Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.
Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.
WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵 Dear Americans, Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.
While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.
THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.
You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.
Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.
If, as seems likely, we're going back to 'spheres of influence' geopolitics, then Europe (for which I primarily mean the UK and the EU) have two choices:
1) Accept being a part of the US's sphere of influence. That's probably looks much like the status quo for the UK or France, but looks far more perilous the further east you go. As it would be up to the US and Russia to agree the boundaries between their respective spheres of influence.
2) Demand that Europe is collectively has it's own independent sphere of influence, and that we are willing to defend our boundary from Russia's, assuming no help or support from the US. In which case, I'd question why we'd continue to host bases from the US.
Not allowing Ukraine to be forced to capitulate to American demand is a key first step to establishing option 2 as our future.
In the long-term, my preferred spheres of influence would be (unlikely as I agree they seem) the EU - to include Ukraine and Russia, the United Kingdom, the USA, India, China, and everyone else.
I wish the Continent nothing but good, but I don't want Britain to be entangled in its affairs. We should be quite separate, with a very separate purpose.
That would be a bauble of influence.
The UK (pop. 70m) just doesn't have the scale to compete with the EU, America, China or India, all of whom have at least 5 times the population. We should throw our lot in with the EU or America, as per @Ratters suggestion.
You are a little bit deluded*. You know the empire has gone right?
(*See also 'the EU including Russia'.)
I am not suggesting we would necessarily be competing with them, I am suggesting we must be independent of them as a power. The post-war experiment in not being independent from either the US or the EU has been ruinous. We should be independent, with the ability to defend the British Isles against most if not all comers. I see that as realpolitik, not deluded.
As for the EU including Russia, isn't the dream of the EU for the cradle of Western civilisation to be a counterweight to US hegemony? I don't see that happening without the resources and strategic assets of Russia. And the EU could act as a civilising force there.
As things stand, if the EU spends all its resources in a war with Russia (and vice versa) all that really does is distract both from China, which increases its overlordship of Russia and its creeping influence over Europe.
What you are saying is the equivalent of putting the fox in the chicken coop, utter bollox and given how rotten and corrupt Russia is and it 's people's warped ideals they will never be part of Europe in any real sense.
PS: Let Billy no mates take on China on it's own, Tango man would be whining and gurning then.
If the Conservative Party is the scorpion, and Badenoch the frog, it would follow that getting rid of Kemi is an act of self harm that would kill the Tory Party wouldn’t it?
Seems to me the frog needs to be a dependable organisation, and the scorpion an individual that always lets people down or plays a snide move. Boris as the scorpion to the Tory Party Frog? Farage doing a deal with the Conservatives, then it blowing up once they’re in Downing St might be a better example
It's less to do with scorpions and frogs in all honesty.
The Conservatives are not in control of their own destiny - IF Reform prospers, they will end up the fourth or fifth party in the next Commons. They need Reform to fail and for the bulk of that vote to come to them and that's two areas about which they can do very little.
I suspect Badenoch would like to see Labour doing a little better as well to blunt the Reform threat in Labour seats and the LDs doing worse so they can regain some or all of the 50-60 seast lost in that direction last time.
Again, little of that in the Conservative purview - the big question (as an outsider) is the Conservative relationship to Reform. It's clear Farage wants no kind of pact, deal or alliance at this time - that might change - but do the Tories try to be Reform-lite in the hope Farage departs and they can get a big share of the Reform vote or do they mark out a distinctive niche and hope the voters see them as a viable alternative to Labour and Reform?
I disagree.
Look at the Lib Dems and Labour. For from growing fat off the other's polling misery, their success or failure usually go together.
The Tories do need give people reasons to vote for them in preference to Reform, but they shouldn't wish for Reform's failure or disappearance - Reform has revived the right. The Tories and Reform look like being the one and two parties in polls soon.
Not surprisingly, I don't wholly agree.
Yes, Conservative Governments in 1970, 1979 and the 2015 majority came about because of the collapse of the Liberals and clearly the Conservatives would like to win back all or most of the seats lost to the LDs last time but that won't get them anywhere near a Commons majority. They need to win seats off Labour and in many of those Reform are the nearest challengers and this is the Reform Party which won't, at least under Farage, countenance any pact or deal with the Tories so it's possible we'll see dozens of seats where Reform wins, the Conservatives are second and Labour collapse to third.
The fundamental is whether the next election is going to be Labour versus Not Labour or Reform versus Not Reform just as 2024 was Conservative versus Not Conservative.
A final thought - this obsession with "left" versus "right" is just sloppy anachronistic thinking. Reform are not a "right wing" party by many measures - they are a populist party which incorporates both socially conservative elements (which is where the Conservatives went wrong arguably) and considerable State interventionism (in other words, the "you can have your cake and eat it" party which brings in the Labour supporters). They are as fiscally incoherent and illiterate as all the other parties including the Conservatives.
Stodge's point I have put in bold is a crucial one. Both the forces of 'Not Reform' and 'Not Labour' are strong. For lots of people both apply. This should be good for the Tories but isn't as we have no idea if they would sustain or oppose Reform after a GE. This very obviously should be good for LDs and Greens.
There are large numbers of seats where only Lab, Reform and Tory appear credible candidates (five Cumbrian seats are a nice test case - all were Tory, all now Labour, all projected Reform). All three are opposed by most. An electoral pact between LD and Greens looks a no brainer for hundreds of seats. Which, being UK politics is I suppose a guarantee it won't happen.
Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.
Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.
WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵 Dear Americans, Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.
While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.
THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.
You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.
Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.
If, as seems likely, we're going back to 'spheres of influence' geopolitics, then Europe (for which I primarily mean the UK and the EU) have two choices:
1) Accept being a part of the US's sphere of influence. That's probably looks much like the status quo for the UK or France, but looks far more perilous the further east you go. As it would be up to the US and Russia to agree the boundaries between their respective spheres of influence.
2) Demand that Europe is collectively has it's own independent sphere of influence, and that we are willing to defend our boundary from Russia's, assuming no help or support from the US. In which case, I'd question why we'd continue to host bases from the US.
Not allowing Ukraine to be forced to capitulate to American demand is a key first step to establishing option 2 as our future.
In the long-term, my preferred spheres of influence would be (unlikely as I agree they seem) the EU - to include Ukraine and Russia, the United Kingdom, the USA, India, China, and everyone else.
I wish the Continent nothing but good, but I don't want Britain to be entangled in its affairs. We should be quite separate, with a very separate purpose.
That would be a bauble of influence.
The UK (pop. 70m) just doesn't have the scale to compete with the EU, America, China or India, all of whom have at least 5 times the population. We should throw our lot in with the EU or America, as per @Ratters suggestion.
You are a little bit deluded*. You know the empire has gone right?
(*See also 'the EU including Russia'.)
I am not suggesting we would necessarily be competing with them, I am suggesting we must be independent of them as a power. The post-war experiment in not being independent from either the US or the EU has been ruinous. We should be independent, with the ability to defend the British Isles against most if not all comers. I see that as realpolitik, not deluded.
As for the EU including Russia, isn't the dream of the EU for the cradle of Western civilisation to be a counterweight to US hegemony? I don't see that happening without the resources and strategic assets of Russia. And the EU could act as a civilising force there.
As things stand, if the EU spends all its resources in a war with Russia (and vice versa) all that really does is distract both from China, which increases its overlordship of Russia and its creeping influence over Europe.
To answer your question: No, I don't think the EU's dream is to be 'cradle of Western civilisation to be a counterweight to US hegemony'.
I think its aim is about ensuring peace, prosperity, democracy and security for its population. I don't think it wants to be in competition with the US, though the MAGA crowd seem to be trying to pick a fight (mainly because the MAGA crowd are more naturally sympathetic to Putin's reactionary ideas.)
PBers will be amused to learn that autocorrect repeatedly tried to turn the headline into 'The Tory Scorpion and Kermit the Frog.
It's not easy being Green.
(I've got some sympathy for the current batch of Green MPs. They've gone to all the trouble of getting elected, only to be lumbered an opportunist gob on a stick as leader.)
A Gob on a stick that has doubled their polling and had the overwhelming backing of the party.
Badenoch and astarmer could be forgiven a bit of jelousy.
Like a party where everyone is happily listening to Chopin, and then a bunch of gatecrashers arrive and start playing Metallica.
The Green Party as we knew it is no more.
I don't think that Polanski has changed much party policy. Leaving NATO and open borders are longstanding positions for example.
While your sympathies seem increasingly Faragist, I don't think it is the Green Party that has changed much.
Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.
Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.
WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵 Dear Americans, Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.
While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.
THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.
You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.
Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.
If, as seems likely, we're going back to 'spheres of influence' geopolitics, then Europe (for which I primarily mean the UK and the EU) have two choices:
1) Accept being a part of the US's sphere of influence. That's probably looks much like the status quo for the UK or France, but looks far more perilous the further east you go. As it would be up to the US and Russia to agree the boundaries between their respective spheres of influence.
2) Demand that Europe is collectively has it's own independent sphere of influence, and that we are willing to defend our boundary from Russia's, assuming no help or support from the US. In which case, I'd question why we'd continue to host bases from the US.
Not allowing Ukraine to be forced to capitulate to American demand is a key first step to establishing option 2 as our future.
In the long-term, my preferred spheres of influence would be (unlikely as I agree they seem) the EU - to include Ukraine and Russia, the United Kingdom, the USA, India, China, and everyone else.
I wish the Continent nothing but good, but I don't want Britain to be entangled in its affairs. We should be quite separate, with a very separate purpose.
That would be a bauble of influence.
The UK (pop. 70m) just doesn't have the scale to compete with the EU, America, China or India, all of whom have at least 5 times the population. We should throw our lot in with the EU or America, as per @Ratters suggestion.
You are a little bit deluded*. You know the empire has gone right?
(*See also 'the EU including Russia'.)
I am not suggesting we would necessarily be competing with them, I am suggesting we must be independent of them as a power. The post-war experiment in not being independent from either the US or the EU has been ruinous. We should be independent, with the ability to defend the British Isles against most if not all comers. I see that as realpolitik, not deluded.
As for the EU including Russia, isn't the dream of the EU for the cradle of Western civilisation to be a counterweight to US hegemony? I don't see that happening without the resources and strategic assets of Russia. And the EU could act as a civilising force there.
As things stand, if the EU spends all its resources in a war with Russia (and vice versa) all that really does is distract both from China, which increases its overlordship of Russia and its creeping influence over Europe.
To answer your question: No, I don't think the EU's dream is to be 'cradle of Western civilisation to be a counterweight to US hegemony'.
I think its aim is about ensuring peace, prosperity, democracy and security for its population. I don't think it wants to be in competition with the US, though the MAGA crowd seem to be trying to pick a fight (mainly because the MAGA crowd are more naturally sympathetic to Putin's reactionary ideas.)
I think that strikes me as rather delusional, especially the democracy part, but if those things are true, strategic independence must be a goal, or how can one ensure all those things for the citizens of Europe in the long term?
I agree with Malcolm G on his critique of Russia - it is all those things. However, its people should aspire for better than that, and a long term goal of being accepted into the heart of Europe is, I believe, a good one.
I am regularly surprised by @Luckyguy1983's utterly bizarre but usually politely well-argued take on the world.
His latest idea that Putin's Russia can ever be part of a harmonious EU is very weird... and given the Russian population's seemingly unwavering support for rampant nationalism, even after Putin this looks a non-starter to me.
If the Conservative Party is the scorpion, and Badenoch the frog, it would follow that getting rid of Kemi is an act of self harm that would kill the Tory Party wouldn’t it?
Seems to me the frog needs to be a dependable organisation, and the scorpion an individual that always lets people down or plays a snide move. Boris as the scorpion to the Tory Party Frog? Farage doing a deal with the Conservatives, then it blowing up once they’re in Downing St might be a better example
It's less to do with scorpions and frogs in all honesty.
The Conservatives are not in control of their own destiny - IF Reform prospers, they will end up the fourth or fifth party in the next Commons. They need Reform to fail and for the bulk of that vote to come to them and that's two areas about which they can do very little.
I suspect Badenoch would like to see Labour doing a little better as well to blunt the Reform threat in Labour seats and the LDs doing worse so they can regain some or all of the 50-60 seast lost in that direction last time.
Again, little of that in the Conservative purview - the big question (as an outsider) is the Conservative relationship to Reform. It's clear Farage wants no kind of pact, deal or alliance at this time - that might change - but do the Tories try to be Reform-lite in the hope Farage departs and they can get a big share of the Reform vote or do they mark out a distinctive niche and hope the voters see them as a viable alternative to Labour and Reform?
I disagree.
Look at the Lib Dems and Labour. For from growing fat off the other's polling misery, their success or failure usually go together.
The Tories do need give people reasons to vote for them in preference to Reform, but they shouldn't wish for Reform's failure or disappearance - Reform has revived the right. The Tories and Reform look like being the one and two parties in polls soon.
Not surprisingly, I don't wholly agree.
Yes, Conservative Governments in 1970, 1979 and the 2015 majority came about because of the collapse of the Liberals and clearly the Conservatives would like to win back all or most of the seats lost to the LDs last time but that won't get them anywhere near a Commons majority. They need to win seats off Labour and in many of those Reform are the nearest challengers and this is the Reform Party which won't, at least under Farage, countenance any pact or deal with the Tories so it's possible we'll see dozens of seats where Reform wins, the Conservatives are second and Labour collapse to third.
The fundamental is whether the next election is going to be Labour versus Not Labour or Reform versus Not Reform just as 2024 was Conservative versus Not Conservative.
A final thought - this obsession with "left" versus "right" is just sloppy anachronistic thinking. Reform are not a "right wing" party by many measures - they are a populist party which incorporates both socially conservative elements (which is where the Conservatives went wrong arguably) and considerable State interventionism (in other words, the "you can have your cake and eat it" party which brings in the Labour supporters). They are as fiscally incoherent and illiterate as all the other parties including the Conservatives.
Personally, I see Reform as a right wing party, responding to desperate times. They want to lift the benefit cap (though now in a very partial way) as a response to the demographic crisis. They want to nationalise bits of key industry to ensure their very survival, not as an ideological choice.
Right and left wing are not useful enough descriptions, for two great reasons. The centre left and right, despite the rhetoric, have much more in common with each other than they have with the outer extreme edges. Between them they have run a stable state since 1945, though of course not well enough but we aren't North Korea.
Secondly, right and left doesn't capture the whole at all. For example it doesn't capture social conservatism + big state intervention and dirigisme + nationalism. Which is where, I think, Reform is going to pitch itself.
I am regularly surprised by @Luckyguy1983's utterly bizarre but usually politely well-argued take on the world.
His latest idea that Putin's Russia can ever be part of a harmonious EU is very weird... and given the Russian population's seemingly unwavering support for rampant nationalism, even after Putin this looks a non-starter to me.
I am not sure that 'Putin's' Russia will ever join the EU. I'm suggesting it is an interesting long term goal for both parties.
2015, Marco Rubio: “As soon as I take office, I will move quickly to increase pressure on Moscow, under my administration, there will be no pleadings for meetings with Vladimir Putin. He will be treated for what he is – a gangster and a thug.”
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
The trouble is that ditching Badenoch would be an example of the standard political fallacy:
Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.
Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.
WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵 Dear Americans, Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.
While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.
THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.
You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.
Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.
If, as seems likely, we're going back to 'spheres of influence' geopolitics, then Europe (for which I primarily mean the UK and the EU) have two choices:
1) Accept being a part of the US's sphere of influence. That's probably looks much like the status quo for the UK or France, but looks far more perilous the further east you go. As it would be up to the US and Russia to agree the boundaries between their respective spheres of influence.
2) Demand that Europe is collectively has it's own independent sphere of influence, and that we are willing to defend our boundary from Russia's, assuming no help or support from the US. In which case, I'd question why we'd continue to host bases from the US.
Not allowing Ukraine to be forced to capitulate to American demand is a key first step to establishing option 2 as our future.
In the long-term, my preferred spheres of influence would be (unlikely as I agree they seem) the EU - to include Ukraine and Russia, the United Kingdom, the USA, India, China, and everyone else.
I wish the Continent nothing but good, but I don't want Britain to be entangled in its affairs. We should be quite separate, with a very separate purpose.
That would be a bauble of influence.
The UK (pop. 70m) just doesn't have the scale to compete with the EU, America, China or India, all of whom have at least 5 times the population. We should throw our lot in with the EU or America, as per @Ratters suggestion.
You are a little bit deluded*. You know the empire has gone right?
(*See also 'the EU including Russia'.)
I am not suggesting we would necessarily be competing with them, I am suggesting we must be independent of them as a power. The post-war experiment in not being independent from either the US or the EU has been ruinous. We should be independent, with the ability to defend the British Isles against most if not all comers. I see that as realpolitik, not deluded.
As for the EU including Russia, isn't the dream of the EU for the cradle of Western civilisation to be a counterweight to US hegemony? I don't see that happening without the resources and strategic assets of Russia. And the EU could act as a civilising force there.
As things stand, if the EU spends all its resources in a war with Russia (and vice versa) all that really does is distract both from China, which increases its overlordship of Russia and its creeping influence over Europe.
To answer your question: No, I don't think the EU's dream is to be 'cradle of Western civilisation to be a counterweight to US hegemony'.
I think its aim is about ensuring peace, prosperity, democracy and security for its population. I don't think it wants to be in competition with the US, though the MAGA crowd seem to be trying to pick a fight (mainly because the MAGA crowd are more naturally sympathetic to Putin's reactionary ideas.)
I think that strikes me as rather delusional, especially the democracy part, but if those things are true, strategic independence must be a goal, or how can one ensure all those things for the citizens of Europe in the long term?
I agree with Malcolm G on his critique of Russia - it is all those things. However, its people should aspire for better than that, and a long term goal of being accepted into the heart of Europe is, I believe, a good one.
I don't disagree with you on strategic independence but that doesn't have to be in competition with the US.
Regarding democracy, take a look at the list of EU member states and see how many of them were dictatorships not long before joining the EU, for which democracy is a pre-requisite. I would argue that no institution has done more to extend democracy than the EU.
If the Conservative Party is the scorpion, and Badenoch the frog, it would follow that getting rid of Kemi is an act of self harm that would kill the Tory Party wouldn’t it?
Seems to me the frog needs to be a dependable organisation, and the scorpion an individual that always lets people down or plays a snide move. Boris as the scorpion to the Tory Party Frog? Farage doing a deal with the Conservatives, then it blowing up once they’re in Downing St might be a better example
It's less to do with scorpions and frogs in all honesty.
The Conservatives are not in control of their own destiny - IF Reform prospers, they will end up the fourth or fifth party in the next Commons. They need Reform to fail and for the bulk of that vote to come to them and that's two areas about which they can do very little.
I suspect Badenoch would like to see Labour doing a little better as well to blunt the Reform threat in Labour seats and the LDs doing worse so they can regain some or all of the 50-60 seast lost in that direction last time.
Again, little of that in the Conservative purview - the big question (as an outsider) is the Conservative relationship to Reform. It's clear Farage wants no kind of pact, deal or alliance at this time - that might change - but do the Tories try to be Reform-lite in the hope Farage departs and they can get a big share of the Reform vote or do they mark out a distinctive niche and hope the voters see them as a viable alternative to Labour and Reform?
I disagree.
Look at the Lib Dems and Labour. For from growing fat off the other's polling misery, their success or failure usually go together.
The Tories do need give people reasons to vote for them in preference to Reform, but they shouldn't wish for Reform's failure or disappearance - Reform has revived the right. The Tories and Reform look like being the one and two parties in polls soon.
Not surprisingly, I don't wholly agree.
Yes, Conservative Governments in 1970, 1979 and the 2015 majority came about because of the collapse of the Liberals and clearly the Conservatives would like to win back all or most of the seats lost to the LDs last time but that won't get them anywhere near a Commons majority. They need to win seats off Labour and in many of those Reform are the nearest challengers and this is the Reform Party which won't, at least under Farage, countenance any pact or deal with the Tories so it's possible we'll see dozens of seats where Reform wins, the Conservatives are second and Labour collapse to third.
The fundamental is whether the next election is going to be Labour versus Not Labour or Reform versus Not Reform just as 2024 was Conservative versus Not Conservative.
A final thought - this obsession with "left" versus "right" is just sloppy anachronistic thinking. Reform are not a "right wing" party by many measures - they are a populist party which incorporates both socially conservative elements (which is where the Conservatives went wrong arguably) and considerable State interventionism (in other words, the "you can have your cake and eat it" party which brings in the Labour supporters). They are as fiscally incoherent and illiterate as all the other parties including the Conservatives.
Personally, I see Reform as a right wing party, responding to desperate times. They want to lift the benefit cap (though now in a very partial way) as a response to the demographic crisis. They want to nationalise bits of key industry to ensure their very survival, not as an ideological choice.
