founded by Ross Perot.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_2000_presidential_campaign
Crossover is at about 24% for Reform and Tories. But there is more to look at. In GE 2024 the Tories got just over 24%. Reform got just under 15%. Labour got 34.7%. And are now at about 26%.
So in totality the Tories are flat since July, Reform have surged and Labour have collapsed.
Among the (recently) impossible futures now at least thinkable are: Reform crossover with Labour - might be soon.
Centrist Labour and Tories (and LDs?) discovering, like FF and FG in RoI, that they have crucial things in common like opposition to the excesses of Trumpianism and uncosted populism. (Joint Lab/One Nation Con/LD/SNP declaration of intent to join EFTA/EEA anyone?)
Bandwagon Reform - just like the Trumpian bandwagon effect we are watching open mouthed, including defections from everywhere.
The resurrection of Boris.
Looking at that graph, from the GE to now there has been an effective 18 point swing from Lab to Reform or 2.25 points a month. They are now 1.9 points apart. If that trend continues as a straight line we'd get crossover in a month.
Reality is that it's probably more of a log curve - the softest Lab support is the easiest to peel away, all other things being equal the nearer the core vote they get the slower you would expect them to decline. Historically (2015—2024) Lab seem to have bottomed out at about 24-25%, so the key question is how much lower than that can they drop now if Farage is eating up their red wall core vote? Certainly there isn't much of a obvious curving trend evidenced in the graph, which suggests they probably have a way further to fall yet.
Top tip - just because one vote share goes up and one goes down does not mean that there is a direct transfer of votes between them.
The polling is clear about where the Reform vote is coming from, and where the Labour vote has gone.
Forgive my ignorance, but when you get a graph which shows the Tories flat, the LDs flat, the Greens virtually flat, Labour droping like a stone and Reform off like a meteor, what do you think is happening?
I would be entirely willing to believe Reform were stealing Tory votes except that for the Tories to then remain flat they have to be gaining votes somewhere. Are you arguing that the Ref increase is all ex-Tory, and being offset in the Tory pot by Lab-> Tory switching?
Same problem with the Lib-dems, but the other way round - I'd expect some Lab -> Lib switching, but if that's occuring, where are the existing Lib voters going? Ref seems unlikely, but then they are putting on votes from somewhere.
You would expect Reform to appeal to certain types of Red Wall traditional Labour voters. Working Class, Socially Conservative, not very keen on immigration. IMHO, it's fairly obvious that a lot of these voters will be those who switched to Boris in 2019, returned to Lab in 2024 and are now indicating they will vote Reform. I'd be genuinely fascinated if someone has a coherent alternative analysis, because I honestly can't see one from the information available.
The key thing to remember is that's it's a percentage of people with a voting intention. So Labour's collapse could have seen the Conservatives percentage share increase, even if the total number of people saying they would vote has Conservative has stayed the same.
Here's a very rough Sankey diagram of the YouGov poll. The bit in orange is excluded from the headline voting intentions, hence the result:
As an aside, with Rwandan troops apparently set to invade Congo in support of the M23 militia’s push on Goma, I wonder whether we’ll see any action from the new US administration (presumably once they’ve worked out where Rwanda, Congo and Goma are).
I’m also wondering whether those who hailed Rwanda as a “safe place” to send UK illegal migrants still hold that view.
Are we saying no one is ever allowed to change their mind or hold a different opinion because of something they put on social media five or ten years ago?
If all some people have to do is trawl back through years of tweets, fine, but, again, so what? Trump’s take on Starmer has probably changed from when he was an opposition candidate to becoming President again.
The rumour is Farage will be taking Trump to Clacton for a heroes welcome in the most MAGA part of the UK
Donald Trump nearly stood as the Reform Party's presidential candidate and I wonder if it is this coincidence in names that eased the relationship between Trump and Farage. (The American one had been founded by Ross Perot.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_2000_presidential_campaign
Plus Farage also took the Canadian Reform Party's name too deliberately after they overtook the Canadian Tories in the 1990s
If Jenrick defected to Reform I reckon he and Farage would fall out pretty quickly. The party ain't big enough for the both of them.
This is a major problem for Farage.
A USA Presidential run can be all about an individual, a UK HoC campaign requires a team with the party leader being only first among equals.
Who would Reform's Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary etc be ?
It’s no secret Rupert Lowe is the one the Reform activists like. He will be over 70 by the time of the next election but he could easily appeal to what’s left of the Conservative core vote in a way Farage probably can’t.
I suspect he will, pace Trump, try the tired old schtick of bringing business skills into Government.
Trump benefitted from years of free advertising via The Apprentice, which fed a myth that he was a great businessman. I don't think someone with a regular business background, successful or not, can deliver the same schtick. Look what happened with Romney!
This is itself a bit of a myth. Trump's name was synonymous with bling and business long before the Apprentice.
It was but because Trump was better at self-publicizing himself as a businessman than he was at the actual business bit.
Trump's business was the Trump brand.
Where does Deutsche Bank and the Russian Oligarchs fit in?
Is it just me or is there some kind of weird love-in between Trump and Starmer.
I don’t think there is. But Starmer is observing the niceties in a Starmerish way and Trump, for now - presumably based on some sort of eagerness to have another state visit - is playing nice.
Anyone in her party who tweets or speaks on camera saying Trump is the new messiah and England should worship him and Musk she should sack immediately. Braverman out etc
Paint Reform as Trump Party (English branch). Make Farage own Trump.
If/when Trump chaos 2.0 wrecks world economy and american civil peace and order she will reap the rewards.
As I say, it's a gamble. But she is running out of options.
That's not a gamble, it's a left wing person's political wet dream. No remotely impartial or informed strategist would suggest something so stupid.
It gets to the basic problem the Tories have though, which can be seen if you look at each party's voters view of Trump and Musk. A majority still saying they'll vote Tory hold profoundly negative views of Trump. Reform is the only party whose voters have a net positive view. That correlates with a form of anti-establishment, anti-institutional thinking that views all mainstream politicians and parties as having failed and radical right-wingers as the answer.
So going down the 'let's be more Reformy' route maybe a dead end - because you can't be the insurgents, you're the Conservative Party and have ruled Britain for two thirds of the last 50 years. And by being more Reform you may lose your remaining institutionalist voters while not gaining much in the way of those who support Reform because they want to smash up the system.
It still might be a longshot but their best bet might be ditching the populism - which partly damns your selves - and trying to rebrand as an institutionalist alternative to Labour and the Lib Dems with a more right-wing economic bent. Because it's difficult to see how you get your populist 2019 Boris voters back now Reform are a serious rival.
Right wing policies are not 'Reformy' - they are Tory policies. Reducing immigration to the low tens of thousands was a policy that was central to the manifestos of repeated Conservative election victories, and they repeatedly blew it. The same for reducing taxes, a tough approach to law and order, and shrinking the size of the state. The only reason there is 'an insurgency' is because the Tories have promised these policies, repeatedly failed to deliver.
I would also argue that the old consensus in politics is dying - look at the way Starmer and Reeves are now scrambling for growth. Why would you want to get on board that sinking ship?
And that's a problem for the Tories currently - Labour have been terrible but by and large they've continued the policies of the Sunak Government. Net Zero, lax immigration, low growth, high taxes - they have all been accelerated by Labour but they were well underway with the Tories.
Rishi cut immigration more than Boris to be fair to him and never targeted pensioners, small businesses and farmers like Labour have
That is not true - there was already a deeply ingrained very anti-farmer/food production policy in the UK. Subsidies for rewilding, cash rewards for leaving the industry etc. - listen to the farmers on the protests, they will laugh if you tell them the anti-farmer stuff started with SKS. Like everything else, it has just accelerated.
A bit of rewilding was a drop in the ocean compared to the imposition of 20% IHT on agricultural land over £1 million
It wasn't 'a bit of rewilding' it was a broad suite of policies seemingly designed to sweep farmers off the land, reducing the food supply. There have been mass agricultural protests in The Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe - they didn't have Starmer changing inheritance tax. Starmer's intervention is the latest and worst of a general policy trend that was in progress long before he gained power.
Crossover is at about 24% for Reform and Tories. But there is more to look at. In GE 2024 the Tories got just over 24%. Reform got just under 15%. Labour got 34.7%. And are now at about 26%.
So in totality the Tories are flat since July, Reform have surged and Labour have collapsed.
Among the (recently) impossible futures now at least thinkable are: Reform crossover with Labour - might be soon.
Centrist Labour and Tories (and LDs?) discovering, like FF and FG in RoI, that they have crucial things in common like opposition to the excesses of Trumpianism and uncosted populism. (Joint Lab/One Nation Con/LD/SNP declaration of intent to join EFTA/EEA anyone?)
Bandwagon Reform - just like the Trumpian bandwagon effect we are watching open mouthed, including defections from everywhere.
The resurrection of Boris.
