Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[jfollows]

Another Observer article (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...edfordshire-tories-labour-nadine-dorries-seat) points to a real possibility of Labour and LibDem ensuring that neither of them wins the seat. "Smaller villages will vote LibDem but they won't vote Labour" said someone pushing for LibDem votes; it looks like both potential winners are convincing themselves that they're the only party capable of winning and the end result could well be that neither of them wins.

‘Lib Dems will raze this place to the ground’: Mid Beds byelection duel could gift seat to Tories​

A split-vote Conservative victory is seen as ‘a serious threat’ as Labour and Lib Dems battle for Nadine Dorries’s former seat


Michael Savage Policy Editor
Sat 16 Sep 2023 14.00 BST


On a sunny morning in the village of Barton-le-Clay, Emma Holland-Lindsay, the Liberal Democrat candidate in next month’s Mid Bedfordshire byelection, is arguing that her party is best placed to overturn the huge Tory majority in the seat. “I think we’re the frontrunners to beat the Conservatives,” she insists.
Timothy Fox, listening politely on the doorstep with his wife, Christine, gives a wry smile before replying: “Funny, Labour was here yesterday and said exactly the same thing.”

In this sprawling constituency, which is home to small towns, farms, new-build estates and dozens of villages, it is clear that support has flooded away from the Tories since Nadine Dorries, the outgoing MP, secured almost 60% of the vote and a majority just shy of 25,000 at the last election.
Complaints about access to GPs, the cost of living and Dorries’s alleged lack of presence in the seat regularly come up as the Labour and Lib Dem contenders knock on doors.
The Tories have already endured a string of disastrous byelection defeats in recent years. There has, however, usually been an obvious challenger. This time round, Labour and the Lib Dems remain convinced that they are best placed in Mid Beds.
Figures in the two parties concede that, as a result, a divided anti-Tory vote could end up gifting the seat back to the Conservatives. “It is a serious threat,” says one senior Lib Dem.
A new constituency poll, seen by the Observer, underlines the danger. The poll reveals that when undecided voters are removed, Labour and the Tories are on 29% of the vote, with the Lib Dems on 22%. The poll was conducted by Survation for the Labour Together group, which has close ties with Keir Starmer’s leadership.
The Reform UK party has 7%, and a well-known independent candidate, Gareth Mackey, has 6% of the vote. Survation contacted 559 total respondents. Josh Simons, director of Labour Together, insisted the poll “clearly shows this is a two-horse race between Labour and the Conservatives”.

Constituency polls are notoriously hard to conduct, but the research indicates a clear collapse in the Tory vote. It also shows a split among the progressive parties that could see the Tories claim victory with half the vote share they enjoyed at the last election. Conservative candidate and county police and crime commissioner Festus Akinbusoye is still working the seat hard, and there is a hardcore of Tory voters who remain loyal.
A series of factors have led to the Labour-Lib Dem standoff. The Lib Dems have traditionally made their name by overhauling huge Tory majorities in byelections, such as in Somerton and Frome earlier this year. Yet the moment Dorries indicated she was resigning back in June, Labour’s high command saw it as a chance to show that Starmer’s new-look party could also compete for supposedly safe Tory seats.
Then there is the varied nature of Mid Beds itself. Some Lib Dems regard it as similar to Somerton and Frome – a seat with a small town, but predominantly made up of even smaller villages. “Those villages will vote Lib Dem but they won’t vote Labour,” said one Lib Dem strategist. “That’s pretty much where we’re at.”

However, that assessment is ridiculed by Labour figures. They say there is considerable demographic change, with younger families moving into a significant amount of new-build housing, and lots of them commuting to the likes of London, Luton, Bedford and Milton Keynes. It is not, they say, a typical rural seat.
Peter Kyle, the increasingly influential shadow cabinet minister who is overseeing the campaign, says the data he checks every morning suggests Labour is clearly the better-placed party – though he acknowledges the Tories could end up benefiting from a split vote.
“I’m frustrated that is a possibility,” he says. “We’re not here because we have a love of wasting Labour party members’ money. We are here because all of the evidence and all of our experience tells us residents want to have a conversation with us like never before. And it is our duty as a party to respond accordingly.”

