Ed Davey, not winning here? – politicalbetting.com

System

Ed Davey, not winning here? – politicalbetting.com

-Perception of control freakery from the leadership over issues like whipping also breeding discontent. Sacking of Christine Jardine "went down like a cup of cold sick”-Lib Dem MP: "If you try and overcontrol things… then you do end up destroying your discipline"

Read the full story here

stodge

FPT - because, as always, there's a new thread.

I argued last evening those who think two party politics is dead have got it wrong.

The parties may end up with different names but ultimately it will resolve down to a binary choice - the big change is the nature of the faultline. For decades, it was economic - one side favoured lower taxes, less spending and regulation, the other saw the State as the provider, supported taxation and spending.

That line is no longer valid or has the priority it once did - the divide is now socio-cultural. If you are socially conservative, there's a party for you (possibly two) whereas if you have a more liberal mindset, there are three or four parties for you.

This has had two impacts - first, social conservatives and liberals who mixed together happily under the same economic programme in the Labour and Conservative parties have now flocked to Reform gutting both parties and leaving them shadows of the coalitions they once were.

The other question is whether there are enough social conservatives under FPTP to give Reform a majority on perhaps 30% of the vote - probably but if the liberally minded vote tactically, probably not.

It is the change in the faultline which has damaged Labour and the Conservatives - the politics of economics no longer matter, the politics of society and culture do.

Gallowgate

@stodge the politics of economics no longer matter because people are spoiled and think that they deserve everything for nothing. It will come crashing down eventually.

stodge

Morning all

I suspect if Ed announced at Conference he was stepping down, Daisy Cooper would get a coronation more or less.

If we're talking about after a 2028 GE where the party slips back to 50-60 seats (as predicted by @wooliedyed), it would be more open. I would like to see Bobby Dean as a possible but I agree Mike Martin is an impressive figure and could well be a serious contender.

This will no doubt be the equivalent of pouring petrol on a perfectly good fire but the 2024 LD intake has plenrty of talent and those who get a second chance could well be very difficult to shift.

wooliedyed

FPT LDs still OK with their 'best pollster' YouGov but one or two dips below 2024 recently with other pollsters. Are they making any headway? I guess thats the question for Davey Doubters

Morning all
YouGov this week

Ref 29 (+2)
Lab 20 (-2)
Con 17 (=)
LD 15 (=)
Grn 10 (-2)

Havent got SNP or Others figure yet

stodge

Gallowgate said:

@stodge the politics of economics no longer matter because people are spoiled and think that they deserve everything for nothing. It will come crashing down eventually.

Perhaps but at the moment the public consciousness is much more about "boats" and "migrants" than it is about the economic challenges in front of us which, if I'm being honest, are so enormous as to a) confound and b) leave anyone trying to consider them reaching for whatever helps.

MattW

This feels like a thin critique, as if the doubters have nothing to hang it on.

Is Davey still doing stunts? I'm sure I would have noticed if he had flown a Hang Glider or Quidditch Broom over my garden.

AFAICS (open to correction) they are trying to make a current complaint about a campaign tactic that stopped 12 months ago.

Malmesbury

Good header

It does seem a bit unfair that Mr Davey is being criticised. After all, he led the part to massive election success and unlike the big two, the Lib Dems seem to be a fairly happy and united party that doesn’t shoot at their feet all day long.

But, he has had an open goal - with both main parties falling apart, in theory he has the opportunity to pick up the social and economic liberals from both.

I would estimate that when Labour or the Conseratives were on 40%, in both cases, 15% of their vote was potential Lib Dems.

So a potential 25% (wild guess) of tribal voters who were potential Lib Dem’s.

With the disintegration of tribal voting, the Lib Dems should have been hoovering them up.

He needs to define LibDem’ism to the population at large. The Orange Book was an example of such a thesis. There are others.

The problem is that it is easy to oppose everything - say yes to all the potential voters. Which is how we end up with “build a zillion houses, but not here” NIMYism.

To take a stand is to take a risk. But without a coherent, unifying vision, the Lib Dems will be the party of 12% for the future.

Malmesbury

FPT

Cicero said:

Malmesbury said:

a

Sandpit said:

Russian army is apparently now commandeering old civilian private aircraft to go looking for Ukranian drones, a soldier with a gun sitting in the back!

https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1967675965875818617

Broken back war - as they lose or use up capabilities, increasing primitive things replace them.

The "primitive things" do not survive very long in the drone wars. The Russian death toll in the last month has accelerated still further. It is horrific the utter contempt that Putin has for human life... on his own side.

The total failure of the Russian "Summer offensive" is now quite clear, and the Ukrainians are taking up new forward positions for the winter which only underlines the Russian defeat. In theatre the Russians are in serious trouble.

The problem is that diplomatically, with China and now India, Russia is scoring more points, and the constant fear of American treachery is also creating European tensions. TBH, the EU should seriously punish Indian participation in Zapad. As for the UK, atm London is just a wholly owned subsidiary of Trumpistan.

The drones are a reaction to the primitive state of the war.

If either side were a fully modern military, slow moving drones with unhardened electronics would be wiped out.

So they would need to be replaced with fast moving “drones” with hardened electronics and navigation, utilising signature reduction (stealth or automated terrain following. Missiles, essentially.

But the lack of high tech *in volume* on both sides opened a window (ha!). So Russia is bombing Ukraine with Iranian drones which are little more than large remote control aircraft. And Russia is hunting drones pretty much manually.

Phil

stodge said:

FPT - because, as always, there's a new thread.

I argued last evening those who think two party politics is dead have got it wrong.

The parties may end up with different names but ultimately it will resolve down to a binary choice - the big change is the nature of the faultline. For decades, it was economic - one side favoured lower taxes, less spending and regulation, the other saw the State as the provider, supported taxation and spending.

That line is no longer valid or has the priority it once did - the divide is now socio-cultural. If you are socially conservative, there's a party for you (possibly two) whereas if you have a more liberal mindset, there are three or four parties for you.

This has had two impacts - first, social conservatives and liberals who mixed together happily under the same economic programme in the Labour and Conservative parties have now flocked to Reform gutting both parties and leaving them shadows of the coalitions they once were.

The other question is whether there are enough social conservatives under FPTP to give Reform a majority on perhaps 30% of the vote - probably but if the liberally minded vote tactically, probably not.

It is the change in the faultline which has damaged Labour and the Conservatives - the politics of economics no longer matter, the politics of society and culture do.

Yes, the drive to capture as many voters as possible under FPTP eventually forces 2 party politics on the electorate & those parties will split roughly along the major axis in the electorate’s political leanings - the famous left/right split. Some lesser policies will be up for grabs & may split differently between the major parties than in the past, but the major fault lines will remain pretty much the same.

Nigelb

stodge said:

FPT - because, as always, there's a new thread.

I argued last evening those who think two party politics is dead have got it wrong.

The parties may end up with different names but ultimately it will resolve down to a binary choice - the big change is the nature of the faultline. For decades, it was economic - one side favoured lower taxes, less spending and regulation, the other saw the State as the provider, supported taxation and spending.

That line is no longer valid or has the priority it once did - the divide is now socio-cultural. If you are socially conservative, there's a party for you (possibly two) whereas if you have a more liberal mindset, there are three or four parties for you.

This has had two impacts - first, social conservatives and liberals who mixed together happily under the same economic programme in the Labour and Conservative parties have now flocked to Reform gutting both parties and leaving them shadows of the coalitions they once were.

The other question is whether there are enough social conservatives under FPTP to give Reform a majority on perhaps 30% of the vote - probably but if the liberally minded vote tactically, probably not.

It is the change in the faultline which has damaged Labour and the Conservatives - the politics of economics no longer matter, the politics of society and culture do.

There's some merit it that analysis, but the economic argument is not going to go away. Indeed it's quite likely to return even more sharply, whoever succeeds Starmer.

You're right that the cultural divide has seen our politics tending towards the malign US template, but economic realities are likely to reassert themselves fairly soon.

Oh lord, I agree with malc !

RochdalePioneers

Morning all! Look, I like Sir Ed Nice, but he is too nice. We LibDems aren't cutting through because in a time of ragebait media we are trying to politely cough and offer reason.

My colleagues up here are doing a traditional campaign for Holyrood - door knocking and fetes. A few leaflets which aren't punchy enough. And they will struggle to be heard.

I deliberately kept myself off the regional list so that I can do my own thing. As a PPC in a seat where we took 3% of the vote I am going to be loud and outspoken in ways that will alarm the party CEO who sits in our biweekly campaign meetings. I need to be loud and outspoken or we get 3%.

And that's to say nothing of my other social media. You all know about my Tesla channel. I also cohost one called Emergency Podcast (which was being swamped by Tommeh Two-Names supporters yesterday) which primarily clips the show into reels for YT / X / TT. On this I have said things like "Liz Truss was Right", "We need to get shagging and have more babies" and shortly "We need a new EU referendum" (hat-tip to @leon)

So that is the challenge for the party - say stuff. The country is broken at a fundamental level and only reform are talking about it. We Liberals prompted massive reforms a century ago and we can do it again. But we need to not shy away from today's political battle ground which is social media.

Now if you will excuse me for 15 minutes I need to record for X and tear Muskybaby apart for the hard of thinking. I'll be back.

Stuartinromford

Malmesbury said:

Good header

It does seem a bit unfair that Mr Davey is being criticised. After all, he led the part to massive election success and unlike the big two, the Lib Dems seem to be a fairly happy and united party that doesn’t shoot at their feet all day long.

But, he has had an open goal - with both main parties falling apart, in theory he has the opportunity to pick up the social and economic liberals from both.

I would estimate that when Labour or the Conseratives were on 40%, in both cases, 15% of their vote was potential Lib Dems.

So a potential 25% (wild guess) of tribal voters who were potential Lib Dem’s.

With the disintegration of tribal voting, the Lib Dems should have been hoovering them up.

He needs to define LibDem’ism to the population at large. The Orange Book was an example of such a thesis. There are others.

The problem is that it is easy to oppose everything - say yes to all the potential voters. Which is how we end up with “build a zillion houses, but not here” NIMYism.

To take a stand is to take a risk. But without a coherent, unifying vision, the Lib Dems will be the party of 12% for the future.

Though I am sure that the Lib Dems would reply that percentage share is vanity, seats are sanity. Becoming the party of nice England/places with a Gail's worked brilliantly in 2024. I reckon there is a fair bit more juice to squeeze from that orange- maybe just about enough to overtake the Conservatives on straight swing? (Basically, if I were a Conservative MP who won C40LD30Lab20 last time, I would be planning my next job in cyber right now.)

But that's still a long way from government, so what do they add to that for the next group of seats, without sacrificing coherence?

stodge

wooliedyed said:

FPT LDs still OK with their 'best pollster' YouGov but one or two dips below 2024 recently with other pollsters. Are they making any headway? I guess thats the question for Davey Doubters

Morning all
YouGov this week

Ref 29 (+2)
Lab 20 (-2)
Con 17 (=)
LD 15 (=)
Grn 10 (-2)

Havent got SNP or Others figure yet

As an LD supporter, I'd like to see the party get more attention in the media but the world has never worked that way. It didn't work that way in the 1980s when the Alliance was regularly polling 30% or more.

The LDs don't have many friends in the print media like the Conservatives or Labour and they don't have a pet tv channel like Reform. Such coverage as they get tends to be on niche or where, as in the Sky immigration debate, they are required to be included.

It's not a question of moaning about it - it's the facts of life.

What the LDs do (and do well) is the work on the ground - the local by election performances in areas of strength continue to impress - solid gain in Bournemouth last week, good results in Surrey but whereas Reform are coasting along and can get votes anywhere with no local record and often low levels of activity, other parties (including Labour and the Conservatives) have to put in the hard yards knocking on doors doing the local work.

The party has succeeded when it has a simple and easily explained USP - opposition to the Iraq War being a good example. In a crowded field, staking out unique and popular positions isn't easy - the LDs could stand up and say they supported open door immigration but I suspect that wouldn't be wise in the current climate.

It will get tougher for Reform and we'll see if they are a genuinely new mass political movement or simply a lot of hot air. Their record in the councils they now control will be (quite rightly) scrutinised and it may be the results won't be that encouraging.

Omnium

Malmesbury said:

Good header

It does seem a bit unfair that Mr Davey is being criticised. After all, he led the part to massive election success and unlike the big two, the Lib Dems seem to be a fairly happy and united party that doesn’t shoot at their feet all day long.

But, he has had an open goal - with both main parties falling apart, in theory he has the opportunity to pick up the social and economic liberals from both.

I would estimate that when Labour or the Conseratives were on 40%, in both cases, 15% of their vote was potential Lib Dems.

So a potential 25% (wild guess) of tribal voters who were potential Lib Dem’s.

With the disintegration of tribal voting, the Lib Dems should have been hoovering them up.

He needs to define LibDem’ism to the population at large. The Orange Book was an example of such a thesis. There are others.

The problem is that it is easy to oppose everything - say yes to all the potential voters. Which is how we end up with “build a zillion houses, but not here” NIMYism.

To take a stand is to take a risk. But without a coherent, unifying vision, the Lib Dems will be the party of 12% for the future.