Right and left wing are not useful enough descriptions, for two great reasons. The centre left and right, despite the rhetoric, have much more in common with each other than they have with the outer extreme edges. Between them they have run a stable state since 1945, though of course not well enough but we aren't North Korea.
Secondly, right and left doesn't capture the whole at all. For example it doesn't capture social conservatism + big state intervention and dirigisme + nationalism. Which is where, I think, Reform is going to pitch itself.
Most of the Labour/Tory debate post Thatcher has been arguing about whether the % of GDP spent by the state should be 1% higher or lower, and also how politicians speak, rather than what they do. Fans of both parties will deny that but it is fairly obvious that plenty of our cabinet ministers over that time would have been happy enough in the opposite party, or indeed the LDs.
Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.
Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.
WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵 Dear Americans, Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.
While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.
THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.
You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.
Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.
If, as seems likely, we're going back to 'spheres of influence' geopolitics, then Europe (for which I primarily mean the UK and the EU) have two choices:
1) Accept being a part of the US's sphere of influence. That's probably looks much like the status quo for the UK or France, but looks far more perilous the further east you go. As it would be up to the US and Russia to agree the boundaries between their respective spheres of influence.
2) Demand that Europe is collectively has it's own independent sphere of influence, and that we are willing to defend our boundary from Russia's, assuming no help or support from the US. In which case, I'd question why we'd continue to host bases from the US.
Not allowing Ukraine to be forced to capitulate to American demand is a key first step to establishing option 2 as our future.
In the long-term, my preferred spheres of influence would be (unlikely as I agree they seem) the EU - to include Ukraine and Russia, the United Kingdom, the USA, India, China, and everyone else.
I wish the Continent nothing but good, but I don't want Britain to be entangled in its affairs. We should be quite separate, with a very separate purpose.
If the Conservative Party is the scorpion, and Badenoch the frog, it would follow that getting rid of Kemi is an act of self harm that would kill the Tory Party wouldn’t it?
Seems to me the frog needs to be a dependable organisation, and the scorpion an individual that always lets people down or plays a snide move. Boris as the scorpion to the Tory Party Frog? Farage doing a deal with the Conservatives, then it blowing up once they’re in Downing St might be a better example
It's less to do with scorpions and frogs in all honesty.
The Conservatives are not in control of their own destiny - IF Reform prospers, they will end up the fourth or fifth party in the next Commons. They need Reform to fail and for the bulk of that vote to come to them and that's two areas about which they can do very little.
I suspect Badenoch would like to see Labour doing a little better as well to blunt the Reform threat in Labour seats and the LDs doing worse so they can regain some or all of the 50-60 seast lost in that direction last time.
Again, little of that in the Conservative purview - the big question (as an outsider) is the Conservative relationship to Reform. It's clear Farage wants no kind of pact, deal or alliance at this time - that might change - but do the Tories try to be Reform-lite in the hope Farage departs and they can get a big share of the Reform vote or do they mark out a distinctive niche and hope the voters see them as a viable alternative to Labour and Reform?
I disagree.
Look at the Lib Dems and Labour. For from growing fat off the other's polling misery, their success or failure usually go together.
The Tories do need give people reasons to vote for them in preference to Reform, but they shouldn't wish for Reform's failure or disappearance - Reform has revived the right. The Tories and Reform look like being the one and two parties in polls soon.
Not surprisingly, I don't wholly agree.
Yes, Conservative Governments in 1970, 1979 and the 2015 majority came about because of the collapse of the Liberals and clearly the Conservatives would like to win back all or most of the seats lost to the LDs last time but that won't get them anywhere near a Commons majority. They need to win seats off Labour and in many of those Reform are the nearest challengers and this is the Reform Party which won't, at least under Farage, countenance any pact or deal with the Tories so it's possible we'll see dozens of seats where Reform wins, the Conservatives are second and Labour collapse to third.
The fundamental is whether the next election is going to be Labour versus Not Labour or Reform versus Not Reform just as 2024 was Conservative versus Not Conservative.
A final thought - this obsession with "left" versus "right" is just sloppy anachronistic thinking. Reform are not a "right wing" party by many measures - they are a populist party which incorporates both socially conservative elements (which is where the Conservatives went wrong arguably) and considerable State interventionism (in other words, the "you can have your cake and eat it" party which brings in the Labour supporters). They are as fiscally incoherent and illiterate as all the other parties including the Conservatives.
Personally, I see Reform as a right wing party, responding to desperate times. They want to lift the benefit cap (though now in a very partial way) as a response to the demographic crisis. They want to nationalise bits of key industry to ensure their very survival, not as an ideological choice.
Right and left wing are not useful enough descriptions, for two great reasons. The centre left and right, despite the rhetoric, have much more in common with each other than they have with the outer extreme edges. Between them they have run a stable state since 1945, though of course not well enough but we aren't North Korea.
Secondly, right and left doesn't capture the whole at all. For example it doesn't capture social conservatism + big state intervention and dirigisme + nationalism. Which is where, I think, Reform is going to pitch itself.
Most of the Labour/Tory debate post Thatcher has been arguing about whether the % of GDP spent by the state should be 1% higher or lower, and also how politicians speak, rather than what they do. Fans of both parties will deny that but it is fairly obvious that plenty of our cabinet ministers over that time would have been happy enough in the opposite party, or indeed the LDs.
It's a fair point. I do sometimes wonder whether makes much difference at all which party gets into power.
And then you see the threat to democracy in the US from the current regime and it reminds you that those decisions can sometimes be important.
Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.
Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.
WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵 Dear Americans, Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.
While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.
THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.
You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.
Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.
If, as seems likely, we're going back to 'spheres of influence' geopolitics, then Europe (for which I primarily mean the UK and the EU) have two choices:
1) Accept being a part of the US's sphere of influence. That's probably looks much like the status quo for the UK or France, but looks far more perilous the further east you go. As it would be up to the US and Russia to agree the boundaries between their respective spheres of influence.
2) Demand that Europe is collectively has it's own independent sphere of influence, and that we are willing to defend our boundary from Russia's, assuming no help or support from the US. In which case, I'd question why we'd continue to host bases from the US.
Not allowing Ukraine to be forced to capitulate to American demand is a key first step to establishing option 2 as our future.
In the long-term, my preferred spheres of influence would be (unlikely as I agree they seem) the EU - to include Ukraine and Russia, the United Kingdom, the USA, India, China, and everyone else.
I wish the Continent nothing but good, but I don't want Britain to be entangled in its affairs. We should be quite separate, with a very separate purpose.
That would be a bauble of influence.
The UK (pop. 70m) just doesn't have the scale to compete with the EU, America, China or India, all of whom have at least 5 times the population. We should throw our lot in with the EU or America, as per @Ratters suggestion.
You are a little bit deluded*. You know the empire has gone right?
(*See also 'the EU including Russia'.)
US are unreliable unless making big money off you or blowing up speedboats and the like. Anything other than a soft target is too much for them.
Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.
Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.
WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵 Dear Americans, Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.
While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.
THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.
You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.
Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.
If, as seems likely, we're going back to 'spheres of influence' geopolitics, then Europe (for which I primarily mean the UK and the EU) have two choices:
1) Accept being a part of the US's sphere of influence. That's probably looks much like the status quo for the UK or France, but looks far more perilous the further east you go. As it would be up to the US and Russia to agree the boundaries between their respective spheres of influence.
2) Demand that Europe is collectively has it's own independent sphere of influence, and that we are willing to defend our boundary from Russia's, assuming no help or support from the US. In which case, I'd question why we'd continue to host bases from the US.
Not allowing Ukraine to be forced to capitulate to American demand is a key first step to establishing option 2 as our future.
In the long-term, my preferred spheres of influence would be (unlikely as I agree they seem) the EU - to include Ukraine and Russia, the United Kingdom, the USA, India, China, and everyone else.
I wish the Continent nothing but good, but I don't want Britain to be entangled in its affairs. We should be quite separate, with a very separate purpose.
That would be a bauble of influence.
The UK (pop. 70m) just doesn't have the scale to compete with the EU, America, China or India, all of whom have at least 5 times the population. We should throw our lot in with the EU or America, as per @Ratters suggestion.
You are a little bit deluded*. You know the empire has gone right?
(*See also 'the EU including Russia'.)
I am not suggesting we would necessarily be competing with them, I am suggesting we must be independent of them as a power. The post-war experiment in not being independent from either the US or the EU has been ruinous. We should be independent, with the ability to defend the British Isles against most if not all comers. I see that as realpolitik, not deluded.
As for the EU including Russia, isn't the dream of the EU for the cradle of Western civilisation to be a counterweight to US hegemony? I don't see that happening without the resources and strategic assets of Russia. And the EU could act as a civilising force there.
As things stand, if the EU spends all its resources in a war with Russia (and vice versa) all that really does is distract both from China, which increases its overlordship of Russia and its creeping influence over Europe.
To answer your question: No, I don't think the EU's dream is to be 'cradle of Western civilisation to be a counterweight to US hegemony'.
I think its aim is about ensuring peace, prosperity, democracy and security for its population. I don't think it wants to be in competition with the US, though the MAGA crowd seem to be trying to pick a fight (mainly because the MAGA crowd are more naturally sympathetic to Putin's reactionary ideas.)
I think that strikes me as rather delusional, especially the democracy part, but if those things are true, strategic independence must be a goal, or how can one ensure all those things for the citizens of Europe in the long term?
I agree with Malcolm G on his critique of Russia - it is all those things. However, its people should aspire for better than that, and a long term goal of being accepted into the heart of Europe is, I believe, a good one.
I don't disagree with you on strategic independence but that doesn't have to be in competition with the US.
Regarding democracy, take a look at the list of EU member states and see how many of them were dictatorships not long before joining the EU, for which democracy is a pre-requisite. I would argue that no institution has done more to extend democracy than the EU.
And now those democracies are being subsumed into a new state that has a big shiny parliament building full of people with no real power, whilst real decisions are made by the Commission and the Council of Ministers. Though now we're out of it, I am more than happy to let them get on with it.
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
The trouble is that ditching Badenoch would be an example of the standard political fallacy:
We (Conservative MPs) must do something.
This (ditching the leader) is something.
Therefore, we must do this.
... which is broken is all sorts of places.
Political parties are following the football script - don't like the results? Sack the manager.
I am regularly surprised by @Luckyguy1983's utterly bizarre but usually politely well-argued take on the world.
His latest idea that Putin's Russia can ever be part of a harmonious EU is very weird... and given the Russian population's seemingly unwavering support for rampant nationalism, even after Putin this looks a non-starter to me.
I am not sure that 'Putin's' Russia will ever join the EU. I'm suggesting it is an interesting long term goal for both parties.
Well, I'd be very happy for you to tell me 'I told you so' in 25 years.
Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.
Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.
WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵 Dear Americans, Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.
While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.
THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.
You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.
Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.
If, as seems likely, we're going back to 'spheres of influence' geopolitics, then Europe (for which I primarily mean the UK and the EU) have two choices:
1) Accept being a part of the US's sphere of influence. That's probably looks much like the status quo for the UK or France, but looks far more perilous the further east you go. As it would be up to the US and Russia to agree the boundaries between their respective spheres of influence.
2) Demand that Europe is collectively has it's own independent sphere of influence, and that we are willing to defend our boundary from Russia's, assuming no help or support from the US. In which case, I'd question why we'd continue to host bases from the US.
Not allowing Ukraine to be forced to capitulate to American demand is a key first step to establishing option 2 as our future.
In the long-term, my preferred spheres of influence would be (unlikely as I agree they seem) the EU - to include Ukraine and Russia, the United Kingdom, the USA, India, China, and everyone else.
I wish the Continent nothing but good, but I don't want Britain to be entangled in its affairs. We should be quite separate, with a very separate purpose.
Dad's Army option, dream on
Switzerland manages to be fiercely independent - how much easier is that goal for us to achieve with our geographical and other advantages?
Kemi's problem is she is too rightwing for Labour and LD voters who might otherwise tactically vote Tory in Tory held seats to beat Reform if Cleverly for example was Tory leader. However she is not rightwing enough for 2019 and 2024 Conservative voters who have gone Reform and prefer Jenrick.
That said, Kemi has done some good work shorting up the party's finances when it could have gone bankrupt and leading policy reviews. She also has got better at the despatch box as with her budget response and she can at least say she has outlasted Truss as Tory leader and done less damage to the party than she did. To last more than 2 years as Tory leader and beat IDS, Howard and Sunak she will need a good set of local and devolved elections for the Conservatives next year though
Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.
Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.
WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵 Dear Americans, Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.
While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.
THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.
You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.
Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.
If, as seems likely, we're going back to 'spheres of influence' geopolitics, then Europe (for which I primarily mean the UK and the EU) have two choices:
1) Accept being a part of the US's sphere of influence. That's probably looks much like the status quo for the UK or France, but looks far more perilous the further east you go. As it would be up to the US and Russia to agree the boundaries between their respective spheres of influence.
2) Demand that Europe is collectively has it's own independent sphere of influence, and that we are willing to defend our boundary from Russia's, assuming no help or support from the US. In which case, I'd question why we'd continue to host bases from the US.
Not allowing Ukraine to be forced to capitulate to American demand is a key first step to establishing option 2 as our future.
In the long-term, my preferred spheres of influence would be (unlikely as I agree they seem) the EU - to include Ukraine and Russia, the United Kingdom, the USA, India, China, and everyone else.
I wish the Continent nothing but good, but I don't want Britain to be entangled in its affairs. We should be quite separate, with a very separate purpose.
That would be a bauble of influence.
The UK (pop. 70m) just doesn't have the scale to compete with the EU, America, China or India, all of whom have at least 5 times the population. We should throw our lot in with the EU or America, as per @Ratters suggestion.
You are a little bit deluded*. You know the empire has gone right?
(*See also 'the EU including Russia'.)
I am not suggesting we would necessarily be competing with them, I am suggesting we must be independent of them as a power. The post-war experiment in not being independent from either the US or the EU has been ruinous. We should be independent, with the ability to defend the British Isles against most if not all comers. I see that as realpolitik, not deluded.
As for the EU including Russia, isn't the dream of the EU for the cradle of Western civilisation to be a counterweight to US hegemony? I don't see that happening without the resources and strategic assets of Russia. And the EU could act as a civilising force there.
As things stand, if the EU spends all its resources in a war with Russia (and vice versa) all that really does is distract both from China, which increases its overlordship of Russia and its creeping influence over Europe.
To answer your question: No, I don't think the EU's dream is to be 'cradle of Western civilisation to be a counterweight to US hegemony'.
I think its aim is about ensuring peace, prosperity, democracy and security for its population. I don't think it wants to be in competition with the US, though the MAGA crowd seem to be trying to pick a fight (mainly because the MAGA crowd are more naturally sympathetic to Putin's reactionary ideas.)
I think that strikes me as rather delusional, especially the democracy part, but if those things are true, strategic independence must be a goal, or how can one ensure all those things for the citizens of Europe in the long term?
I agree with Malcolm G on his critique of Russia - it is all those things. However, its people should aspire for better than that, and a long term goal of being accepted into the heart of Europe is, I believe, a good one.
I don't disagree with you on strategic independence but that doesn't have to be in competition with the US.
Regarding democracy, take a look at the list of EU member states and see how many of them were dictatorships not long before joining the EU, for which democracy is a pre-requisite. I would argue that no institution has done more to extend democracy than the EU.
Boris, Farage, and Corbyn were/are all dangerous, the rest just vary in their level of incompetence.......
Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.
Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.
WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵 Dear Americans, Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.
While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.
THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.
You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.
Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.
If, as seems likely, we're going back to 'spheres of influence' geopolitics, then Europe (for which I primarily mean the UK and the EU) have two choices:
1) Accept being a part of the US's sphere of influence. That's probably looks much like the status quo for the UK or France, but looks far more perilous the further east you go. As it would be up to the US and Russia to agree the boundaries between their respective spheres of influence.
2) Demand that Europe is collectively has it's own independent sphere of influence, and that we are willing to defend our boundary from Russia's, assuming no help or support from the US. In which case, I'd question why we'd continue to host bases from the US.
Not allowing Ukraine to be forced to capitulate to American demand is a key first step to establishing option 2 as our future.
In the long-term, my preferred spheres of influence would be (unlikely as I agree they seem) the EU - to include Ukraine and Russia, the United Kingdom, the USA, India, China, and everyone else.
I wish the Continent nothing but good, but I don't want Britain to be entangled in its affairs. We should be quite separate, with a very separate purpose.
Dad's Army option, dream on
Switzerland manages to be fiercely independent - how much easier is that goal for us to achieve with our geographical and other advantages?
what spere of influence do Switzerland have anywhere in the world apart from hiding dodgy money. We could indeed become a backwater, stop spending money on weapons and be a lot better off and b esame as Switzerland.
If the Conservative Party is the scorpion, and Badenoch the frog, it would follow that getting rid of Kemi is an act of self harm that would kill the Tory Party wouldn’t it?
Seems to me the frog needs to be a dependable organisation, and the scorpion an individual that always lets people down or plays a snide move. Boris as the scorpion to the Tory Party Frog? Farage doing a deal with the Conservatives, then it blowing up once they’re in Downing St might be a better example
It's less to do with scorpions and frogs in all honesty.
The Conservatives are not in control of their own destiny - IF Reform prospers, they will end up the fourth or fifth party in the next Commons. They need Reform to fail and for the bulk of that vote to come to them and that's two areas about which they can do very little.
I suspect Badenoch would like to see Labour doing a little better as well to blunt the Reform threat in Labour seats and the LDs doing worse so they can regain some or all of the 50-60 seast lost in that direction last time.
Again, little of that in the Conservative purview - the big question (as an outsider) is the Conservative relationship to Reform. It's clear Farage wants no kind of pact, deal or alliance at this time - that might change - but do the Tories try to be Reform-lite in the hope Farage departs and they can get a big share of the Reform vote or do they mark out a distinctive niche and hope the voters see them as a viable alternative to Labour and Reform?
I disagree.
Look at the Lib Dems and Labour. For from growing fat off the other's polling misery, their success or failure usually go together.
The Tories do need give people reasons to vote for them in preference to Reform, but they shouldn't wish for Reform's failure or disappearance - Reform has revived the right. The Tories and Reform look like being the one and two parties in polls soon.
Not surprisingly, I don't wholly agree.
Yes, Conservative Governments in 1970, 1979 and the 2015 majority came about because of the collapse of the Liberals and clearly the Conservatives would like to win back all or most of the seats lost to the LDs last time but that won't get them anywhere near a Commons majority. They need to win seats off Labour and in many of those Reform are the nearest challengers and this is the Reform Party which won't, at least under Farage, countenance any pact or deal with the Tories so it's possible we'll see dozens of seats where Reform wins, the Conservatives are second and Labour collapse to third.
The fundamental is whether the next election is going to be Labour versus Not Labour or Reform versus Not Reform just as 2024 was Conservative versus Not Conservative.
A final thought - this obsession with "left" versus "right" is just sloppy anachronistic thinking. Reform are not a "right wing" party by many measures - they are a populist party which incorporates both socially conservative elements (which is where the Conservatives went wrong arguably) and considerable State interventionism (in other words, the "you can have your cake and eat it" party which brings in the Labour supporters). They are as fiscally incoherent and illiterate as all the other parties including the Conservatives.
Stodge's point I have put in bold is a crucial one. Both the forces of 'Not Reform' and 'Not Labour' are strong. For lots of people both apply. This should be good for the Tories but isn't as we have no idea if they would sustain or oppose Reform after a GE. This very obviously should be good for LDs and Greens.
There are large numbers of seats where only Lab, Reform and Tory appear credible candidates (five Cumbrian seats are a nice test case - all were Tory, all now Labour, all projected Reform). All three are opposed by most. An electoral pact between LD and Greens looks a no brainer for hundreds of seats. Which, being UK politics is I suppose a guarantee it won't happen.
Davey won't do a pact with Polanski which would be toxic in ex Tory seats the LDs now hold in the home counties. Polanskl is more likely to do a pact with Corbyn and Sultana and Your Party anyway who he is ideologically closer too than ex Cameron Cabinet Minister Sir Ed Davey
If the Conservative Party is the scorpion, and Badenoch the frog, it would follow that getting rid of Kemi is an act of self harm that would kill the Tory Party wouldn’t it?
Seems to me the frog needs to be a dependable organisation, and the scorpion an individual that always lets people down or plays a snide move. Boris as the scorpion to the Tory Party Frog? Farage doing a deal with the Conservatives, then it blowing up once they’re in Downing St might be a better example
It's less to do with scorpions and frogs in all honesty.