He has also complained about personal attacks by the Lib Dems on Labour’s candidate, Alistair Strathern. “The Lib Dems have gone scorched earth. They are a towering inferno of self-righteous rage. Politically, they will raze the place to the ground if they carry on like this.”

The Labour and Lib Dem candidates are now scrambling to make the case to voters that they are in the best position to replace Dorries, who was widely criticised for a lack of visibility in the seat. Both play up their local credentials on the doorstep and in their literature.
The Labour leaflets are an array of pastel shades rather than the traditional red – and activists arriving are told to be courteous and understanding with Tory voters they encounter.
If it comes down to who can make the case the fastest, there are signs Labour could have an advantage. On Friday, a bus full of its activists arrived from London, were swiftly divided into battalions, given a pep talk and sent out far and wide. The party’s general secretary, David Evans, also turned up. The Labour ground operation is in full swing.
With the vote in less than five weeks, on 19 October, the candidates are upping the pace. Holland-Lindsay and Strathern, out campaigning in the villages of Barton-le-Clay and Wootton respectively on Friday, made a good impression on the doorstep and came away with voters seemingly backing them.
Yet there were also people in both villages who said they had yet to decide where their anti-Conservative vote would go.
“What we’d be pleased to see around here is proper representation,” says Craig, an air traffic control worker, having just been told by Strathern that he would be “present, active and focused” as an MP. However, Craig adds that he will have “an equal listen” to the Lib Dems. “I’m not particularly bound to any one party,” he says.
It points to a relentless battle that will continue all the way to polling day. Having complained about not seeing their last MP enough, the voters of Mid Bedfordshire may soon feel overly acquainted with the candidates now seeking to represent them.

 

[nw1]

Another Observer article (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...edfordshire-tories-labour-nadine-dorries-seat) points to a real possibility of Labour and LibDem ensuring that neither of them wins the seat. "Smaller villages will vote LibDem but they won't vote Labour" said someone pushing for LibDem votes; it looks like both potential winners are convincing themselves that they're the only party capable of winning and the end result could well be that neither of them wins.

It really is time we stop the People's Front of Labour versus the Lib Dem People's Front nonsense. This handed Boris a significant majority last time.

Time they focused on defeating the common foe: the Romans Tories!

Labour/Lib Dem infighting is infuriating, they really need to stop it.

I'm hoping Labour do win Tamworth in this case: on the face of it, you might say unlikely (the rural Midlands is Tory Central these days) but if they can take Selby and Ainsty, why not, I guess? The "Pincher effect" might dissuade people from voting Tory, too, as well as the fact that any Tory MP would only be there for 12 months max as Mr Walsall will stand next time.

 

[najaB]

It really is time we stop the People's Front of Labour versus the Lib Dem People's Front nonsense. This handed Boris a significant majority last time.

Time they focused on defeating the common foe: the Romans Tories!

If the Tories built an aqueduct it would be empty...

 

[sor]

Another Observer article (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...edfordshire-tories-labour-nadine-dorries-seat) points to a real possibility of Labour and LibDem ensuring that neither of them wins the seat. "Smaller villages will vote LibDem but they won't vote Labour" said someone pushing for LibDem votes; it looks like both potential winners are convincing themselves that they're the only party capable of winning and the end result could well be that neither of them wins.

One small crumb of comfort is that if vote splitting does open it up for the Tories, and/or if Corbyn does run for London mayor and does the same there - perhaps electoral reform will finally return to the table

 

[dgl]

If the Tories built an aqueduct it would be empty...

Yes, because it would have been designed so that all water ran back to the source!

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, because it would have been designed so that all water ran back to the source!

Or leaked out. Or the whole thing fell down because they can't do concrete like the Romans did.

 

[Gloster]

In one way it might be a good thing if the Conservatives took one or both of the seats as it could make Labour and the Liberal-Democrats realise that they have got to cooperate to a certain extent at the next election. Not a formal, or even informal pact, but a realisation that each should avoid attacking the other in any seat where one or the other looks better placed. If Labour look better placed, then the Liberal-Democrats should reduce their efforts in that seat and direct what efforts they do make to attacking the Conservatives. And vice-versa. Of course, there will be seats where the local parties won’t give way or it isn’t clear who is the best challenger, but there should be a fair number of seats where there is a risk of the Conservatives coming through the middle.