Whilst the GE did represent electoral success I think the LDs settled for far less than they might have achieved then. They seem to be settling for even less now.

Sandpit

Phil said:

stodge said:

FPT - because, as always, there's a new thread.

I argued last evening those who think two party politics is dead have got it wrong.

The parties may end up with different names but ultimately it will resolve down to a binary choice - the big change is the nature of the faultline. For decades, it was economic - one side favoured lower taxes, less spending and regulation, the other saw the State as the provider, supported taxation and spending.

That line is no longer valid or has the priority it once did - the divide is now socio-cultural. If you are socially conservative, there's a party for you (possibly two) whereas if you have a more liberal mindset, there are three or four parties for you.

This has had two impacts - first, social conservatives and liberals who mixed together happily under the same economic programme in the Labour and Conservative parties have now flocked to Reform gutting both parties and leaving them shadows of the coalitions they once were.

The other question is whether there are enough social conservatives under FPTP to give Reform a majority on perhaps 30% of the vote - probably but if the liberally minded vote tactically, probably not.

It is the change in the faultline which has damaged Labour and the Conservatives - the politics of economics no longer matter, the politics of society and culture do.

Yes, the drive to capture as many voters as possible under FPTP eventually forces 2 party politics on the electorate & those parties will split roughly along the major axis in the electorate’s political leanings - the famous left/right split. Some lesser policies will be up for grabs & may split differently between the major parties than in the past, but the major fault lines will remain pretty much the same.

The interesting split to watch is the realignment between cultural and economic politics though.

The last US election, for example, was fought much more on cultural lines than in the past, with the economic issues being secondary to many voters.

AnneJGP

If the zeitgeist has really become about indigenous people seeking their roots, it would put the party most keen on Europeanising, even globalising, at a bit of a disadvantage.

MarqueeMark

I see the first "one in, none out" flight has taken off.

File under #GiftForFarage

IanB2

Off topic, for tech experts only: How come the BBC iPlayer app is fooled into thinking I am in the UK, rather than enjoying a sunny morning in the Italian Alps, but the Channel 4 app is not?

MarqueeMark

Sandpit said:

Phil said:

stodge said:

FPT - because, as always, there's a new thread.

I argued last evening those who think two party politics is dead have got it wrong.

The parties may end up with different names but ultimately it will resolve down to a binary choice - the big change is the nature of the faultline. For decades, it was economic - one side favoured lower taxes, less spending and regulation, the other saw the State as the provider, supported taxation and spending.

That line is no longer valid or has the priority it once did - the divide is now socio-cultural. If you are socially conservative, there's a party for you (possibly two) whereas if you have a more liberal mindset, there are three or four parties for you.

This has had two impacts - first, social conservatives and liberals who mixed together happily under the same economic programme in the Labour and Conservative parties have now flocked to Reform gutting both parties and leaving them shadows of the coalitions they once were.

The other question is whether there are enough social conservatives under FPTP to give Reform a majority on perhaps 30% of the vote - probably but if the liberally minded vote tactically, probably not.

It is the change in the faultline which has damaged Labour and the Conservatives - the politics of economics no longer matter, the politics of society and culture do.

Yes, the drive to capture as many voters as possible under FPTP eventually forces 2 party politics on the electorate & those parties will split roughly along the major axis in the electorate’s political leanings - the famous left/right split. Some lesser policies will be up for grabs & may split differently between the major parties than in the past, but the major fault lines will remain pretty much the same.

The interesting split to watch is the realignment between cultural and economic politics though.

The last US election, for example, was fought much more on cultural lines than in the past, with the economic issues being secondary to many voters.

Strongly disagree. Trump said he would fix inflation from Day One. If there was one word that summed up the campaign, it would be "groceries".

And why Trump's numbers are sliding.

Sandpit

FPT:

China appears to be less than happy at the closing of the rail line between Belarus and Poland, by the Polish.

It appears to be a key part of the link to getting a lot of cheap Chinese crap into Europe over land, a £25bn industry 90% of which runs through Poland. This trade is really important to the Chinese, but considerably less so to the Europeans.

It’s not the high-value stuff such as iPhones (which come in by plane) but the tens of thousands of containers of disposable clothes and cheap electronics that are non-essential.

https://x.com/vtchakarova/status/1967659648254673118

Serious economic pressure on China and India needs to keep being applied, as does pressure on those in Europe still indirectly buying Russian O&G products.

ydoethur

MarqueeMark said:

I see the first "one in, none out" flight has taken off.

File under #GiftForFarage

It really is a poor man's version of Rwanda.

IanB2

stodge said:

FPT - because, as always, there's a new thread.

I argued last evening those who think two party politics is dead have got it wrong.

The parties may end up with different names but ultimately it will resolve down to a binary choice - the big change is the nature of the faultline. For decades, it was economic - one side favoured lower taxes, less spending and regulation, the other saw the State as the provider, supported taxation and spending.

That line is no longer valid or has the priority it once did - the divide is now socio-cultural. If you are socially conservative, there's a party for you (possibly two) whereas if you have a more liberal mindset, there are three or four parties for you.

This has had two impacts - first, social conservatives and liberals who mixed together happily under the same economic programme in the Labour and Conservative parties have now flocked to Reform gutting both parties and leaving them shadows of the coalitions they once were.

The other question is whether there are enough social conservatives under FPTP to give Reform a majority on perhaps 30% of the vote - probably but if the liberally minded vote tactically, probably not.

It is the change in the faultline which has damaged Labour and the Conservatives - the politics of economics no longer matter, the politics of society and culture do.

The problem is how, over what timescale, and with what trauma, the realignment happens. Tribal party loyalties to the brand run deep. It would be less traumatic for the major parties to embrace electoral reform.

MarqueeMark

ydoethur said:

MarqueeMark said:

I see the first "one in, none out" flight has taken off.

File under #GiftForFarage

It really is a poor man's version of Rwanda.

France? Yep...

Nigelb

Malmesbury said:

FPT

Cicero said:

Malmesbury said:

a

Sandpit said:

Russian army is apparently now commandeering old civilian private aircraft to go looking for Ukranian drones, a soldier with a gun sitting in the back!

https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1967675965875818617

Broken back war - as they lose or use up capabilities, increasing primitive things replace them.

The "primitive things" do not survive very long in the drone wars. The Russian death toll in the last month has accelerated still further. It is horrific the utter contempt that Putin has for human life... on his own side.

The total failure of the Russian "Summer offensive" is now quite clear, and the Ukrainians are taking up new forward positions for the winter which only underlines the Russian defeat. In theatre the Russians are in serious trouble.

The problem is that diplomatically, with China and now India, Russia is scoring more points, and the constant fear of American treachery is also creating European tensions. TBH, the EU should seriously punish Indian participation in Zapad. As for the UK, atm London is just a wholly owned subsidiary of Trumpistan.

The drones are a reaction to the primitive state of the war.

If either side were a fully modern military, slow moving drones with unhardened electronics would be wiped out.

So they would need to be replaced with fast moving “drones” with hardened electronics and navigation, utilising signature reduction (stealth or automated terrain following. Missiles, essentially...

I not convinced that's the case.
Even the relatively primitive Russian drones, in large numbers clearly present a far from fully solved problem for western military technology.
And their guidance is already somewhat hardened against countermeasures.

In any event, there's a big effort on both sides to develop small, cheap turbojets and better stealth.

Nothing much in the west's current arsenal provides a full, cost effective solution.
We've got some, and are getting more decent kit for point defence, but there's nothing yet that really addresses a large scale country wide drone attack.

Gallowgate

stodge said:

Gallowgate said:

@stodge the politics of economics no longer matter because people are spoiled and think that they deserve everything for nothing. It will come crashing down eventually.

Perhaps but at the moment the public consciousness is much more about "boats" and "migrants" than it is about the economic challenges in front of us which, if I'm being honest, are so enormous as to a) confound and b) leave anyone trying to consider them reaching for whatever helps.

Yes because people are under the misguided impression that stopping the boats is the remedy to all their perceived problems in a way that requires no sacrifice from their perspective as nobody is willing to sacrifice anything.

ydoethur

MarqueeMark said:

ydoethur said:

MarqueeMark said:

I see the first "one in, none out" flight has taken off.

File under #GiftForFarage

It really is a poor man's version of Rwanda.

France? Yep...

What have you done to upset Mr Eagles if you're trying to curry favour with him?

wooliedyed

How 2028/9 might shape up for the LDs is where some 'we never get it!' regional polling would be very useful. Are they holding on to the 'get the tories out' votes? If yes they are making almost no headway at all anywhere else. If no then their much better vote efficiency from 2024 is slipping.
Im more bearish on Lib Dems 2028 prospects generally than many. Having said that, local election results do support the former theory more than the latter, but with a few 'chinks in the armour' here and there

Nigelb

RochdalePioneers said:

Morning all! Look, I like Sir Ed Nice, but he is too nice. We LibDems aren't cutting through because in a time of ragebait media we are trying to politely cough and offer reason.

My colleagues up here are doing a traditional campaign for Holyrood - door knocking and fetes. A few leaflets which aren't punchy enough. And they will struggle to be heard.

I deliberately kept myself off the regional list so that I can do my own thing. As a PPC in a seat where we took 3% of the vote I am going to be loud and outspoken in ways that will alarm the party CEO who sits in our biweekly campaign meetings. I need to be loud and outspoken or we get 3%.

And that's to say nothing of my other social media. You all know about my Tesla channel. I also cohost one called Emergency Podcast (which was being swamped by Tommeh Two-Names supporters yesterday) which primarily clips the show into reels for YT / X / TT. On this I have said things like "Liz Truss was Right", "We need to get shagging and have more babies" and shortly "We need a new EU referendum" (hat-tip to @leon)

So that is the challenge for the party - say stuff. The country is broken at a fundamental level and only reform are talking about it. We Liberals prompted massive reforms a century ago and we can do it again. But we need to not shy away from today's political battle ground which is social media.

Now if you will excuse me for 15 minutes I need to record for X and tear Muskybaby apart for the hard of thinking. I'll be back.

I approve this message (with reservations about Liz Truss..).

Sandpit

MarqueeMark said:

Sandpit said:

Phil said:

stodge said:

FPT - because, as always, there's a new thread.

I argued last evening those who think two party politics is dead have got it wrong.

The parties may end up with different names but ultimately it will resolve down to a binary choice - the big change is the nature of the faultline. For decades, it was economic - one side favoured lower taxes, less spending and regulation, the other saw the State as the provider, supported taxation and spending.

That line is no longer valid or has the priority it once did - the divide is now socio-cultural. If you are socially conservative, there's a party for you (possibly two) whereas if you have a more liberal mindset, there are three or four parties for you.

This has had two impacts - first, social conservatives and liberals who mixed together happily under the same economic programme in the Labour and Conservative parties have now flocked to Reform gutting both parties and leaving them shadows of the coalitions they once were.

The other question is whether there are enough social conservatives under FPTP to give Reform a majority on perhaps 30% of the vote - probably but if the liberally minded vote tactically, probably not.

It is the change in the faultline which has damaged Labour and the Conservatives - the politics of economics no longer matter, the politics of society and culture do.

Yes, the drive to capture as many voters as possible under FPTP eventually forces 2 party politics on the electorate & those parties will split roughly along the major axis in the electorate’s political leanings - the famous left/right split. Some lesser policies will be up for grabs & may split differently between the major parties than in the past, but the major fault lines will remain pretty much the same.

The interesting split to watch is the realignment between cultural and economic politics though.

The last US election, for example, was fought much more on cultural lines than in the past, with the economic issues being secondary to many voters.

Strongly disagree. Trump said he would fix inflation from Day One. If there was one word that summed up the campaign, it would be "groceries".

And why Trump's numbers are sliding.

Inflation was definitely an election issue, but it’s arguable that illegal immigration was a larger one.

MarqueeMark

Sandpit said:

MarqueeMark said:

Sandpit said:

Phil said:

stodge said:

FPT - because, as always, there's a new thread.

I argued last evening those who think two party politics is dead have got it wrong.

The parties may end up with different names but ultimately it will resolve down to a binary choice - the big change is the nature of the faultline. For decades, it was economic - one side favoured lower taxes, less spending and regulation, the other saw the State as the provider, supported taxation and spending.

That line is no longer valid or has the priority it once did - the divide is now socio-cultural. If you are socially conservative, there's a party for you (possibly two) whereas if you have a more liberal mindset, there are three or four parties for you.

This has had two impacts - first, social conservatives and liberals who mixed together happily under the same economic programme in the Labour and Conservative parties have now flocked to Reform gutting both parties and leaving them shadows of the coalitions they once were.

The other question is whether there are enough social conservatives under FPTP to give Reform a majority on perhaps 30% of the vote - probably but if the liberally minded vote tactically, probably not.

It is the change in the faultline which has damaged Labour and the Conservatives - the politics of economics no longer matter, the politics of society and culture do.

Yes, the drive to capture as many voters as possible under FPTP eventually forces 2 party politics on the electorate & those parties will split roughly along the major axis in the electorate’s political leanings - the famous left/right split. Some lesser policies will be up for grabs & may split differently between the major parties than in the past, but the major fault lines will remain pretty much the same.

The interesting split to watch is the realignment between cultural and economic politics though.