Looking at that graph, from the GE to now there has been an effective 18 point swing from Lab to Reform or 2.25 points a month. They are now 1.9 points apart. If that trend continues as a straight line we'd get crossover in a month.
Reality is that it's probably more of a log curve - the softest Lab support is the easiest to peel away, all other things being equal the nearer the core vote they get the slower you would expect them to decline. Historically (2015—2024) Lab seem to have bottomed out at about 24-25%, so the key question is how much lower than that can they drop now if Farage is eating up their red wall core vote? Certainly there isn't much of a obvious curving trend evidenced in the graph, which suggests they probably have a way further to fall yet.
Top tip - just because one vote share goes up and one goes down does not mean that there is a direct transfer of votes between them.
The polling is clear about where the Reform vote is coming from, and where the Labour vote has gone.
Forgive my ignorance, but when you get a graph which shows the Tories flat, the LDs flat, the Greens virtually flat, Labour droping like a stone and Reform off like a meteor, what do you think is happening?
I would be entirely willing to believe Reform were stealing Tory votes except that for the Tories to then remain flat they have to be gaining votes somewhere. Are you arguing that the Ref increase is all ex-Tory, and being offset in the Tory pot by Lab-> Tory switching?
Same problem with the Lib-dems, but the other way round - I'd expect some Lab -> Lib switching, but if that's occuring, where are the existing Lib voters going? Ref seems unlikely, but then they are putting on votes from somewhere.
You would expect Reform to appeal to certain types of Red Wall traditional Labour voters. Working Class, Socially Conservative, not very keen on immigration. IMHO, it's fairly obvious that a lot of these voters will be those who switched to Boris in 2019, returned to Lab in 2024 and are now indicating they will vote Reform. I'd be genuinely fascinated if someone has a coherent alternative analysis, because I honestly can't see one from the information available.
The key thing to remember is that's it's a percentage of people with a voting intention. So Labour's collapse could have seen the Conservatives percentage share increase, even if the total number of people saying they would vote has Conservative has stayed the same.
Here's a very rough Sankey diagram of the YouGov poll. The bit in orange is excluded from the headline voting intentions, hence the result:
@theProle I think you are nearly right about this bit: Socially Conservative, not very keen on immigration. IMHO, it's fairly obvious that a lot of these voters will be those who switched to Boris in 2019, returned to Lab in 2024 and are now indicating they will vote Reform.
But I don't think these voters ever returned to Labour. They were Reform's voters in '24, and will continue to be.
As an aside, with Rwandan troops apparently set to invade Congo in support of the M23 militia’s push on Goma, I wonder whether we’ll see any action from the new US administration (presumably once they’ve worked out where Rwanda, Congo and Goma are).
I’m also wondering whether those who hailed Rwanda as a “safe place” to send UK illegal migrants still hold that view.
As it happens my parents were relaying to me just now a story their Iranian refugee friend (they volunteer down the local reception centre) had told them about meeting an asylum seeker from Rwanda at the centre and quizzing him on how he could be seeking asylum from such an officially safe country.
Are we saying no one is ever allowed to change their mind or hold a different opinion because of something they put on social media five or ten years ago?
If all some people have to do is trawl back through years of tweets, fine, but, again, so what? Trump’s take on Starmer has probably changed from when he was an opposition candidate to becoming President again.
So what has changed with Trump over the last five years that means his endorsement is now not reprehensible?
Message in yellow chalk on sidewalk in all caps, "First they came for immigrants, inspectors general, transgender people, DEI, scientists, women, poor people and intellectuals. --and it's only Saturday of week one." https://bsky.app/profile/wutangforchildren.bsky.social/post/3lglo6cgges2i (photo of pavement graffiti in Blue Sky tweet equivalent)
As an aside, with Rwandan troops apparently set to invade Congo in support of the M23 militia’s push on Goma, I wonder whether we’ll see any action from the new US administration (presumably once they’ve worked out where Rwanda, Congo and Goma are).
I’m also wondering whether those who hailed Rwanda as a “safe place” to send UK illegal migrants still hold that view.
To be fair, that fighting is not in Rwanda, it's in the Eastern Congo.
As an aside, with Rwandan troops apparently set to invade Congo in support of the M23 militia’s push on Goma, I wonder whether we’ll see any action from the new US administration (presumably once they’ve worked out where Rwanda, Congo and Goma are).
I’m also wondering whether those who hailed Rwanda as a “safe place” to send UK illegal migrants still hold that view.
As it happens my parents were relaying to me just now a story their Iranian refugee friend (they volunteer down the local reception centre) had told them about meeting an asylum seeker from Rwanda at the centre and quizzing him on how he could be seeking asylum from such an officially safe country.
Anyone in her party who tweets or speaks on camera saying Trump is the new messiah and England should worship him and Musk she should sack immediately. Braverman out etc
Paint Reform as Trump Party (English branch). Make Farage own Trump.
If/when Trump chaos 2.0 wrecks world economy and american civil peace and order she will reap the rewards.
As I say, it's a gamble. But she is running out of options.
That's not a gamble, it's a left wing person's political wet dream. No remotely impartial or informed strategist would suggest something so stupid.
It gets to the basic problem the Tories have though, which can be seen if you look at each party's voters view of Trump and Musk. A majority still saying they'll vote Tory hold profoundly negative views of Trump. Reform is the only party whose voters have a net positive view. That correlates with a form of anti-establishment, anti-institutional thinking that views all mainstream politicians and parties as having failed and radical right-wingers as the answer.
So going down the 'let's be more Reformy' route maybe a dead end - because you can't be the insurgents, you're the Conservative Party and have ruled Britain for two thirds of the last 50 years. And by being more Reform you may lose your remaining institutionalist voters while not gaining much in the way of those who support Reform because they want to smash up the system.
It still might be a longshot but their best bet might be ditching the populism - which partly damns your selves - and trying to rebrand as an institutionalist alternative to Labour and the Lib Dems with a more right-wing economic bent. Because it's difficult to see how you get your populist 2019 Boris voters back now Reform are a serious rival.
Right wing policies are not 'Reformy' - they are Tory policies. Reducing immigration to the low tens of thousands was a policy that was central to the manifestos of repeated Conservative election victories, and they repeatedly blew it. The same for reducing taxes, a tough approach to law and order, and shrinking the size of the state. The only reason there is 'an insurgency' is because the Tories have promised these policies, repeatedly failed to deliver.
I would also argue that the old consensus in politics is dying - look at the way Starmer and Reeves are now scrambling for growth. Why would you want to get on board that sinking ship?
And that's a problem for the Tories currently - Labour have been terrible but by and large they've continued the policies of the Sunak Government. Net Zero, lax immigration, low growth, high taxes - they have all been accelerated by Labour but they were well underway with the Tories.
Rishi cut immigration more than Boris to be fair to him and never targeted pensioners, small businesses and farmers like Labour have
That is not true - there was already a deeply ingrained very anti-farmer/food production policy in the UK. Subsidies for rewilding, cash rewards for leaving the industry etc. - listen to the farmers on the protests, they will laugh if you tell them the anti-farmer stuff started with SKS. Like everything else, it has just accelerated.
A bit of rewilding was a drop in the ocean compared to the imposition of 20% IHT on agricultural land over £1 million
It wasn't 'a bit of rewilding' it was a broad suite of policies seemingly designed to sweep farmers off the land, reducing the food supply. There have been mass agricultural protests in The Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe - they didn't have Starmer changing inheritance tax. Starmer's intervention is the latest and worst of a general policy trend that was in progress long before he gained power.
Rewilding isn’t always forced by policy, sometimes it’s initiated by farmers themselves. Or in the case of the rapidly “rewilding” scrubland above my vineyard, it’s caused by the absentee landowner who lives in NZ putting a plot up for sale at an unrealistically high price and leaving it unsold and unmanaged for coming on 5 years. Which makes it a great home for the herd of red deer who like to come and nibble my vines from time to time. I was hoping the IHT change might have encouraged him to hurry up but seemingly not so far.
Are we saying no one is ever allowed to change their mind or hold a different opinion because of something they put on social media five or ten years ago?
If all some people have to do is trawl back through years of tweets, fine, but, again, so what? Trump’s take on Starmer has probably changed from when he was an opposition candidate to becoming President again.
So what has changed with Trump over the last five years that means his endorsement is now not reprehensible?
He became the most powerful man in the Western World.
Anyone in her party who tweets or speaks on camera saying Trump is the new messiah and England should worship him and Musk she should sack immediately. Braverman out etc
Paint Reform as Trump Party (English branch). Make Farage own Trump.
If/when Trump chaos 2.0 wrecks world economy and american civil peace and order she will reap the rewards.
As I say, it's a gamble. But she is running out of options.
That's not a gamble, it's a left wing person's political wet dream. No remotely impartial or informed strategist would suggest something so stupid.
It gets to the basic problem the Tories have though, which can be seen if you look at each party's voters view of Trump and Musk. A majority still saying they'll vote Tory hold profoundly negative views of Trump. Reform is the only party whose voters have a net positive view. That correlates with a form of anti-establishment, anti-institutional thinking that views all mainstream politicians and parties as having failed and radical right-wingers as the answer.