 

[yorksrob]

It really is time we stop the People's Front of Labour versus the Lib Dem People's Front nonsense. This handed Boris a significant majority last time.

Time they focused on defeating the common foe: the Romans Tories!

Labour/Lib Dem infighting is infuriating, they really need to stop it.

I'm hoping Labour do win Tamworth in this case: on the face of it, you might say unlikely (the rural Midlands is Tory Central these days) but if they can take Selby and Ainsty, why not, I guess? The "Pincher effect" might dissuade people from voting Tory, too, as well as the fact that any Tory MP would only be there for 12 months max as Mr Walsall will stand next time.

Indeed. Labour and the Lib Dems need to recognise that the number one, two and three priorities is getting rid of the Tories. If someone stepping aside in favour of the other is the way to do it, so be it.

 

[Busaholic]

Holding both the Tamworth and the Mid Bedfordshire by-elections on October 19th will mean only 1 set of bad headlines for the Tories, not 2. That said, because there is a more divided opposition in Mid Beds, with both Labour and the LibDems thinking they have a chance and therefore campaigning, it could enable the Tories to slip through the middle and hang on.

It might also be to Labour's advantage that both are being held on the same day if they fail to gain Mid Beds but win Tamworth and can crow about that. The opinion poll showings in Mid Beds indicate 7% support for Reform UK so they might just prevent a Tory win there. Wouldn't normally say this, but hope Reform UK maximise their vote on the day!

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

In one way it might be a good thing if the Conservatives took one or both of the seats as it could make Labour and the Liberal-Democrats realise that they have got to cooperate to a certain extent at the next election. Not a formal, or even informal pact, but a realisation that each should avoid attacking the other in any seat where one or the other looks better placed. If Labour look better placed, then the Liberal-Democrats should reduce their efforts in that seat and direct what efforts they do make to attacking the Conservatives. And vice-versa. Of course, there will be seats where the local parties won’t give way or it isn’t clear who is the best challenger, but there should be a fair number of seats where there is a risk of the Conservatives coming through the middle.

Absolutely spot on. I was mystified this week on the News Agent podcast to hear Labours Peter Kyle doing an absolutely demolition derby on the Liberal Democrats then the next days episode had Liberal Democrats replying in kind. No mention from either that this byelection is about the absent Dorries and Tory party failings. The next GE is Labours to lose so to create a divide with the Liberals will risks Torys to come through in the middle here and loads of other places.
I really despair of this country.

 

[yorksrob]

Absolutely spot on. I was mystified this week on the News Agent podcast to hear Labours Peter Kyle doing an absolutely demolition derby on the Liberal Democrats then the next days episode had Liberal Democrats replying in kind. No mention from either that this byelection is about the absent Dorries and Tory party failings. The next GE is Labours to lose so to create a divide with the Liberals will risks Torys to come through in the middle here and loads of other places.
I really despair of this country.

The half-wits need to get with the programme and concentrate on the main objective.

 

[edwin_m]

In one way it might be a good thing if the Conservatives took one or both of the seats as it could make Labour and the Liberal-Democrats realise that they have got to cooperate to a certain extent at the next election. Not a formal, or even informal pact, but a realisation that each should avoid attacking the other in any seat where one or the other looks better placed. If Labour look better placed, then the Liberal-Democrats should reduce their efforts in that seat and direct what efforts they do make to attacking the Conservatives. And vice-versa. Of course, there will be seats where the local parties won’t give way or it isn’t clear who is the best challenger, but there should be a fair number of seats where there is a risk of the Conservatives coming through the middle.

Bit in bold - this seat looks very much like one of those. Labour are apparently ahead but LibDems may have a better chance of attracting previously Tory voters.

 

[317 forever]

It might also be to Labour's advantage that both are being held on the same day if they fail to gain Mid Beds but win Tamworth and can crow about that. The opinion poll showings in Mid Beds indicate 7% support for Reform UK so they might just prevent a Tory win there. Wouldn't normally say this, but hope Reform UK maximise their vote on the day!