The last US election, for example, was fought much more on cultural lines than in the past, with the economic issues being secondary to many voters.

Strongly disagree. Trump said he would fix inflation from Day One. If there was one word that summed up the campaign, it would be "groceries".

And why Trump's numbers are sliding.

Inflation was definitely an election issue, but it’s arguable that illegal immigration was a larger one.

It really wasn't...

Stuartinromford

Sandpit said:

Phil said:

stodge said:

FPT - because, as always, there's a new thread.

I argued last evening those who think two party politics is dead have got it wrong.

The parties may end up with different names but ultimately it will resolve down to a binary choice - the big change is the nature of the faultline. For decades, it was economic - one side favoured lower taxes, less spending and regulation, the other saw the State as the provider, supported taxation and spending.

That line is no longer valid or has the priority it once did - the divide is now socio-cultural. If you are socially conservative, there's a party for you (possibly two) whereas if you have a more liberal mindset, there are three or four parties for you.

This has had two impacts - first, social conservatives and liberals who mixed together happily under the same economic programme in the Labour and Conservative parties have now flocked to Reform gutting both parties and leaving them shadows of the coalitions they once were.

The other question is whether there are enough social conservatives under FPTP to give Reform a majority on perhaps 30% of the vote - probably but if the liberally minded vote tactically, probably not.

It is the change in the faultline which has damaged Labour and the Conservatives - the politics of economics no longer matter, the politics of society and culture do.

Yes, the drive to capture as many voters as possible under FPTP eventually forces 2 party politics on the electorate & those parties will split roughly along the major axis in the electorate’s political leanings - the famous left/right split. Some lesser policies will be up for grabs & may split differently between the major parties than in the past, but the major fault lines will remain pretty much the same.

The interesting split to watch is the realignment between cultural and economic politics though.

The last US election, for example, was fought much more on cultural lines than in the past, with the economic issues being secondary to many voters.

If you belive the Heirachy of Needs, that would imply that the economic question is broadly solved. Once we have the means to live a good life sorted, then the debate moves on to the cultural question of what that looks like. Which is sort of consistent with Reform as a party of older homeowners; a large slice of the old Conservative vote and smaller (but visible) Red Wall old Labour/Boris/Reform vote. (Remember that the original Red Wall theory was that there were voters who culturally and demographically ought to have been Conservative-leaning, who would have voted Conservative had they ever moved south. But they didn't, so they didn't.) People who don't have financial worries in the main, so they fret about other things instead.

The catch is that the economic question has been "solved" by continuing to borrow lots of money and use up resources in a way that isn't sustainable. Which is an answer of sorts, but not a good one.

stodge

Stuartinromford said:

Malmesbury said:

Good header

It does seem a bit unfair that Mr Davey is being criticised. After all, he led the part to massive election success and unlike the big two, the Lib Dems seem to be a fairly happy and united party that doesn’t shoot at their feet all day long.

But, he has had an open goal - with both main parties falling apart, in theory he has the opportunity to pick up the social and economic liberals from both.

I would estimate that when Labour or the Conseratives were on 40%, in both cases, 15% of their vote was potential Lib Dems.

So a potential 25% (wild guess) of tribal voters who were potential Lib Dem’s.

With the disintegration of tribal voting, the Lib Dems should have been hoovering them up.

He needs to define LibDem’ism to the population at large. The Orange Book was an example of such a thesis. There are others.

The problem is that it is easy to oppose everything - say yes to all the potential voters. Which is how we end up with “build a zillion houses, but not here” NIMYism.

To take a stand is to take a risk. But without a coherent, unifying vision, the Lib Dems will be the party of 12% for the future.

Though I am sure that the Lib Dems would reply that percentage share is vanity, seats are sanity. Becoming the party of nice England/places with a Gail's worked brilliantly in 2024. I reckon there is a fair bit more juice to squeeze from that orange- maybe just about enough to overtake the Conservatives on straight swing? (Basically, if I were a Conservative MP who won C40LD30Lab20 last time, I would be planning my next job in cyber right now.)

But that's still a long way from government, so what do they add to that for the next group of seats, without sacrificing coherence?

The problem is what it always has been.

There are islands of strength for the party surrounded by seas of weakness. Look at London, we have the south west corner (Richmond, Kingston and Sutton) which as about two thirds of all the LD councillors in London. After that, Merton and a few small groups elsewhere but many Boroughs have no LD councillors at all.

The Alliance had the same problem as Reform when it started - apart from areas of traditional Liberal strength and one of two ex-Labour MPs with a personal vote, it was polling 15-20% everywhere and winning nothing.

Apart from the 72 seats currently seat and another 20 which could be won on a good day, the LDs are nowhere. The 255th target, the seat needed to win a majority, is Doncaster Central. In July 2024, the party polled 3.5% in the seat - yes, it could be won on a swing of 21.5% from Labour. The 321st target for Reform is Birmingham Yardley where they polled 14% and need a 15.3% swing to win.

The islands can and hopefully will hold if and when the tide rolls back in and while no one will talk about it publicly now (why should they?), the big question is Government formation after the next election. Many people assume the Conservatives would willingly support a minority Reform Government - I'm much less convinced.

boulay

MarqueeMark said:

I see the first "one in, none out" flight has taken off.

File under #GiftForFarage

This article nicely brings together the issue of Starmer attacking the Tories about delivery on Rwanda and party infighting. You read it today and it is just amusing due to the absolutely bs and lightweight reality behind the arrogant attacks he made.

I did like this line in light of what’s going on in Labour right now:

“ At a press conference in Silverstone marking four years since Labour were defeated in the 2019 election, Starmer said the UK was now stuck in the Conservative party's "psychodrama".

"While they're swanning around self importantly, with their factions and their 'star chambers' – fighting like rats in a sack – there's a country out here that isn't being governed," Starmer said. ”

https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/tory-infighting-rwanda-plan-gimmick-keir-starmer-speech

This was fun too:

“ But in a brutal swipe, Mr Starmer replied: "In 2008 I was the Director of Public Prosecutions putting terrorists and murderers in jail. He was making millions betting the misery of working people during the financial crisis."

He added: "We have seen this story time and time again with this lot, party first, country second. Safely ensconced in Westminster they get down to the real business of fighting each other to death. The country is forced to endure their division and chaos, the longest episode of Eastenders ever put to film."

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-looks-furiously-keir-31955515

Plenty of examples of his pompous crap from before the election.

IanB2

Stuartinromford said:

Malmesbury said:

Good header

It does seem a bit unfair that Mr Davey is being criticised. After all, he led the part to massive election success and unlike the big two, the Lib Dems seem to be a fairly happy and united party that doesn’t shoot at their feet all day long.

But, he has had an open goal - with both main parties falling apart, in theory he has the opportunity to pick up the social and economic liberals from both.

I would estimate that when Labour or the Conseratives were on 40%, in both cases, 15% of their vote was potential Lib Dems.

So a potential 25% (wild guess) of tribal voters who were potential Lib Dem’s.

With the disintegration of tribal voting, the Lib Dems should have been hoovering them up.

He needs to define LibDem’ism to the population at large. The Orange Book was an example of such a thesis. There are others.

The problem is that it is easy to oppose everything - say yes to all the potential voters. Which is how we end up with “build a zillion houses, but not here” NIMYism.

To take a stand is to take a risk. But without a coherent, unifying vision, the Lib Dems will be the party of 12% for the future.

Though I am sure that the Lib Dems would reply that percentage share is vanity, seats are sanity. Becoming the party of nice England/places with a Gail's worked brilliantly in 2024. I reckon there is a fair bit more juice to squeeze from that orange- maybe just about enough to overtake the Conservatives on straight swing? (Basically, if I were a Conservative MP who won C40LD30Lab20 last time, I would be planning my next job in cyber right now.)

But that's still a long way from government, so what do they add to that for the next group of seats, without sacrificing coherence?

British voters typically vote against stuff, rather than for, and are inherently sceptical of any positive idealism that might be on offer. Historically a solid proportion of the population consistently voted against the nasty Tories and another solid proportion voted against foolish damaging Labour, with enough in the middle willing to switch to vote against whoever is currently in power to create some churn.

To do significantly better, it follows that the LibDems need to corner the “against Reform” vote AND that Reform needs to be seen as significantly dangerous/incompetent/loony/actually likely to win, by a decent slice of the population. Both are some way from being fulfilled right now, ISTM.

MarqueeMark

On topic, the Tories will come out of the next election with more seats than they had.

The LibDems will come ut of the next election with less seats than they had. Voting LibDems for Westminster might seem like a good idea in the abstract, but then the voters see they get in the way of government. 2029 to be a 2015 Redux.

Leon

wooliedyed said:

FPT LDs still OK with their 'best pollster' YouGov but one or two dips below 2024 recently with other pollsters. Are they making any headway? I guess thats the question for Davey Doubters

Morning all
YouGov this week

Ref 29 (+2)
Lab 20 (-2)
Con 17 (=)
LD 15 (=)
Grn 10 (-2)

Havent got SNP or Others figure yet

That’s a grim poll for Labour. YouGov are generally their friendliest pollster IIRC

MarqueeMark

ydoethur said:

MarqueeMark said:

ydoethur said:

MarqueeMark said:

I see the first "one in, none out" flight has taken off.

File under #GiftForFarage

It really is a poor man's version of Rwanda.

France? Yep...

What have you done to upset Mr Eagles if you're trying to curry favour with him?

We speak with one voice on this issue. Always have.

Does he make a good curry?

Malmesbury

Omnium said:

Malmesbury said:

Good header

It does seem a bit unfair that Mr Davey is being criticised. After all, he led the part to massive election success and unlike the big two, the Lib Dems seem to be a fairly happy and united party that doesn’t shoot at their feet all day long.

But, he has had an open goal - with both main parties falling apart, in theory he has the opportunity to pick up the social and economic liberals from both.

I would estimate that when Labour or the Conseratives were on 40%, in both cases, 15% of their vote was potential Lib Dems.

So a potential 25% (wild guess) of tribal voters who were potential Lib Dem’s.

With the disintegration of tribal voting, the Lib Dems should have been hoovering them up.

He needs to define LibDem’ism to the population at large. The Orange Book was an example of such a thesis. There are others.

The problem is that it is easy to oppose everything - say yes to all the potential voters. Which is how we end up with “build a zillion houses, but not here” NIMYism.

To take a stand is to take a risk. But without a coherent, unifying vision, the Lib Dems will be the party of 12% for the future.

Whilst the GE did represent electoral success I think the LDs settled for far less than they might have achieved then. They seem to be settling for even less now.

Hence the discontent.

In theory, Davey should have got the moderates from both main parties and be looking at 30%+ now.

Nigelb

.

Gallowgate said:

stodge said:

Gallowgate said:

@stodge the politics of economics no longer matter because people are spoiled and think that they deserve everything for nothing. It will come crashing down eventually.

Perhaps but at the moment the public consciousness is much more about "boats" and "migrants" than it is about the economic challenges in front of us which, if I'm being honest, are so enormous as to a) confound and b) leave anyone trying to consider them reaching for whatever helps.

Yes because people are under the misguided impression that stopping the boats is the remedy to all their perceived problems in a way that requires no sacrifice from their perspective as nobody is willing to sacrifice anything.

They are not going to be disabused of that idea unless and until the boats are stopped, though.

malcolmg

Nigelb said:

stodge said:

FPT - because, as always, there's a new thread.

I argued last evening those who think two party politics is dead have got it wrong.

The parties may end up with different names but ultimately it will resolve down to a binary choice - the big change is the nature of the faultline. For decades, it was economic - one side favoured lower taxes, less spending and regulation, the other saw the State as the provider, supported taxation and spending.

That line is no longer valid or has the priority it once did - the divide is now socio-cultural. If you are socially conservative, there's a party for you (possibly two) whereas if you have a more liberal mindset, there are three or four parties for you.

This has had two impacts - first, social conservatives and liberals who mixed together happily under the same economic programme in the Labour and Conservative parties have now flocked to Reform gutting both parties and leaving them shadows of the coalitions they once were.

The other question is whether there are enough social conservatives under FPTP to give Reform a majority on perhaps 30% of the vote - probably but if the liberally minded vote tactically, probably not.

It is the change in the faultline which has damaged Labour and the Conservatives - the politics of economics no longer matter, the politics of society and culture do.

There's some merit it that analysis, but the economic argument is not going to go away. Indeed it's quite likely to return even more sharply, whoever succeeds Starmer.

You're right that the cultural divide has seen our politics tending towards the malign US template, but economic realities are likely to reassert themselves fairly soon.

Oh lord, I agree with malc !

You are heading to the light Nigel.

Nigelb

MarqueeMark said:

Sandpit said:

MarqueeMark said:

Sandpit said:

Phil said:

stodge said:

FPT - because, as always, there's a new thread.

I argued last evening those who think two party politics is dead have got it wrong.

The parties may end up with different names but ultimately it will resolve down to a binary choice - the big change is the nature of the faultline. For decades, it was economic - one side favoured lower taxes, less spending and regulation, the other saw the State as the provider, supported taxation and spending.

That line is no longer valid or has the priority it once did - the divide is now socio-cultural. If you are socially conservative, there's a party for you (possibly two) whereas if you have a more liberal mindset, there are three or four parties for you.