The Conservatives are not in control of their own destiny - IF Reform prospers, they will end up the fourth or fifth party in the next Commons. They need Reform to fail and for the bulk of that vote to come to them and that's two areas about which they can do very little.
I suspect Badenoch would like to see Labour doing a little better as well to blunt the Reform threat in Labour seats and the LDs doing worse so they can regain some or all of the 50-60 seast lost in that direction last time.
Again, little of that in the Conservative purview - the big question (as an outsider) is the Conservative relationship to Reform. It's clear Farage wants no kind of pact, deal or alliance at this time - that might change - but do the Tories try to be Reform-lite in the hope Farage departs and they can get a big share of the Reform vote or do they mark out a distinctive niche and hope the voters see them as a viable alternative to Labour and Reform?
I disagree.
Look at the Lib Dems and Labour. For from growing fat off the other's polling misery, their success or failure usually go together.
The Tories do need give people reasons to vote for them in preference to Reform, but they shouldn't wish for Reform's failure or disappearance - Reform has revived the right. The Tories and Reform look like being the one and two parties in polls soon.
Not surprisingly, I don't wholly agree.
Yes, Conservative Governments in 1970, 1979 and the 2015 majority came about because of the collapse of the Liberals and clearly the Conservatives would like to win back all or most of the seats lost to the LDs last time but that won't get them anywhere near a Commons majority. They need to win seats off Labour and in many of those Reform are the nearest challengers and this is the Reform Party which won't, at least under Farage, countenance any pact or deal with the Tories so it's possible we'll see dozens of seats where Reform wins, the Conservatives are second and Labour collapse to third.
The fundamental is whether the next election is going to be Labour versus Not Labour or Reform versus Not Reform just as 2024 was Conservative versus Not Conservative.
A final thought - this obsession with "left" versus "right" is just sloppy anachronistic thinking. Reform are not a "right wing" party by many measures - they are a populist party which incorporates both socially conservative elements (which is where the Conservatives went wrong arguably) and considerable State interventionism (in other words, the "you can have your cake and eat it" party which brings in the Labour supporters). They are as fiscally incoherent and illiterate as all the other parties including the Conservatives.
Personally, I see Reform as a right wing party, responding to desperate times. They want to lift the benefit cap (though now in a very partial way) as a response to the demographic crisis. They want to nationalise bits of key industry to ensure their very survival, not as an ideological choice.
Right and left wing are not useful enough descriptions, for two great reasons. The centre left and right, despite the rhetoric, have much more in common with each other than they have with the outer extreme edges. Between them they have run a stable state since 1945, though of course not well enough but we aren't North Korea.
Secondly, right and left doesn't capture the whole at all. For example it doesn't capture social conservatism + big state intervention and dirigisme + nationalism. Which is where, I think, Reform is going to pitch itself.
Most of the Labour/Tory debate post Thatcher has been arguing about whether the % of GDP spent by the state should be 1% higher or lower, and also how politicians speak, rather than what they do. Fans of both parties will deny that but it is fairly obvious that plenty of our cabinet ministers over that time would have been happy enough in the opposite party, or indeed the LDs.
This is all true but even true of Thatcher and the entire post 1945 UK world. It is best described as social democracy. No government has undone the fabric of regulated capitalism + welfare state. They have tinkered with the balance of it, run it sometimes well, sometimes less well, all have tried to make progress in prosperity, some better than others.
The idea that Reform intend to change this basic pattern is, IMHO, not correct. Your Party and Greens do so intend. Which makes them interesting.
Reform are interesting because they are also ethno-nationalists and appear to lack the most basic tools of judgment and competence. But they are nationalist social democrats (as are SNP and PC). Greens and Your Party are not.
If the Conservative Party is the scorpion, and Badenoch the frog, it would follow that getting rid of Kemi is an act of self harm that would kill the Tory Party wouldn’t it?
Seems to me the frog needs to be a dependable organisation, and the scorpion an individual that always lets people down or plays a snide move. Boris as the scorpion to the Tory Party Frog? Farage doing a deal with the Conservatives, then it blowing up once they’re in Downing St might be a better example
It's less to do with scorpions and frogs in all honesty.
The Conservatives are not in control of their own destiny - IF Reform prospers, they will end up the fourth or fifth party in the next Commons. They need Reform to fail and for the bulk of that vote to come to them and that's two areas about which they can do very little.
I suspect Badenoch would like to see Labour doing a little better as well to blunt the Reform threat in Labour seats and the LDs doing worse so they can regain some or all of the 50-60 seast lost in that direction last time.
Again, little of that in the Conservative purview - the big question (as an outsider) is the Conservative relationship to Reform. It's clear Farage wants no kind of pact, deal or alliance at this time - that might change - but do the Tories try to be Reform-lite in the hope Farage departs and they can get a big share of the Reform vote or do they mark out a distinctive niche and hope the voters see them as a viable alternative to Labour and Reform?
I disagree.
Look at the Lib Dems and Labour. For from growing fat off the other's polling misery, their success or failure usually go together.
The Tories do need give people reasons to vote for them in preference to Reform, but they shouldn't wish for Reform's failure or disappearance - Reform has revived the right. The Tories and Reform look like being the one and two parties in polls soon.
Not surprisingly, I don't wholly agree.
Yes, Conservative Governments in 1970, 1979 and the 2015 majority came about because of the collapse of the Liberals and clearly the Conservatives would like to win back all or most of the seats lost to the LDs last time but that won't get them anywhere near a Commons majority. They need to win seats off Labour and in many of those Reform are the nearest challengers and this is the Reform Party which won't, at least under Farage, countenance any pact or deal with the Tories so it's possible we'll see dozens of seats where Reform wins, the Conservatives are second and Labour collapse to third.
The fundamental is whether the next election is going to be Labour versus Not Labour or Reform versus Not Reform just as 2024 was Conservative versus Not Conservative.
A final thought - this obsession with "left" versus "right" is just sloppy anachronistic thinking. Reform are not a "right wing" party by many measures - they are a populist party which incorporates both socially conservative elements (which is where the Conservatives went wrong arguably) and considerable State interventionism (in other words, the "you can have your cake and eat it" party which brings in the Labour supporters). They are as fiscally incoherent and illiterate as all the other parties including the Conservatives.
Stodge's point I have put in bold is a crucial one. Both the forces of 'Not Reform' and 'Not Labour' are strong. For lots of people both apply. This should be good for the Tories but isn't as we have no idea if they would sustain or oppose Reform after a GE. This very obviously should be good for LDs and Greens.
There are large numbers of seats where only Lab, Reform and Tory appear credible candidates (five Cumbrian seats are a nice test case - all were Tory, all now Labour, all projected Reform). All three are opposed by most. An electoral pact between LD and Greens looks a no brainer for hundreds of seats. Which, being UK politics is I suppose a guarantee it won't happen.
While I agree with your analysis in terms of how the next election will play out, the situation is really bad for the Conservative Party. Lib Dems are probably the last refuge of One Nation Tories - no one in the actual Conservative Party cares about them. Meanwhile the Party looking to its right flank flirts but doesn't commit to hard right populism. They will be doing well to get to 20% in that scenario.
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t
It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election
Isn't it likely that one of the factors keeping the Tory polling figure low is that it is impossible to know whether a person should vote Tory to help keep Reform out, or vote Tory to help put Reform in?
As long as that polling figure figure is low, the question of voting Tory to have a Tory government doesn't arise; like with voting LD.
No different leader will resolve that issue unless they tell us. It can only be resolved by Reform collapse, or Tory decisiveness.
Surely if your voting Tory but don't like Reform much, at this point you're mainly voting Tory in the hopes of a Tory - Ref coalition where the Tories are able to be a moderating influence on a Ref government.
There's virtually no hope of a Tory majority unless something big changes. If you don't want a rightish government, why are you voting Tory at all?
To be fair, as a Ref voter this would probably be my preferred outcome - Ref are needed to fix immigration, but with Tory influence to ensure they cut spending rather than increase the state.
More generally - why do people constantly treat politics like a team sport, where they back their team through thick or thin, regardless of how useless they are.
I couldn't care less about the fate of any of the UK's political parties, I care about the policies which they enact on the country.
IMHO, the country needs: Net zero immigration for an extended period (until house prices are back to sanity). Massive shrinkage of the state, coupled with a fairly massive reduction in the tax burden, and also a very reduced deficit. Deregulation across most spheres of life.
I'll vote for anyone who looks like they might deliver some of that, or failing that is least likely to deliver the opposite. I couldn't care less what colour label they wear as they are doing it.
This is however slightly tempered by a belief that leopards aren't given to changing their spots - e. g. whatever the Labour Party says before elections about not increasing taxes, you can be can be sure that if elected they'll tax, spend and borrow like it's going out of fashion, because that's what they always do.
If the Conservative Party is the scorpion, and Badenoch the frog, it would follow that getting rid of Kemi is an act of self harm that would kill the Tory Party wouldn’t it?
Seems to me the frog needs to be a dependable organisation, and the scorpion an individual that always lets people down or plays a snide move. Boris as the scorpion to the Tory Party Frog? Farage doing a deal with the Conservatives, then it blowing up once they’re in Downing St might be a better example
It's less to do with scorpions and frogs in all honesty.
The Conservatives are not in control of their own destiny - IF Reform prospers, they will end up the fourth or fifth party in the next Commons. They need Reform to fail and for the bulk of that vote to come to them and that's two areas about which they can do very little.
I suspect Badenoch would like to see Labour doing a little better as well to blunt the Reform threat in Labour seats and the LDs doing worse so they can regain some or all of the 50-60 seast lost in that direction last time.
Again, little of that in the Conservative purview - the big question (as an outsider) is the Conservative relationship to Reform. It's clear Farage wants no kind of pact, deal or alliance at this time - that might change - but do the Tories try to be Reform-lite in the hope Farage departs and they can get a big share of the Reform vote or do they mark out a distinctive niche and hope the voters see them as a viable alternative to Labour and Reform?
I disagree.
Look at the Lib Dems and Labour. For from growing fat off the other's polling misery, their success or failure usually go together.
The Tories do need give people reasons to vote for them in preference to Reform, but they shouldn't wish for Reform's failure or disappearance - Reform has revived the right. The Tories and Reform look like being the one and two parties in polls soon.
Not surprisingly, I don't wholly agree.
Yes, Conservative Governments in 1970, 1979 and the 2015 majority came about because of the collapse of the Liberals and clearly the Conservatives would like to win back all or most of the seats lost to the LDs last time but that won't get them anywhere near a Commons majority. They need to win seats off Labour and in many of those Reform are the nearest challengers and this is the Reform Party which won't, at least under Farage, countenance any pact or deal with the Tories so it's possible we'll see dozens of seats where Reform wins, the Conservatives are second and Labour collapse to third.
The fundamental is whether the next election is going to be Labour versus Not Labour or Reform versus Not Reform just as 2024 was Conservative versus Not Conservative.
A final thought - this obsession with "left" versus "right" is just sloppy anachronistic thinking. Reform are not a "right wing" party by many measures - they are a populist party which incorporates both socially conservative elements (which is where the Conservatives went wrong arguably) and considerable State interventionism (in other words, the "you can have your cake and eat it" party which brings in the Labour supporters). They are as fiscally incoherent and illiterate as all the other parties including the Conservatives.
Personally, I see Reform as a right wing party, responding to desperate times. They want to lift the benefit cap (though now in a very partial way) as a response to the demographic crisis. They want to nationalise bits of key industry to ensure their very survival, not as an ideological choice.
Right and left wing are not useful enough descriptions, for two great reasons. The centre left and right, despite the rhetoric, have much more in common with each other than they have with the outer extreme edges. Between them they have run a stable state since 1945, though of course not well enough but we aren't North Korea.
Secondly, right and left doesn't capture the whole at all. For example it doesn't capture social conservatism + big state intervention and dirigisme + nationalism. Which is where, I think, Reform is going to pitch itself.
Most of the Labour/Tory debate post Thatcher has been arguing about whether the % of GDP spent by the state should be 1% higher or lower, and also how politicians speak, rather than what they do. Fans of both parties will deny that but it is fairly obvious that plenty of our cabinet ministers over that time would have been happy enough in the opposite party, or indeed the LDs.
It's a fair point. I do sometimes wonder whether makes much difference at all which party gets into power.
And then you see the threat to democracy in the US from the current regime and it reminds you that those decisions can sometimes be important.
The big difference about being able to vote and choose is not about policy but about the nature of power. All our governments since 1945 have been similar in the great scheme of things. But the fact we can kick the rascals out is the difference not of policy, but the difference between us and North Korea.
Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.
Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.
WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵 Dear Americans, Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.
While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.
THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.
You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.
Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.
If, as seems likely, we're going back to 'spheres of influence' geopolitics, then Europe (for which I primarily mean the UK and the EU) have two choices:
1) Accept being a part of the US's sphere of influence. That's probably looks much like the status quo for the UK or France, but looks far more perilous the further east you go. As it would be up to the US and Russia to agree the boundaries between their respective spheres of influence.
2) Demand that Europe is collectively has it's own independent sphere of influence, and that we are willing to defend our boundary from Russia's, assuming no help or support from the US. In which case, I'd question why we'd continue to host bases from the US.
Not allowing Ukraine to be forced to capitulate to American demand is a key first step to establishing option 2 as our future.
In the long-term, my preferred spheres of influence would be (unlikely as I agree they seem) the EU - to include Ukraine and Russia, the United Kingdom, the USA, India, China, and everyone else.
I wish the Continent nothing but good, but I don't want Britain to be entangled in its affairs. We should be quite separate, with a very separate purpose.
That would be a bauble of influence.
The UK (pop. 70m) just doesn't have the scale to compete with the EU, America, China or India, all of whom have at least 5 times the population. We should throw our lot in with the EU or America, as per @Ratters suggestion.
You are a little bit deluded*. You know the empire has gone right?
(*See also 'the EU including Russia'.)
We should be a bridge between the US and EU as we always aimed to be and even now are to some extent via Starmer's links with Trump and the EU
If the Conservative Party is the scorpion, and Badenoch the frog, it would follow that getting rid of Kemi is an act of self harm that would kill the Tory Party wouldn’t it?
Seems to me the frog needs to be a dependable organisation, and the scorpion an individual that always lets people down or plays a snide move. Boris as the scorpion to the Tory Party Frog? Farage doing a deal with the Conservatives, then it blowing up once they’re in Downing St might be a better example
It's less to do with scorpions and frogs in all honesty.
The Conservatives are not in control of their own destiny - IF Reform prospers, they will end up the fourth or fifth party in the next Commons. They need Reform to fail and for the bulk of that vote to come to them and that's two areas about which they can do very little.
I suspect Badenoch would like to see Labour doing a little better as well to blunt the Reform threat in Labour seats and the LDs doing worse so they can regain some or all of the 50-60 seast lost in that direction last time.
Again, little of that in the Conservative purview - the big question (as an outsider) is the Conservative relationship to Reform. It's clear Farage wants no kind of pact, deal or alliance at this time - that might change - but do the Tories try to be Reform-lite in the hope Farage departs and they can get a big share of the Reform vote or do they mark out a distinctive niche and hope the voters see them as a viable alternative to Labour and Reform?
I disagree.
Look at the Lib Dems and Labour. For from growing fat off the other's polling misery, their success or failure usually go together.
The Tories do need give people reasons to vote for them in preference to Reform, but they shouldn't wish for Reform's failure or disappearance - Reform has revived the right. The Tories and Reform look like being the one and two parties in polls soon.
Not surprisingly, I don't wholly agree.
Yes, Conservative Governments in 1970, 1979 and the 2015 majority came about because of the collapse of the Liberals and clearly the Conservatives would like to win back all or most of the seats lost to the LDs last time but that won't get them anywhere near a Commons majority. They need to win seats off Labour and in many of those Reform are the nearest challengers and this is the Reform Party which won't, at least under Farage, countenance any pact or deal with the Tories so it's possible we'll see dozens of seats where Reform wins, the Conservatives are second and Labour collapse to third.
The fundamental is whether the next election is going to be Labour versus Not Labour or Reform versus Not Reform just as 2024 was Conservative versus Not Conservative.
A final thought - this obsession with "left" versus "right" is just sloppy anachronistic thinking. Reform are not a "right wing" party by many measures - they are a populist party which incorporates both socially conservative elements (which is where the Conservatives went wrong arguably) and considerable State interventionism (in other words, the "you can have your cake and eat it" party which brings in the Labour supporters). They are as fiscally incoherent and illiterate as all the other parties including the Conservatives.
Stodge's point I have put in bold is a crucial one. Both the forces of 'Not Reform' and 'Not Labour' are strong. For lots of people both apply. This should be good for the Tories but isn't as we have no idea if they would sustain or oppose Reform after a GE. This very obviously should be good for LDs and Greens.
There are large numbers of seats where only Lab, Reform and Tory appear credible candidates (five Cumbrian seats are a nice test case - all were Tory, all now Labour, all projected Reform). All three are opposed by most. An electoral pact between LD and Greens looks a no brainer for hundreds of seats. Which, being UK politics is I suppose a guarantee it won't happen.
While I agree with your analysis in terms of how the next election will play out, the situation is really bad for the Conservative Party. Lib Dems are probably the last refuge of One Nation Tories - no one in the actual Conservative Party cares about them. Meanwhile the Party looking to its right flank flirts but doesn't commit to hard right populism. They will be doing well to get to 20% in that scenario.
I should add the current Conservative and Labour party positions aren't analogous in their respective voters blocks. The Greens for now are the challengers to Labour; the Conservatives are now assumed to be challengers to Reform based on their ideologies.
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t
It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election
Isn't it likely that one of the factors keeping the Tory polling figure low is that it is impossible to know whether a person should vote Tory to help keep Reform out, or vote Tory to help put Reform in?
As long as that polling figure figure is low, the question of voting Tory to have a Tory government doesn't arise; like with voting LD.
No different leader will resolve that issue unless they tell us. It can only be resolved by Reform collapse, or Tory decisiveness.
Surely if your voting Tory but don't like Reform much, at this point you're mainly voting Tory in the hopes of a Tory - Ref coalition where the Tories are able to be a moderating influence on a Ref government.
There's virtually no hope of a Tory majority unless something big changes. If you don't want a rightish government, why are you voting Tory at all?
To be fair, as a Ref voter this would probably be my preferred outcome - Ref are needed to fix immigration, but with Tory influence to ensure they cut spending rather than increase the state.
More generally - why do people constantly treat politics like a team sport, where they back their team through thick or thin, regardless of how useless they are.
I couldn't care less about the fate of any of the UK's political parties, I care about the policies which they enact on the country.
IMHO, the country needs: Net zero immigration for an extended period (until house prices are back to sanity). Massive shrinkage of the state, coupled with a fairly massive reduction in the tax burden, and also a very reduced deficit. Deregulation across most spheres of life.
I'll vote for anyone who looks like they might deliver some of that, or failing that is least likely to deliver the opposite. I couldn't care less what colour label they wear as they are doing it.
This is however slightly tempered by a belief that leopards aren't given to changing their spots - e. g. whatever the Labour Party says before elections about not increasing taxes, you can be can be sure that if elected they'll tax, spend and borrow like it's going out of fashion, because that's what they always do.
If a Reform government is not high spend (somewhere in the middle of the western European pack as % of GDP) I shall eat my hat.
If the Conservative Party is the scorpion, and Badenoch the frog, it would follow that getting rid of Kemi is an act of self harm that would kill the Tory Party wouldn’t it?
Seems to me the frog needs to be a dependable organisation, and the scorpion an individual that always lets people down or plays a snide move. Boris as the scorpion to the Tory Party Frog? Farage doing a deal with the Conservatives, then it blowing up once they’re in Downing St might be a better example
It's less to do with scorpions and frogs in all honesty.
The Conservatives are not in control of their own destiny - IF Reform prospers, they will end up the fourth or fifth party in the next Commons. They need Reform to fail and for the bulk of that vote to come to them and that's two areas about which they can do very little.
I suspect Badenoch would like to see Labour doing a little better as well to blunt the Reform threat in Labour seats and the LDs doing worse so they can regain some or all of the 50-60 seast lost in that direction last time.
Again, little of that in the Conservative purview - the big question (as an outsider) is the Conservative relationship to Reform. It's clear Farage wants no kind of pact, deal or alliance at this time - that might change - but do the Tories try to be Reform-lite in the hope Farage departs and they can get a big share of the Reform vote or do they mark out a distinctive niche and hope the voters see them as a viable alternative to Labour and Reform?
I disagree.
Look at the Lib Dems and Labour. For from growing fat off the other's polling misery, their success or failure usually go together.
The Tories do need give people reasons to vote for them in preference to Reform, but they shouldn't wish for Reform's failure or disappearance - Reform has revived the right. The Tories and Reform look like being the one and two parties in polls soon.