So going down the 'let's be more Reformy' route maybe a dead end - because you can't be the insurgents, you're the Conservative Party and have ruled Britain for two thirds of the last 50 years. And by being more Reform you may lose your remaining institutionalist voters while not gaining much in the way of those who support Reform because they want to smash up the system.
It still might be a longshot but their best bet might be ditching the populism - which partly damns your selves - and trying to rebrand as an institutionalist alternative to Labour and the Lib Dems with a more right-wing economic bent. Because it's difficult to see how you get your populist 2019 Boris voters back now Reform are a serious rival.
Right wing policies are not 'Reformy' - they are Tory policies. Reducing immigration to the low tens of thousands was a policy that was central to the manifestos of repeated Conservative election victories, and they repeatedly blew it. The same for reducing taxes, a tough approach to law and order, and shrinking the size of the state. The only reason there is 'an insurgency' is because the Tories have promised these policies, repeatedly failed to deliver.
I would also argue that the old consensus in politics is dying - look at the way Starmer and Reeves are now scrambling for growth. Why would you want to get on board that sinking ship?
And that's a problem for the Tories currently - Labour have been terrible but by and large they've continued the policies of the Sunak Government. Net Zero, lax immigration, low growth, high taxes - they have all been accelerated by Labour but they were well underway with the Tories.
Rishi cut immigration more than Boris to be fair to him and never targeted pensioners, small businesses and farmers like Labour have
That is not true - there was already a deeply ingrained very anti-farmer/food production policy in the UK. Subsidies for rewilding, cash rewards for leaving the industry etc. - listen to the farmers on the protests, they will laugh if you tell them the anti-farmer stuff started with SKS. Like everything else, it has just accelerated.
A bit of rewilding was a drop in the ocean compared to the imposition of 20% IHT on agricultural land over £1 million
It wasn't 'a bit of rewilding' it was a broad suite of policies seemingly designed to sweep farmers off the land, reducing the food supply. There have been mass agricultural protests in The Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe - they didn't have Starmer changing inheritance tax. Starmer's intervention is the latest and worst of a general policy trend that was in progress long before he gained power.
Rewilding isn’t always forced by policy, sometimes it’s initiated by farmers themselves. Or in the case of the rapidly “rewilding” scrubland above my vineyard, it’s caused by the absentee landowner who lives in NZ putting a plot up for sale at an unrealistically high price and leaving it unsold and unmanaged for coming on 5 years. Which makes it a great home for the herd of red deer who like to come and nibble my vines from time to time. I was hoping the IHT change might have encouraged him to hurry up but seemingly not so far.
How much of it would we see if it weren't subsidised? I would suggest not a lot.
As an aside, with Rwandan troops apparently set to invade Congo in support of the M23 militia’s push on Goma, I wonder whether we’ll see any action from the new US administration (presumably once they’ve worked out where Rwanda, Congo and Goma are).
I’m also wondering whether those who hailed Rwanda as a “safe place” to send UK illegal migrants still hold that view.
As it happens my parents were relaying to me just now a story their Iranian refugee friend (they volunteer down the local reception centre) had told them about meeting an asylum seeker from Rwanda at the centre and quizzing him on how he could be seeking asylum from such an officially safe country.
He was probably an economic migrant.
He’s claiming asylum. He may not succeed of course, though there is pretty widespread political persecution under Kagame.
Most refugees are fleeing something bad, but they’re also hoping for a better life and opportunities. Just human nature.
Are we saying no one is ever allowed to change their mind or hold a different opinion because of something they put on social media five or ten years ago?
If all some people have to do is trawl back through years of tweets, fine, but, again, so what? Trump’s take on Starmer has probably changed from when he was an opposition candidate to becoming President again.
So what has changed with Trump over the last five years that means his endorsement is now not reprehensible?
He became the most powerful man in the Western World.
As an aside, with Rwandan troops apparently set to invade Congo in support of the M23 militia’s push on Goma, I wonder whether we’ll see any action from the new US administration (presumably once they’ve worked out where Rwanda, Congo and Goma are).
I’m also wondering whether those who hailed Rwanda as a “safe place” to send UK illegal migrants still hold that view.
As it happens my parents were relaying to me just now a story their Iranian refugee friend (they volunteer down the local reception centre) had told them about meeting an asylum seeker from Rwanda at the centre and quizzing him on how he could be seeking asylum from such an officially safe country.
He was probably an economic migrant.
He’s claiming asylum. He may not succeed of course, though there is pretty widespread political persecution under Kagame.
Most refugees are fleeing something bad, but they’re also hoping for a better life and opportunities. Just human nature.
Many economic migrants do.
I'm not making a moral judgement about that, just a reasonably logical surmise.
Are we saying no one is ever allowed to change their mind or hold a different opinion because of something they put on social media five or ten years ago?
If all some people have to do is trawl back through years of tweets, fine, but, again, so what? Trump’s take on Starmer has probably changed from when he was an opposition candidate to becoming President again.
So what has changed with Trump over the last five years that means his endorsement is now not reprehensible?
He became the most powerful man in the Western World.
Anyone in her party who tweets or speaks on camera saying Trump is the new messiah and England should worship him and Musk she should sack immediately. Braverman out etc
Paint Reform as Trump Party (English branch). Make Farage own Trump.
If/when Trump chaos 2.0 wrecks world economy and american civil peace and order she will reap the rewards.
As I say, it's a gamble. But she is running out of options.
That's not a gamble, it's a left wing person's political wet dream. No remotely impartial or informed strategist would suggest something so stupid.
It gets to the basic problem the Tories have though, which can be seen if you look at each party's voters view of Trump and Musk. A majority still saying they'll vote Tory hold profoundly negative views of Trump. Reform is the only party whose voters have a net positive view. That correlates with a form of anti-establishment, anti-institutional thinking that views all mainstream politicians and parties as having failed and radical right-wingers as the answer.
So going down the 'let's be more Reformy' route maybe a dead end - because you can't be the insurgents, you're the Conservative Party and have ruled Britain for two thirds of the last 50 years. And by being more Reform you may lose your remaining institutionalist voters while not gaining much in the way of those who support Reform because they want to smash up the system.
It still might be a longshot but their best bet might be ditching the populism - which partly damns your selves - and trying to rebrand as an institutionalist alternative to Labour and the Lib Dems with a more right-wing economic bent. Because it's difficult to see how you get your populist 2019 Boris voters back now Reform are a serious rival.
Right wing policies are not 'Reformy' - they are Tory policies. Reducing immigration to the low tens of thousands was a policy that was central to the manifestos of repeated Conservative election victories, and they repeatedly blew it. The same for reducing taxes, a tough approach to law and order, and shrinking the size of the state. The only reason there is 'an insurgency' is because the Tories have promised these policies, repeatedly failed to deliver.
I would also argue that the old consensus in politics is dying - look at the way Starmer and Reeves are now scrambling for growth. Why would you want to get on board that sinking ship?
And that's a problem for the Tories currently - Labour have been terrible but by and large they've continued the policies of the Sunak Government. Net Zero, lax immigration, low growth, high taxes - they have all been accelerated by Labour but they were well underway with the Tories.
Rishi cut immigration more than Boris to be fair to him and never targeted pensioners, small businesses and farmers like Labour have
That is not true - there was already a deeply ingrained very anti-farmer/food production policy in the UK. Subsidies for rewilding, cash rewards for leaving the industry etc. - listen to the farmers on the protests, they will laugh if you tell them the anti-farmer stuff started with SKS. Like everything else, it has just accelerated.
A bit of rewilding was a drop in the ocean compared to the imposition of 20% IHT on agricultural land over £1 million
It wasn't 'a bit of rewilding' it was a broad suite of policies seemingly designed to sweep farmers off the land, reducing the food supply. There have been mass agricultural protests in The Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe - they didn't have Starmer changing inheritance tax. Starmer's intervention is the latest and worst of a general policy trend that was in progress long before he gained power.
Rewilding isn’t always forced by policy, sometimes it’s initiated by farmers themselves. Or in the case of the rapidly “rewilding” scrubland above my vineyard, it’s caused by the absentee landowner who lives in NZ putting a plot up for sale at an unrealistically high price and leaving it unsold and unmanaged for coming on 5 years. Which makes it a great home for the herd of red deer who like to come and nibble my vines from time to time. I was hoping the IHT change might have encouraged him to hurry up but seemingly not so far.
How much of it would we see if it weren't subsidised? I would suggest not a lot.
All farming* is subsidised. So it’s hard to analyse what a subsidy-free world would look like, but it’s probably safe to say it would be very different in terms of crops, livestock species and land use if those subsidies didn’t exist.
*Viticulture is, of course, not subsidised so we’re free to make our losses however we like.
Rugby Union has 30 years' experience of believing the game is worth more than it is.
Rugby Union’s biggest advantage is that it isn’t quite as boring as golf.