This has had two impacts - first, social conservatives and liberals who mixed together happily under the same economic programme in the Labour and Conservative parties have now flocked to Reform gutting both parties and leaving them shadows of the coalitions they once were.

The other question is whether there are enough social conservatives under FPTP to give Reform a majority on perhaps 30% of the vote - probably but if the liberally minded vote tactically, probably not.

It is the change in the faultline which has damaged Labour and the Conservatives - the politics of economics no longer matter, the politics of society and culture do.

Yes, the drive to capture as many voters as possible under FPTP eventually forces 2 party politics on the electorate & those parties will split roughly along the major axis in the electorate’s political leanings - the famous left/right split. Some lesser policies will be up for grabs & may split differently between the major parties than in the past, but the major fault lines will remain pretty much the same.

The interesting split to watch is the realignment between cultural and economic politics though.

The last US election, for example, was fought much more on cultural lines than in the past, with the economic issues being secondary to many voters.

Strongly disagree. Trump said he would fix inflation from Day One. If there was one word that summed up the campaign, it would be "groceries".

And why Trump's numbers are sliding.

Inflation was definitely an election issue, but it’s arguable that illegal immigration was a larger one.

It really wasn't...

It was, though, for a significant percentage of the electorate who often don't even vote.
And that might well have decided the election.

Gallowgate

Nigelb said:

.

Gallowgate said:

stodge said:

Gallowgate said:

@stodge the politics of economics no longer matter because people are spoiled and think that they deserve everything for nothing. It will come crashing down eventually.

Perhaps but at the moment the public consciousness is much more about "boats" and "migrants" than it is about the economic challenges in front of us which, if I'm being honest, are so enormous as to a) confound and b) leave anyone trying to consider them reaching for whatever helps.

Yes because people are under the misguided impression that stopping the boats is the remedy to all their perceived problems in a way that requires no sacrifice from their perspective as nobody is willing to sacrifice anything.

They are not going to be disabused of that idea unless and until the boats are stopped, though.

You’re right. But then it will just move onto the next thing.

wooliedyed

Leon said:

wooliedyed said:

FPT LDs still OK with their 'best pollster' YouGov but one or two dips below 2024 recently with other pollsters. Are they making any headway? I guess thats the question for Davey Doubters

Morning all
YouGov this week

Ref 29 (+2)
Lab 20 (-2)
Con 17 (=)
LD 15 (=)
Grn 10 (-2)

Havent got SNP or Others figure yet

That’s a grim poll for Labour. YouGov are generally their friendliest pollster IIRC

It is grim but i wouodnt say YG are their best, thats probably Opinium, Focaldata and Survation, although theres not much in it

Sandpit

Stuartinromford said:

Sandpit said:

Phil said:

stodge said:

FPT - because, as always, there's a new thread.

I argued last evening those who think two party politics is dead have got it wrong.

The parties may end up with different names but ultimately it will resolve down to a binary choice - the big change is the nature of the faultline. For decades, it was economic - one side favoured lower taxes, less spending and regulation, the other saw the State as the provider, supported taxation and spending.

That line is no longer valid or has the priority it once did - the divide is now socio-cultural. If you are socially conservative, there's a party for you (possibly two) whereas if you have a more liberal mindset, there are three or four parties for you.

This has had two impacts - first, social conservatives and liberals who mixed together happily under the same economic programme in the Labour and Conservative parties have now flocked to Reform gutting both parties and leaving them shadows of the coalitions they once were.

The other question is whether there are enough social conservatives under FPTP to give Reform a majority on perhaps 30% of the vote - probably but if the liberally minded vote tactically, probably not.

It is the change in the faultline which has damaged Labour and the Conservatives - the politics of economics no longer matter, the politics of society and culture do.

Yes, the drive to capture as many voters as possible under FPTP eventually forces 2 party politics on the electorate & those parties will split roughly along the major axis in the electorate’s political leanings - the famous left/right split. Some lesser policies will be up for grabs & may split differently between the major parties than in the past, but the major fault lines will remain pretty much the same.

The interesting split to watch is the realignment between cultural and economic politics though.

The last US election, for example, was fought much more on cultural lines than in the past, with the economic issues being secondary to many voters.

If you belive the Heirachy of Needs, that would imply that the economic question is broadly solved. Once we have the means to live a good life sorted, then the debate moves on to the cultural question of what that looks like. Which is sort of consistent with Reform as a party of older homeowners; a large slice of the old Conservative vote and smaller (but visible) Red Wall old Labour/Boris/Reform vote. (Remember that the original Red Wall theory was that there were voters who culturally and demographically ought to have been Conservative-leaning, who would have voted Conservative had they ever moved south. But they didn't, so they didn't.) People who don't have financial worries in the main, so they fret about other things instead.

The catch is that the economic question has been "solved" by continuing to borrow lots of money and use up resources in a way that isn't sustainable. Which is an answer of sorts, but not a good one.

Broadly agree, the two major economic problems remaining are the amount of government debt, which is edging closer to unsustainability, and the cost of housing, which is more of a generational issue and spills into the cultural arguments around issues like immigration.

stodge

Omnium said:

Malmesbury said:

Good header

It does seem a bit unfair that Mr Davey is being criticised. After all, he led the part to massive election success and unlike the big two, the Lib Dems seem to be a fairly happy and united party that doesn’t shoot at their feet all day long.

But, he has had an open goal - with both main parties falling apart, in theory he has the opportunity to pick up the social and economic liberals from both.

I would estimate that when Labour or the Conseratives were on 40%, in both cases, 15% of their vote was potential Lib Dems.

So a potential 25% (wild guess) of tribal voters who were potential Lib Dem’s.

With the disintegration of tribal voting, the Lib Dems should have been hoovering them up.

He needs to define LibDem’ism to the population at large. The Orange Book was an example of such a thesis. There are others.

The problem is that it is easy to oppose everything - say yes to all the potential voters. Which is how we end up with “build a zillion houses, but not here” NIMYism.

To take a stand is to take a risk. But without a coherent, unifying vision, the Lib Dems will be the party of 12% for the future.

Whilst the GE did represent electoral success I think the LDs settled for far less than they might have achieved then. They seem to be settling for even less now.

I know, as a "lifelong Tory" (your words), you must have been delighted to see so many Conservative seats fall to the LDs in July 2024 (though Labour took many more).

The truth is LD resources are finite and concentrated - they are placed where they can achieve most. Once the strongholds are secure, then we can go out into other areas, build the council base and start working those for possible Parliamentary success.

Nobody doubts the Conservatives will always be there but you now have an existential threat such as you haven't faced in decades. The Conservative response to Reform looks as muddled and confused as was the LD response to the coming of Cameron in the mid-2000s.

I think if you had asked most LDs in January 2024 whether they would be happy with 72 seats, I think you know the answer. As for now, I've explained how the world works and even that arch LD cynic @wooliedyed has conceded the party has withstood the Reform onslaught rather better thus far than either Labour or the Conservatives.

Leon

wooliedyed said:

Leon said:

wooliedyed said:

FPT LDs still OK with their 'best pollster' YouGov but one or two dips below 2024 recently with other pollsters. Are they making any headway? I guess thats the question for Davey Doubters

Morning all
YouGov this week

Ref 29 (+2)
Lab 20 (-2)
Con 17 (=)
LD 15 (=)
Grn 10 (-2)

Havent got SNP or Others figure yet

That’s a grim poll for Labour. YouGov are generally their friendliest pollster IIRC

It is grim but i wouodnt say YG are their best, thats probably Opinium, Focaldata and Survation, although theres not much in it

I bow to your superior knowledge. I don’t follow them that closely so far from a GE

Get that dullard Starmer OUT

stodge

MarqueeMark said:

On topic, the Tories will come out of the next election with more seats than they had.

The LibDems will come ut of the next election with less seats than they had. Voting LibDems for Westminster might seem like a good idea in the abstract, but then the voters see they get in the way of government. 2029 to be a 2015 Redux.

Well, if they want a Reform Government by proxy, voting Conservative would be a good idea thugh they could always just vote Reform and be done with it.

Are your party seriously going to sell their souls to Farage? Seems like it - you could always stand against him if you figure out how.

IanB2

MarqueeMark said:

On topic, the Tories will come out of the next election with more seats than they had.

The LibDems will come ut of the next election with less seats than they had. Voting LibDems for Westminster might seem like a good idea in the abstract, but then the voters see they get in the way of government. 2029 to be a 2015 Redux.

Fewer! Or maybe even, more!

wooliedyed

stodge said:

Stuartinromford said:

Malmesbury said:

Good header

It does seem a bit unfair that Mr Davey is being criticised. After all, he led the part to massive election success and unlike the big two, the Lib Dems seem to be a fairly happy and united party that doesn’t shoot at their feet all day long.

But, he has had an open goal - with both main parties falling apart, in theory he has the opportunity to pick up the social and economic liberals from both.

I would estimate that when Labour or the Conseratives were on 40%, in both cases, 15% of their vote was potential Lib Dems.

So a potential 25% (wild guess) of tribal voters who were potential Lib Dem’s.

With the disintegration of tribal voting, the Lib Dems should have been hoovering them up.

He needs to define LibDem’ism to the population at large. The Orange Book was an example of such a thesis. There are others.

The problem is that it is easy to oppose everything - say yes to all the potential voters. Which is how we end up with “build a zillion houses, but not here” NIMYism.

To take a stand is to take a risk. But without a coherent, unifying vision, the Lib Dems will be the party of 12% for the future.

Though I am sure that the Lib Dems would reply that percentage share is vanity, seats are sanity. Becoming the party of nice England/places with a Gail's worked brilliantly in 2024. I reckon there is a fair bit more juice to squeeze from that orange- maybe just about enough to overtake the Conservatives on straight swing? (Basically, if I were a Conservative MP who won C40LD30Lab20 last time, I would be planning my next job in cyber right now.)

But that's still a long way from government, so what do they add to that for the next group of seats, without sacrificing coherence?

The problem is what it always has been.

There are islands of strength for the party surrounded by seas of weakness. Look at London, we have the south west corner (Richmond, Kingston and Sutton) which as about two thirds of all the LD councillors in London. After that, Merton and a few small groups elsewhere but many Boroughs have no LD councillors at all.

The Alliance had the same problem as Reform when it started - apart from areas of traditional Liberal strength and one of two ex-Labour MPs with a personal vote, it was polling 15-20% everywhere and winning nothing.

Apart from the 72 seats currently seat and another 20 which could be won on a good day, the LDs are nowhere. The 255th target, the seat needed to win a majority, is Doncaster Central. In July 2024, the party polled 3.5% in the seat - yes, it could be won on a swing of 21.5% from Labour. The 321st target for Reform is Birmingham Yardley where they polled 14% and need a 15.3% swing to win.

The islands can and hopefully will hold if and when the tide rolls back in and while no one will talk about it publicly now (why should they?), the big question is Government formation after the next election. Many people assume the Conservatives would willingly support a minority Reform Government - I'm much less convinced.

If the Tories arent terminally weak (sub 75 seats) then i think theyd 'tolerate' a Reform minority planning to topple it at an opportune polling moment.
Lot of water etc before then of course, and im not sure how well Reform will do. Their recent local by election successes have been often been 'underwhelming' against expected ward results (i use nowcast by Josh Housden). Obviously winning is not a negative, but a lot of seats look much tighter than Baxter would have us believe

Cookie

Malmesbury said:

Omnium said:

Malmesbury said:

Good header

It does seem a bit unfair that Mr Davey is being criticised. After all, he led the part to massive election success and unlike the big two, the Lib Dems seem to be a fairly happy and united party that doesn’t shoot at their feet all day long.

But, he has had an open goal - with both main parties falling apart, in theory he has the opportunity to pick up the social and economic liberals from both.

I would estimate that when Labour or the Conseratives were on 40%, in both cases, 15% of their vote was potential Lib Dems.

So a potential 25% (wild guess) of tribal voters who were potential Lib Dem’s.

With the disintegration of tribal voting, the Lib Dems should have been hoovering them up.

He needs to define LibDem’ism to the population at large. The Orange Book was an example of such a thesis. There are others.

The problem is that it is easy to oppose everything - say yes to all the potential voters. Which is how we end up with “build a zillion houses, but not here” NIMYism.

To take a stand is to take a risk. But without a coherent, unifying vision, the Lib Dems will be the party of 12% for the future.

Whilst the GE did represent electoral success I think the LDs settled for far less than they might have achieved then. They seem to be settling for even less now.

Hence the discontent.

In theory, Davey should have got the moderates from both main parties and be looking at 30%+ now.

We've been here before though. Remember when various MPs from Con and Lab looked around for a centrist alternative, and, finding none to their liking, formed Change UK? The Lib Dems are a much nichier taste than we might expect.

Daveyboy1961

stodge said:

Omnium said:

Malmesbury said:

Good header

It does seem a bit unfair that Mr Davey is being criticised. After all, he led the part to massive election success and unlike the big two, the Lib Dems seem to be a fairly happy and united party that doesn’t shoot at their feet all day long.

But, he has had an open goal - with both main parties falling apart, in theory he has the opportunity to pick up the social and economic liberals from both.