Not surprisingly, I don't wholly agree.
Yes, Conservative Governments in 1970, 1979 and the 2015 majority came about because of the collapse of the Liberals and clearly the Conservatives would like to win back all or most of the seats lost to the LDs last time but that won't get them anywhere near a Commons majority. They need to win seats off Labour and in many of those Reform are the nearest challengers and this is the Reform Party which won't, at least under Farage, countenance any pact or deal with the Tories so it's possible we'll see dozens of seats where Reform wins, the Conservatives are second and Labour collapse to third.
The fundamental is whether the next election is going to be Labour versus Not Labour or Reform versus Not Reform just as 2024 was Conservative versus Not Conservative.
A final thought - this obsession with "left" versus "right" is just sloppy anachronistic thinking. Reform are not a "right wing" party by many measures - they are a populist party which incorporates both socially conservative elements (which is where the Conservatives went wrong arguably) and considerable State interventionism (in other words, the "you can have your cake and eat it" party which brings in the Labour supporters). They are as fiscally incoherent and illiterate as all the other parties including the Conservatives.
Stodge's point I have put in bold is a crucial one. Both the forces of 'Not Reform' and 'Not Labour' are strong. For lots of people both apply. This should be good for the Tories but isn't as we have no idea if they would sustain or oppose Reform after a GE. This very obviously should be good for LDs and Greens.
There are large numbers of seats where only Lab, Reform and Tory appear credible candidates (five Cumbrian seats are a nice test case - all were Tory, all now Labour, all projected Reform). All three are opposed by most. An electoral pact between LD and Greens looks a no brainer for hundreds of seats. Which, being UK politics is I suppose a guarantee it won't happen.
Davey won't do a pact with Polanski which would be toxic in ex Tory seats the LDs now hold in the home counties. Polanskl is more likely to do a pact with Corbyn and Sultana and Your Party anyway who he is ideologically closer too than ex Cameron Cabinet Minister Sir Ed Davey
We are ripe for an LD revival which as usual isn't going to occur.
If the Conservative Party is the scorpion, and Badenoch the frog, it would follow that getting rid of Kemi is an act of self harm that would kill the Tory Party wouldn’t it?
Seems to me the frog needs to be a dependable organisation, and the scorpion an individual that always lets people down or plays a snide move. Boris as the scorpion to the Tory Party Frog? Farage doing a deal with the Conservatives, then it blowing up once they’re in Downing St might be a better example
It's less to do with scorpions and frogs in all honesty.
The Conservatives are not in control of their own destiny - IF Reform prospers, they will end up the fourth or fifth party in the next Commons. They need Reform to fail and for the bulk of that vote to come to them and that's two areas about which they can do very little.
I suspect Badenoch would like to see Labour doing a little better as well to blunt the Reform threat in Labour seats and the LDs doing worse so they can regain some or all of the 50-60 seast lost in that direction last time.
Again, little of that in the Conservative purview - the big question (as an outsider) is the Conservative relationship to Reform. It's clear Farage wants no kind of pact, deal or alliance at this time - that might change - but do the Tories try to be Reform-lite in the hope Farage departs and they can get a big share of the Reform vote or do they mark out a distinctive niche and hope the voters see them as a viable alternative to Labour and Reform?
I disagree.
Look at the Lib Dems and Labour. For from growing fat off the other's polling misery, their success or failure usually go together.
The Tories do need give people reasons to vote for them in preference to Reform, but they shouldn't wish for Reform's failure or disappearance - Reform has revived the right. The Tories and Reform look like being the one and two parties in polls soon.
Not surprisingly, I don't wholly agree.
Yes, Conservative Governments in 1970, 1979 and the 2015 majority came about because of the collapse of the Liberals and clearly the Conservatives would like to win back all or most of the seats lost to the LDs last time but that won't get them anywhere near a Commons majority. They need to win seats off Labour and in many of those Reform are the nearest challengers and this is the Reform Party which won't, at least under Farage, countenance any pact or deal with the Tories so it's possible we'll see dozens of seats where Reform wins, the Conservatives are second and Labour collapse to third.
The fundamental is whether the next election is going to be Labour versus Not Labour or Reform versus Not Reform just as 2024 was Conservative versus Not Conservative.
A final thought - this obsession with "left" versus "right" is just sloppy anachronistic thinking. Reform are not a "right wing" party by many measures - they are a populist party which incorporates both socially conservative elements (which is where the Conservatives went wrong arguably) and considerable State interventionism (in other words, the "you can have your cake and eat it" party which brings in the Labour supporters). They are as fiscally incoherent and illiterate as all the other parties including the Conservatives.
Personally, I see Reform as a right wing party, responding to desperate times. They want to lift the benefit cap (though now in a very partial way) as a response to the demographic crisis. They want to nationalise bits of key industry to ensure their very survival, not as an ideological choice.
Right and left wing are not useful enough descriptions, for two great reasons. The centre left and right, despite the rhetoric, have much more in common with each other than they have with the outer extreme edges. Between them they have run a stable state since 1945, though of course not well enough but we aren't North Korea.
Secondly, right and left doesn't capture the whole at all. For example it doesn't capture social conservatism + big state intervention and dirigisme + nationalism. Which is where, I think, Reform is going to pitch itself.
Most of the Labour/Tory debate post Thatcher has been arguing about whether the % of GDP spent by the state should be 1% higher or lower, and also how politicians speak, rather than what they do. Fans of both parties will deny that but it is fairly obvious that plenty of our cabinet ministers over that time would have been happy enough in the opposite party, or indeed the LDs.
This is all true but even true of Thatcher and the entire post 1945 UK world. It is best described as social democracy. No government has undone the fabric of regulated capitalism + welfare state. They have tinkered with the balance of it, run it sometimes well, sometimes less well, all have tried to make progress in prosperity, some better than others.
The idea that Reform intend to change this basic pattern is, IMHO, not correct. Your Party and Greens do so intend. Which makes them interesting.
Reform are interesting because they are also ethno-nationalists and appear to lack the most basic tools of judgment and competence. But they are nationalist social democrats (as are SNP and PC). Greens and Your Party are not.
You frequently use this argument that Reform don't intend to overturn the post-war settlement of regulated capitalism + welfare state, and I agree with you to an extent. But Reform are different. Part of the post-war consensus has been an acceptance, or even a welcoming, of (controlled) immigration, coupled with an acceptance of the UK's role as a refuge for those fleeing unconscionable regimes. Reform are going to blow that consensus out of the water, in respect of both immigration and legitimate refugees/asylum seekers. Given that these policies are a, if not the, major plank of Reform's appeal, I'd argue that they are seeking to upend the post-war consensus in an important way.
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t
It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election
Isn't it likely that one of the factors keeping the Tory polling figure low is that it is impossible to know whether a person should vote Tory to help keep Reform out, or vote Tory to help put Reform in?
As long as that polling figure figure is low, the question of voting Tory to have a Tory government doesn't arise; like with voting LD.
No different leader will resolve that issue unless they tell us. It can only be resolved by Reform collapse, or Tory decisiveness.
Surely if your voting Tory but don't like Reform much, at this point you're mainly voting Tory in the hopes of a Tory - Ref coalition where the Tories are able to be a moderating influence on a Ref government.
There's virtually no hope of a Tory majority unless something big changes. If you don't want a rightish government, why are you voting Tory at all?
To be fair, as a Ref voter this would probably be my preferred outcome - Ref are needed to fix immigration, but with Tory influence to ensure they cut spending rather than increase the state.
More generally - why do people constantly treat politics like a team sport, where they back their team through thick or thin, regardless of how useless they are.
I couldn't care less about the fate of any of the UK's political parties, I care about the policies which they enact on the country.
IMHO, the country needs: Net zero immigration for an extended period (until house prices are back to sanity). Massive shrinkage of the state, coupled with a fairly massive reduction in the tax burden, and also a very reduced deficit. Deregulation across most spheres of life.
I'll vote for anyone who looks like they might deliver some of that, or failing that is least likely to deliver the opposite. I couldn't care less what colour label they wear as they are doing it.
This is however slightly tempered by a belief that leopards aren't given to changing their spots - e. g. whatever the Labour Party says before elections about not increasing taxes, you can be can be sure that if elected they'll tax, spend and borrow like it's going out of fashion, because that's what they always do.
If a Reform government is not high spend (somewhere in the middle of the western European pack as % of GDP) I shall eat my hat.
Reform manage not to say anything on the economy and still get 30% voter support. Nevertheless their commitment to high welfare, low taxes, combined with stopping the Bank of England controlling interest rates etc on a low inflation mandate, implies they are going for a high debt, stagflation policy.
In crap Alien v shit Predator news, the SCons urnae happy with Baron Offord of Garvel.
Stephen Kerr MSP @RealStephenKerr 7 Dec The problem with this is, Offord agreed to be our treasurer and stayed with us long after any net zero, immigration, or tax policy.
The only thing that's changed recently is the polling. If you want to be a party full of chancers seeking personal gain, then fine.
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
The trouble is that ditching Badenoch would be an example of the standard political fallacy:
We (Conservative MPs) must do something.
This (ditching the leader) is something.
Therefore, we must do this.
... which is broken is all sorts of places.
Jenrick's best chance is to aim at replacing Kemi in 2027 or 8 so he is in place for the 2029 election, and to run his leadership campaign on forging some sort of informal agreement with Reform not to try too hard in each other's target seats. Remember Farage has form for this, standing candidates down for Boris in 2019.
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t
It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election
Isn't it likely that one of the factors keeping the Tory polling figure low is that it is impossible to know whether a person should vote Tory to help keep Reform out, or vote Tory to help put Reform in?
As long as that polling figure figure is low, the question of voting Tory to have a Tory government doesn't arise; like with voting LD.
No different leader will resolve that issue unless they tell us. It can only be resolved by Reform collapse, or Tory decisiveness.
Surely if your voting Tory but don't like Reform much, at this point you're mainly voting Tory in the hopes of a Tory - Ref coalition where the Tories are able to be a moderating influence on a Ref government.
There's virtually no hope of a Tory majority unless something big changes. If you don't want a rightish government, why are you voting Tory at all?
To be fair, as a Ref voter this would probably be my preferred outcome - Ref are needed to fix immigration, but with Tory influence to ensure they cut spending rather than increase the state.
More generally - why do people constantly treat politics like a team sport, where they back their team through thick or thin, regardless of how useless they are.
I couldn't care less about the fate of any of the UK's political parties, I care about the policies which they enact on the country.
IMHO, the country needs: Net zero immigration for an extended period (until house prices are back to sanity). Massive shrinkage of the state, coupled with a fairly massive reduction in the tax burden, and also a very reduced deficit. Deregulation across most spheres of life.
I'll vote for anyone who looks like they might deliver some of that, or failing that is least likely to deliver the opposite. I couldn't care less what colour label they wear as they are doing it.
This is however slightly tempered by a belief that leopards aren't given to changing their spots - e. g. whatever the Labour Party says before elections about not increasing taxes, you can be can be sure that if elected they'll tax, spend and borrow like it's going out of fashion, because that's what they always do.
If a Reform government is not high spend (somewhere in the middle of the western European pack as % of GDP) I shall eat my hat.
Me too. I think they'll probably fix immigration, and might manage some of the more straightforward deregulation required, and that will be about it. It's still better than the alternatives, which are unlikely to make progress towards any of my desired destinations.
There is no party serious about reducing the size of the state, or even attempting to balance the books, although they Tories occasionally make some of the right noises - for that reason, a Ref-Tory coalition is probably my prefered outcome.
I wouldn't want the Tories to have a majority on their own, see my comments about leopards and spots.
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t
It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election
Isn't it likely that one of the factors keeping the Tory polling figure low is that it is impossible to know whether a person should vote Tory to help keep Reform out, or vote Tory to help put Reform in?
As long as that polling figure figure is low, the question of voting Tory to have a Tory government doesn't arise; like with voting LD.
No different leader will resolve that issue unless they tell us. It can only be resolved by Reform collapse, or Tory decisiveness.
Surely if your voting Tory but don't like Reform much, at this point you're mainly voting Tory in the hopes of a Tory - Ref coalition where the Tories are able to be a moderating influence on a Ref government.
There's virtually no hope of a Tory majority unless something big changes. If you don't want a rightish government, why are you voting Tory at all?
To be fair, as a Ref voter this would probably be my preferred outcome - Ref are needed to fix immigration, but with Tory influence to ensure they cut spending rather than increase the state.
More generally - why do people constantly treat politics like a team sport, where they back their team through thick or thin, regardless of how useless they are.
I couldn't care less about the fate of any of the UK's political parties, I care about the policies which they enact on the country.
IMHO, the country needs: Net zero immigration for an extended period (until house prices are back to sanity). Massive shrinkage of the state, coupled with a fairly massive reduction in the tax burden, and also a very reduced deficit. Deregulation across most spheres of life.
I'll vote for anyone who looks like they might deliver some of that, or failing that is least likely to deliver the opposite. I couldn't care less what colour label they wear as they are doing it.
This is however slightly tempered by a belief that leopards aren't given to changing their spots - e. g. whatever the Labour Party says before elections about not increasing taxes, you can be can be sure that if elected they'll tax, spend and borrow like it's going out of fashion, because that's what they always do.
If a Reform government is not high spend (somewhere in the middle of the western European pack as % of GDP) I shall eat my hat.
Reform manage not to say anything on the economy and still get 30% voter support. Nevertheless their commitment to high welfare, low taxes, combined with stopping the Bank of England controlling interest rates etc on a low inflation mandate, implies they are going for a high debt, stagflation policy.
Which will automatically lead to lower immigration as the UK becomes less economically attractive to would-be migrants.
Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.
Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.
WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵 Dear Americans, Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.
While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.
THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.
You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.
Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.
If, as seems likely, we're going back to 'spheres of influence' geopolitics, then Europe (for which I primarily mean the UK and the EU) have two choices:
1) Accept being a part of the US's sphere of influence. That's probably looks much like the status quo for the UK or France, but looks far more perilous the further east you go. As it would be up to the US and Russia to agree the boundaries between their respective spheres of influence.
2) Demand that Europe is collectively has it's own independent sphere of influence, and that we are willing to defend our boundary from Russia's, assuming no help or support from the US. In which case, I'd question why we'd continue to host bases from the US.
Not allowing Ukraine to be forced to capitulate to American demand is a key first step to establishing option 2 as our future.
In the long-term, my preferred spheres of influence would be (unlikely as I agree they seem) the EU - to include Ukraine and Russia, the United Kingdom, the USA, India, China, and everyone else.
I wish the Continent nothing but good, but I don't want Britain to be entangled in its affairs. We should be quite separate, with a very separate purpose.
That would be a bauble of influence.
The UK (pop. 70m) just doesn't have the scale to compete with the EU, America, China or India, all of whom have at least 5 times the population. We should throw our lot in with the EU or America, as per @Ratters suggestion.
You are a little bit deluded*. You know the empire has gone right?
(*See also 'the EU including Russia'.)
We should be a bridge between the US and EU as we always aimed to be and even now are to some extent via Starmer's links with Trump and the EU
utter bollox, starmer licking trump's butt on a regular basis is not a bridge worth crossing. They need to grow a pair and tell him to go forth and multiply.
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t
It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election
Isn't it likely that one of the factors keeping the Tory polling figure low is that it is impossible to know whether a person should vote Tory to help keep Reform out, or vote Tory to help put Reform in?
As long as that polling figure figure is low, the question of voting Tory to have a Tory government doesn't arise; like with voting LD.
No different leader will resolve that issue unless they tell us. It can only be resolved by Reform collapse, or Tory decisiveness.
Surely if your voting Tory but don't like Reform much, at this point you're mainly voting Tory in the hopes of a Tory - Ref coalition where the Tories are able to be a moderating influence on a Ref government.
There's virtually no hope of a Tory majority unless something big changes. If you don't want a rightish government, why are you voting Tory at all?
To be fair, as a Ref voter this would probably be my preferred outcome - Ref are needed to fix immigration, but with Tory influence to ensure they cut spending rather than increase the state.
More generally - why do people constantly treat politics like a team sport, where they back their team through thick or thin, regardless of how useless they are.
I couldn't care less about the fate of any of the UK's political parties, I care about the policies which they enact on the country.
IMHO, the country needs: Net zero immigration for an extended period (until house prices are back to sanity). Massive shrinkage of the state, coupled with a fairly massive reduction in the tax burden, and also a very reduced deficit. Deregulation across most spheres of life.
I'll vote for anyone who looks like they might deliver some of that, or failing that is least likely to deliver the opposite. I couldn't care less what colour label they wear as they are doing it.
This is however slightly tempered by a belief that leopards aren't given to changing their spots - e. g. whatever the Labour Party says before elections about not increasing taxes, you can be can be sure that if elected they'll tax, spend and borrow like it's going out of fashion, because that's what they always do.
If a Reform government is not high spend (somewhere in the middle of the western European pack as % of GDP) I shall eat my hat.
Reform manage not to say anything on the economy and still get 30% voter support. Nevertheless their commitment to high welfare, low taxes, combined with stopping the Bank of England controlling interest rates etc on a low inflation mandate, implies they are going for a high debt, stagflation policy.
Which will automatically lead to lower immigration as the UK becomes less economically attractive to would-be migrants.
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t
It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election
Isn't it likely that one of the factors keeping the Tory polling figure low is that it is impossible to know whether a person should vote Tory to help keep Reform out, or vote Tory to help put Reform in?
As long as that polling figure figure is low, the question of voting Tory to have a Tory government doesn't arise; like with voting LD.
No different leader will resolve that issue unless they tell us. It can only be resolved by Reform collapse, or Tory decisiveness.
Surely if your voting Tory but don't like Reform much, at this point you're mainly voting Tory in the hopes of a Tory - Ref coalition where the Tories are able to be a moderating influence on a Ref government.
There's virtually no hope of a Tory majority unless something big changes. If you don't want a rightish government, why are you voting Tory at all?
To be fair, as a Ref voter this would probably be my preferred outcome - Ref are needed to fix immigration, but with Tory influence to ensure they cut spending rather than increase the state.
More generally - why do people constantly treat politics like a team sport, where they back their team through thick or thin, regardless of how useless they are.
I couldn't care less about the fate of any of the UK's political parties, I care about the policies which they enact on the country.
IMHO, the country needs: Net zero immigration for an extended period (until house prices are back to sanity). Massive shrinkage of the state, coupled with a fairly massive reduction in the tax burden, and also a very reduced deficit. Deregulation across most spheres of life.
I'll vote for anyone who looks like they might deliver some of that, or failing that is least likely to deliver the opposite. I couldn't care less what colour label they wear as they are doing it.
This is however slightly tempered by a belief that leopards aren't given to changing their spots - e. g. whatever the Labour Party says before elections about not increasing taxes, you can be can be sure that if elected they'll tax, spend and borrow like it's going out of fashion, because that's what they always do.
If a Reform government is not high spend (somewhere in the middle of the western European pack as % of GDP) I shall eat my hat.
Me too. I think they'll probably fix immigration, and might manage some of the more straightforward deregulation required, and that will be about it. It's still better than the alternatives, which are unlikely to make progress towards any of my desired destinations.
There is no party serious about reducing the size of the state, or even attempting to balance the books, although they Tories occasionally make some of the right noises - for that reason, a Ref-Tory coalition is probably my prefered outcome.
I wouldn't want the Tories to have a majority on their own, see my comments about leopards and spots.
Immigration is down 75% from the Boriswave already.
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t
It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election
Isn't it likely that one of the factors keeping the Tory polling figure low is that it is impossible to know whether a person should vote Tory to help keep Reform out, or vote Tory to help put Reform in?
As long as that polling figure figure is low, the question of voting Tory to have a Tory government doesn't arise; like with voting LD.
No different leader will resolve that issue unless they tell us. It can only be resolved by Reform collapse, or Tory decisiveness.
Surely if your voting Tory but don't like Reform much, at this point you're mainly voting Tory in the hopes of a Tory - Ref coalition where the Tories are able to be a moderating influence on a Ref government.
There's virtually no hope of a Tory majority unless something big changes. If you don't want a rightish government, why are you voting Tory at all?
To be fair, as a Ref voter this would probably be my preferred outcome - Ref are needed to fix immigration, but with Tory influence to ensure they cut spending rather than increase the state.
More generally - why do people constantly treat politics like a team sport, where they back their team through thick or thin, regardless of how useless they are.
I couldn't care less about the fate of any of the UK's political parties, I care about the policies which they enact on the country.
IMHO, the country needs: Net zero immigration for an extended period (until house prices are back to sanity). Massive shrinkage of the state, coupled with a fairly massive reduction in the tax burden, and also a very reduced deficit. Deregulation across most spheres of life.