Rugby Union is terrific.
One hell of a sport.
Rugby Sevens maybe. Rugby Union is mostly large men standing around or bumping into each other. It hasn’t been exciting since Wales in the 1960s and 1970s or Jonah Lomu.
I was doing consultancy work for a back row forward who had played for Ospreys and Wasps. He didn't get a cap because of Gatlands Welsh regions rule. He retired about five years ago. He said at the start of his career he would have around 15 collisions a game by the end he reckoned it was about 50 to 60. I can't watch 80 minutes of rolling mauls and gaining yards by weight advantage and a kicking game followed by a maul.
Back in my school days the scrum won the ball in either a scrum or a maul, got the ball to the scrum half, the scrum half would feed the fly half/ outside half and along the three quarter line. That is the sort of rugby that led to "that try" for the Babas. When I was at school we would play some schools where a big fat kid would be played at scrum half, not for his pace but for his weight. Today's rugby follows that pattern. Rugby League is more of a spectacle these days.
Association football on the other hand since the seventies has got faster and far more skillful.
I wonder if that rise in collisions is behind, or a major factor in, the dramatic increase in players ending up with some form of brain damage/early onset dementia.
I didn't think there was any doubt? Heavier, more athletic players > more frequent and harder collisions > more concussions > degenerative brain injury
Though even in very low level school rugby with pisspoor refereeing, playing tighthead I was head butted almost unconscious by the opposition second row. Despite enjoying running rugby (that we see so infrequently these days), I'm glad my kids have shown no interest in playing. My only worry is the progression of field hockey towards hurling, with the governing body happy to see the ball not just being played at head-height but struck at head-height. Just hope they see sense before there is significant evidence of the danger they've allowed into the game.
Are we saying no one is ever allowed to change their mind or hold a different opinion because of something they put on social media five or ten years ago?
If all some people have to do is trawl back through years of tweets, fine, but, again, so what? Trump’s take on Starmer has probably changed from when he was an opposition candidate to becoming President again.
So what has changed with Trump over the last five years that means his endorsement is now not reprehensible?
He became the most powerful man in the Western World.
He was at the time of the tweet.
...and Starmer subsequently became the second...
That doesn’t really change how desirable an endorsement from Trump would be. If anything, you’d think after the last five years an endorsement would be even less desirable!
Trump EO to abolish FEMA Federal Emergency MANAGEMENT agency
3-RED states TOOK $3 BILLION in Federal FEMA funds TEXAS LOUISIANA FLORIDA Now these states can fund themselves Higher taxes ~ Oh wait Texas and Florida have ZERO STATE TAXES, now.... https://x.com/MomSkelton/status/1883560669196476513
Will Trump reverse ferret as it becomes known Republican states are the largest beneficiaries of Federal emergency aid?
As an aside, with Rwandan troops apparently set to invade Congo in support of the M23 militia’s push on Goma, I wonder whether we’ll see any action from the new US administration (presumably once they’ve worked out where Rwanda, Congo and Goma are).
I’m also wondering whether those who hailed Rwanda as a “safe place” to send UK illegal migrants still hold that view.
As it happens my parents were relaying to me just now a story their Iranian refugee friend (they volunteer down the local reception centre) had told them about meeting an asylum seeker from Rwanda at the centre and quizzing him on how he could be seeking asylum from such an officially safe country.
He was probably an economic migrant.
He’s claiming asylum. He may not succeed of course, though there is pretty widespread political persecution under Kagame.
Most refugees are fleeing something bad, but they’re also hoping for a better life and opportunities. Just human nature.
Many economic migrants do.
I'm not making a moral judgement about that, just a reasonably logical surmise.
Their Iranian on the other hand was full-on fleeing persecution. Imprisoned by the regime, released then beaten up, another trial coming up (for apostasy), so got out, and arrived here with family on a small boat via Turkey then Europe - in the UK because extended family are in Britain and he had studied at a university here.
His family now have refugee status and can finally settle, find a house and job etc.
As an aside, with Rwandan troops apparently set to invade Congo in support of the M23 militia’s push on Goma, I wonder whether we’ll see any action from the new US administration (presumably once they’ve worked out where Rwanda, Congo and Goma are).
I’m also wondering whether those who hailed Rwanda as a “safe place” to send UK illegal migrants still hold that view.
As it happens my parents were relaying to me just now a story their Iranian refugee friend (they volunteer down the local reception centre) had told them about meeting an asylum seeker from Rwanda at the centre and quizzing him on how he could be seeking asylum from such an officially safe country.
He was probably an economic migrant.
He’s claiming asylum. He may not succeed of course, though there is pretty widespread political persecution under Kagame.
Most refugees are fleeing something bad, but they’re also hoping for a better life and opportunities. Just human nature.
Many economic migrants do.
I'm not making a moral judgement about that, just a reasonably logical surmise.
Their Iranian on the other hand was full-on fleeing persecution. Imprisoned by the regime, released then beaten up, another trial coming up (for apostasy), so got out, and arrived here with family on a small boat via Turkey then Europe - in the UK because extended family are in Britain and he had studied at a university here.
His family now have refugee status and can finally settle, find a house and job etc.
Good for him. Iranians are very nice people in my experience.
Trump EO to abolish FEMA Federal Emergency MANAGEMENT agency
3-RED states TOOK $3 BILLION in Federal FEMA funds TEXAS LOUISIANA FLORIDA Now these states can fund themselves Higher taxes ~ Oh wait Texas and Florida have ZERO STATE TAXES, now.... https://x.com/MomSkelton/status/1883560669196476513
Will Trump reverse ferret as it becomes known Republican states are the largest beneficiaries of Federal emergency aid?
Not surprising when red states circle the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean hurricane landfall coasts.
Anyone in her party who tweets or speaks on camera saying Trump is the new messiah and England should worship him and Musk she should sack immediately. Braverman out etc
Paint Reform as Trump Party (English branch). Make Farage own Trump.
If/when Trump chaos 2.0 wrecks world economy and american civil peace and order she will reap the rewards.
As I say, it's a gamble. But she is running out of options.
That's not a gamble, it's a left wing person's political wet dream. No remotely impartial or informed strategist would suggest something so stupid.
It gets to the basic problem the Tories have though, which can be seen if you look at each party's voters view of Trump and Musk. A majority still saying they'll vote Tory hold profoundly negative views of Trump. Reform is the only party whose voters have a net positive view. That correlates with a form of anti-establishment, anti-institutional thinking that views all mainstream politicians and parties as having failed and radical right-wingers as the answer.
So going down the 'let's be more Reformy' route maybe a dead end - because you can't be the insurgents, you're the Conservative Party and have ruled Britain for two thirds of the last 50 years. And by being more Reform you may lose your remaining institutionalist voters while not gaining much in the way of those who support Reform because they want to smash up the system.
It still might be a longshot but their best bet might be ditching the populism - which partly damns your selves - and trying to rebrand as an institutionalist alternative to Labour and the Lib Dems with a more right-wing economic bent. Because it's difficult to see how you get your populist 2019 Boris voters back now Reform are a serious rival.
Right wing policies are not 'Reformy' - they are Tory policies. Reducing immigration to the low tens of thousands was a policy that was central to the manifestos of repeated Conservative election victories, and they repeatedly blew it. The same for reducing taxes, a tough approach to law and order, and shrinking the size of the state. The only reason there is 'an insurgency' is because the Tories have promised these policies, repeatedly failed to deliver.
I would also argue that the old consensus in politics is dying - look at the way Starmer and Reeves are now scrambling for growth. Why would you want to get on board that sinking ship?
And that's a problem for the Tories currently - Labour have been terrible but by and large they've continued the policies of the Sunak Government. Net Zero, lax immigration, low growth, high taxes - they have all been accelerated by Labour but they were well underway with the Tories.
Rishi cut immigration more than Boris to be fair to him and never targeted pensioners, small businesses and farmers like Labour have
That is not true - there was already a deeply ingrained very anti-farmer/food production policy in the UK. Subsidies for rewilding, cash rewards for leaving the industry etc. - listen to the farmers on the protests, they will laugh if you tell them the anti-farmer stuff started with SKS. Like everything else, it has just accelerated.
A bit of rewilding was a drop in the ocean compared to the imposition of 20% IHT on agricultural land over £1 million
Only 20%. The rest of us should be so lucky.
What we need are policies to support farming - not perpetuate the landowner tax fiddle.
Rugby Union has 30 years' experience of believing the game is worth more than it is.
Rugby Union’s biggest advantage is that it isn’t quite as boring as golf.
Rugby Union is terrific.
One hell of a sport.
Rugby Sevens maybe. Rugby Union is mostly large men standing around or bumping into each other. It hasn’t been exciting since Wales in the 1960s and 1970s or Jonah Lomu.