I would estimate that when Labour or the Conseratives were on 40%, in both cases, 15% of their vote was potential Lib Dems.

So a potential 25% (wild guess) of tribal voters who were potential Lib Dem’s.

With the disintegration of tribal voting, the Lib Dems should have been hoovering them up.

He needs to define LibDem’ism to the population at large. The Orange Book was an example of such a thesis. There are others.

The problem is that it is easy to oppose everything - say yes to all the potential voters. Which is how we end up with “build a zillion houses, but not here” NIMYism.

To take a stand is to take a risk. But without a coherent, unifying vision, the Lib Dems will be the party of 12% for the future.

Whilst the GE did represent electoral success I think the LDs settled for far less than they might have achieved then. They seem to be settling for even less now.

I know, as a "lifelong Tory" (your words), you must have been delighted to see so many Conservative seats fall to the LDs in July 2024 (though Labour took many more).

The truth is LD resources are finite and concentrated - they are placed where they can achieve most. Once the strongholds are secure, then we can go out into other areas, build the council base and start working those for possible Parliamentary success.

Nobody doubts the Conservatives will always be there but you now have an existential threat such as you haven't faced in decades. The Conservative response to Reform looks as muddled and confused as was the LD response to the coming of Cameron in the mid-2000s.

I think if you had asked most LDs in January 2024 whether they would be happy with 72 seats, I think you know the answer. As for now, I've explained how the world works and even that arch LD cynic @wooliedyed has conceded the party has withstood the Reform onslaught rather better thus far than either Labour or the Conservatives.

Agreed totally. Libdems were on the verge of annihilation in 2017, so having 72 seats now is another world. I don't think the libdems settled for less in 2024. I would have settled for 35 to 40 before the election day.

IanB2

Cookie said:

Malmesbury said:

Omnium said:

Malmesbury said:

Good header

It does seem a bit unfair that Mr Davey is being criticised. After all, he led the part to massive election success and unlike the big two, the Lib Dems seem to be a fairly happy and united party that doesn’t shoot at their feet all day long.

But, he has had an open goal - with both main parties falling apart, in theory he has the opportunity to pick up the social and economic liberals from both.

I would estimate that when Labour or the Conseratives were on 40%, in both cases, 15% of their vote was potential Lib Dems.

So a potential 25% (wild guess) of tribal voters who were potential Lib Dem’s.

With the disintegration of tribal voting, the Lib Dems should have been hoovering them up.

He needs to define LibDem’ism to the population at large. The Orange Book was an example of such a thesis. There are others.

The problem is that it is easy to oppose everything - say yes to all the potential voters. Which is how we end up with “build a zillion houses, but not here” NIMYism.

To take a stand is to take a risk. But without a coherent, unifying vision, the Lib Dems will be the party of 12% for the future.

Whilst the GE did represent electoral success I think the LDs settled for far less than they might have achieved then. They seem to be settling for even less now.

Hence the discontent.

In theory, Davey should have got the moderates from both main parties and be looking at 30%+ now.

We've been here before though. Remember when various MPs from Con and Lab looked around for a centrist alternative, and, finding none to their liking, formed Change UK? The Lib Dems are a much nichier taste than we might expect.

As I said above, the LibDems’ big chance comes along if and when people are compelled to vote for them to “keep Reform out”. If enough people are frightened or horrified by the prospect of Farage in power AND that looks reasonably likely AND the Tories remain looking like Reform fellow-travellers AND Labour remain discredited in government, then it may happen.

wooliedyed

Leon said:

wooliedyed said:

Leon said:

wooliedyed said:

FPT LDs still OK with their 'best pollster' YouGov but one or two dips below 2024 recently with other pollsters. Are they making any headway? I guess thats the question for Davey Doubters

Morning all
YouGov this week

Ref 29 (+2)
Lab 20 (-2)
Con 17 (=)
LD 15 (=)
Grn 10 (-2)

Havent got SNP or Others figure yet

That’s a grim poll for Labour. YouGov are generally their friendliest pollster IIRC

It is grim but i wouodnt say YG are their best, thats probably Opinium, Focaldata and Survation, although theres not much in it

I bow to your superior knowledge. I don’t follow them that closely so far from a GE

Get that dullard Starmer OUT

Indeed. Defenestration required for maximum happiness

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

It'll never happen, but something like a Royal Commission or agreement between all major parties to gradually reduce the deficit and then head into a surplus would be nice.

But I'm sure it's more important to just pass the ticking parcel onto the next government and hope it doesn't stop ticking when you're the one holding it.

Stuartinromford

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

It'll never happen, but something like a Royal Commission or agreement between all major parties to gradually reduce the deficit and then head into a surplus would be nice.

But I'm sure it's more important to just pass the ticking parcel onto the next government and hope it doesn't stop ticking when you're the one holding it.

It's the will of the people.

Omnium

stodge said:

Omnium said:

Malmesbury said:

Good header

It does seem a bit unfair that Mr Davey is being criticised. After all, he led the part to massive election success and unlike the big two, the Lib Dems seem to be a fairly happy and united party that doesn’t shoot at their feet all day long.

But, he has had an open goal - with both main parties falling apart, in theory he has the opportunity to pick up the social and economic liberals from both.

I would estimate that when Labour or the Conseratives were on 40%, in both cases, 15% of their vote was potential Lib Dems.

So a potential 25% (wild guess) of tribal voters who were potential Lib Dem’s.

With the disintegration of tribal voting, the Lib Dems should have been hoovering them up.

He needs to define LibDem’ism to the population at large. The Orange Book was an example of such a thesis. There are others.

The problem is that it is easy to oppose everything - say yes to all the potential voters. Which is how we end up with “build a zillion houses, but not here” NIMYism.

To take a stand is to take a risk. But without a coherent, unifying vision, the Lib Dems will be the party of 12% for the future.

Whilst the GE did represent electoral success I think the LDs settled for far less than they might have achieved then. They seem to be settling for even less now.

I know, as a "lifelong Tory" (your words), you must have been delighted to see so many Conservative seats fall to the LDs in July 2024 (though Labour took many more).

The truth is LD resources are finite and concentrated - they are placed where they can achieve most. Once the strongholds are secure, then we can go out into other areas, build the council base and start working those for possible Parliamentary success.

Nobody doubts the Conservatives will always be there but you now have an existential threat such as you haven't faced in decades. The Conservative response to Reform looks as muddled and confused as was the LD response to the coming of Cameron in the mid-2000s.

I think if you had asked most LDs in January 2024 whether they would be happy with 72 seats, I think you know the answer. As for now, I've explained how the world works and even that arch LD cynic @wooliedyed has conceded the party has withstood the Reform onslaught rather better thus far than either Labour or the Conservatives.

Yes - I am a lifelong Tory voter, but I genuinely would have voted "coalition" if that had been available in 2015. So I'm not uninterested or dismissive of what the LDs might offer.

Sight should have been/should be set on government though. Reform are doing exactly that, and didn't spend time worrying that they only got a few MPs. As such they are looking like they may become the government - no matter how happy many LDs are with 72 seats that is pretty irrelevant compared with that.

Morris_Dancer

Stuartinromford said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

It'll never happen, but something like a Royal Commission or agreement between all major parties to gradually reduce the deficit and then head into a surplus would be nice.

But I'm sure it's more important to just pass the ticking parcel onto the next government and hope it doesn't stop ticking when you're the one holding it.

It's the will of the people.

If the enormo-haddock were in charge, the nation's finances would be far better.

Sandpit

Ukraine’s new “Long-range drone” hitting O&G facilities 1,500km into Russia, is basically a remote-controlled light aircraft, stuffed with fuel and explosives instead of a couple of humans.

It flies low and slow, for several hours at a time, yet the enemy still appears to be incapable of shooting it down.

https://x.com/tatarigami_ua/status/1967574142003417088

Cicero

MarqueeMark said:

On topic, the Tories will come out of the next election with more seats than they had.

The LibDems will come ut of the next election with less seats than they had. Voting LibDems for Westminster might seem like a good idea in the abstract, but then the voters see they get in the way of government. 2029 to be a 2015 Redux.

No actual data to back you assertions though.

The Lib Dems polled 12.2% on July 4th 2024, now they are currently polling 15%. The Conservatives polled 23,7% and are currently polling 17%.

RochdalePioneers

IanB2 said:

Cookie said:

Malmesbury said:

Omnium said:

Malmesbury said:

Good header

It does seem a bit unfair that Mr Davey is being criticised. After all, he led the part to massive election success and unlike the big two, the Lib Dems seem to be a fairly happy and united party that doesn’t shoot at their feet all day long.

But, he has had an open goal - with both main parties falling apart, in theory he has the opportunity to pick up the social and economic liberals from both.

I would estimate that when Labour or the Conseratives were on 40%, in both cases, 15% of their vote was potential Lib Dems.

So a potential 25% (wild guess) of tribal voters who were potential Lib Dem’s.

With the disintegration of tribal voting, the Lib Dems should have been hoovering them up.

He needs to define LibDem’ism to the population at large. The Orange Book was an example of such a thesis. There are others.

The problem is that it is easy to oppose everything - say yes to all the potential voters. Which is how we end up with “build a zillion houses, but not here” NIMYism.

To take a stand is to take a risk. But without a coherent, unifying vision, the Lib Dems will be the party of 12% for the future.

Whilst the GE did represent electoral success I think the LDs settled for far less than they might have achieved then. They seem to be settling for even less now.

Hence the discontent.

In theory, Davey should have got the moderates from both main parties and be looking at 30%+ now.

We've been here before though. Remember when various MPs from Con and Lab looked around for a centrist alternative, and, finding none to their liking, formed Change UK? The Lib Dems are a much nichier taste than we might expect.

As I said above, the LibDems’ big chance comes along if and when people are compelled to vote for them to “keep Reform out”. If enough people are frightened or horrified by the prospect of Farage in power AND that looks reasonably likely AND the Tories remain looking like Reform fellow-travellers AND Labour remain discredited in government, then it may happen.

We need to actually offer policies for reform, not just a safe harbour in a storm.

I can look back at the manifesto last year and there was some really good stuff in it that nobody paid the slightest bit of attention to. Because retail politics is boring - why listen to someone talking to you about a new cooker when your whole kitchen is on fire.

another_richard

Malmesbury said:

Omnium said:

Malmesbury said:

Good header

It does seem a bit unfair that Mr Davey is being criticised. After all, he led the part to massive election success and unlike the big two, the Lib Dems seem to be a fairly happy and united party that doesn’t shoot at their feet all day long.

But, he has had an open goal - with both main parties falling apart, in theory he has the opportunity to pick up the social and economic liberals from both.

I would estimate that when Labour or the Conseratives were on 40%, in both cases, 15% of their vote was potential Lib Dems.

So a potential 25% (wild guess) of tribal voters who were potential Lib Dem’s.

With the disintegration of tribal voting, the Lib Dems should have been hoovering them up.

He needs to define LibDem’ism to the population at large. The Orange Book was an example of such a thesis. There are others.

The problem is that it is easy to oppose everything - say yes to all the potential voters. Which is how we end up with “build a zillion houses, but not here” NIMYism.

To take a stand is to take a risk. But without a coherent, unifying vision, the Lib Dems will be the party of 12% for the future.

Whilst the GE did represent electoral success I think the LDs settled for far less than they might have achieved then. They seem to be settling for even less now.

Hence the discontent.

In theory, Davey should have got the moderates from both main parties and be looking at 30%+ now.

Perhaps because the LibDems aren't moderate, they're niche.

I find that the LibDems have become too smugly, self-satisfied waitrose belt to like.

They're the other side of the coin to the embittered malcontentism of Reform.

RochdalePioneers

Whilst we're talking LibDems, we need a Nick Clegg. When the 2010 debates started most people didn't know who he was, and he wiped the floor with Cameron and Brown. The joy of FPTP meant losing a couple of seats but he was DPM shortly so does that matter?

We need LD people from the 2024 intake to shape up and step up. We don't have anyone offering umph.

Fishing

Leon said:

wooliedyed said:

Leon said:

wooliedyed said:

FPT LDs still OK with their 'best pollster' YouGov but one or two dips below 2024 recently with other pollsters. Are they making any headway? I guess thats the question for Davey Doubters

Morning all
YouGov this week

Ref 29 (+2)
Lab 20 (-2)
Con 17 (=)
LD 15 (=)
Grn 10 (-2)

Havent got SNP or Others figure yet

That’s a grim poll for Labour. YouGov are generally their friendliest pollster IIRC

It is grim but i wouodnt say YG are their best, thats probably Opinium, Focaldata and Survation, although theres not much in it

I bow to your superior knowledge. I don’t follow them that closely so far from a GE

Get that dullard Starmer OUT

Fine but who replaces him?

Yvette Cooper has no charisma and poor judgement
Reeves would be out of her depth as deputy leader of a county council
Miliband is a has-been fanatic who has been killing the economy (though that probably makes him an ideal choice for Labour)
Mahmood is unproven and has a poisoned chalice at the Home Office
Burnham isn't even an MP
Lammy hahaha

etc. etc.

Basically our fifth-rate PM would be replaced by one of a group of tenth-raters.

Can Labour, despite its core vote of ethnic minorities and welfare junkies, poll in the single digits? We may be about to find out.