I'll vote for anyone who looks like they might deliver some of that, or failing that is least likely to deliver the opposite. I couldn't care less what colour label they wear as they are doing it.
This is however slightly tempered by a belief that leopards aren't given to changing their spots - e. g. whatever the Labour Party says before elections about not increasing taxes, you can be can be sure that if elected they'll tax, spend and borrow like it's going out of fashion, because that's what they always do.
If a Reform government is not high spend (somewhere in the middle of the western European pack as % of GDP) I shall eat my hat.
Me too. I think they'll probably fix immigration, and might manage some of the more straightforward deregulation required, and that will be about it. It's still better than the alternatives, which are unlikely to make progress towards any of my desired destinations.
There is no party serious about reducing the size of the state, or even attempting to balance the books, although they Tories occasionally make some of the right noises - for that reason, a Ref-Tory coalition is probably my prefered outcome.
I wouldn't want the Tories to have a majority on their own, see my comments about leopards and spots.
Immigration is down 75% from the Boriswave already.
still circa 50K illegals coming in on boats and costing a fortune, that has to be stopped.
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t
It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election
Isn't it likely that one of the factors keeping the Tory polling figure low is that it is impossible to know whether a person should vote Tory to help keep Reform out, or vote Tory to help put Reform in?
As long as that polling figure figure is low, the question of voting Tory to have a Tory government doesn't arise; like with voting LD.
No different leader will resolve that issue unless they tell us. It can only be resolved by Reform collapse, or Tory decisiveness.
Surely if your voting Tory but don't like Reform much, at this point you're mainly voting Tory in the hopes of a Tory - Ref coalition where the Tories are able to be a moderating influence on a Ref government.
There's virtually no hope of a Tory majority unless something big changes. If you don't want a rightish government, why are you voting Tory at all?
To be fair, as a Ref voter this would probably be my preferred outcome - Ref are needed to fix immigration, but with Tory influence to ensure they cut spending rather than increase the state.
More generally - why do people constantly treat politics like a team sport, where they back their team through thick or thin, regardless of how useless they are.
I couldn't care less about the fate of any of the UK's political parties, I care about the policies which they enact on the country.
IMHO, the country needs: Net zero immigration for an extended period (until house prices are back to sanity). Massive shrinkage of the state, coupled with a fairly massive reduction in the tax burden, and also a very reduced deficit. Deregulation across most spheres of life.
I'll vote for anyone who looks like they might deliver some of that, or failing that is least likely to deliver the opposite. I couldn't care less what colour label they wear as they are doing it.
This is however slightly tempered by a belief that leopards aren't given to changing their spots - e. g. whatever the Labour Party says before elections about not increasing taxes, you can be can be sure that if elected they'll tax, spend and borrow like it's going out of fashion, because that's what they always do.
If a Reform government is not high spend (somewhere in the middle of the western European pack as % of GDP) I shall eat my hat.
Me too. I think they'll probably fix immigration, and might manage some of the more straightforward deregulation required, and that will be about it. It's still better than the alternatives, which are unlikely to make progress towards any of my desired destinations.
There is no party serious about reducing the size of the state, or even attempting to balance the books, although they Tories occasionally make some of the right noises - for that reason, a Ref-Tory coalition is probably my prefered outcome.
I wouldn't want the Tories to have a majority on their own, see my comments about leopards and spots.
Immigration is down 75% from the Boriswave already.
still circa 50K illegals coming in on boats and costing a fortune, that has to be stopped.
Good luck with expecting Farage to have the skills to do that.
In crap Alien v shit Predator news, the SCons urnae happy with Baron Offord of Garvel.
Stephen Kerr MSP @RealStephenKerr 7 Dec The problem with this is, Offord agreed to be our treasurer and stayed with us long after any net zero, immigration, or tax policy.
The only thing that's changed recently is the polling. If you want to be a party full of chancers seeking personal gain, then fine.
My vote in the next GE goes to whoever introduces a 100% tax on Veblen goods.
That would increase sales further - although it would be an interesting test of the laffer curve as you increased the tax over 100% and sales continued to grow
If the Conservative Party is the scorpion, and Badenoch the frog, it would follow that getting rid of Kemi is an act of self harm that would kill the Tory Party wouldn’t it?
Seems to me the frog needs to be a dependable organisation, and the scorpion an individual that always lets people down or plays a snide move. Boris as the scorpion to the Tory Party Frog? Farage doing a deal with the Conservatives, then it blowing up once they’re in Downing St might be a better example
It's less to do with scorpions and frogs in all honesty.
The Conservatives are not in control of their own destiny - IF Reform prospers, they will end up the fourth or fifth party in the next Commons. They need Reform to fail and for the bulk of that vote to come to them and that's two areas about which they can do very little.
I suspect Badenoch would like to see Labour doing a little better as well to blunt the Reform threat in Labour seats and the LDs doing worse so they can regain some or all of the 50-60 seast lost in that direction last time.
Again, little of that in the Conservative purview - the big question (as an outsider) is the Conservative relationship to Reform. It's clear Farage wants no kind of pact, deal or alliance at this time - that might change - but do the Tories try to be Reform-lite in the hope Farage departs and they can get a big share of the Reform vote or do they mark out a distinctive niche and hope the voters see them as a viable alternative to Labour and Reform?
I disagree.
Look at the Lib Dems and Labour. For from growing fat off the other's polling misery, their success or failure usually go together.
The Tories do need give people reasons to vote for them in preference to Reform, but they shouldn't wish for Reform's failure or disappearance - Reform has revived the right. The Tories and Reform look like being the one and two parties in polls soon.
Not surprisingly, I don't wholly agree.
Yes, Conservative Governments in 1970, 1979 and the 2015 majority came about because of the collapse of the Liberals and clearly the Conservatives would like to win back all or most of the seats lost to the LDs last time but that won't get them anywhere near a Commons majority. They need to win seats off Labour and in many of those Reform are the nearest challengers and this is the Reform Party which won't, at least under Farage, countenance any pact or deal with the Tories so it's possible we'll see dozens of seats where Reform wins, the Conservatives are second and Labour collapse to third.
The fundamental is whether the next election is going to be Labour versus Not Labour or Reform versus Not Reform just as 2024 was Conservative versus Not Conservative.
A final thought - this obsession with "left" versus "right" is just sloppy anachronistic thinking. Reform are not a "right wing" party by many measures - they are a populist party which incorporates both socially conservative elements (which is where the Conservatives went wrong arguably) and considerable State interventionism (in other words, the "you can have your cake and eat it" party which brings in the Labour supporters). They are as fiscally incoherent and illiterate as all the other parties including the Conservatives.
Personally, I see Reform as a right wing party, responding to desperate times. They want to lift the benefit cap (though now in a very partial way) as a response to the demographic crisis. They want to nationalise bits of key industry to ensure their very survival, not as an ideological choice.
Right and left wing are not useful enough descriptions, for two great reasons. The centre left and right, despite the rhetoric, have much more in common with each other than they have with the outer extreme edges. Between them they have run a stable state since 1945, though of course not well enough but we aren't North Korea.
Secondly, right and left doesn't capture the whole at all. For example it doesn't capture social conservatism + big state intervention and dirigisme + nationalism. Which is where, I think, Reform is going to pitch itself.
Most of the Labour/Tory debate post Thatcher has been arguing about whether the % of GDP spent by the state should be 1% higher or lower, and also how politicians speak, rather than what they do. Fans of both parties will deny that but it is fairly obvious that plenty of our cabinet ministers over that time would have been happy enough in the opposite party, or indeed the LDs.
This is all true but even true of Thatcher and the entire post 1945 UK world. It is best described as social democracy. No government has undone the fabric of regulated capitalism + welfare state. They have tinkered with the balance of it, run it sometimes well, sometimes less well, all have tried to make progress in prosperity, some better than others.
The idea that Reform intend to change this basic pattern is, IMHO, not correct. Your Party and Greens do so intend. Which makes them interesting.
Reform are interesting because they are also ethno-nationalists and appear to lack the most basic tools of judgment and competence. But they are nationalist social democrats (as are SNP and PC). Greens and Your Party are not.
You frequently use this argument that Reform don't intend to overturn the post-war settlement of regulated capitalism + welfare state, and I agree with you to an extent. But Reform are different. Part of the post-war consensus has been an acceptance, or even a welcoming, of (controlled) immigration, coupled with an acceptance of the UK's role as a refuge for those fleeing unconscionable regimes. Reform are going to blow that consensus out of the water, in respect of both immigration and legitimate refugees/asylum seekers. Given that these policies are a, if not the, major plank of Reform's appeal, I'd argue that they are seeking to upend the post-war consensus in an important way.
Yes. I think we are agreed on the likely Reform trajectory. And yes they may well upend some of the post war consensus. Interpretations will vary. My view of them is unremitting hostility. Ethno-nationalist social democracy run by incompetents is not my idea of fun.
The point I too regularly make is that Reform are not planning to be transformational WRT the post 1945 consensus except in the area of closed borders ethno-nationalism, while many expect they will be. They will be high spend, and therefore high tax.
My vote in the next GE goes to whoever introduces a 100% tax on Veblen goods.
That would increase sales further - although it would be an interesting test of the laffer curve as you increased the tax over 100% and sales continued to grow
It is not just a wealth redistribution from the frivolous but a magic money tree!
My vote in the next GE goes to whoever introduces a 100% tax on Veblen goods.
It should be an exception to the Laffer curve in that the higher you make it, the more they sell, and the more you get in tax; perpetual motion discovered.
If the Conservative Party is the scorpion, and Badenoch the frog, it would follow that getting rid of Kemi is an act of self harm that would kill the Tory Party wouldn’t it?
Seems to me the frog needs to be a dependable organisation, and the scorpion an individual that always lets people down or plays a snide move. Boris as the scorpion to the Tory Party Frog? Farage doing a deal with the Conservatives, then it blowing up once they’re in Downing St might be a better example
It's less to do with scorpions and frogs in all honesty.
The Conservatives are not in control of their own destiny - IF Reform prospers, they will end up the fourth or fifth party in the next Commons. They need Reform to fail and for the bulk of that vote to come to them and that's two areas about which they can do very little.
I suspect Badenoch would like to see Labour doing a little better as well to blunt the Reform threat in Labour seats and the LDs doing worse so they can regain some or all of the 50-60 seast lost in that direction last time.
Again, little of that in the Conservative purview - the big question (as an outsider) is the Conservative relationship to Reform. It's clear Farage wants no kind of pact, deal or alliance at this time - that might change - but do the Tories try to be Reform-lite in the hope Farage departs and they can get a big share of the Reform vote or do they mark out a distinctive niche and hope the voters see them as a viable alternative to Labour and Reform?
I disagree.
Look at the Lib Dems and Labour. For from growing fat off the other's polling misery, their success or failure usually go together.
The Tories do need give people reasons to vote for them in preference to Reform, but they shouldn't wish for Reform's failure or disappearance - Reform has revived the right. The Tories and Reform look like being the one and two parties in polls soon.
Not surprisingly, I don't wholly agree.
Yes, Conservative Governments in 1970, 1979 and the 2015 majority came about because of the collapse of the Liberals and clearly the Conservatives would like to win back all or most of the seats lost to the LDs last time but that won't get them anywhere near a Commons majority. They need to win seats off Labour and in many of those Reform are the nearest challengers and this is the Reform Party which won't, at least under Farage, countenance any pact or deal with the Tories so it's possible we'll see dozens of seats where Reform wins, the Conservatives are second and Labour collapse to third.
The fundamental is whether the next election is going to be Labour versus Not Labour or Reform versus Not Reform just as 2024 was Conservative versus Not Conservative.
A final thought - this obsession with "left" versus "right" is just sloppy anachronistic thinking. Reform are not a "right wing" party by many measures - they are a populist party which incorporates both socially conservative elements (which is where the Conservatives went wrong arguably) and considerable State interventionism (in other words, the "you can have your cake and eat it" party which brings in the Labour supporters). They are as fiscally incoherent and illiterate as all the other parties including the Conservatives.
Stodge's point I have put in bold is a crucial one. Both the forces of 'Not Reform' and 'Not Labour' are strong. For lots of people both apply. This should be good for the Tories but isn't as we have no idea if they would sustain or oppose Reform after a GE. This very obviously should be good for LDs and Greens.
There are large numbers of seats where only Lab, Reform and Tory appear credible candidates (five Cumbrian seats are a nice test case - all were Tory, all now Labour, all projected Reform). All three are opposed by most. An electoral pact between LD and Greens looks a no brainer for hundreds of seats. Which, being UK politics is I suppose a guarantee it won't happen.
Davey won't do a pact with Polanski which would be toxic in ex Tory seats the LDs now hold in the home counties. Polanskl is more likely to do a pact with Corbyn and Sultana and Your Party anyway who he is ideologically closer too than ex Cameron Cabinet Minister Sir Ed Davey
If the Conservative Party is the scorpion, and Badenoch the frog, it would follow that getting rid of Kemi is an act of self harm that would kill the Tory Party wouldn’t it?
Seems to me the frog needs to be a dependable organisation, and the scorpion an individual that always lets people down or plays a snide move. Boris as the scorpion to the Tory Party Frog? Farage doing a deal with the Conservatives, then it blowing up once they’re in Downing St might be a better example
It's less to do with scorpions and frogs in all honesty.
The Conservatives are not in control of their own destiny - IF Reform prospers, they will end up the fourth or fifth party in the next Commons. They need Reform to fail and for the bulk of that vote to come to them and that's two areas about which they can do very little.
I suspect Badenoch would like to see Labour doing a little better as well to blunt the Reform threat in Labour seats and the LDs doing worse so they can regain some or all of the 50-60 seast lost in that direction last time.
Again, little of that in the Conservative purview - the big question (as an outsider) is the Conservative relationship to Reform. It's clear Farage wants no kind of pact, deal or alliance at this time - that might change - but do the Tories try to be Reform-lite in the hope Farage departs and they can get a big share of the Reform vote or do they mark out a distinctive niche and hope the voters see them as a viable alternative to Labour and Reform?
I disagree.
Look at the Lib Dems and Labour. For from growing fat off the other's polling misery, their success or failure usually go together.
The Tories do need give people reasons to vote for them in preference to Reform, but they shouldn't wish for Reform's failure or disappearance - Reform has revived the right. The Tories and Reform look like being the one and two parties in polls soon.
Not surprisingly, I don't wholly agree.
Yes, Conservative Governments in 1970, 1979 and the 2015 majority came about because of the collapse of the Liberals and clearly the Conservatives would like to win back all or most of the seats lost to the LDs last time but that won't get them anywhere near a Commons majority. They need to win seats off Labour and in many of those Reform are the nearest challengers and this is the Reform Party which won't, at least under Farage, countenance any pact or deal with the Tories so it's possible we'll see dozens of seats where Reform wins, the Conservatives are second and Labour collapse to third.
The fundamental is whether the next election is going to be Labour versus Not Labour or Reform versus Not Reform just as 2024 was Conservative versus Not Conservative.
A final thought - this obsession with "left" versus "right" is just sloppy anachronistic thinking. Reform are not a "right wing" party by many measures - they are a populist party which incorporates both socially conservative elements (which is where the Conservatives went wrong arguably) and considerable State interventionism (in other words, the "you can have your cake and eat it" party which brings in the Labour supporters). They are as fiscally incoherent and illiterate as all the other parties including the Conservatives.
Stodge's point I have put in bold is a crucial one. Both the forces of 'Not Reform' and 'Not Labour' are strong. For lots of people both apply. This should be good for the Tories but isn't as we have no idea if they would sustain or oppose Reform after a GE. This very obviously should be good for LDs and Greens.
There are large numbers of seats where only Lab, Reform and Tory appear credible candidates (five Cumbrian seats are a nice test case - all were Tory, all now Labour, all projected Reform). All three are opposed by most. An electoral pact between LD and Greens looks a no brainer for hundreds of seats. Which, being UK politics is I suppose a guarantee it won't happen.
Davey won't do a pact with Polanski which would be toxic in ex Tory seats the LDs now hold in the home counties. Polanskl is more likely to do a pact with Corbyn and Sultana and Your Party anyway who he is ideologically closer too than ex Cameron Cabinet Minister Sir Ed Davey
I'm sure there will not be a formal pact between LDs and Greens - just as there wasn't a formal pact between LDs and Labour at the last General. An informal understanding will emerge on where not to compete.
My vote in the next GE goes to whoever introduces a 100% tax on Veblen goods.
It should be an exception to the Laffer curve in that the higher you make it, the more they sell, and the more you get in tax; perpetual motion discovered.
If the Conservative Party is the scorpion, and Badenoch the frog, it would follow that getting rid of Kemi is an act of self harm that would kill the Tory Party wouldn’t it?
Seems to me the frog needs to be a dependable organisation, and the scorpion an individual that always lets people down or plays a snide move. Boris as the scorpion to the Tory Party Frog? Farage doing a deal with the Conservatives, then it blowing up once they’re in Downing St might be a better example
It's less to do with scorpions and frogs in all honesty.
The Conservatives are not in control of their own destiny - IF Reform prospers, they will end up the fourth or fifth party in the next Commons. They need Reform to fail and for the bulk of that vote to come to them and that's two areas about which they can do very little.
I suspect Badenoch would like to see Labour doing a little better as well to blunt the Reform threat in Labour seats and the LDs doing worse so they can regain some or all of the 50-60 seast lost in that direction last time.
Again, little of that in the Conservative purview - the big question (as an outsider) is the Conservative relationship to Reform. It's clear Farage wants no kind of pact, deal or alliance at this time - that might change - but do the Tories try to be Reform-lite in the hope Farage departs and they can get a big share of the Reform vote or do they mark out a distinctive niche and hope the voters see them as a viable alternative to Labour and Reform?
I disagree.
Look at the Lib Dems and Labour. For from growing fat off the other's polling misery, their success or failure usually go together.
The Tories do need give people reasons to vote for them in preference to Reform, but they shouldn't wish for Reform's failure or disappearance - Reform has revived the right. The Tories and Reform look like being the one and two parties in polls soon.
Not surprisingly, I don't wholly agree.
Yes, Conservative Governments in 1970, 1979 and the 2015 majority came about because of the collapse of the Liberals and clearly the Conservatives would like to win back all or most of the seats lost to the LDs last time but that won't get them anywhere near a Commons majority. They need to win seats off Labour and in many of those Reform are the nearest challengers and this is the Reform Party which won't, at least under Farage, countenance any pact or deal with the Tories so it's possible we'll see dozens of seats where Reform wins, the Conservatives are second and Labour collapse to third.
The fundamental is whether the next election is going to be Labour versus Not Labour or Reform versus Not Reform just as 2024 was Conservative versus Not Conservative.
A final thought - this obsession with "left" versus "right" is just sloppy anachronistic thinking. Reform are not a "right wing" party by many measures - they are a populist party which incorporates both socially conservative elements (which is where the Conservatives went wrong arguably) and considerable State interventionism (in other words, the "you can have your cake and eat it" party which brings in the Labour supporters). They are as fiscally incoherent and illiterate as all the other parties including the Conservatives.
Personally, I see Reform as a right wing party, responding to desperate times. They want to lift the benefit cap (though now in a very partial way) as a response to the demographic crisis. They want to nationalise bits of key industry to ensure their very survival, not as an ideological choice.
Right and left wing are not useful enough descriptions, for two great reasons. The centre left and right, despite the rhetoric, have much more in common with each other than they have with the outer extreme edges. Between them they have run a stable state since 1945, though of course not well enough but we aren't North Korea.
Secondly, right and left doesn't capture the whole at all. For example it doesn't capture social conservatism + big state intervention and dirigisme + nationalism. Which is where, I think, Reform is going to pitch itself.
Most of the Labour/Tory debate post Thatcher has been arguing about whether the % of GDP spent by the state should be 1% higher or lower, and also how politicians speak, rather than what they do. Fans of both parties will deny that but it is fairly obvious that plenty of our cabinet ministers over that time would have been happy enough in the opposite party, or indeed the LDs.
This is all true but even true of Thatcher and the entire post 1945 UK world. It is best described as social democracy. No government has undone the fabric of regulated capitalism + welfare state. They have tinkered with the balance of it, run it sometimes well, sometimes less well, all have tried to make progress in prosperity, some better than others.
The idea that Reform intend to change this basic pattern is, IMHO, not correct. Your Party and Greens do so intend. Which makes them interesting.
Reform are interesting because they are also ethno-nationalists and appear to lack the most basic tools of judgment and competence. But they are nationalist social democrats (as are SNP and PC). Greens and Your Party are not.