I was doing consultancy work for a back row forward who had played for Ospreys and Wasps. He didn't get a cap because of Gatlands Welsh regions rule. He retired about five years ago. He said at the start of his career he would have around 15 collisions a game by the end he reckoned it was about 50 to 60. I can't watch 80 minutes of rolling mauls and gaining yards by weight advantage and a kicking game followed by a maul.
Back in my school days the scrum won the ball in either a scrum or a maul, got the ball to the scrum half, the scrum half would feed the fly half/ outside half and along the three quarter line. That is the sort of rugby that led to "that try" for the Babas. When I was at school we would play some schools where a big fat kid would be played at scrum half, not for his pace but for his weight. Today's rugby follows that pattern. Rugby League is more of a spectacle these days.
Association football on the other hand since the seventies has got faster and far more skillful.
I wonder if that rise in collisions is behind, or a major factor in, the dramatic increase in players ending up with some form of brain damage/early onset dementia.
I didn't think there was any doubt? Heavier, more athletic players > more frequent and harder collisions > more concussions > degenerative brain injury
Though even in very low level school rugby with pisspoor refereeing, playing tighthead I was head butted almost unconscious by the opposition second row. Despite enjoying running rugby (that we see so infrequently these days), I'm glad my kids have shown no interest in playing. My only worry is the progression of field hockey towards hurling, with the governing body happy to see the ball not just being played at head-height but struck at head-height. Just hope they see sense before there is significant evidence of the danger they've allowed into the game.
I'd want to see figures. It is just as plausible that more collisions leads to more joint injuries and arthritis, for instance, and that brain damage is more to do with better diagnostic techniques and the secular rise in dementia. It might be that American football, basically rugby with padding, which allows even more collisions, leads the way.
Are we saying no one is ever allowed to change their mind or hold a different opinion because of something they put on social media five or ten years ago?
If all some people have to do is trawl back through years of tweets, fine, but, again, so what? Trump’s take on Starmer has probably changed from when he was an opposition candidate to becoming President again.
So what has changed with Trump over the last five years that means his endorsement is now not reprehensible?
This week's Private Eye cover '“In common with all other media organisations, we may in the past have given the impression that we thought Mr Trump was a sleazy, deranged, orange-faced man-baby who was a threat to democracy and who should be in jail rather than the White House. We now realise, in the light of his return to supreme power, that he is in fact a political colossus, the voice of sanity, a champion of liberty, a model of probity and the saviour of the Western world. He is also slim, handsome and young.”
“We would like to apologize unreservedly for any confusion caused by our previous statements and thank President Trump for his kind invitation to give him 94 million pounds to attend his inauguration event.”
Are we saying no one is ever allowed to change their mind or hold a different opinion because of something they put on social media five or ten years ago?
If all some people have to do is trawl back through years of tweets, fine, but, again, so what? Trump’s take on Starmer has probably changed from when he was an opposition candidate to becoming President again.
So what has changed with Trump over the last five years that means his endorsement is now not reprehensible?
He became the most powerful man in the Western World.
He was at the time of the tweet.
...and Starmer subsequently became the second...
That doesn’t really change how desirable an endorsement from Trump would be. If anything, you’d think after the last five years an endorsement would be even less desirable!
On that I would have to agree. Starmer's problem he has to work with Trump whether he likes it or not. Piss Trump off and Musk replaces Starmer with Yaxley-Lennon.
Trump EO to abolish FEMA Federal Emergency MANAGEMENT agency
3-RED states TOOK $3 BILLION in Federal FEMA funds TEXAS LOUISIANA FLORIDA Now these states can fund themselves Higher taxes ~ Oh wait Texas and Florida have ZERO STATE TAXES, now.... https://x.com/MomSkelton/status/1883560669196476513
Will Trump reverse ferret as it becomes known Republican states are the largest beneficiaries of Federal emergency aid?
Except that he said the money would still come, it would just be managed by the states:
Trump accused FEMA of bungling emergency relief efforts there and said he preferred that states be given federal money to handle disasters themselves.
Are we saying no one is ever allowed to change their mind or hold a different opinion because of something they put on social media five or ten years ago?
If all some people have to do is trawl back through years of tweets, fine, but, again, so what? Trump’s take on Starmer has probably changed from when he was an opposition candidate to becoming President again.
So what has changed with Trump over the last five years that means his endorsement is now not reprehensible?
He became the most powerful man in the Western World.
He was at the time of the tweet.
...and Starmer subsequently became the second...
That doesn’t really change how desirable an endorsement from Trump would be. If anything, you’d think after the last five years an endorsement would be even less desirable!
Unfortunately I think the world is in the throes of shock at the moment and most are just hoping the new president won’t lash out at them. Rather pathetic really, but it seems to be happening domestically in the US too.
The only leaders who aren’t remotely worried seem to be Putin, Modi, Erdogan, Orban, Bibi, Luka and the rest of the merry band of brothers.
Trump EO to abolish FEMA Federal Emergency MANAGEMENT agency
3-RED states TOOK $3 BILLION in Federal FEMA funds TEXAS LOUISIANA FLORIDA Now these states can fund themselves Higher taxes ~ Oh wait Texas and Florida have ZERO STATE TAXES, now.... https://x.com/MomSkelton/status/1883560669196476513
Will Trump reverse ferret as it becomes known Republican states are the largest beneficiaries of Federal emergency aid?
I feel like he'd be happy to fund them, so long as it was under his direct control somehow rather than an agency which presumably has at least some rules on how to apportion the money. Then he could really use it to browbeat any states he did not like.
Anyone in her party who tweets or speaks on camera saying Trump is the new messiah and England should worship him and Musk she should sack immediately. Braverman out etc
Paint Reform as Trump Party (English branch). Make Farage own Trump.
If/when Trump chaos 2.0 wrecks world economy and american civil peace and order she will reap the rewards.
As I say, it's a gamble. But she is running out of options.
That's not a gamble, it's a left wing person's political wet dream. No remotely impartial or informed strategist would suggest something so stupid.
It gets to the basic problem the Tories have though, which can be seen if you look at each party's voters view of Trump and Musk. A majority still saying they'll vote Tory hold profoundly negative views of Trump. Reform is the only party whose voters have a net positive view. That correlates with a form of anti-establishment, anti-institutional thinking that views all mainstream politicians and parties as having failed and radical right-wingers as the answer.
So going down the 'let's be more Reformy' route maybe a dead end - because you can't be the insurgents, you're the Conservative Party and have ruled Britain for two thirds of the last 50 years. And by being more Reform you may lose your remaining institutionalist voters while not gaining much in the way of those who support Reform because they want to smash up the system.
It still might be a longshot but their best bet might be ditching the populism - which partly damns your selves - and trying to rebrand as an institutionalist alternative to Labour and the Lib Dems with a more right-wing economic bent. Because it's difficult to see how you get your populist 2019 Boris voters back now Reform are a serious rival.
Right wing policies are not 'Reformy' - they are Tory policies. Reducing immigration to the low tens of thousands was a policy that was central to the manifestos of repeated Conservative election victories, and they repeatedly blew it. The same for reducing taxes, a tough approach to law and order, and shrinking the size of the state. The only reason there is 'an insurgency' is because the Tories have promised these policies, repeatedly failed to deliver.
I would also argue that the old consensus in politics is dying - look at the way Starmer and Reeves are now scrambling for growth. Why would you want to get on board that sinking ship?
And that's a problem for the Tories currently - Labour have been terrible but by and large they've continued the policies of the Sunak Government. Net Zero, lax immigration, low growth, high taxes - they have all been accelerated by Labour but they were well underway with the Tories.
Rishi cut immigration more than Boris to be fair to him and never targeted pensioners, small businesses and farmers like Labour have
That is not true - there was already a deeply ingrained very anti-farmer/food production policy in the UK. Subsidies for rewilding, cash rewards for leaving the industry etc. - listen to the farmers on the protests, they will laugh if you tell them the anti-farmer stuff started with SKS. Like everything else, it has just accelerated.
A bit of rewilding was a drop in the ocean compared to the imposition of 20% IHT on agricultural land over £1 million
Only 20%. The rest of us should be so lucky.
What we need are policies to support farming - not perpetuate the landowner tax fiddle.
Crap, the average farmer earns little more than average salary, taxing their farmland too is just going to devastate our food producers
Are we saying no one is ever allowed to change their mind or hold a different opinion because of something they put on social media five or ten years ago?
If all some people have to do is trawl back through years of tweets, fine, but, again, so what? Trump’s take on Starmer has probably changed from when he was an opposition candidate to becoming President again.
So what has changed with Trump over the last five years that means his endorsement is now not reprehensible?
He became the most powerful man in the Western World.
He was at the time of the tweet.
...and Starmer subsequently became the second...
That doesn’t really change how desirable an endorsement from Trump would be. If anything, you’d think after the last five years an endorsement would be even less desirable!
On that I would have to agree. Starmer's problem he has to work with Trump whether he likes it or not. Piss Trump off and Musk replaces Starmer with Yaxley-Lennon.
Which brings us back to my original point about how opportunistic these sort of tweets are. See also commitments made to WASPI campaigners. Entirely unserious.