MattW

RochdalePioneers said:

Whilst we're talking LibDems, we need a Nick Clegg. When the 2010 debates started most people didn't know who he was, and he wiped the floor with Cameron and Brown. The joy of FPTP meant losing a couple of seats but he was DPM shortly so does that matter?

We need LD people from the 2024 intake to shape up and step up. We don't have anyone offering umph.

Plenty offering Humph, though .

stodge

Omnium said:

stodge said:

Omnium said:

Malmesbury said:

Good header

It does seem a bit unfair that Mr Davey is being criticised. After all, he led the part to massive election success and unlike the big two, the Lib Dems seem to be a fairly happy and united party that doesn’t shoot at their feet all day long.

But, he has had an open goal - with both main parties falling apart, in theory he has the opportunity to pick up the social and economic liberals from both.

I would estimate that when Labour or the Conseratives were on 40%, in both cases, 15% of their vote was potential Lib Dems.

So a potential 25% (wild guess) of tribal voters who were potential Lib Dem’s.

With the disintegration of tribal voting, the Lib Dems should have been hoovering them up.

He needs to define LibDem’ism to the population at large. The Orange Book was an example of such a thesis. There are others.

The problem is that it is easy to oppose everything - say yes to all the potential voters. Which is how we end up with “build a zillion houses, but not here” NIMYism.

To take a stand is to take a risk. But without a coherent, unifying vision, the Lib Dems will be the party of 12% for the future.

Whilst the GE did represent electoral success I think the LDs settled for far less than they might have achieved then. They seem to be settling for even less now.

I know, as a "lifelong Tory" (your words), you must have been delighted to see so many Conservative seats fall to the LDs in July 2024 (though Labour took many more).

The truth is LD resources are finite and concentrated - they are placed where they can achieve most. Once the strongholds are secure, then we can go out into other areas, build the council base and start working those for possible Parliamentary success.

Nobody doubts the Conservatives will always be there but you now have an existential threat such as you haven't faced in decades. The Conservative response to Reform looks as muddled and confused as was the LD response to the coming of Cameron in the mid-2000s.

I think if you had asked most LDs in January 2024 whether they would be happy with 72 seats, I think you know the answer. As for now, I've explained how the world works and even that arch LD cynic @wooliedyed has conceded the party has withstood the Reform onslaught rather better thus far than either Labour or the Conservatives.

Yes - I am a lifelong Tory voter, but I genuinely would have voted "coalition" if that had been available in 2015. So I'm not uninterested or dismissive of what the LDs might offer.

Sight should have been/should be set on government though. Reform are doing exactly that, and didn't spend time worrying that they only got a few MPs. As such they are looking like they may become the government - no matter how happy many LDs are with 72 seats that is pretty irrelevant compared with that.

Let's not call a spade a garden implement. Coalition 2.0 was never on offer - had Cameron told his party not to contest 50 LD seats in 2015, there'd have been real problems for the Conservatives and his promise to renegotiate EU membership if the Conservatives won a majority would have looked hollow had he immediately made that task much harder by not contesting every seat.

That in turn would have strengthened Farage and UKIP making a minority Labour administration led by Ed Milliband a possible outcome.

No, Cameron's offer finished off the Coalition but the Tories had been working LD seats hard since 2013 so reaped the benefit in 2015.

If you're used to 20-25 seats, 72 looks good. If you're used to 300-350, 121 (or 119 now is it?) looks pretty bad. It's all perspective.

Northern_Al

Off topic, but as I haven't seen it mentioned on here or elsewhere. And, sort of on topic because Davey has asked others to comment on it.
In the House yesterday, Shabana Mahmood gave a scathing denunciation of Elon Musk's contribution to the Unite the Kingdom march, referring to him as a 'hostile foreign billionaire' and criticising him for trying to 'mess with our democracy'. It cheered the backbenches up a bit.
She's much more blunt and forthright than Yvette, though it's early days.

ydoethur

Northern_Al said:

Off topic, but as I haven't seen it mentioned on here or elsewhere. And, sort of on topic because Davey has asked others to comment on it.
In the House yesterday, Shabana Mahmood gave a scathing denunciation of Elon Musk's contribution to the Unite the Kingdom march, referring to him as a 'hostile foreign billionaire' and criticising him for trying to 'mess with our democracy'. It cheered the backbenches up a bit.
She's much more blunt and forthright than Yvette, though it's early days.

Hmmm. Not very accurate, really.

I'm not sure anyone whose wealth is primarily in Tesla and Twitter stock can safely be called a billionaire at this moment.

squareroot2

The Lib Dems are in charge in Horsham. Useless and pissing people off.

Selebian

Cookie said:

Malmesbury said:

Omnium said:

Malmesbury said:

Good header

It does seem a bit unfair that Mr Davey is being criticised. After all, he led the part to massive election success and unlike the big two, the Lib Dems seem to be a fairly happy and united party that doesn’t shoot at their feet all day long.

But, he has had an open goal - with both main parties falling apart, in theory he has the opportunity to pick up the social and economic liberals from both.

I would estimate that when Labour or the Conseratives were on 40%, in both cases, 15% of their vote was potential Lib Dems.

So a potential 25% (wild guess) of tribal voters who were potential Lib Dem’s.

With the disintegration of tribal voting, the Lib Dems should have been hoovering them up.

He needs to define LibDem’ism to the population at large. The Orange Book was an example of such a thesis. There are others.

The problem is that it is easy to oppose everything - say yes to all the potential voters. Which is how we end up with “build a zillion houses, but not here” NIMYism.

To take a stand is to take a risk. But without a coherent, unifying vision, the Lib Dems will be the party of 12% for the future.

Whilst the GE did represent electoral success I think the LDs settled for far less than they might have achieved then. They seem to be settling for even less now.

Hence the discontent.

In theory, Davey should have got the moderates from both main parties and be looking at 30%+ now.

We've been here before though. Remember when various MPs from Con and Lab looked around for a centrist alternative, and, finding none to their liking, formed Change UK? The Lib Dems are a much nichier taste than we might expect.

LDs were really on the ropes back then though. If you're trying to capture the disaffected, why I earth would you join a party that just suffered near electoral wipeout?

Joining the LDs at present should be much more appealing. If Johnson hadn't kicked out the liberal europhiles then there would likely be some floor crossing to the LDs under Badenoch.

I still think Davey would have been the ideal man for the Johnson v Corbyn election, but have been less convinced since then. Under the bland v blander 2024 election, they probably needed someone more exciting, stunts not withstanding, to maximise appeal. Even now, Starmer has the bland vote largely sewn up. The distance between Starmer and Davey isn't going to be obvious to the average voter.

Not sure who I'd pick though!

Phil

Sandpit said:

Ukraine’s new “Long-range drone” hitting O&G facilities 1,500km into Russia, is basically a remote-controlled light aircraft, stuffed with fuel and explosives instead of a couple of humans.

It flies low and slow, for several hours at a time, yet the enemy still appears to be incapable of shooting it down.

https://x.com/tatarigami_ua/status/1967574142003417088

It seems astonishing that Russia is unable to put enough air defence around their fuel refining infrastructure to take out these drones. A WWII 1960s anti-aircraft gun would be perfectly capable of taking these things out - do they not have a pile of those in storage somewhere?

Carnyx

ydoethur said:

Northern_Al said:

Off topic, but as I haven't seen it mentioned on here or elsewhere. And, sort of on topic because Davey has asked others to comment on it.
In the House yesterday, Shabana Mahmood gave a scathing denunciation of Elon Musk's contribution to the Unite the Kingdom march, referring to him as a 'hostile foreign billionaire' and criticising him for trying to 'mess with our democracy'. It cheered the backbenches up a bit.
She's much more blunt and forthright than Yvette, though it's early days.

Hmmm. Not very accurate, really.

I'm not sure anyone whose wealth is primarily in Tesla and Twitter stock can safely be called a billionaire at this moment.

Er ...

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/sep/05/tesla-elon-musk-trillion-dollar-pay-package

(assuming we have to use the Usonian definitions of trillion and billion as 10exp12 and 10exp9 respectively)

Barnesian

The issue is visibility.

LibDems are very visible and successful in about 100 constituencies.
We are invisible in the rest.

If you live in a LibDem area, you know about it. If you don't you don't.

LibDems have very little national visibility.
This partly because the LibDem strategy has been to concentrate on areas of geographic strength and downplay national visibility.
It is also because the media, including the BBC, neglect the Lib Dems, either for partisan reasons or because we are not newsworthy. No scandals or defections.

With the current strategy, Lib Dems will be hard pressed to win 100 seats next time.
But how to get national visibility?
It is not about policies, - we have fistfuls of policies.
Perhaps our more colourful personalities need to step up?
Stunts aren't the answer.
Scandals might be. Where is our Jeremy Thorpe?
It needs to newsworthy. Perhaps the @RochdalePioneers approach nationally?

JohnLilburne

Phil said:

Sandpit said:

Ukraine’s new “Long-range drone” hitting O&G facilities 1,500km into Russia, is basically a remote-controlled light aircraft, stuffed with fuel and explosives instead of a couple of humans.

It flies low and slow, for several hours at a time, yet the enemy still appears to be incapable of shooting it down.

https://x.com/tatarigami_ua/status/1967574142003417088

It seems astonishing that Russia is unable to put enough air defence around their fuel refining infrastructure to take out these drones. A WWII anti-aircraft gun would be perfectly capable of taking these things out - do they not have a pile of those in storage somewhere?

They have probably used them all against tanks, and lost them on the front

wooliedyed

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c740nm43lylo

I could weep. How ugly.
Reform probably win Norwich, Great Yarmouth and South Norfolk Council (unless Lowe runs candidates in GY) but as largest party NoC - Greens and Labour will have a chunk of councillors in Norwich, Conservatives a few in South Norfolk
SW, Mid, NW and North Norfolk council might well end up a LD/Con coalition if the Tories can fire up the rural vote

Phil

JohnLilburne said:

Phil said:

Sandpit said:

Ukraine’s new “Long-range drone” hitting O&G facilities 1,500km into Russia, is basically a remote-controlled light aircraft, stuffed with fuel and explosives instead of a couple of humans.

It flies low and slow, for several hours at a time, yet the enemy still appears to be incapable of shooting it down.

https://x.com/tatarigami_ua/status/1967574142003417088

It seems astonishing that Russia is unable to put enough air defence around their fuel refining infrastructure to take out these drones. A WWII anti-aircraft gun would be perfectly capable of taking these things out - do they not have a pile of those in storage somewhere?

They have probably used them all against tanks, and lost them on the front

To be fair (see my late edit) you’d probably need a 1960s AA gun with integrated radar & fire control. But it’s not exactly advanced technology.

It does suggest that the Russians are seriously short of kit if they can’t protect these refining platforms.

JosiasJessop

Phil said:

Sandpit said:

Ukraine’s new “Long-range drone” hitting O&G facilities 1,500km into Russia, is basically a remote-controlled light aircraft, stuffed with fuel and explosives instead of a couple of humans.

It flies low and slow, for several hours at a time, yet the enemy still appears to be incapable of shooting it down.

https://x.com/tatarigami_ua/status/1967574142003417088

It seems astonishing that Russia is unable to put enough air defence around their fuel refining infrastructure to take out these drones. A WWII 1960s anti-aircraft gun would be perfectly capable of taking these things out - do they not have a pile of those in storage somewhere?

They may have. But gun barrels do not last well if stored outside for decades, even in Siberia, and Russia (in fact, everyone...) has a massive shortage of climate-controlled indoor storage. Then there are other aspects, e.g. targeting optics / electronics that do not age well.

There was a video from a Russian tank storage area from five or so years ago, which showed tanks that were in reasonable condition. But the optics were invariably cloudy, broken or missing.

another_richard

Sandpit said:

Ukraine’s new “Long-range drone” hitting O&G facilities 1,500km into Russia, is basically a remote-controlled light aircraft, stuffed with fuel and explosives instead of a couple of humans.

It flies low and slow, for several hours at a time, yet the enemy still appears to be incapable of shooting it down.

https://x.com/tatarigami_ua/status/1967574142003417088

I remember reading here that Russian air defence was so good that a SAM battery near Moscow would be able to shoot down any NATO planes over Ukraine.

That PBer also claimed that anti-tank missiles never worked.

Eabhal

Overwhelming support for the State Pension increase on the BBC news article comments and on Facebook. The government can't touch the triple lock.

Malmesbury

stodge said:

Omnium said:

Malmesbury said:

Good header

It does seem a bit unfair that Mr Davey is being criticised. After all, he led the part to massive election success and unlike the big two, the Lib Dems seem to be a fairly happy and united party that doesn’t shoot at their feet all day long.

But, he has had an open goal - with both main parties falling apart, in theory he has the opportunity to pick up the social and economic liberals from both.

I would estimate that when Labour or the Conseratives were on 40%, in both cases, 15% of their vote was potential Lib Dems.

So a potential 25% (wild guess) of tribal voters who were potential Lib Dem’s.

With the disintegration of tribal voting, the Lib Dems should have been hoovering them up.

He needs to define LibDem’ism to the population at large. The Orange Book was an example of such a thesis. There are others.

The problem is that it is easy to oppose everything - say yes to all the potential voters. Which is how we end up with “build a zillion houses, but not here” NIMYism.