You frequently use this argument that Reform don't intend to overturn the post-war settlement of regulated capitalism + welfare state, and I agree with you to an extent. But Reform are different. Part of the post-war consensus has been an acceptance, or even a welcoming, of (controlled) immigration, coupled with an acceptance of the UK's role as a refuge for those fleeing unconscionable regimes. Reform are going to blow that consensus out of the water, in respect of both immigration and legitimate refugees/asylum seekers. Given that these policies are a, if not the, major plank of Reform's appeal, I'd argue that they are seeking to upend the post-war consensus in an important way.
Yes. I think we are agreed on the likely Reform trajectory. And yes they may well upend some of the post war consensus. Interpretations will vary. My view of them is unremitting hostility. Ethno-nationalist social democracy run by incompetents is not my idea of fun.
The point I too regularly make is that Reform are not planning to be transformational WRT the post 1945 consensus except in the area of closed borders ethno-nationalism, while many expect they will be. They will be high spend, and therefore high tax.
I have genuinely no idea whether they are a big government or a small government party, and I don't think they do either. Their voter coalition straddles a wide range of preferences on this topic and they have espoused a range of views. I do expect incompetence though, that has been strongly signalled. Also high levels of racism, both dog whistled and more explicit. Most likely we will see widespread civil strife.
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t
It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election
Isn't it likely that one of the factors keeping the Tory polling figure low is that it is impossible to know whether a person should vote Tory to help keep Reform out, or vote Tory to help put Reform in?
As long as that polling figure figure is low, the question of voting Tory to have a Tory government doesn't arise; like with voting LD.
No different leader will resolve that issue unless they tell us. It can only be resolved by Reform collapse, or Tory decisiveness.
Surely if your voting Tory but don't like Reform much, at this point you're mainly voting Tory in the hopes of a Tory - Ref coalition where the Tories are able to be a moderating influence on a Ref government.
There's virtually no hope of a Tory majority unless something big changes. If you don't want a rightish government, why are you voting Tory at all?
To be fair, as a Ref voter this would probably be my preferred outcome - Ref are needed to fix immigration, but with Tory influence to ensure they cut spending rather than increase the state.
More generally - why do people constantly treat politics like a team sport, where they back their team through thick or thin, regardless of how useless they are.
I couldn't care less about the fate of any of the UK's political parties, I care about the policies which they enact on the country.
IMHO, the country needs: Net zero immigration for an extended period (until house prices are back to sanity). Massive shrinkage of the state, coupled with a fairly massive reduction in the tax burden, and also a very reduced deficit. Deregulation across most spheres of life.
I'll vote for anyone who looks like they might deliver some of that, or failing that is least likely to deliver the opposite. I couldn't care less what colour label they wear as they are doing it.
This is however slightly tempered by a belief that leopards aren't given to changing their spots - e. g. whatever the Labour Party says before elections about not increasing taxes, you can be can be sure that if elected they'll tax, spend and borrow like it's going out of fashion, because that's what they always do.
If a Reform government is not high spend (somewhere in the middle of the western European pack as % of GDP) I shall eat my hat.
Me too. I think they'll probably fix immigration, and might manage some of the more straightforward deregulation required, and that will be about it. It's still better than the alternatives, which are unlikely to make progress towards any of my desired destinations.
There is no party serious about reducing the size of the state, or even attempting to balance the books, although they Tories occasionally make some of the right noises - for that reason, a Ref-Tory coalition is probably my prefered outcome.
I wouldn't want the Tories to have a majority on their own, see my comments about leopards and spots.
Immigration is down 75% from the Boriswave already.
Yes. 75% of an extraordinarily large number is still a very large number. We should really be on negative immigration until the population is back down to the pre-Boriswave era levels.
When a number is too large (too many people in the country), slowing the rate of increase doesn't solve the problem (see also the popular confusion between the annual deficit and the national debt).
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t
It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election
Isn't it likely that one of the factors keeping the Tory polling figure low is that it is impossible to know whether a person should vote Tory to help keep Reform out, or vote Tory to help put Reform in?
As long as that polling figure figure is low, the question of voting Tory to have a Tory government doesn't arise; like with voting LD.
No different leader will resolve that issue unless they tell us. It can only be resolved by Reform collapse, or Tory decisiveness.
Surely if your voting Tory but don't like Reform much, at this point you're mainly voting Tory in the hopes of a Tory - Ref coalition where the Tories are able to be a moderating influence on a Ref government.
There's virtually no hope of a Tory majority unless something big changes. If you don't want a rightish government, why are you voting Tory at all?
To be fair, as a Ref voter this would probably be my preferred outcome - Ref are needed to fix immigration, but with Tory influence to ensure they cut spending rather than increase the state.
More generally - why do people constantly treat politics like a team sport, where they back their team through thick or thin, regardless of how useless they are.
I couldn't care less about the fate of any of the UK's political parties, I care about the policies which they enact on the country.
IMHO, the country needs: Net zero immigration for an extended period (until house prices are back to sanity). Massive shrinkage of the state, coupled with a fairly massive reduction in the tax burden, and also a very reduced deficit. Deregulation across most spheres of life.
I'll vote for anyone who looks like they might deliver some of that, or failing that is least likely to deliver the opposite. I couldn't care less what colour label they wear as they are doing it.
This is however slightly tempered by a belief that leopards aren't given to changing their spots - e. g. whatever the Labour Party says before elections about not increasing taxes, you can be can be sure that if elected they'll tax, spend and borrow like it's going out of fashion, because that's what they always do.
If a Reform government is not high spend (somewhere in the middle of the western European pack as % of GDP) I shall eat my hat.
Me too. I think they'll probably fix immigration, and might manage some of the more straightforward deregulation required, and that will be about it. It's still better than the alternatives, which are unlikely to make progress towards any of my desired destinations.
There is no party serious about reducing the size of the state, or even attempting to balance the books, although they Tories occasionally make some of the right noises - for that reason, a Ref-Tory coalition is probably my prefered outcome.
I wouldn't want the Tories to have a majority on their own, see my comments about leopards and spots.
Immigration is down 75% from the Boriswave already.
still circa 50K illegals coming in on boats and costing a fortune, that has to be stopped.
Yes, and in terms of what voters care about this is far more important. Much of the Boriswave was made of of Ukrainians and Hong Kongers. Few people objected to that. Voters have a distinct hierarchy of the sorts of immigration they'll accept. We've reduced immigration of the sort people don't mind but we're still getting the immigration which is politically toxic: the unskilled, the chancers, the criminals and the fanatics.
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t
It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election
Isn't it likely that one of the factors keeping the Tory polling figure low is that it is impossible to know whether a person should vote Tory to help keep Reform out, or vote Tory to help put Reform in?
As long as that polling figure figure is low, the question of voting Tory to have a Tory government doesn't arise; like with voting LD.
No different leader will resolve that issue unless they tell us. It can only be resolved by Reform collapse, or Tory decisiveness.
Surely if your voting Tory but don't like Reform much, at this point you're mainly voting Tory in the hopes of a Tory - Ref coalition where the Tories are able to be a moderating influence on a Ref government.
There's virtually no hope of a Tory majority unless something big changes. If you don't want a rightish government, why are you voting Tory at all?
To be fair, as a Ref voter this would probably be my preferred outcome - Ref are needed to fix immigration, but with Tory influence to ensure they cut spending rather than increase the state.
More generally - why do people constantly treat politics like a team sport, where they back their team through thick or thin, regardless of how useless they are.
I couldn't care less about the fate of any of the UK's political parties, I care about the policies which they enact on the country.
IMHO, the country needs: Net zero immigration for an extended period (until house prices are back to sanity). Massive shrinkage of the state, coupled with a fairly massive reduction in the tax burden, and also a very reduced deficit. Deregulation across most spheres of life.
I'll vote for anyone who looks like they might deliver some of that, or failing that is least likely to deliver the opposite. I couldn't care less what colour label they wear as they are doing it.
This is however slightly tempered by a belief that leopards aren't given to changing their spots - e. g. whatever the Labour Party says before elections about not increasing taxes, you can be can be sure that if elected they'll tax, spend and borrow like it's going out of fashion, because that's what they always do.
If a Reform government is not high spend (somewhere in the middle of the western European pack as % of GDP) I shall eat my hat.
Me too. I think they'll probably fix immigration, and might manage some of the more straightforward deregulation required, and that will be about it. It's still better than the alternatives, which are unlikely to make progress towards any of my desired destinations.
There is no party serious about reducing the size of the state, or even attempting to balance the books, although they Tories occasionally make some of the right noises - for that reason, a Ref-Tory coalition is probably my prefered outcome.
I wouldn't want the Tories to have a majority on their own, see my comments about leopards and spots.
Immigration is down 75% from the Boriswave already.
still circa 50K illegals coming in on boats and costing a fortune, that has to be stopped.
Yes, and in terms of what voters care about this is far more important. Much of the Boriswave was made of of Ukrainians and Hong Kongers. Few people objected to that. Voters have a distinct hierarchy of the sorts of immigration they'll accept. We've reduced immigration of the sort people don't mind but we're still getting the immigration which is politically toxic: the unskilled, the chancers, the criminals and the fanatics.
Many of these people are refugees fleeing death and torture. The UK takes fewer refugees than many other countries. Many refugees go on to make significant positive contributions to their host country.
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t
It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election
Isn't it likely that one of the factors keeping the Tory polling figure low is that it is impossible to know whether a person should vote Tory to help keep Reform out, or vote Tory to help put Reform in?
As long as that polling figure figure is low, the question of voting Tory to have a Tory government doesn't arise; like with voting LD.
No different leader will resolve that issue unless they tell us. It can only be resolved by Reform collapse, or Tory decisiveness.
Surely if your voting Tory but don't like Reform much, at this point you're mainly voting Tory in the hopes of a Tory - Ref coalition where the Tories are able to be a moderating influence on a Ref government.
There's virtually no hope of a Tory majority unless something big changes. If you don't want a rightish government, why are you voting Tory at all?
To be fair, as a Ref voter this would probably be my preferred outcome - Ref are needed to fix immigration, but with Tory influence to ensure they cut spending rather than increase the state.
More generally - why do people constantly treat politics like a team sport, where they back their team through thick or thin, regardless of how useless they are.
I couldn't care less about the fate of any of the UK's political parties, I care about the policies which they enact on the country.
IMHO, the country needs: Net zero immigration for an extended period (until house prices are back to sanity). Massive shrinkage of the state, coupled with a fairly massive reduction in the tax burden, and also a very reduced deficit. Deregulation across most spheres of life.
I'll vote for anyone who looks like they might deliver some of that, or failing that is least likely to deliver the opposite. I couldn't care less what colour label they wear as they are doing it.
This is however slightly tempered by a belief that leopards aren't given to changing their spots - e. g. whatever the Labour Party says before elections about not increasing taxes, you can be can be sure that if elected they'll tax, spend and borrow like it's going out of fashion, because that's what they always do.
If a Reform government is not high spend (somewhere in the middle of the western European pack as % of GDP) I shall eat my hat.
Me too. I think they'll probably fix immigration, and might manage some of the more straightforward deregulation required, and that will be about it. It's still better than the alternatives, which are unlikely to make progress towards any of my desired destinations.
There is no party serious about reducing the size of the state, or even attempting to balance the books, although they Tories occasionally make some of the right noises - for that reason, a Ref-Tory coalition is probably my prefered outcome.
I wouldn't want the Tories to have a majority on their own, see my comments about leopards and spots.
Immigration is down 75% from the Boriswave already.
still circa 50K illegals coming in on boats and costing a fortune, that has to be stopped.
Yes, and in terms of what voters care about this is far more important. Much of the Boriswave was made of of Ukrainians and Hong Kongers. Few people objected to that. Voters have a distinct hierarchy of the sorts of immigration they'll accept. We've reduced immigration of the sort people don't mind but we're still getting the immigration which is politically toxic: the unskilled, the chancers, the criminals and the fanatics.
Many of these people are refugees fleeing death and torture. The UK takes fewer refugees than many other countries. Many refugees go on to make significant positive contributions to their host country.
Should we invade France if they're causing the death and torture of refugees?
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t
It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election
Isn't it likely that one of the factors keeping the Tory polling figure low is that it is impossible to know whether a person should vote Tory to help keep Reform out, or vote Tory to help put Reform in?
As long as that polling figure figure is low, the question of voting Tory to have a Tory government doesn't arise; like with voting LD.
No different leader will resolve that issue unless they tell us. It can only be resolved by Reform collapse, or Tory decisiveness.
Surely if your voting Tory but don't like Reform much, at this point you're mainly voting Tory in the hopes of a Tory - Ref coalition where the Tories are able to be a moderating influence on a Ref government.
There's virtually no hope of a Tory majority unless something big changes. If you don't want a rightish government, why are you voting Tory at all?
To be fair, as a Ref voter this would probably be my preferred outcome - Ref are needed to fix immigration, but with Tory influence to ensure they cut spending rather than increase the state.
More generally - why do people constantly treat politics like a team sport, where they back their team through thick or thin, regardless of how useless they are.
I couldn't care less about the fate of any of the UK's political parties, I care about the policies which they enact on the country.
IMHO, the country needs: Net zero immigration for an extended period (until house prices are back to sanity). Massive shrinkage of the state, coupled with a fairly massive reduction in the tax burden, and also a very reduced deficit. Deregulation across most spheres of life.
I'll vote for anyone who looks like they might deliver some of that, or failing that is least likely to deliver the opposite. I couldn't care less what colour label they wear as they are doing it.
This is however slightly tempered by a belief that leopards aren't given to changing their spots - e. g. whatever the Labour Party says before elections about not increasing taxes, you can be can be sure that if elected they'll tax, spend and borrow like it's going out of fashion, because that's what they always do.
If a Reform government is not high spend (somewhere in the middle of the western European pack as % of GDP) I shall eat my hat.
Me too. I think they'll probably fix immigration, and might manage some of the more straightforward deregulation required, and that will be about it. It's still better than the alternatives, which are unlikely to make progress towards any of my desired destinations.
There is no party serious about reducing the size of the state, or even attempting to balance the books, although they Tories occasionally make some of the right noises - for that reason, a Ref-Tory coalition is probably my prefered outcome.
I wouldn't want the Tories to have a majority on their own, see my comments about leopards and spots.
Immigration is down 75% from the Boriswave already.
still circa 50K illegals coming in on boats and costing a fortune, that has to be stopped.
Yes, and in terms of what voters care about this is far more important. Much of the Boriswave was made of of Ukrainians and Hong Kongers. Few people objected to that. Voters have a distinct hierarchy of the sorts of immigration they'll accept. We've reduced immigration of the sort people don't mind but we're still getting the immigration which is politically toxic: the unskilled, the chancers, the criminals and the fanatics.
I suppose I can see why Reform members want to keep their monopoly on being unskilled, criminal, chancer, fanatics.
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
The trouble is that ditching Badenoch would be an example of the standard political fallacy:
We (Conservative MPs) must do something.
This (ditching the leader) is something.
Therefore, we must do this.
... which is broken is all sorts of places.
Jenrick's best chance is to aim at replacing Kemi in 2027 or 8 so he is in place for the 2029 election, and to run his leadership campaign on forging some sort of informal agreement with Reform not to try too hard in each other's target seats. Remember Farage has form for this, standing candidates down for Boris in 2019.
I agree this is Jenrick's best chance.
But the problem this time is that Farage will have many more target seats than last time, so an informal agreement might be hard to achieve.
Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.
Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.
WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵 Dear Americans, Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.
While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.
THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.
You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.
Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.
If, as seems likely, we're going back to 'spheres of influence' geopolitics, then Europe (for which I primarily mean the UK and the EU) have two choices:
1) Accept being a part of the US's sphere of influence. That's probably looks much like the status quo for the UK or France, but looks far more perilous the further east you go. As it would be up to the US and Russia to agree the boundaries between their respective spheres of influence.
2) Demand that Europe is collectively has it's own independent sphere of influence, and that we are willing to defend our boundary from Russia's, assuming no help or support from the US. In which case, I'd question why we'd continue to host bases from the US.
Not allowing Ukraine to be forced to capitulate to American demand is a key first step to establishing option 2 as our future.
In the long-term, my preferred spheres of influence would be (unlikely as I agree they seem) the EU - to include Ukraine and Russia, the United Kingdom, the USA, India, China, and everyone else.
I wish the Continent nothing but good, but I don't want Britain to be entangled in its affairs. We should be quite separate, with a very separate purpose.
That would be a bauble of influence.
The UK (pop. 70m) just doesn't have the scale to compete with the EU, America, China or India, all of whom have at least 5 times the population. We should throw our lot in with the EU or America, as per @Ratters suggestion.
You are a little bit deluded*. You know the empire has gone right?
(*See also 'the EU including Russia'.)
We should be a bridge between the US and EU as we always aimed to be and even now are to some extent via Starmer's links with Trump and the EU
utter bollox, starmer licking trump's butt on a regular basis is not a bridge worth crossing. They need to grow a pair and tell him to go forth and multiply.
It did get tariffs on UK exports lower than for the EU and got Trump back to the drawing board on his original Ukraine plan
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t
It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election
Isn't it likely that one of the factors keeping the Tory polling figure low is that it is impossible to know whether a person should vote Tory to help keep Reform out, or vote Tory to help put Reform in?
As long as that polling figure figure is low, the question of voting Tory to have a Tory government doesn't arise; like with voting LD.
No different leader will resolve that issue unless they tell us. It can only be resolved by Reform collapse, or Tory decisiveness.
Surely if your voting Tory but don't like Reform much, at this point you're mainly voting Tory in the hopes of a Tory - Ref coalition where the Tories are able to be a moderating influence on a Ref government.
There's virtually no hope of a Tory majority unless something big changes. If you don't want a rightish government, why are you voting Tory at all?
To be fair, as a Ref voter this would probably be my preferred outcome - Ref are needed to fix immigration, but with Tory influence to ensure they cut spending rather than increase the state.
More generally - why do people constantly treat politics like a team sport, where they back their team through thick or thin, regardless of how useless they are.
I couldn't care less about the fate of any of the UK's political parties, I care about the policies which they enact on the country.
IMHO, the country needs: Net zero immigration for an extended period (until house prices are back to sanity). Massive shrinkage of the state, coupled with a fairly massive reduction in the tax burden, and also a very reduced deficit. Deregulation across most spheres of life.
I'll vote for anyone who looks like they might deliver some of that, or failing that is least likely to deliver the opposite. I couldn't care less what colour label they wear as they are doing it.
This is however slightly tempered by a belief that leopards aren't given to changing their spots - e. g. whatever the Labour Party says before elections about not increasing taxes, you can be can be sure that if elected they'll tax, spend and borrow like it's going out of fashion, because that's what they always do.
If a Reform government is not high spend (somewhere in the middle of the western European pack as % of GDP) I shall eat my hat.
Me too. I think they'll probably fix immigration, and might manage some of the more straightforward deregulation required, and that will be about it. It's still better than the alternatives, which are unlikely to make progress towards any of my desired destinations.
There is no party serious about reducing the size of the state, or even attempting to balance the books, although they Tories occasionally make some of the right noises - for that reason, a Ref-Tory coalition is probably my prefered outcome.
I wouldn't want the Tories to have a majority on their own, see my comments about leopards and spots.
Immigration is down 75% from the Boriswave already.
still circa 50K illegals coming in on boats and costing a fortune, that has to be stopped.
Yes, and in terms of what voters care about this is far more important. Much of the Boriswave was made of of Ukrainians and Hong Kongers. Few people objected to that. Voters have a distinct hierarchy of the sorts of immigration they'll accept. We've reduced immigration of the sort people don't mind but we're still getting the immigration which is politically toxic: the unskilled, the chancers, the criminals and the fanatics.
Many of these people are refugees fleeing death and torture. The UK takes fewer refugees than many other countries. Many refugees go on to make significant positive contributions to their host country.
Should we invade France if they're causing the death and torture of refugees?
Nah, just threatening to send them TSE's shoe collection would be enough of a deterrent.
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t
It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election
Isn't it likely that one of the factors keeping the Tory polling figure low is that it is impossible to know whether a person should vote Tory to help keep Reform out, or vote Tory to help put Reform in?
As long as that polling figure figure is low, the question of voting Tory to have a Tory government doesn't arise; like with voting LD.
No different leader will resolve that issue unless they tell us. It can only be resolved by Reform collapse, or Tory decisiveness.
Surely if your voting Tory but don't like Reform much, at this point you're mainly voting Tory in the hopes of a Tory - Ref coalition where the Tories are able to be a moderating influence on a Ref government.
There's virtually no hope of a Tory majority unless something big changes. If you don't want a rightish government, why are you voting Tory at all?
To be fair, as a Ref voter this would probably be my preferred outcome - Ref are needed to fix immigration, but with Tory influence to ensure they cut spending rather than increase the state.