If Jenrick defected to Reform I reckon he and Farage would fall out pretty quickly. The party ain't big enough for the both of them.
This is a major problem for Farage.
A USA Presidential run can be all about an individual, a UK HoC campaign requires a team with the party leader being only first among equals.
Who would Reform's Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary etc be ?
It’s no secret Rupert Lowe is the one the Reform activists like. He will be over 70 by the time of the next election but he could easily appeal to what’s left of the Conservative core vote in a way Farage probably can’t.
I suspect he will, pace Trump, try the tired old schtick of bringing business skills into Government.
Trump benefitted from years of free advertising via The Apprentice, which fed a myth that he was a great businessman. I don't think someone with a regular business background, successful or not, can deliver the same schtick. Look what happened with Romney!
This is itself a bit of a myth. Trump's name was synonymous with bling and business long before the Apprentice.
I was watching a YouTube video today on Biblical scholarship. This made the distinction between myth as stories involving the Gods and legend, fictional events that happened to a real person. So, really, neither of us should be talking about myths here. They're legends.
That's not a gamble, it's a left wing person's political wet dream. No remotely impartial or informed strategist would suggest something so stupid.
It still might be a longshot but their best bet might be ditching the populism - which partly damns your selves - and trying to rebrand as an institutionalist alternative to Labour and the Lib Dems with a more right-wing economic bent. Because it's difficult to see how you get your populist 2019 Boris voters back now Reform are a serious rival.
Right wing policies are not 'Reformy' - they are Tory policies. Reducing immigration to the low tens of thousands was a policy that was central to the manifestos of repeated Conservative election victories, and they repeatedly blew it. The same for reducing taxes, a tough approach to law and order, and shrinking the size of the state. The only reason there is 'an insurgency' is because the Tories have promised these policies, repeatedly failed to deliver.
I would also argue that the old consensus in politics is dying - look at the way Starmer and Reeves are now scrambling for growth. Why would you want to get on board that sinking ship?
And that's a problem for the Tories currently - Labour have been terrible but by and large they've continued the policies of the Sunak Government. Net Zero, lax immigration, low growth, high taxes - they have all been accelerated by Labour but they were well underway with the Tories.
You sort of answer my question there by admitting they promised those policies but failed to deliver, if you have a think about *why* they failed to deliver.
To take immigration. They couldn't meet their promises on immigration because they couldn't do while pursuing their other policy goals - like deficit reduction, sound money or lower taxes. The dirty secret in recent years is that even while making hardline promises on immigration, the treasury's figures were predicated on it remaining very high.
People who knew how the immigration system works pointed this out when Cameron made the '10s of 1000s' pledge way back when. It was impossible to do so without leaving the EU and then fundamentally rethinking our economic and social models, plus quite possibly ripping up obligations under treaties that underpin lots of stuff the Tories in theory support.
You'd have to be willing to let lots of universities go bust, vastly increase tuition fees, or provide central government funding - meaning raising taxes or borrowing. You'd have to bolster social care funding so that it became a much more attractive career choice and be willing to tell employers that labour market shortages are tough. And allow staffing shortages in the NHS until we could train more doctors.
Now that's not to say you can't get immigration down to the 10s of 1000s - as they promised - but you have to be willing to make some of those trade-offs, and fundamentally the Tories were and maybe still are, a party that believes in institutions first even while making promises they knew they couldn't keep without making trade offs they were unwilling to make as it would've harmed other goals. They tried to have their populist cake and eat it and came out very sick.
Being more 'Reformy' is that Reform are an insurgent party who either deny such trade-offs exist, or are worth making above all else. They are populists who claimed at the last election you could cut taxes by £90 billion, have new spending commitments of £50 billion and that this could all be paid for with £150 billion, mostly from cutting unspecified 'waste'. All the while cutting net migration to a level economic orthodoxy states would harm the economy, at least in the short run (and having to deal with some of the above issues).
They can promise all that because have a conspiracist theory of the case, that the assumptions and institutions that underpin our government, economic, and social model are wrong and that the only reason are kept to is the malevolence or incompetence of the political class.
So the Tories have a choice - do they remain institutionalist, in which case Reform will always be able to outbid them and voters would be right to mistrust them when they make right-wing populist promises? So will need to get serious and reintergrate with reality.
Or do they buy into the right populist case that institutions are so rotten they need smashing up a la what Trump wants to do in the US?
Anyone in her party who tweets or speaks on camera saying Trump is the new messiah and England should worship him and Musk she should sack immediately. Braverman out etc
Paint Reform as Trump Party (English branch). Make Farage own Trump.
If/when Trump chaos 2.0 wrecks world economy and american civil peace and order she will reap the rewards.
As I say, it's a gamble. But she is running out of options.
That's not a gamble, it's a left wing person's political wet dream. No remotely impartial or informed strategist would suggest something so stupid.
It gets to the basic problem the Tories have though, which can be seen if you look at each party's voters view of Trump and Musk. A majority still saying they'll vote Tory hold profoundly negative views of Trump. Reform is the only party whose voters have a net positive view. That correlates with a form of anti-establishment, anti-institutional thinking that views all mainstream politicians and parties as having failed and radical right-wingers as the answer.
So going down the 'let's be more Reformy' route maybe a dead end - because you can't be the insurgents, you're the Conservative Party and have ruled Britain for two thirds of the last 50 years. And by being more Reform you may lose your remaining institutionalist voters while not gaining much in the way of those who support Reform because they want to smash up the system.
It still might be a longshot but their best bet might be ditching the populism - which partly damns your selves - and trying to rebrand as an institutionalist alternative to Labour and the Lib Dems with a more right-wing economic bent. Because it's difficult to see how you get your populist 2019 Boris voters back now Reform are a serious rival.
Right wing policies are not 'Reformy' - they are Tory policies. Reducing immigration to the low tens of thousands was a policy that was central to the manifestos of repeated Conservative election victories, and they repeatedly blew it. The same for reducing taxes, a tough approach to law and order, and shrinking the size of the state. The only reason there is 'an insurgency' is because the Tories have promised these policies, repeatedly failed to deliver.
I would also argue that the old consensus in politics is dying - look at the way Starmer and Reeves are now scrambling for growth. Why would you want to get on board that sinking ship?
And that's a problem for the Tories currently - Labour have been terrible but by and large they've continued the policies of the Sunak Government. Net Zero, lax immigration, low growth, high taxes - they have all been accelerated by Labour but they were well underway with the Tories.
Rishi cut immigration more than Boris to be fair to him and never targeted pensioners, small businesses and farmers like Labour have
That is not true - there was already a deeply ingrained very anti-farmer/food production policy in the UK. Subsidies for rewilding, cash rewards for leaving the industry etc. - listen to the farmers on the protests, they will laugh if you tell them the anti-farmer stuff started with SKS. Like everything else, it has just accelerated.
A bit of rewilding was a drop in the ocean compared to the imposition of 20% IHT on agricultural land over £1 million
Only 20%. The rest of us should be so lucky.
What we need are policies to support farming - not perpetuate the landowner tax fiddle.
Crap, the average farmer earns little more than average salary, taxing their farmland too is just going to devastate our food producers
IHT is on death. If a farmer gifts land 7 years or before dying it’s exempt. So let’s not go overboard on this.
However, it’s a bit of a half-baked reform that has created some collateral damage. There are various ways it could be tightened up. One would be a requirement that the landowner has their permanent residence on the farm. The other that their income is from farming, not rental from tenants. And so on.
Anyone in her party who tweets or speaks on camera saying Trump is the new messiah and England should worship him and Musk she should sack immediately. Braverman out etc
Paint Reform as Trump Party (English branch). Make Farage own Trump.
If/when Trump chaos 2.0 wrecks world economy and american civil peace and order she will reap the rewards.
As I say, it's a gamble. But she is running out of options.
That's not a gamble, it's a left wing person's political wet dream. No remotely impartial or informed strategist would suggest something so stupid.
It gets to the basic problem the Tories have though, which can be seen if you look at each party's voters view of Trump and Musk. A majority still saying they'll vote Tory hold profoundly negative views of Trump. Reform is the only party whose voters have a net positive view. That correlates with a form of anti-establishment, anti-institutional thinking that views all mainstream politicians and parties as having failed and radical right-wingers as the answer.
So going down the 'let's be more Reformy' route maybe a dead end - because you can't be the insurgents, you're the Conservative Party and have ruled Britain for two thirds of the last 50 years. And by being more Reform you may lose your remaining institutionalist voters while not gaining much in the way of those who support Reform because they want to smash up the system.
It still might be a longshot but their best bet might be ditching the populism - which partly damns your selves - and trying to rebrand as an institutionalist alternative to Labour and the Lib Dems with a more right-wing economic bent. Because it's difficult to see how you get your populist 2019 Boris voters back now Reform are a serious rival.