To take a stand is to take a risk. But without a coherent, unifying vision, the Lib Dems will be the party of 12% for the future.

Whilst the GE did represent electoral success I think the LDs settled for far less than they might have achieved then. They seem to be settling for even less now.

I know, as a "lifelong Tory" (your words), you must have been delighted to see so many Conservative seats fall to the LDs in July 2024 (though Labour took many more).

The truth is LD resources are finite and concentrated - they are placed where they can achieve most. Once the strongholds are secure, then we can go out into other areas, build the council base and start working those for possible Parliamentary success.

Nobody doubts the Conservatives will always be there but you now have an existential threat such as you haven't faced in decades. The Conservative response to Reform looks as muddled and confused as was the LD response to the coming of Cameron in the mid-2000s.

I think if you had asked most LDs in January 2024 whether they would be happy with 72 seats, I think you know the answer. As for now, I've explained how the world works and even that arch LD cynic @wooliedyed has conceded the party has withstood the Reform onslaught rather better thus far than either Labour or the Conservatives.

The point is, surely, that unlike the Conservatives or Labour, who are losing support to Reform, the Lib Dems should be in the reverse position.

They aren’t losing support to Reform, and could be picking up Centrist Dads/Mums from both main parties.

Barnesian

Northern_Al said:

Off topic, but as I haven't seen it mentioned on here or elsewhere. And, sort of on topic because Davey has asked others to comment on it.
In the House yesterday, Shabana Mahmood gave a scathing denunciation of Elon Musk's contribution to the Unite the Kingdom march, referring to him as a 'hostile foreign billionaire' and criticising him for trying to 'mess with our democracy'. It cheered the backbenches up a bit.
She's much more blunt and forthright than Yvette, though it's early days.

Ed Davey calls on other party leaders asking them to join him in condemning Elon Musk's comments: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/n5J4DtqFCss

Barnesian

squareroot2 said:

The Lib Dems are in charge in Horsham. Useless and pissing people off.

So that's a "maybe"?

Leon

Fishing said:

Leon said:

wooliedyed said:

Leon said:

wooliedyed said:

FPT LDs still OK with their 'best pollster' YouGov but one or two dips below 2024 recently with other pollsters. Are they making any headway? I guess thats the question for Davey Doubters

Morning all
YouGov this week

Ref 29 (+2)
Lab 20 (-2)
Con 17 (=)
LD 15 (=)
Grn 10 (-2)

Havent got SNP or Others figure yet

That’s a grim poll for Labour. YouGov are generally their friendliest pollster IIRC

It is grim but i wouodnt say YG are their best, thats probably Opinium, Focaldata and Survation, although theres not much in it

I bow to your superior knowledge. I don’t follow them that closely so far from a GE

Get that dullard Starmer OUT

Fine but who replaces him?

Yvette Cooper has no charisma and poor judgement
Reeves would be out of her depth as deputy leader of a county council
Miliband is a has-been fanatic who has been killing the economy (though that probably makes him an ideal choice for Labour)
Mahmood is unproven and has a poisoned chalice at the Home Office
Burnham isn't even an MP
Lammy hahaha

etc. etc.

Basically our fifth-rate PM would be replaced by one of a group of tenth-raters.

Can Labour, despite its core vote of ethnic minorities and welfare junkies, poll in the single digits? We may be about to find out.

It’s a fair point. Horribly fair. We might actually get someone worse

Of all those perhaps Cooper? It’s a forlorn hope. She’s not great. But at least we could say an exPBer is now PM

Eabhal

Malmesbury said:

stodge said:

Omnium said:

Malmesbury said:

Good header

It does seem a bit unfair that Mr Davey is being criticised. After all, he led the part to massive election success and unlike the big two, the Lib Dems seem to be a fairly happy and united party that doesn’t shoot at their feet all day long.

But, he has had an open goal - with both main parties falling apart, in theory he has the opportunity to pick up the social and economic liberals from both.

I would estimate that when Labour or the Conseratives were on 40%, in both cases, 15% of their vote was potential Lib Dems.

So a potential 25% (wild guess) of tribal voters who were potential Lib Dem’s.

With the disintegration of tribal voting, the Lib Dems should have been hoovering them up.

He needs to define LibDem’ism to the population at large. The Orange Book was an example of such a thesis. There are others.

The problem is that it is easy to oppose everything - say yes to all the potential voters. Which is how we end up with “build a zillion houses, but not here” NIMYism.

To take a stand is to take a risk. But without a coherent, unifying vision, the Lib Dems will be the party of 12% for the future.

Whilst the GE did represent electoral success I think the LDs settled for far less than they might have achieved then. They seem to be settling for even less now.

I know, as a "lifelong Tory" (your words), you must have been delighted to see so many Conservative seats fall to the LDs in July 2024 (though Labour took many more).

The truth is LD resources are finite and concentrated - they are placed where they can achieve most. Once the strongholds are secure, then we can go out into other areas, build the council base and start working those for possible Parliamentary success.

Nobody doubts the Conservatives will always be there but you now have an existential threat such as you haven't faced in decades. The Conservative response to Reform looks as muddled and confused as was the LD response to the coming of Cameron in the mid-2000s.

I think if you had asked most LDs in January 2024 whether they would be happy with 72 seats, I think you know the answer. As for now, I've explained how the world works and even that arch LD cynic @wooliedyed has conceded the party has withstood the Reform onslaught rather better thus far than either Labour or the Conservatives.

The point is, surely, that unlike the Conservatives or Labour, who are losing support to Reform, the Lib Dems should be in the reverse position.

They aren’t losing support to Reform, and could be picking up Centrist Dads/Mums from both main parties.

Labour aren't losing support to Reform to any serious extent, which makes the Lib Dems polling so surprisingly weak. There is a big pool of disaffected Labour voters who have not found a home yet.

My instinct is they will return to Labour if there is a reasonable chance of Farage as PM, but there is also a rather neat outside chance that we replicate the US and end up with a Lib Dem/Reform duopoly.

RochdalePioneers

squareroot2 said:

The Lib Dems are in charge in Horsham. Useless and pissing people off.

The simple truth is that you can elect anyone you like to run a council and the maths doesn't change - they are broke and they will only get more broke every single year as time passes. Until someone starts to fund them properly/

Sandpit

Phil said:

Sandpit said:

Ukraine’s new “Long-range drone” hitting O&G facilities 1,500km into Russia, is basically a remote-controlled light aircraft, stuffed with fuel and explosives instead of a couple of humans.

It flies low and slow, for several hours at a time, yet the enemy still appears to be incapable of shooting it down.

https://x.com/tatarigami_ua/status/1967574142003417088

It seems astonishing that Russia is unable to put enough air defence around their fuel refining infrastructure to take out these drones. A WWII 1960s anti-aircraft gun would be perfectly capable of taking these things out - do they not have a pile of those in storage somewhere?

You’d think so, but every night a couple more facilities get hit, with seemingly little done to try and take them out bar small arms fire. If they have big guns stored anywhere, they don’t have decent barrels and ammo for them.

Yes the Ukranians have done a great job of hitting radar stations in recent weeks, but it’s astonishing that so many of these drones make it through to cause tens of millions of dollars in damage, not to mention the political issue of petrol stations in large parts of russia having supply problems at the moment.

another_richard

Eabhal said:

Overwhelming support for the State Pension increase on the BBC news article comments and on Facebook. The government can't touch the triple lock.

The decision will have to be made when the next recommendation to increase the state pension age is announced.

Unless the bond markets intervene first.

A more imminent issue will be the triple lock taking the state pension over the basic tax allowance next year.

RochdalePioneers

Barnesian said:

The issue is visibility.

LibDems are very visible and successful in about 100 constituencies.
We are invisible in the rest.

If you live in a LibDem area, you know about it. If you don't you don't.

LibDems have very little national visibility.
This partly because the LibDem strategy has been to concentrate on areas of geographic strength and downplay national visibility.
It is also because the media, including the BBC, neglect the Lib Dems, either for partisan reasons or because we are not newsworthy. No scandals or defections.

With the current strategy, Lib Dems will be hard pressed to win 100 seats next time.
But how to get national visibility?
It is not about policies, - we have fistfuls of policies.
Perhaps our more colourful personalities need to step up?
Stunts aren't the answer.
Scandals might be. Where is our Jeremy Thorpe?
It needs to newsworthy. Perhaps the @RochdalePioneers approach nationally?

We apparently can't get MPs to go on the media when asked. So we have Matthew Hulbert as spokesperson on Talk Tory TV etc. I like Matthew, but he is just an activist. Where are our many many elected representatives?

Alphabet_Soup

Eabhal said:

Overwhelming support for the State Pension increase on the BBC news article comments and on Facebook. The government can't touch the triple lock.

The reason being, of course, that those yet to retire have much more to look forward to from the triple lock than anyone already drawing their pension. Whether the economy can afford to keep non-workers comfortably off at the expense of wage slaves is a separate question. When the Coalition introduced the current policy (prompted by Lloyd George's successors, back around the cabinet table at long last) it seemed like a slow, gentle way to catch up with other European countries. 'If they can afford it, why can't we?' was the clarion call.

AugustusCarp2

Barnesian said:

The issue is visibility.

LibDems are very visible and successful in about 100 constituencies.
We are invisible in the rest.

If you live in a LibDem area, you know about it. If you don't you don't.

LibDems have very little national visibility.
This partly because the LibDem strategy has been to concentrate on areas of geographic strength and downplay national visibility.
It is also because the media, including the BBC, neglect the Lib Dems, either for partisan reasons or because we are not newsworthy. No scandals or defections.

With the current strategy, Lib Dems will be hard pressed to win 100 seats next time.
But how to get national visibility?
It is not about policies, - we have fistfuls of policies.
Perhaps our more colourful personalities need to step up?
Stunts aren't the answer.
Scandals might be. Where is our Jeremy Thorpe?
It needs to newsworthy. Perhaps the @RochdalePioneers approach nationally?

The Rule used to be that Tory scandals were sexual, Labour scandals were financial and Liberal/Lib Dem scandals were both. It looks like some of the new entrants in the 2024 cohort are really going to have to "up their game".

GarethoftheVale2

RochdalePioneers said:

IanB2 said:

Cookie said:

Malmesbury said:

Omnium said:

Malmesbury said:

Good header

It does seem a bit unfair that Mr Davey is being criticised. After all, he led the part to massive election success and unlike the big two, the Lib Dems seem to be a fairly happy and united party that doesn’t shoot at their feet all day long.

But, he has had an open goal - with both main parties falling apart, in theory he has the opportunity to pick up the social and economic liberals from both.

I would estimate that when Labour or the Conseratives were on 40%, in both cases, 15% of their vote was potential Lib Dems.

So a potential 25% (wild guess) of tribal voters who were potential Lib Dem’s.

With the disintegration of tribal voting, the Lib Dems should have been hoovering them up.

He needs to define LibDem’ism to the population at large. The Orange Book was an example of such a thesis. There are others.

The problem is that it is easy to oppose everything - say yes to all the potential voters. Which is how we end up with “build a zillion houses, but not here” NIMYism.

To take a stand is to take a risk. But without a coherent, unifying vision, the Lib Dems will be the party of 12% for the future.

Whilst the GE did represent electoral success I think the LDs settled for far less than they might have achieved then. They seem to be settling for even less now.

Hence the discontent.

In theory, Davey should have got the moderates from both main parties and be looking at 30%+ now.

We've been here before though. Remember when various MPs from Con and Lab looked around for a centrist alternative, and, finding none to their liking, formed Change UK? The Lib Dems are a much nichier taste than we might expect.

As I said above, the LibDems’ big chance comes along if and when people are compelled to vote for them to “keep Reform out”. If enough people are frightened or horrified by the prospect of Farage in power AND that looks reasonably likely AND the Tories remain looking like Reform fellow-travellers AND Labour remain discredited in government, then it may happen.

We need to actually offer policies for reform, not just a safe harbour in a storm.

I can look back at the manifesto last year and there was some really good stuff in it that nobody paid the slightest bit of attention to. Because retail politics is boring - why listen to someone talking to you about a new cooker when your whole kitchen is on fire.

Credit to you for being so open about the challenges your party faces. In my area, the LDs did very well in Wokingham and Maidenhead, but in Bracknell they got 11%. The latter seat contains Sandhurst where the LDs do well at local level, but the largest town is in the seat is Bracknell itself. This is a 60s and 70s new town and contains large ex-council, then right-to-buy estates. Very C2 white van man and not very ethnically diverse. What do the LDs have to offer to this type of demographic?

Ratters

Barnesian said:

The issue is visibility.

LibDems are very visible and successful in about 100 constituencies.
We are invisible in the rest.

If you live in a LibDem area, you know about it. If you don't you don't.

LibDems have very little national visibility.
This partly because the LibDem strategy has been to concentrate on areas of geographic strength and downplay national visibility.
It is also because the media, including the BBC, neglect the Lib Dems, either for partisan reasons or because we are not newsworthy. No scandals or defections.

With the current strategy, Lib Dems will be hard pressed to win 100 seats next time.
But how to get national visibility?
It is not about policies, - we have fistfuls of policies.
Perhaps our more colourful personalities need to step up?
Stunts aren't the answer.
Scandals might be. Where is our Jeremy Thorpe?
It needs to newsworthy. Perhaps the @RochdalePioneers approach nationally?