More generally - why do people constantly treat politics like a team sport, where they back their team through thick or thin, regardless of how useless they are.
I couldn't care less about the fate of any of the UK's political parties, I care about the policies which they enact on the country.
IMHO, the country needs: Net zero immigration for an extended period (until house prices are back to sanity). Massive shrinkage of the state, coupled with a fairly massive reduction in the tax burden, and also a very reduced deficit. Deregulation across most spheres of life.
I'll vote for anyone who looks like they might deliver some of that, or failing that is least likely to deliver the opposite. I couldn't care less what colour label they wear as they are doing it.
This is however slightly tempered by a belief that leopards aren't given to changing their spots - e. g. whatever the Labour Party says before elections about not increasing taxes, you can be can be sure that if elected they'll tax, spend and borrow like it's going out of fashion, because that's what they always do.
If a Reform government is not high spend (somewhere in the middle of the western European pack as % of GDP) I shall eat my hat.
Me too. I think they'll probably fix immigration, and might manage some of the more straightforward deregulation required, and that will be about it. It's still better than the alternatives, which are unlikely to make progress towards any of my desired destinations.
There is no party serious about reducing the size of the state, or even attempting to balance the books, although they Tories occasionally make some of the right noises - for that reason, a Ref-Tory coalition is probably my prefered outcome.
I wouldn't want the Tories to have a majority on their own, see my comments about leopards and spots.
Immigration is down 75% from the Boriswave already.
Thanks mainly to Sunak and Cleverly's visa changes
If the Conservative Party is the scorpion, and Badenoch the frog, it would follow that getting rid of Kemi is an act of self harm that would kill the Tory Party wouldn’t it?
Seems to me the frog needs to be a dependable organisation, and the scorpion an individual that always lets people down or plays a snide move. Boris as the scorpion to the Tory Party Frog? Farage doing a deal with the Conservatives, then it blowing up once they’re in Downing St might be a better example
It's less to do with scorpions and frogs in all honesty.
The Conservatives are not in control of their own destiny - IF Reform prospers, they will end up the fourth or fifth party in the next Commons. They need Reform to fail and for the bulk of that vote to come to them and that's two areas about which they can do very little.
I suspect Badenoch would like to see Labour doing a little better as well to blunt the Reform threat in Labour seats and the LDs doing worse so they can regain some or all of the 50-60 seast lost in that direction last time.
Again, little of that in the Conservative purview - the big question (as an outsider) is the Conservative relationship to Reform. It's clear Farage wants no kind of pact, deal or alliance at this time - that might change - but do the Tories try to be Reform-lite in the hope Farage departs and they can get a big share of the Reform vote or do they mark out a distinctive niche and hope the voters see them as a viable alternative to Labour and Reform?
I disagree.
Look at the Lib Dems and Labour. For from growing fat off the other's polling misery, their success or failure usually go together.
The Tories do need give people reasons to vote for them in preference to Reform, but they shouldn't wish for Reform's failure or disappearance - Reform has revived the right. The Tories and Reform look like being the one and two parties in polls soon.
Not surprisingly, I don't wholly agree.
Yes, Conservative Governments in 1970, 1979 and the 2015 majority came about because of the collapse of the Liberals and clearly the Conservatives would like to win back all or most of the seats lost to the LDs last time but that won't get them anywhere near a Commons majority. They need to win seats off Labour and in many of those Reform are the nearest challengers and this is the Reform Party which won't, at least under Farage, countenance any pact or deal with the Tories so it's possible we'll see dozens of seats where Reform wins, the Conservatives are second and Labour collapse to third.
The fundamental is whether the next election is going to be Labour versus Not Labour or Reform versus Not Reform just as 2024 was Conservative versus Not Conservative.
A final thought - this obsession with "left" versus "right" is just sloppy anachronistic thinking. Reform are not a "right wing" party by many measures - they are a populist party which incorporates both socially conservative elements (which is where the Conservatives went wrong arguably) and considerable State interventionism (in other words, the "you can have your cake and eat it" party which brings in the Labour supporters). They are as fiscally incoherent and illiterate as all the other parties including the Conservatives.
Stodge's point I have put in bold is a crucial one. Both the forces of 'Not Reform' and 'Not Labour' are strong. For lots of people both apply. This should be good for the Tories but isn't as we have no idea if they would sustain or oppose Reform after a GE. This very obviously should be good for LDs and Greens.
There are large numbers of seats where only Lab, Reform and Tory appear credible candidates (five Cumbrian seats are a nice test case - all were Tory, all now Labour, all projected Reform). All three are opposed by most. An electoral pact between LD and Greens looks a no brainer for hundreds of seats. Which, being UK politics is I suppose a guarantee it won't happen.
Davey won't do a pact with Polanski which would be toxic in ex Tory seats the LDs now hold in the home counties. Polanskl is more likely to do a pact with Corbyn and Sultana and Your Party anyway who he is ideologically closer too than ex Cameron Cabinet Minister Sir Ed Davey
We are ripe for an LD revival which as usual isn't going to occur.
The LDs already have more MPs than they have had for 100 years
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t
It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election
Isn't it likely that one of the factors keeping the Tory polling figure low is that it is impossible to know whether a person should vote Tory to help keep Reform out, or vote Tory to help put Reform in?
As long as that polling figure figure is low, the question of voting Tory to have a Tory government doesn't arise; like with voting LD.
No different leader will resolve that issue unless they tell us. It can only be resolved by Reform collapse, or Tory decisiveness.
Surely if your voting Tory but don't like Reform much, at this point you're mainly voting Tory in the hopes of a Tory - Ref coalition where the Tories are able to be a moderating influence on a Ref government.
There's virtually no hope of a Tory majority unless something big changes. If you don't want a rightish government, why are you voting Tory at all?
To be fair, as a Ref voter this would probably be my preferred outcome - Ref are needed to fix immigration, but with Tory influence to ensure they cut spending rather than increase the state.
More generally - why do people constantly treat politics like a team sport, where they back their team through thick or thin, regardless of how useless they are.
I couldn't care less about the fate of any of the UK's political parties, I care about the policies which they enact on the country.
IMHO, the country needs: Net zero immigration for an extended period (until house prices are back to sanity). Massive shrinkage of the state, coupled with a fairly massive reduction in the tax burden, and also a very reduced deficit. Deregulation across most spheres of life.
I'll vote for anyone who looks like they might deliver some of that, or failing that is least likely to deliver the opposite. I couldn't care less what colour label they wear as they are doing it.
This is however slightly tempered by a belief that leopards aren't given to changing their spots - e. g. whatever the Labour Party says before elections about not increasing taxes, you can be can be sure that if elected they'll tax, spend and borrow like it's going out of fashion, because that's what they always do.
If a Reform government is not high spend (somewhere in the middle of the western European pack as % of GDP) I shall eat my hat.
Me too. I think they'll probably fix immigration, and might manage some of the more straightforward deregulation required, and that will be about it. It's still better than the alternatives, which are unlikely to make progress towards any of my desired destinations.
There is no party serious about reducing the size of the state, or even attempting to balance the books, although they Tories occasionally make some of the right noises - for that reason, a Ref-Tory coalition is probably my prefered outcome.
I wouldn't want the Tories to have a majority on their own, see my comments about leopards and spots.
Immigration is down 75% from the Boriswave already.
still circa 50K illegals coming in on boats and costing a fortune, that has to be stopped.
Yes, and in terms of what voters care about this is far more important. Much of the Boriswave was made of of Ukrainians and Hong Kongers. Few people objected to that. Voters have a distinct hierarchy of the sorts of immigration they'll accept. We've reduced immigration of the sort people don't mind but we're still getting the immigration which is politically toxic: the unskilled, the chancers, the criminals and the fanatics.
Many of these people are refugees fleeing death and torture. The UK takes fewer refugees than many other countries. Many refugees go on to make significant positive contributions to their host country.
Should we invade France if they're causing the death and torture of refugees?
You keep making this point but it is idiotic. Every country needs to do its share in terms of accepting refugees. France already has 50% more refugees than we do, relative to their population.
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t
It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election
Isn't it likely that one of the factors keeping the Tory polling figure low is that it is impossible to know whether a person should vote Tory to help keep Reform out, or vote Tory to help put Reform in?
As long as that polling figure figure is low, the question of voting Tory to have a Tory government doesn't arise; like with voting LD.
No different leader will resolve that issue unless they tell us. It can only be resolved by Reform collapse, or Tory decisiveness.
Surely if your voting Tory but don't like Reform much, at this point you're mainly voting Tory in the hopes of a Tory - Ref coalition where the Tories are able to be a moderating influence on a Ref government.
There's virtually no hope of a Tory majority unless something big changes. If you don't want a rightish government, why are you voting Tory at all?
To be fair, as a Ref voter this would probably be my preferred outcome - Ref are needed to fix immigration, but with Tory influence to ensure they cut spending rather than increase the state.
More generally - why do people constantly treat politics like a team sport, where they back their team through thick or thin, regardless of how useless they are.
I couldn't care less about the fate of any of the UK's political parties, I care about the policies which they enact on the country.
IMHO, the country needs: Net zero immigration for an extended period (until house prices are back to sanity). Massive shrinkage of the state, coupled with a fairly massive reduction in the tax burden, and also a very reduced deficit. Deregulation across most spheres of life.
I'll vote for anyone who looks like they might deliver some of that, or failing that is least likely to deliver the opposite. I couldn't care less what colour label they wear as they are doing it.
This is however slightly tempered by a belief that leopards aren't given to changing their spots - e. g. whatever the Labour Party says before elections about not increasing taxes, you can be can be sure that if elected they'll tax, spend and borrow like it's going out of fashion, because that's what they always do.
If a Reform government is not high spend (somewhere in the middle of the western European pack as % of GDP) I shall eat my hat.
Me too. I think they'll probably fix immigration, and might manage some of the more straightforward deregulation required, and that will be about it. It's still better than the alternatives, which are unlikely to make progress towards any of my desired destinations.
There is no party serious about reducing the size of the state, or even attempting to balance the books, although they Tories occasionally make some of the right noises - for that reason, a Ref-Tory coalition is probably my prefered outcome.
I wouldn't want the Tories to have a majority on their own, see my comments about leopards and spots.
Immigration is down 75% from the Boriswave already.
Thanks mainly to Sunak and Cleverly's visa changes
So is the Tory party claiming responsibility for the state of the nation in 2025 or not? At the budget they were quite clear it was all down to Labour?
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
The trouble is that ditching Badenoch would be an example of the standard political fallacy:
We (Conservative MPs) must do something.
This (ditching the leader) is something.
Therefore, we must do this.
... which is broken is all sorts of places.
Jenrick's best chance is to aim at replacing Kemi in 2027 or 8 so he is in place for the 2029 election, and to run his leadership campaign on forging some sort of informal agreement with Reform not to try too hard in each other's target seats. Remember Farage has form for this, standing candidates down for Boris in 2019.
I agree this is Jenrick's best chance.
But the problem this time is that Farage will have many more target seats than last time, so an informal agreement might be hard to achieve.
Farage won't do any deal with even a Jenrick led Tories beyond maybe a few seats in West London, Hertfordshire and held by the LDs where the Tories might get a free run but in return everywhere else the Tories would be expected to effectively stand down for Reform so Reform becomes the main party of the right anyway.
There is no guarantee Jenrick would win anyway, Cleverly led Jenrick in at least one Tory members poll last year and all Cleverly and most Kemi backing Tory MPs from last year would back Cleverly over Jenrick if Kemi was removed. Cleverly would be more likely to get the Labour and LD tactical votes needed to give the Tories a chance of staying ahead of Reform on seats
India is about to start producing drones for Russia's war in Ukraine. Europeans are desperately talking about peace to keep in with Trump, but the peace talks seem to be only a diversion to stop Europe from using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine's fight for survival.
The situation feels really bleak, and reportedly Starmer was the driving force behind pushing the target data for NATO's new 5% spending target out to 2035, so the British PM is a main component in the axis of denial in Europe that is holding it back from grasping the reality of the precarious position Europe is in and of taking decisive action to turn things around.
If the Conservative Party is the scorpion, and Badenoch the frog, it would follow that getting rid of Kemi is an act of self harm that would kill the Tory Party wouldn’t it?
Seems to me the frog needs to be a dependable organisation, and the scorpion an individual that always lets people down or plays a snide move. Boris as the scorpion to the Tory Party Frog? Farage doing a deal with the Conservatives, then it blowing up once they’re in Downing St might be a better example
It's less to do with scorpions and frogs in all honesty.
The Conservatives are not in control of their own destiny - IF Reform prospers, they will end up the fourth or fifth party in the next Commons. They need Reform to fail and for the bulk of that vote to come to them and that's two areas about which they can do very little.
I suspect Badenoch would like to see Labour doing a little better as well to blunt the Reform threat in Labour seats and the LDs doing worse so they can regain some or all of the 50-60 seast lost in that direction last time.
Again, little of that in the Conservative purview - the big question (as an outsider) is the Conservative relationship to Reform. It's clear Farage wants no kind of pact, deal or alliance at this time - that might change - but do the Tories try to be Reform-lite in the hope Farage departs and they can get a big share of the Reform vote or do they mark out a distinctive niche and hope the voters see them as a viable alternative to Labour and Reform?
I disagree.
Look at the Lib Dems and Labour. For from growing fat off the other's polling misery, their success or failure usually go together.
The Tories do need give people reasons to vote for them in preference to Reform, but they shouldn't wish for Reform's failure or disappearance - Reform has revived the right. The Tories and Reform look like being the one and two parties in polls soon.
Not surprisingly, I don't wholly agree.
Yes, Conservative Governments in 1970, 1979 and the 2015 majority came about because of the collapse of the Liberals and clearly the Conservatives would like to win back all or most of the seats lost to the LDs last time but that won't get them anywhere near a Commons majority. They need to win seats off Labour and in many of those Reform are the nearest challengers and this is the Reform Party which won't, at least under Farage, countenance any pact or deal with the Tories so it's possible we'll see dozens of seats where Reform wins, the Conservatives are second and Labour collapse to third.
The fundamental is whether the next election is going to be Labour versus Not Labour or Reform versus Not Reform just as 2024 was Conservative versus Not Conservative.
A final thought - this obsession with "left" versus "right" is just sloppy anachronistic thinking. Reform are not a "right wing" party by many measures - they are a populist party which incorporates both socially conservative elements (which is where the Conservatives went wrong arguably) and considerable State interventionism (in other words, the "you can have your cake and eat it" party which brings in the Labour supporters). They are as fiscally incoherent and illiterate as all the other parties including the Conservatives.
Personally, I see Reform as a right wing party, responding to desperate times. They want to lift the benefit cap (though now in a very partial way) as a response to the demographic crisis. They want to nationalise bits of key industry to ensure their very survival, not as an ideological choice.
Right and left wing are not useful enough descriptions, for two great reasons. The centre left and right, despite the rhetoric, have much more in common with each other than they have with the outer extreme edges. Between them they have run a stable state since 1945, though of course not well enough but we aren't North Korea.
Secondly, right and left doesn't capture the whole at all. For example it doesn't capture social conservatism + big state intervention and dirigisme + nationalism. Which is where, I think, Reform is going to pitch itself.
Most of the Labour/Tory debate post Thatcher has been arguing about whether the % of GDP spent by the state should be 1% higher or lower, and also how politicians speak, rather than what they do. Fans of both parties will deny that but it is fairly obvious that plenty of our cabinet ministers over that time would have been happy enough in the opposite party, or indeed the LDs.
This is all true but even true of Thatcher and the entire post 1945 UK world. It is best described as social democracy. No government has undone the fabric of regulated capitalism + welfare state. They have tinkered with the balance of it, run it sometimes well, sometimes less well, all have tried to make progress in prosperity, some better than others.
The idea that Reform intend to change this basic pattern is, IMHO, not correct. Your Party and Greens do so intend. Which makes them interesting.
Reform are interesting because they are also ethno-nationalists and appear to lack the most basic tools of judgment and competence. But they are nationalist social democrats (as are SNP and PC). Greens and Your Party are not.
You frequently use this argument that Reform don't intend to overturn the post-war settlement of regulated capitalism + welfare state, and I agree with you to an extent. But Reform are different. Part of the post-war consensus has been an acceptance, or even a welcoming, of (controlled) immigration, coupled with an acceptance of the UK's role as a refuge for those fleeing unconscionable regimes. Reform are going to blow that consensus out of the water, in respect of both immigration and legitimate refugees/asylum seekers. Given that these policies are a, if not the, major plank of Reform's appeal, I'd argue that they are seeking to upend the post-war consensus in an important way.
Yes. I think we are agreed on the likely Reform trajectory. And yes they may well upend some of the post war consensus. Interpretations will vary. My view of them is unremitting hostility. Ethno-nationalist social democracy run by incompetents is not my idea of fun.
The point I too regularly make is that Reform are not planning to be transformational WRT the post 1945 consensus except in the area of closed borders ethno-nationalism, while many expect they will be. They will be high spend, and therefore high tax.
I have genuinely no idea whether they are a big government or a small government party, and I don't think they do either. Their voter coalition straddles a wide range of preferences on this topic and they have espoused a range of views. I do expect incompetence though, that has been strongly signalled. Also high levels of racism, both dog whistled and more explicit. Most likely we will see widespread civil strife.
IMO the route to the answer is to contemplate the voters of Clacton and Skegness, and ask what sort of Reform government would encourage them to vote for them again. Don't ask what they want for others, ask what they want for themselves and multiply by 70 million. What those voters will want for themselves includes: pensions, a welfare safety net, social housing, defence, NATO membership, NHS - preferably acting a lot quicker than now -, free education to 18, a thriving jobs market, transport and roads, social care, bins emptying, an effective police force and law and order.
They want a big government, high spend (therefore high tax) state. Wait and see.
(BTW, they will also discover that they don't want to deport my eye specialist who has ILR and a brown skin, and is a great man.)
Well, the island is getting lots, washing ashore from a container that fell off a passing ship at the weekend
Bananas galore!
Apparently no-one should touch them, according to the BBC. Is this because they are dangerous? Or to avoid them being stolen?
If they are flotsam, you should save them in case their owners reclaim them. Lots of brown soggy bananas. If they are jetsam (unlikely) then their owners have disowned them. IANAL
Tory MPs going to Reform are flotsam. Expelled Labour MPs going to Your Party are jetsam.
India is about to start producing drones for Russia's war in Ukraine. Europeans are desperately talking about peace to keep in with Trump, but the peace talks seem to be only a diversion to stop Europe from using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine's fight for survival.
The situation feels really bleak, and reportedly Starmer was the driving force behind pushing the target data for NATO's new 5% spending target out to 2035, so the British PM is a main component in the axis of denial in Europe that is holding it back from grasping the reality of the precarious position Europe is in and of taking decisive action to turn things around.
What's the good news?
Starmer should take a leaf out of President Trump's book and warn Modi that any drones will trigger the immediate cancellation of all Indian visas. He won't, of course. Something something international law.
'President Donald Trump has flagged potential concerns over Netflix's planned $72bn (£54bn) deal to buy Warner Brothers Discovery's movie studio and popular HBO streaming networks.
India is about to start producing drones for Russia's war in Ukraine. Europeans are desperately talking about peace to keep in with Trump, but the peace talks seem to be only a diversion to stop Europe from using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine's fight for survival.
The situation feels really bleak, and reportedly Starmer was the driving force behind pushing the target data for NATO's new 5% spending target out to 2035, so the British PM is a main component in the axis of denial in Europe that is holding it back from grasping the reality of the precarious position Europe is in and of taking decisive action to turn things around.
What's the good news?
Starmer should take a leaf out of President Trump's book and warn Modi that any drones will trigger the immediate cancellation of all Indian visas. He won't, of course. Something something international law.
No no
Every drone requires a European visa. To be taken from the Indian immigration quota.
'President Donald Trump has flagged potential concerns over Netflix's planned $72bn (£54bn) deal to buy Warner Brothers Discovery's movie studio and popular HBO streaming networks.
India is about to start producing drones for Russia's war in Ukraine. Europeans are desperately talking about peace to keep in with Trump, but the peace talks seem to be only a diversion to stop Europe from using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine's fight for survival.
The situation feels really bleak, and reportedly Starmer was the driving force behind pushing the target data for NATO's new 5% spending target out to 2035, so the British PM is a main component in the axis of denial in Europe that is holding it back from grasping the reality of the precarious position Europe is in and of taking decisive action to turn things around.
What's the good news?
Starmer should take a leaf out of President Trump's book and warn Modi that any drones will trigger the immediate cancellation of all Indian visas. He won't, of course. Something something international law.
Partly, but mostly realpolitik that we aren't the USA and even the USA struggles with its demands from countries the size of India.