Right wing policies are not 'Reformy' - they are Tory policies. Reducing immigration to the low tens of thousands was a policy that was central to the manifestos of repeated Conservative election victories, and they repeatedly blew it. The same for reducing taxes, a tough approach to law and order, and shrinking the size of the state. The only reason there is 'an insurgency' is because the Tories have promised these policies, repeatedly failed to deliver.
I would also argue that the old consensus in politics is dying - look at the way Starmer and Reeves are now scrambling for growth. Why would you want to get on board that sinking ship?
And that's a problem for the Tories currently - Labour have been terrible but by and large they've continued the policies of the Sunak Government. Net Zero, lax immigration, low growth, high taxes - they have all been accelerated by Labour but they were well underway with the Tories.
Rishi cut immigration more than Boris to be fair to him and never targeted pensioners, small businesses and farmers like Labour have
That is not true - there was already a deeply ingrained very anti-farmer/food production policy in the UK. Subsidies for rewilding, cash rewards for leaving the industry etc. - listen to the farmers on the protests, they will laugh if you tell them the anti-farmer stuff started with SKS. Like everything else, it has just accelerated.
A bit of rewilding was a drop in the ocean compared to the imposition of 20% IHT on agricultural land over £1 million
Only 20%. The rest of us should be so lucky.
What we need are policies to support farming - not perpetuate the landowner tax fiddle.
Crap, the average farmer earns little more than average salary, taxing their farmland too is just going to devastate our food producers
You're maliciously conflating farming with landownership. As always.
Anyone in her party who tweets or speaks on camera saying Trump is the new messiah and England should worship him and Musk she should sack immediately. Braverman out etc
Paint Reform as Trump Party (English branch). Make Farage own Trump.
If/when Trump chaos 2.0 wrecks world economy and american civil peace and order she will reap the rewards.
As I say, it's a gamble. But she is running out of options.
That's not a gamble, it's a left wing person's political wet dream. No remotely impartial or informed strategist would suggest something so stupid.
It gets to the basic problem the Tories have though, which can be seen if you look at each party's voters view of Trump and Musk. A majority still saying they'll vote Tory hold profoundly negative views of Trump. Reform is the only party whose voters have a net positive view. That correlates with a form of anti-establishment, anti-institutional thinking that views all mainstream politicians and parties as having failed and radical right-wingers as the answer.
So going down the 'let's be more Reformy' route maybe a dead end - because you can't be the insurgents, you're the Conservative Party and have ruled Britain for two thirds of the last 50 years. And by being more Reform you may lose your remaining institutionalist voters while not gaining much in the way of those who support Reform because they want to smash up the system.
It still might be a longshot but their best bet might be ditching the populism - which partly damns your selves - and trying to rebrand as an institutionalist alternative to Labour and the Lib Dems with a more right-wing economic bent. Because it's difficult to see how you get your populist 2019 Boris voters back now Reform are a serious rival.
Right wing policies are not 'Reformy' - they are Tory policies. Reducing immigration to the low tens of thousands was a policy that was central to the manifestos of repeated Conservative election victories, and they repeatedly blew it. The same for reducing taxes, a tough approach to law and order, and shrinking the size of the state. The only reason there is 'an insurgency' is because the Tories have promised these policies, repeatedly failed to deliver.
I would also argue that the old consensus in politics is dying - look at the way Starmer and Reeves are now scrambling for growth. Why would you want to get on board that sinking ship?
And that's a problem for the Tories currently - Labour have been terrible but by and large they've continued the policies of the Sunak Government. Net Zero, lax immigration, low growth, high taxes - they have all been accelerated by Labour but they were well underway with the Tories.
Rishi cut immigration more than Boris to be fair to him and never targeted pensioners, small businesses and farmers like Labour have
That is not true - there was already a deeply ingrained very anti-farmer/food production policy in the UK. Subsidies for rewilding, cash rewards for leaving the industry etc. - listen to the farmers on the protests, they will laugh if you tell them the anti-farmer stuff started with SKS. Like everything else, it has just accelerated.
A bit of rewilding was a drop in the ocean compared to the imposition of 20% IHT on agricultural land over £1 million
Only 20%. The rest of us should be so lucky.
What we need are policies to support farming - not perpetuate the landowner tax fiddle.
Crap, the average farmer earns little more than average salary, taxing their farmland too is just going to devastate our food producers
You're maliciously conflating farming with landownership. As always.
The imposition of 20% inheritance tax on land previously covered by agricultural property relief of course primarily hits farmers that is why
Anyone in her party who tweets or speaks on camera saying Trump is the new messiah and England should worship him and Musk she should sack immediately. Braverman out etc
Paint Reform as Trump Party (English branch). Make Farage own Trump.
If/when Trump chaos 2.0 wrecks world economy and american civil peace and order she will reap the rewards.
As I say, it's a gamble. But she is running out of options.
That's not a gamble, it's a left wing person's political wet dream. No remotely impartial or informed strategist would suggest something so stupid.
It gets to the basic problem the Tories have though, which can be seen if you look at each party's voters view of Trump and Musk. A majority still saying they'll vote Tory hold profoundly negative views of Trump. Reform is the only party whose voters have a net positive view. That correlates with a form of anti-establishment, anti-institutional thinking that views all mainstream politicians and parties as having failed and radical right-wingers as the answer.
So going down the 'let's be more Reformy' route maybe a dead end - because you can't be the insurgents, you're the Conservative Party and have ruled Britain for two thirds of the last 50 years. And by being more Reform you may lose your remaining institutionalist voters while not gaining much in the way of those who support Reform because they want to smash up the system.
It still might be a longshot but their best bet might be ditching the populism - which partly damns your selves - and trying to rebrand as an institutionalist alternative to Labour and the Lib Dems with a more right-wing economic bent. Because it's difficult to see how you get your populist 2019 Boris voters back now Reform are a serious rival.
Right wing policies are not 'Reformy' - they are Tory policies. Reducing immigration to the low tens of thousands was a policy that was central to the manifestos of repeated Conservative election victories, and they repeatedly blew it. The same for reducing taxes, a tough approach to law and order, and shrinking the size of the state. The only reason there is 'an insurgency' is because the Tories have promised these policies, repeatedly failed to deliver.
I would also argue that the old consensus in politics is dying - look at the way Starmer and Reeves are now scrambling for growth. Why would you want to get on board that sinking ship?
And that's a problem for the Tories currently - Labour have been terrible but by and large they've continued the policies of the Sunak Government. Net Zero, lax immigration, low growth, high taxes - they have all been accelerated by Labour but they were well underway with the Tories.
Rishi cut immigration more than Boris to be fair to him and never targeted pensioners, small businesses and farmers like Labour have
That is not true - there was already a deeply ingrained very anti-farmer/food production policy in the UK. Subsidies for rewilding, cash rewards for leaving the industry etc. - listen to the farmers on the protests, they will laugh if you tell them the anti-farmer stuff started with SKS. Like everything else, it has just accelerated.
A bit of rewilding was a drop in the ocean compared to the imposition of 20% IHT on agricultural land over £1 million
Only 20%. The rest of us should be so lucky.
What we need are policies to support farming - not perpetuate the landowner tax fiddle.
Crap, the average farmer earns little more than average salary, taxing their farmland too is just going to devastate our food producers
IHT is on death. If a farmer gifts land 7 years or before dying it’s exempt. So let’s not go overboard on this.
However, it’s a bit of a half-baked reform that has created some collateral damage. There are various ways it could be tightened up. One would be a requirement that the landowner has their permanent residence on the farm. The other that their income is from farming, not rental from tenants. And so on.
Quite so.
I'd rather see the IHT reforms, and proper support for farming done separately (some perhaps in the way you suggest). Not left as a huge subsidy scheme for tax-minimisers.. If Jeremy Clarkson can come out and admit it on prime TV ...
Anyone in her party who tweets or speaks on camera saying Trump is the new messiah and England should worship him and Musk she should sack immediately. Braverman out etc
Paint Reform as Trump Party (English branch). Make Farage own Trump.
If/when Trump chaos 2.0 wrecks world economy and american civil peace and order she will reap the rewards.
As I say, it's a gamble. But she is running out of options.
That's not a gamble, it's a left wing person's political wet dream. No remotely impartial or informed strategist would suggest something so stupid.
It gets to the basic problem the Tories have though, which can be seen if you look at each party's voters view of Trump and Musk. A majority still saying they'll vote Tory hold profoundly negative views of Trump. Reform is the only party whose voters have a net positive view. That correlates with a form of anti-establishment, anti-institutional thinking that views all mainstream politicians and parties as having failed and radical right-wingers as the answer.
So going down the 'let's be more Reformy' route maybe a dead end - because you can't be the insurgents, you're the Conservative Party and have ruled Britain for two thirds of the last 50 years. And by being more Reform you may lose your remaining institutionalist voters while not gaining much in the way of those who support Reform because they want to smash up the system.
