"Full stops have become the latest casualty of youthful sensitivity as experts say they can be “intimidating”.
As teenagers and those in their early twenties, Generation Z, have grown up with phones in their hands, using short messages to communicate with one another, and the punctuation mark has fallen out of fashion and become a symbol of curt passive-aggression.
Linguists have been debating the use of the full stop and why some young people interpret a correctly punctuated text as a sign of annoyance."
"Full stops have become the latest casualty of youthful sensitivity as experts say they can be “intimidating”.
As teenagers and those in their early twenties, Generation Z, have grown up with phones in their hands, using short messages to communicate with one another, and the punctuation mark has fallen out of fashion and become a symbol of curt passive-aggression.
Linguists have been debating the use of the full stop and why some young people interpret a correctly punctuated text as a sign of annoyance."
What niche can the Lib Dems calve out? They've lost the centre-left one surely with Starmer.
Is it being centre right? Is that appealing to their voters bearing in mind by implication they're putting Starmer into No 10?
The problem with the Lib Dems isn't the voters, it's the members.
The section of the electorate where they are likely to get furthest in making converts - if they decide to go after them - are well-to-do, moderate, wet centre-right voters who can be prized from the Tories. Johnson's populism has created a potential opening in the market there.
The members, however, are centre-left and will therefore want to go fishing in the same pond as Starmer's Labour.
If they won't work to attract the soft Tories then their only hope of getting anywhere lies in persuading enough Labour voters in places where that party is currently in third place to switch to them in a bid to chuck the Tories out (and hope that those voters have by now forgiven them for the Coalition.) Except, if the Lib Dems are effectively going to be a smaller, weaker copy of Labour, then why shouldn't their voters go in the other direction and unite behind Labour's candidates instead?
Its quite right its the voters. Mostly the lib dems have a tiny number of voters the rest of the time its people who don't want to vote for anyone else and the lib dems have done their best to turn those people off by taking positions on stuff whereas when they were all shilly shally about everything the got the "no idea who to vote for vote". The lib dems have always been a none of the above vote but made the mistake of becoming on of the above.
What niche can the Lib Dems calve out? They've lost the centre-left one surely with Starmer.
Is it being centre right? Is that appealing to their voters bearing in mind by implication they're putting Starmer into No 10?
The problem with the Lib Dems isn't the voters, it's the members.
The section of the electorate where they are likely to get furthest in making converts - if they decide to go after them - are well-to-do, moderate, wet centre-right voters who can be prized from the Tories. Johnson's populism has created a potential opening in the market there.
The members, however, are centre-left and will therefore want to go fishing in the same pond as Starmer's Labour.
If they won't work to attract the soft Tories then their only hope of getting anywhere lies in persuading enough Labour voters in places where that party is currently in third place to switch to them in a bid to chuck the Tories out (and hope that those voters have by now forgiven them for the Coalition.) Except, if the Lib Dems are effectively going to be a smaller, weaker copy of Labour, then why shouldn't their voters go in the other direction and unite behind Labour's candidates instead?
Which is why as a Labour to LibDem convert I voted for Ed Davey and want us to go fishing for sane Tories. Which BTW can include a large number of former Labour voters...
Labour is very fortunate Pidcock lost her seat because she would likely have won the leadership otherwise and that would have lead to Milne and others staying on
I'm not so sure, she, like Rebecca Long Bailey, was nothing more than a paper tiger. Corbyn was like lightning in a bottle for the far left, no other candidate had the same broad appeal that he had to capture enough votes from the centre whilst pushing an overtly far left agenda. It's possible that the race would have been closer with Pidcock but I don't think she would have come close to winning among the membership. All of that "never kissed a Tory" stuff is sixth form politics and the Labour members were definitely ready to move on from that amateur hour style.
Comments
This is such a bullshit story.
But it is so confusing - which way up does it go?
No need to get all passive-aggressive about it
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/