'President Donald Trump has flagged potential concerns over Netflix's planned $72bn (£54bn) deal to buy Warner Brothers Discovery's movie studio and popular HBO streaming networks.
India is about to start producing drones for Russia's war in Ukraine. Europeans are desperately talking about peace to keep in with Trump, but the peace talks seem to be only a diversion to stop Europe from using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine's fight for survival.
The situation feels really bleak, and reportedly Starmer was the driving force behind pushing the target data for NATO's new 5% spending target out to 2035, so the British PM is a main component in the axis of denial in Europe that is holding it back from grasping the reality of the precarious position Europe is in and of taking decisive action to turn things around.
What's the good news?
Starmer should take a leaf out of President Trump's book and warn Modi that any drones will trigger the immediate cancellation of all Indian visas. He won't, of course. Something something international law.
We, as in Europe, seem to have completely lost sight of what our most important strategic interests are and the necessity of taking action to protect them.
Can't act without the US. Scared witless to offend trading partners.
We're inviting adversaries to give us a kick in the nuts by being so weak.
Well, the island is getting lots, washing ashore from a container that fell off a passing ship at the weekend
Bananas galore!
Apparently no-one should touch them, according to the BBC. Is this because they are dangerous? Or to avoid them being stolen?
If they are flotsam, you should save them in case their owners reclaim them. Lots of brown soggy bananas. If they are jetsam (unlikely) then their owners have disowned them. IANAL
Tory MPs going to Reform are flotsam. Expelled Labour MPs going to Your Party are jetsam.
In re the bananas (the yellow bendy kind, not the other kind), doesn't matter - they all count as wreck and the Receiver of Wreck seizes them for the owner to reclaim, else HMtK gets the goodies (or the D of Cornwall, etc., where appropriate).
'President Donald Trump has flagged potential concerns over Netflix's planned $72bn (£54bn) deal to buy Warner Brothers Discovery's movie studio and popular HBO streaming networks.
I would imagine his main concern is that he isn't receiving any of the $72bn. He sees all that money in one transaction and goes straight for a shakedown.
India is about to start producing drones for Russia's war in Ukraine. Europeans are desperately talking about peace to keep in with Trump, but the peace talks seem to be only a diversion to stop Europe from using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine's fight for survival.
The situation feels really bleak, and reportedly Starmer was the driving force behind pushing the target data for NATO's new 5% spending target out to 2035, so the British PM is a main component in the axis of denial in Europe that is holding it back from grasping the reality of the precarious position Europe is in and of taking decisive action to turn things around.
What's the good news?
Better news on oil, ironically thanks to Trump's tariffs.
'As a reminder, India has faced economic and trade losses due to its cooperation with Russia, especially in the context of Russia’s war against Ukraine and sanctions pressure from the US and the EU.
Because of its close ties with Russia, the US in 2025 raised tariffs on most Indian goods to 50 percent, including “additional” tariffs linked to purchases of Russian energy resources and weapons. This has negatively affected Indian manufacturers who target the American market.
For this reason, in December 2025, India plans to reduce exports of Russian oil to the lowest level in the past three years.
Earlier, RBC-Ukraine reported that Indian energy giant Reliance Industries completely halted imports of Russian oil on November 20.
I am regularly surprised by @Luckyguy1983's utterly bizarre but usually politely well-argued take on the world.
His latest idea that Putin's Russia can ever be part of a harmonious EU is very weird... and given the Russian population's seemingly unwavering support for rampant nationalism, even after Putin this looks a non-starter to me.
Dictators do tend to enjoy unwavering popular support.
If the Conservative Party is the scorpion, and Badenoch the frog, it would follow that getting rid of Kemi is an act of self harm that would kill the Tory Party wouldn’t it?
Seems to me the frog needs to be a dependable organisation, and the scorpion an individual that always lets people down or plays a snide move. Boris as the scorpion to the Tory Party Frog? Farage doing a deal with the Conservatives, then it blowing up once they’re in Downing St might be a better example
It's less to do with scorpions and frogs in all honesty.
The Conservatives are not in control of their own destiny - IF Reform prospers, they will end up the fourth or fifth party in the next Commons. They need Reform to fail and for the bulk of that vote to come to them and that's two areas about which they can do very little.
I suspect Badenoch would like to see Labour doing a little better as well to blunt the Reform threat in Labour seats and the LDs doing worse so they can regain some or all of the 50-60 seast lost in that direction last time.
Again, little of that in the Conservative purview - the big question (as an outsider) is the Conservative relationship to Reform. It's clear Farage wants no kind of pact, deal or alliance at this time - that might change - but do the Tories try to be Reform-lite in the hope Farage departs and they can get a big share of the Reform vote or do they mark out a distinctive niche and hope the voters see them as a viable alternative to Labour and Reform?
I disagree.
Look at the Lib Dems and Labour. For from growing fat off the other's polling misery, their success or failure usually go together.
The Tories do need give people reasons to vote for them in preference to Reform, but they shouldn't wish for Reform's failure or disappearance - Reform has revived the right. The Tories and Reform look like being the one and two parties in polls soon.
Not surprisingly, I don't wholly agree.
Yes, Conservative Governments in 1970, 1979 and the 2015 majority came about because of the collapse of the Liberals and clearly the Conservatives would like to win back all or most of the seats lost to the LDs last time but that won't get them anywhere near a Commons majority. They need to win seats off Labour and in many of those Reform are the nearest challengers and this is the Reform Party which won't, at least under Farage, countenance any pact or deal with the Tories so it's possible we'll see dozens of seats where Reform wins, the Conservatives are second and Labour collapse to third.
The fundamental is whether the next election is going to be Labour versus Not Labour or Reform versus Not Reform just as 2024 was Conservative versus Not Conservative.
A final thought - this obsession with "left" versus "right" is just sloppy anachronistic thinking. Reform are not a "right wing" party by many measures - they are a populist party which incorporates both socially conservative elements (which is where the Conservatives went wrong arguably) and considerable State interventionism (in other words, the "you can have your cake and eat it" party which brings in the Labour supporters). They are as fiscally incoherent and illiterate as all the other parties including the Conservatives.
Personally, I see Reform as a right wing party, responding to desperate times. They want to lift the benefit cap (though now in a very partial way) as a response to the demographic crisis. They want to nationalise bits of key industry to ensure their very survival, not as an ideological choice.
Right and left wing are not useful enough descriptions, for two great reasons. The centre left and right, despite the rhetoric, have much more in common with each other than they have with the outer extreme edges. Between them they have run a stable state since 1945, though of course not well enough but we aren't North Korea.
Secondly, right and left doesn't capture the whole at all. For example it doesn't capture social conservatism + big state intervention and dirigisme + nationalism. Which is where, I think, Reform is going to pitch itself.
Most of the Labour/Tory debate post Thatcher has been arguing about whether the % of GDP spent by the state should be 1% higher or lower, and also how politicians speak, rather than what they do. Fans of both parties will deny that but it is fairly obvious that plenty of our cabinet ministers over that time would have been happy enough in the opposite party, or indeed the LDs.
This is all true but even true of Thatcher and the entire post 1945 UK world. It is best described as social democracy. No government has undone the fabric of regulated capitalism + welfare state. They have tinkered with the balance of it, run it sometimes well, sometimes less well, all have tried to make progress in prosperity, some better than others.
The idea that Reform intend to change this basic pattern is, IMHO, not correct. Your Party and Greens do so intend. Which makes them interesting.
Reform are interesting because they are also ethno-nationalists and appear to lack the most basic tools of judgment and competence. But they are nationalist social democrats (as are SNP and PC). Greens and Your Party are not.
You frequently use this argument that Reform don't intend to overturn the post-war settlement of regulated capitalism + welfare state, and I agree with you to an extent. But Reform are different. Part of the post-war consensus has been an acceptance, or even a welcoming, of (controlled) immigration, coupled with an acceptance of the UK's role as a refuge for those fleeing unconscionable regimes. Reform are going to blow that consensus out of the water, in respect of both immigration and legitimate refugees/asylum seekers. Given that these policies are a, if not the, major plank of Reform's appeal, I'd argue that they are seeking to upend the post-war consensus in an important way.
Yes. I think we are agreed on the likely Reform trajectory. And yes they may well upend some of the post war consensus. Interpretations will vary. My view of them is unremitting hostility. Ethno-nationalist social democracy run by incompetents is not my idea of fun.
The point I too regularly make is that Reform are not planning to be transformational WRT the post 1945 consensus except in the area of closed borders ethno-nationalism, while many expect they will be. They will be high spend, and therefore high tax.
I have genuinely no idea whether they are a big government or a small government party, and I don't think they do either. Their voter coalition straddles a wide range of preferences on this topic and they have espoused a range of views. I do expect incompetence though, that has been strongly signalled. Also high levels of racism, both dog whistled and more explicit. Most likely we will see widespread civil strife.
IMO the route to the answer is to contemplate the voters of Clacton and Skegness, and ask what sort of Reform government would encourage them to vote for them again. Don't ask what they want for others, ask what they want for themselves and multiply by 70 million. What those voters will want for themselves includes: pensions, a welfare safety net, social housing, defence, NATO membership, NHS - preferably acting a lot quicker than now -, free education to 18, a thriving jobs market, transport and roads, social care, bins emptying, an effective police force and law and order.
They want a big government, high spend (therefore high tax) state. Wait and see.
(BTW, they will also discover that they don't want to deport my eye specialist who has ILR and a brown skin, and is a great man.)
I made precisely this point when I met a senior Reform figure and he told me that his voters (in one of these kinds of areas) wanted welfare cuts. He suggested the triple lock would be open to review. So I don't know how this plays out. But if the Reform coalition is split on economics they are united on "cultural" issues so I think that's where they will go large. It won't be pretty and will likely be highly divisive. Think large scale immigration raids that quickly descend into civil unrest, the BBC dismantled, government ministers using openly racist language. Plus capitulation to Russia, obvs.
India is about to start producing drones for Russia's war in Ukraine. Europeans are desperately talking about peace to keep in with Trump, but the peace talks seem to be only a diversion to stop Europe from using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine's fight for survival.
The situation feels really bleak, and reportedly Starmer was the driving force behind pushing the target data for NATO's new 5% spending target out to 2035, so the British PM is a main component in the axis of denial in Europe that is holding it back from grasping the reality of the precarious position Europe is in and of taking decisive action to turn things around.
What's the good news?
Starmer should take a leaf out of President Trump's book and warn Modi that any drones will trigger the immediate cancellation of all Indian visas. He won't, of course. Something something international law.
Partly, but mostly realpolitik that we aren't the USA and even the USA struggles with its demands from countries the size of India.
Actually Britain and America are equally important for the Indian diaspora. Russia, on the other hand, is not.
India is about to start producing drones for Russia's war in Ukraine. Europeans are desperately talking about peace to keep in with Trump, but the peace talks seem to be only a diversion to stop Europe from using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine's fight for survival.
The situation feels really bleak, and reportedly Starmer was the driving force behind pushing the target data for NATO's new 5% spending target out to 2035, so the British PM is a main component in the axis of denial in Europe that is holding it back from grasping the reality of the precarious position Europe is in and of taking decisive action to turn things around.
What's the good news?
Starmer should take a leaf out of President Trump's book and warn Modi that any drones will trigger the immediate cancellation of all Indian visas. He won't, of course. Something something international law.
Partly, but mostly realpolitik that we aren't the USA and even the USA struggles with its demands from countries the size of India.
Actually Britain and America are equally important for the Indian diaspora. Russia, on the other hand, is not.
Good luck convincing Modi to take orders from Starmer.....
India is about to start producing drones for Russia's war in Ukraine. Europeans are desperately talking about peace to keep in with Trump, but the peace talks seem to be only a diversion to stop Europe from using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine's fight for survival.
The situation feels really bleak, and reportedly Starmer was the driving force behind pushing the target data for NATO's new 5% spending target out to 2035, so the British PM is a main component in the axis of denial in Europe that is holding it back from grasping the reality of the precarious position Europe is in and of taking decisive action to turn things around.
What's the good news?
Better news on oil, ironically thanks to Trump's tariffs.
'As a reminder, India has faced economic and trade losses due to its cooperation with Russia, especially in the context of Russia’s war against Ukraine and sanctions pressure from the US and the EU.
Because of its close ties with Russia, the US in 2025 raised tariffs on most Indian goods to 50 percent, including “additional” tariffs linked to purchases of Russian energy resources and weapons. This has negatively affected Indian manufacturers who target the American market.
For this reason, in December 2025, India plans to reduce exports of Russian oil to the lowest level in the past three years.
Earlier, RBC-Ukraine reported that Indian energy giant Reliance Industries completely halted imports of Russian oil on November 20.
There's a pincer movement on Russian oil. First American sanctions, but the other prong is Ukrainian drone attacks have made the supply unreliable, and the last thing the buyer wants or needs is their refineries or petrol stations sitting empty for a few weeks because Russia can no longer guarantee a delivery date.
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
Britain probably not best placed to advise others on European unity, unfortunately.
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
One of my fears is that Ukraine cannot keep up this intensity of warfare indefinitely, and that as the support from Europe falters, they may reach a breaking point before Russia does. And then, when Russia wants to have another go at Europe, they will benefit from Ukrainian industry and the Ukrainian people that they have coerced into fighting for them.
Europe reeks of a desperation for peace. It only emboldens Russia to push for more.
Comments
PS: Let Billy no mates take on China on it's own, Tango man would be whining and gurning then.
There are large numbers of seats where only Lab, Reform and Tory appear credible candidates (five Cumbrian seats are a nice test case - all were Tory, all now Labour, all projected Reform). All three are opposed by most. An electoral pact between LD and Greens looks a no brainer for hundreds of seats. Which, being UK politics is I suppose a guarantee it won't happen.
I think its aim is about ensuring peace, prosperity, democracy and security for its population. I don't think it wants to be in competition with the US, though the MAGA crowd seem to be trying to pick a fight (mainly because the MAGA crowd are more naturally sympathetic to Putin's reactionary ideas.)
I agree with Malcolm G on his critique of Russia - it is all those things. However, its people should aspire for better than that, and a long term goal of being accepted into the heart of Europe is, I believe, a good one.
His latest idea that Putin's Russia can ever be part of a harmonious EU is very weird... and given the Russian population's seemingly unwavering support for rampant nationalism, even after Putin this looks a non-starter to me.
Secondly, right and left doesn't capture the whole at all. For example it doesn't capture social conservatism + big state intervention and dirigisme + nationalism. Which is where, I think, Reform is going to pitch itself.
We (Conservative MPs) must do something.
This (ditching the leader) is something.
Therefore, we must do this.
... which is broken is all sorts of places.
Regarding democracy, take a look at the list of EU member states and see how many of them were dictatorships not long before joining the EU, for which democracy is a pre-requisite. I would argue that no institution has done more to extend democracy than the EU.
And then you see the threat to democracy in the US from the current regime and it reminds you that those decisions can sometimes be important.
That said, Kemi has done some good work shorting up the party's finances when it could have gone bankrupt and leading policy reviews. She also has got better at the despatch box as with her budget response and she can at least say she has outlasted Truss as Tory leader and done less damage to the party than she did. To last more than 2 years as Tory leader and beat IDS, Howard and Sunak she will need a good set of local and devolved elections for the Conservatives next year though
Obviously replied to wrong post, doh.....
The idea that Reform intend to change this basic pattern is, IMHO, not correct. Your Party and Greens do so intend. Which makes them interesting.
Reform are interesting because they are also ethno-nationalists and appear to lack the most basic tools of judgment and competence. But they are nationalist social democrats (as are SNP and PC). Greens and Your Party are not.
There's virtually no hope of a Tory majority unless something big changes. If you don't want a rightish government, why are you voting Tory at all?
To be fair, as a Ref voter this would probably be my preferred outcome - Ref are needed to fix immigration, but with Tory influence to ensure they cut spending rather than increase the state.
More generally - why do people constantly treat politics like a team sport, where they back their team through thick or thin, regardless of how useless they are.
I couldn't care less about the fate of any of the UK's political parties, I care about the policies which they enact on the country.
IMHO, the country needs:
Net zero immigration for an extended period (until house prices are back to sanity).
Massive shrinkage of the state, coupled with a fairly massive reduction in the tax burden, and also a very reduced deficit.
Deregulation across most spheres of life.
I'll vote for anyone who looks like they might deliver some of that, or failing that is least likely to deliver the opposite. I couldn't care less what colour label they wear as they are doing it.
This is however slightly tempered by a belief that leopards aren't given to changing their spots - e. g. whatever the Labour Party says before elections about not increasing taxes, you can be can be sure that if elected they'll tax, spend and borrow like it's going out of fashion, because that's what they always do.
Stephen Kerr MSP
@RealStephenKerr
7 Dec
The problem with this is, Offord agreed to be our treasurer and stayed with us long after any net zero, immigration, or tax policy.
The only thing that's changed recently is the polling. If you want to be a party full of chancers seeking personal gain, then fine.
https://x.com/RealStephenKerr/status/1997580318086181146?s=20
There is no party serious about reducing the size of the state, or even attempting to balance the books, although they Tories occasionally make some of the right noises - for that reason, a Ref-Tory coalition is probably my prefered outcome.
I wouldn't want the Tories to have a majority on their own, see my comments about leopards and spots.
Politics is just a way for them to pick up another baubles.
So much for the ‘honours’ system when you can buy it.
The point I too regularly make is that Reform are not planning to be transformational WRT the post 1945 consensus except in the area of closed borders ethno-nationalism, while many expect they will be. They will be high spend, and therefore high tax.
An informal understanding will emerge on where not to compete.
When a number is too large (too many people in the country), slowing the rate of increase doesn't solve the problem (see also the popular confusion between the annual deficit and the national debt).
Much of the Boriswave was made of of Ukrainians and Hong Kongers. Few people objected to that.
Voters have a distinct hierarchy of the sorts of immigration they'll accept. We've reduced immigration of the sort people don't mind but we're still getting the immigration which is politically toxic: the unskilled, the chancers, the criminals and the fanatics.
Well, the island is getting lots, washing ashore from a container that fell off a passing ship at the weekend
Other colourways are available.
But the problem this time is that Farage will have many more target seats than last time, so an informal agreement might be hard to achieve.
There is no guarantee Jenrick would win anyway, Cleverly led Jenrick in at least one Tory members poll last year and all Cleverly and most Kemi backing Tory MPs from last year would back Cleverly over Jenrick if Kemi was removed. Cleverly would be more likely to get the Labour and LD tactical votes needed to give the Tories a chance of staying ahead of Reform on seats
https://conservativehome.com/2024/10/06/cleverly-overtakes-jenrick-in-our-post-conference-leadership-survey/
The situation feels really bleak, and reportedly Starmer was the driving force behind pushing the target data for NATO's new 5% spending target out to 2035, so the British PM is a main component in the axis of denial in Europe that is holding it back from grasping the reality of the precarious position Europe is in and of taking decisive action to turn things around.
What's the good news?
They want a big government, high spend (therefore high tax) state. Wait and see.
(BTW, they will also discover that they don't want to deport my eye specialist who has ILR and a brown skin, and is a great man.)
If they are jetsam (unlikely) then their owners have disowned them.
IANAL
Tory MPs going to Reform are flotsam.
Expelled Labour MPs going to Your Party are jetsam.
At an event in Washington DC on Sunday, he said Netflix has a "big market share" and the firms' combined size "could be a problem".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn815egjqjpo
Every drone requires a European visa. To be taken from the Indian immigration quota.
Think Princess State…
Can't act without the US. Scared witless to offend trading partners.
We're inviting adversaries to give us a kick in the nuts by being so weak.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/wreck-and-salvage-law
'As a reminder, India has faced economic and trade losses due to its cooperation with Russia, especially in the context of Russia’s war against Ukraine and sanctions pressure from the US and the EU.
Because of its close ties with Russia, the US in 2025 raised tariffs on most Indian goods to 50 percent, including “additional” tariffs linked to purchases of Russian energy resources and weapons. This has negatively affected Indian manufacturers who target the American market.
For this reason, in December 2025, India plans to reduce exports of Russian oil to the lowest level in the past three years.
Earlier, RBC-Ukraine reported that Indian energy giant Reliance Industries completely halted imports of Russian oil on November 20.
Instead, the Indian conglomerate Reliance Industries purchased millions of barrels of oil from Middle Eastern countries and the US after American sanctions were imposed on two Russian producers.'
https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/russia-deepens-ties-with-india-seeks-joint-1765109499.html
Until they don't.
‘Zombie’ electricity projects in Britain face axe to ease quicker grid connections
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/dec/08/zombie-electricity-projects-britain-face-axe-grid-connections-net-zero
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
Europe reeks of a desperation for peace. It only emboldens Russia to push for more.