I'd like to see the Lib Dems offer a more coherent political narrative.

Everything at the moment feels very piecemeal. For example the focus on care - good idea, but there are political trade offs to deliver it and it's quite a narrow message.

Personally I think the time is right for a mix of Orange Book style economics - we need to find ways to promote growth, manage debt sustainably - with pro-democracy, pro human rights internationalism.

It's a political sphere the Tories have abandoned as a part of their electoral coalition with the Boris purges.

RochdalePioneers

OK, so despite shooting in 1080P this video for TwiX only is still nearly 3gig. Lets see if X will actually host it - Musk has been calling for creators to post their content on the platform - alrightey then

Leon

Ooh. Hotel just covered my entire booze bill. All those gin and tonics on the terrace. All those cannonau wines with the suckling pig. Probably €300

“All taken care of sir. There is no bill. Arrivederci”

Did I mention I love my job?

ydoethur

Barnesian said:

The issue is visibility.

LibDems are very visible and successful in about 100 constituencies.
We are invisible in the rest.

If you live in a LibDem area, you know about it. If you don't you don't.

LibDems have very little national visibility.
This partly because the LibDem strategy has been to concentrate on areas of geographic strength and downplay national visibility.
It is also because the media, including the BBC, neglect the Lib Dems, either for partisan reasons or because we are not newsworthy. No scandals or defections.

With the current strategy, Lib Dems will be hard pressed to win 100 seats next time.
But how to get national visibility?
It is not about policies, - we have fistfuls of policies.
Perhaps our more colourful personalities need to step up?
Stunts aren't the answer.
Scandals might be. Where is our Jeremy Thorpe?
It needs to newsworthy. Perhaps the @RochdalePioneers approach nationally?

Are you sure you want Jeremy Thorpe style figure dogged by scandal?

AugustusCarp2

GarethoftheVale2 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

IanB2 said:

Cookie said:

Malmesbury said:

Omnium said:

Malmesbury said:

Good header

It does seem a bit unfair that Mr Davey is being criticised. After all, he led the part to massive election success and unlike the big two, the Lib Dems seem to be a fairly happy and united party that doesn’t shoot at their feet all day long.

But, he has had an open goal - with both main parties falling apart, in theory he has the opportunity to pick up the social and economic liberals from both.

I would estimate that when Labour or the Conseratives were on 40%, in both cases, 15% of their vote was potential Lib Dems.

So a potential 25% (wild guess) of tribal voters who were potential Lib Dem’s.

With the disintegration of tribal voting, the Lib Dems should have been hoovering them up.

He needs to define LibDem’ism to the population at large. The Orange Book was an example of such a thesis. There are others.

The problem is that it is easy to oppose everything - say yes to all the potential voters. Which is how we end up with “build a zillion houses, but not here” NIMYism.

To take a stand is to take a risk. But without a coherent, unifying vision, the Lib Dems will be the party of 12% for the future.

Whilst the GE did represent electoral success I think the LDs settled for far less than they might have achieved then. They seem to be settling for even less now.

Hence the discontent.

In theory, Davey should have got the moderates from both main parties and be looking at 30%+ now.

We've been here before though. Remember when various MPs from Con and Lab looked around for a centrist alternative, and, finding none to their liking, formed Change UK? The Lib Dems are a much nichier taste than we might expect.

As I said above, the LibDems’ big chance comes along if and when people are compelled to vote for them to “keep Reform out”. If enough people are frightened or horrified by the prospect of Farage in power AND that looks reasonably likely AND the Tories remain looking like Reform fellow-travellers AND Labour remain discredited in government, then it may happen.

We need to actually offer policies for reform, not just a safe harbour in a storm.

I can look back at the manifesto last year and there was some really good stuff in it that nobody paid the slightest bit of attention to. Because retail politics is boring - why listen to someone talking to you about a new cooker when your whole kitchen is on fire.

Credit to you for being so open about the challenges your party faces. In my area, the LDs did very well in Wokingham and Maidenhead, but in Bracknell they got 11%. The latter seat contains Sandhurst where the LDs do well at local level, but the largest town is in the seat is Bracknell itself. This is a 60s and 70s new town and contains large ex-council, then right-to-buy estates. Very C2 white van man and not very ethnically diverse. What do the LDs have to offer to this type of demographic?

Bracknell twice returned 40 Conservative councillors, with no other party represented on the council. Now it's pencilled in as a Reform gain.

RochdalePioneers

GarethoftheVale2 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

IanB2 said:

Cookie said:

Malmesbury said:

Omnium said:

Malmesbury said:

Good header

It does seem a bit unfair that Mr Davey is being criticised. After all, he led the part to massive election success and unlike the big two, the Lib Dems seem to be a fairly happy and united party that doesn’t shoot at their feet all day long.

But, he has had an open goal - with both main parties falling apart, in theory he has the opportunity to pick up the social and economic liberals from both.

I would estimate that when Labour or the Conseratives were on 40%, in both cases, 15% of their vote was potential Lib Dems.

So a potential 25% (wild guess) of tribal voters who were potential Lib Dem’s.

With the disintegration of tribal voting, the Lib Dems should have been hoovering them up.

He needs to define LibDem’ism to the population at large. The Orange Book was an example of such a thesis. There are others.

The problem is that it is easy to oppose everything - say yes to all the potential voters. Which is how we end up with “build a zillion houses, but not here” NIMYism.

To take a stand is to take a risk. But without a coherent, unifying vision, the Lib Dems will be the party of 12% for the future.

Whilst the GE did represent electoral success I think the LDs settled for far less than they might have achieved then. They seem to be settling for even less now.

Hence the discontent.

In theory, Davey should have got the moderates from both main parties and be looking at 30%+ now.

We've been here before though. Remember when various MPs from Con and Lab looked around for a centrist alternative, and, finding none to their liking, formed Change UK? The Lib Dems are a much nichier taste than we might expect.

As I said above, the LibDems’ big chance comes along if and when people are compelled to vote for them to “keep Reform out”. If enough people are frightened or horrified by the prospect of Farage in power AND that looks reasonably likely AND the Tories remain looking like Reform fellow-travellers AND Labour remain discredited in government, then it may happen.

We need to actually offer policies for reform, not just a safe harbour in a storm.

I can look back at the manifesto last year and there was some really good stuff in it that nobody paid the slightest bit of attention to. Because retail politics is boring - why listen to someone talking to you about a new cooker when your whole kitchen is on fire.

Credit to you for being so open about the challenges your party faces. In my area, the LDs did very well in Wokingham and Maidenhead, but in Bracknell they got 11%. The latter seat contains Sandhurst where the LDs do well at local level, but the largest town is in the seat is Bracknell itself. This is a 60s and 70s new town and contains large ex-council, then right-to-buy estates. Very C2 white van man and not very ethnically diverse. What do the LDs have to offer to this type of demographic?

Party HQ in Edinburgh are insistent that they want data from knocked doors. Great! So who is going to do that then. Our party structure is small and fragmented - the local party I am chair of has 22 members to cover a huge area. Most of the active members are pensioners. And I have more work than I know what to do with.

If we're going to bring in new members then we need to be visible. And we can't be visible by knocking doors one at a time through the winter. So I am going to do the logical thing - social media. See if that brings people in. And as we get into the campaign I want to channel John Major. Soapbox. Megaphone. Speak.

OnlyLivingBoy

Alphabet_Soup said:

Eabhal said:

Overwhelming support for the State Pension increase on the BBC news article comments and on Facebook. The government can't touch the triple lock.

The reason being, of course, that those yet to retire have far more to look forward to from the triple lock than anyone already drawing their pension. Whether the economy can afford to keep non-workers comfortably off at the expense of wage slaves is a separate question. When the Coalition introduced the current policy (prompted by Lloyd George's successors, back around the cabinet table at long last) it seemed like a slow, gentle way to catch up with other European countries. 'If they can afford it, why can't we?' was the clarion call.

They can't afford it either. I despair. Nobody is willing to have an honest conversation with the voters about this. The fact is that governments have made unaffordable promises to their citizens about the amount the state will support them in their old age, right across the West. Until that issue is addressed workers will face ever higher taxes, all other public spending will wither away, and voter rage will continue to grow. Right now, government debt is a Ponzi scheme and we will face a financial crisis that will dwarf 2008 if this is not dealt with.

Barnesian

ydoethur said:

Barnesian said:

The issue is visibility.

LibDems are very visible and successful in about 100 constituencies.
We are invisible in the rest.

If you live in a LibDem area, you know about it. If you don't you don't.

LibDems have very little national visibility.
This partly because the LibDem strategy has been to concentrate on areas of geographic strength and downplay national visibility.
It is also because the media, including the BBC, neglect the Lib Dems, either for partisan reasons or because we are not newsworthy. No scandals or defections.

With the current strategy, Lib Dems will be hard pressed to win 100 seats next time.
But how to get national visibility?
It is not about policies, - we have fistfuls of policies.
Perhaps our more colourful personalities need to step up?
Stunts aren't the answer.
Scandals might be. Where is our Jeremy Thorpe?
It needs to newsworthy. Perhaps the @RochdalePioneers approach nationally?

Are you sure you want Jeremy Thorpe style figure dogged by scandal?

I'm sure we don't!
That was an ironic joke about the only way to get attention.

RochdalePioneers

AugustusCarp2 said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

IanB2 said:

Cookie said:

Malmesbury said:

Omnium said:

Malmesbury said:

Good header

It does seem a bit unfair that Mr Davey is being criticised. After all, he led the part to massive election success and unlike the big two, the Lib Dems seem to be a fairly happy and united party that doesn’t shoot at their feet all day long.

But, he has had an open goal - with both main parties falling apart, in theory he has the opportunity to pick up the social and economic liberals from both.

I would estimate that when Labour or the Conseratives were on 40%, in both cases, 15% of their vote was potential Lib Dems.

So a potential 25% (wild guess) of tribal voters who were potential Lib Dem’s.

With the disintegration of tribal voting, the Lib Dems should have been hoovering them up.

He needs to define LibDem’ism to the population at large. The Orange Book was an example of such a thesis. There are others.

The problem is that it is easy to oppose everything - say yes to all the potential voters. Which is how we end up with “build a zillion houses, but not here” NIMYism.

To take a stand is to take a risk. But without a coherent, unifying vision, the Lib Dems will be the party of 12% for the future.

Whilst the GE did represent electoral success I think the LDs settled for far less than they might have achieved then. They seem to be settling for even less now.

Hence the discontent.

In theory, Davey should have got the moderates from both main parties and be looking at 30%+ now.

We've been here before though. Remember when various MPs from Con and Lab looked around for a centrist alternative, and, finding none to their liking, formed Change UK? The Lib Dems are a much nichier taste than we might expect.

As I said above, the LibDems’ big chance comes along if and when people are compelled to vote for them to “keep Reform out”. If enough people are frightened or horrified by the prospect of Farage in power AND that looks reasonably likely AND the Tories remain looking like Reform fellow-travellers AND Labour remain discredited in government, then it may happen.

We need to actually offer policies for reform, not just a safe harbour in a storm.

I can look back at the manifesto last year and there was some really good stuff in it that nobody paid the slightest bit of attention to. Because retail politics is boring - why listen to someone talking to you about a new cooker when your whole kitchen is on fire.

Credit to you for being so open about the challenges your party faces. In my area, the LDs did very well in Wokingham and Maidenhead, but in Bracknell they got 11%. The latter seat contains Sandhurst where the LDs do well at local level, but the largest town is in the seat is Bracknell itself. This is a 60s and 70s new town and contains large ex-council, then right-to-buy estates. Very C2 white van man and not very ethnically diverse. What do the LDs have to offer to this type of demographic?

Bracknell twice returned 40 Conservative councillors, with no other party represented on the council. Now it's pencilled in as a Reform gain.

Here is the reality about today's politics:

40 Tory councillors. Half will retire / step away. A quarter will defect to Reform. The other quarter wouldn't be allowed into Reform.

So you will end up with a "new" Reform council led by old Tories as we now have in Lancashire.

Sandpit

another_richard said:

Sandpit said:

Ukraine’s new “Long-range drone” hitting O&G facilities 1,500km into Russia, is basically a remote-controlled light aircraft, stuffed with fuel and explosives instead of a couple of humans.

It flies low and slow, for several hours at a time, yet the enemy still appears to be incapable of shooting it down.

https://x.com/tatarigami_ua/status/1967574142003417088

I remember reading here that Russian air defence was so good that a SAM battery near Moscow would be able to shoot down any NATO planes over Ukraine.

That PBer also claimed that anti-tank missiles never worked.

It’s quite amazing how an actual war can challenge one’s assumptions about military capability!

One good one from earlier this year was the “anti-stealth” drone that the Ukranians were fielding, which definitely didn’t have any fancy new NATO tech in it, absolutely definitely not.

It’s a fast flying jet-powered small drone designed to look like a much larger MiG to russian radar, purely so the enemy wastes the serious air defence missiles taking them out. The drones cost something like $100k each, but the S300/400 air defence missiles are $5-10m each - and now they don’t have any left!