It still might be a longshot but their best bet might be ditching the populism - which partly damns your selves - and trying to rebrand as an institutionalist alternative to Labour and the Lib Dems with a more right-wing economic bent. Because it's difficult to see how you get your populist 2019 Boris voters back now Reform are a serious rival.
Right wing policies are not 'Reformy' - they are Tory policies. Reducing immigration to the low tens of thousands was a policy that was central to the manifestos of repeated Conservative election victories, and they repeatedly blew it. The same for reducing taxes, a tough approach to law and order, and shrinking the size of the state. The only reason there is 'an insurgency' is because the Tories have promised these policies, repeatedly failed to deliver.
I would also argue that the old consensus in politics is dying - look at the way Starmer and Reeves are now scrambling for growth. Why would you want to get on board that sinking ship?
And that's a problem for the Tories currently - Labour have been terrible but by and large they've continued the policies of the Sunak Government. Net Zero, lax immigration, low growth, high taxes - they have all been accelerated by Labour but they were well underway with the Tories.
Rishi cut immigration more than Boris to be fair to him and never targeted pensioners, small businesses and farmers like Labour have
That is not true - there was already a deeply ingrained very anti-farmer/food production policy in the UK. Subsidies for rewilding, cash rewards for leaving the industry etc. - listen to the farmers on the protests, they will laugh if you tell them the anti-farmer stuff started with SKS. Like everything else, it has just accelerated.
A bit of rewilding was a drop in the ocean compared to the imposition of 20% IHT on agricultural land over £1 million
Only 20%. The rest of us should be so lucky.
What we need are policies to support farming - not perpetuate the landowner tax fiddle.
Crap, the average farmer earns little more than average salary, taxing their farmland too is just going to devastate our food producers
You're maliciously conflating farming with landownership. As always.
The imposition of 20% inheritance tax on land previously covered by agricultural property relief of course primarily hits farmers that is why
Comments
Remember even on the Election Maps average new voteshares the Tories still actually GAIN 45 seats on 2024 and remain almost 100 MPs more than Reform and a clear second. FPTP very much benefits the Tories and Labour still more than Reform and the LDs too who would also stay 4 MPs more than Reform
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=23.5&LAB=25.9&LIB=12.5&Reform=24&Green=8.3&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024
I suspect he will, pace Trump, try the tired old schtick of bringing business skills into Government.
I would also argue that the old consensus in politics is dying - look at the way Starmer and Reeves are now scrambling for growth. Why would you want to get on board that sinking ship?
And that's a problem for the Tories currently - Labour have been terrible but by and large they've continued the policies of the Sunak Government. Net Zero, lax immigration, low growth, high taxes - they have all been accelerated by Labour but they were well underway with the Tories.
People are odd and quite idiosyncratic.
For those interested, some newly published research on public attitudes to immigration. Largely confirms everything you'd expect, from attitudinal divides along age and educational lines, to a substantial uptick in support for migration in specified professions.
We need to persuade supermarkets to stop stocking US goods. I don't know which US goods I'll miss most. But I will be in there with the boycott.
This is hardball.
This doesn’t send a great message.
https://x.com/endwokeness/status/1883601678899016168?s=61
Prime Minister becomes first European leader to speak to US president since he was sworn in
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/26/starmer-trump-first-phone-call/ (£££)
Back in my school days the scrum won the ball in either a scrum or a maul, got the ball to the scrum half, the scrum half would feed the fly half/ outside half and along the three quarter line. That is the sort of rugby that led to "that try" for the Babas. When I was at school we would play some schools where a big fat kid would be played at scrum half, not for his pace but for his weight. Today's rugby follows that pattern. Rugby League is more of a spectacle these days.
Association football on the other hand since the seventies has got faster and far more skillful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Leishman
to have a round of gold with Trump at his favourite course and then have Trump made a honorary member.
Trump's business was the Trump brand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_2000_presidential_campaign
Trump is very forgiving of those who brown nose him. He enjoys their public humiliation.
Here's a very rough Sankey diagram of the YouGov poll. The bit in orange is excluded from the headline voting intentions, hence the result:
I’m also wondering whether those who hailed Rwanda as a “safe place” to send UK illegal migrants still hold that view.
Are we saying no one is ever allowed to change their mind or hold a different opinion because of something they put on social media five or ten years ago?
If all some people have to do is trawl back through years of tweets, fine, but, again, so what? Trump’s take on Starmer has probably changed from when he was an opposition candidate to becoming President again.
But I don't think these voters ever returned to Labour. They were Reform's voters in '24, and will continue to be.
--and it's only Saturday of week one."
https://bsky.app/profile/wutangforchildren.bsky.social/post/3lglo6cgges2i
(photo of pavement graffiti in Blue Sky tweet equivalent)
Most refugees are fleeing something bad, but they’re also hoping for a better life and opportunities. Just human nature.
I'm not making a moral judgement about that, just a reasonably logical surmise.
*Viticulture is, of course, not subsidised so we’re free to make our losses however we like.
Heavier, more athletic players > more frequent and harder collisions > more concussions > degenerative brain injury
Though even in very low level school rugby with pisspoor refereeing, playing tighthead I was head butted almost unconscious by the opposition second row.
Despite enjoying running rugby (that we see so infrequently these days), I'm glad my kids have shown no interest in playing. My only worry is the progression of field hockey towards hurling, with the governing body happy to see the ball not just being played at head-height but struck at head-height. Just hope they see sense before there is significant evidence of the danger they've allowed into the game.
Federal Emergency MANAGEMENT agency
3-RED states TOOK $3 BILLION in Federal FEMA funds
TEXAS
LOUISIANA
FLORIDA
Now these states can fund themselves
Higher taxes ~ Oh wait Texas and Florida have ZERO STATE TAXES, now....
https://x.com/MomSkelton/status/1883560669196476513
Will Trump reverse ferret as it becomes known Republican states are the largest beneficiaries of Federal emergency aid?
His family now have refugee status and can finally settle, find a house and job etc.
What we need are policies to support farming - not perpetuate the landowner tax fiddle.
“We would like to apologize unreservedly for any confusion caused by our previous statements and thank President Trump for his kind invitation to give him 94 million pounds to attend his inauguration event.”
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/current-issue
Trump accused FEMA of bungling emergency relief efforts there and said he preferred that states be given federal money to handle disasters themselves.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/head-disaster-relief-agency-fema-reassures-staff-after-trump-criticism-2025-01-26/
The only leaders who aren’t remotely worried seem to be Putin, Modi, Erdogan, Orban, Bibi, Luka and the rest of the merry band of brothers.
To take immigration. They couldn't meet their promises on immigration because they couldn't do while pursuing their other policy goals - like deficit reduction, sound money or lower taxes. The dirty secret in recent years is that even while making hardline promises on immigration, the treasury's figures were predicated on it remaining very high.
People who knew how the immigration system works pointed this out when Cameron made the '10s of 1000s' pledge way back when. It was impossible to do so without leaving the EU and then fundamentally rethinking our economic and social models, plus quite possibly ripping up obligations under treaties that underpin lots of stuff the Tories in theory support.
You'd have to be willing to let lots of universities go bust, vastly increase tuition fees, or provide central government funding - meaning raising taxes or borrowing. You'd have to bolster social care funding so that it became a much more attractive career choice and be willing to tell employers that labour market shortages are tough. And allow staffing shortages in the NHS until we could train more doctors.
Now that's not to say you can't get immigration down to the 10s of 1000s - as they promised - but you have to be willing to make some of those trade-offs, and fundamentally the Tories were and maybe still are, a party that believes in institutions first even while making promises they knew they couldn't keep without making trade offs they were unwilling to make as it would've harmed other goals. They tried to have their populist cake and eat it and came out very sick.
Being more 'Reformy' is that Reform are an insurgent party who either deny such trade-offs exist, or are worth making above all else. They are populists who claimed at the last election you could cut taxes by £90 billion, have new spending commitments of £50 billion and that this could all be paid for with £150 billion, mostly from cutting unspecified 'waste'. All the while cutting net migration to a level economic orthodoxy states would harm the economy, at least in the short run (and having to deal with some of the above issues).
They can promise all that because have a conspiracist theory of the case, that the assumptions and institutions that underpin our government, economic, and social model are wrong and that the only reason are kept to is the malevolence or incompetence of the political class.
So the Tories have a choice - do they remain institutionalist, in which case Reform will always be able to outbid them and voters would be right to mistrust them when they make right-wing populist promises? So will need to get serious and reintergrate with reality.
Or do they buy into the right populist case that institutions are so rotten they need smashing up a la what Trump wants to do in the US?
However, it’s a bit of a half-baked reform that has created some collateral damage. There are various ways it could be tightened up. One would be a requirement that the landowner has their permanent residence on the farm. The other that their income is from farming, not rental from tenants. And so on.
I'd rather see the IHT reforms, and proper support for farming done separately (some perhaps in the way you suggest). Not left as a huge subsidy scheme for tax-minimisers.. If Jeremy Clarkson can come out and admit it on prime TV ... No, it does not. It hits landowners primarily.