I see what you mean. A 6% swing from the Tories to Reform is equivalent to a 3% swing from the Tories to (for example) Labour, increasing the chance of the seat changing hands.

 

[nw1]

The half-wits need to get with the programme and concentrate on the main objective.

Quite. The entire Labour and Liberal Democrat parties need to be forced to watch the Life of Brian to illustrate the dangers of indulging in pathetic bickering. For a comedic film, it does contain some pretty serious messages.
I'd expect more from Peter Kyle, MP for the socially-liberal Hove meaning he ought to understand the appeal of the Lib Dems.


I've seen this sort of thing myself, Labour party members advising people to vote Labour in a seat where the clear challenger is Lib Dem (such as my own).

"If you want a Labour government, vote Labour".

Erm, no. The correct answer, of course, is:

"If you want a Labour government, vote tactically for the candidate best-placed to beat the Tories".

 

[sor]

it's all very reminiscent of 2019, both in the so called "government of national unity" where Labour insisted on it being Corbyn but other parties wanted a non-leader, eg someone who was retiring anyway. It happened again in the resulting election where the Lib Dems, Greens, Plaid Cymru & co had various pacts in place but Labour were unwilling to officially do anything with anyone, thus resulting in a few more Tory MPs

 

[nw1]

it's all very reminiscent of 2019, both in the so called "government of national unity" where Labour insisted on it being Corbyn but other parties wanted a non-leader, eg someone who was retiring anyway. It happened again in the resulting election where the Lib Dems, Greens, Plaid Cymru & co had various pacts in place but Labour were unwilling to officially do anything with anyone, thus resulting in a few more Tory MPs

It ought to be simple for Labour.

Starmer would like to achieve power.

To achieve power, you need more seats than the Tories.

The Tories are the only party who might deny Labour power (though unlikely).

So the aim must surely be, by whatever means, to minimise the number of Tory MPs.

That should include not putting up a fight in Tory/Lib Dem, or even Tory/SNP, marginals.

As a non-politician this is completely obvious to me.

(To be fair Mid Beds is neither an obviously Labour-trending nor an obviously Lib Dem-trending seat. Even still Labour and the Lib Dems should not be attacking each other, and focusing solely on attacking the Tories).

 

[takno]

It ought to be simple for Labour.

Starmer would like to achieve power.

To achieve power, you need more seats than the Tories.

The Tories are the only party who might deny Labour power (though unlikely).

So the aim must surely be, by whatever means, to minimise the number of Tory MPs.

That should include not putting up a fight in Tory/Lib Dem, or even Tory/SNP, marginals.

As a non-politician this is completely obvious to me.

(To be fair Mid Beds is neither an obviously Labour-trending nor an obviously Lib Dem-trending seat. Even still Labour and the Lib Dems should not be attacking each other, and focusing solely on attacking the Tories).

The problem with this is that plenty of people in the Labour party and the Labour support base still remember 2010-2015. Even if the Labour leadership have privately developed a higher level of trust in the current LibDem party, there are lots of voters out there who haven't. You don't get to treat your voters or even your local party as your own private army, and their votes aren't yours to imperiously direct around to other parties. There are significant numbers of people who would (and did) vote Reform/UKIP/Brexit rather than risk being treated like that, or giving even tacit comfort to a party they regard as back-sliding Judases.

Tacit local agreements to not campaign hard or direct attention at different voter groups are the way forward of course. Unfortunately the huge scale of national attention, and the sheer numbers of activists being bussed in from other areas, make that pretty much impossible in by-elections. Hopefully once you get to general elections the effect is much less pronounced and tactical voting can have more of a role.

 

[brad465]

Mid-Bedfordshire is one of those rare cases where the best Tory challenger just isn't clear, no matter how tactical voting is encouraged. If the Tories win the seat as a result of a highly split vote, this might be a good thing for Labour in two ways: firstly tactical voters/voting is likely to be seen as essential going forward, increasing its occurrence. Second, if anyone claims Labour and the Lib Dems are forming a pact, they could point to this result as proof of the contrary.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The problem with this is that plenty of people in the Labour party and the Labour support base still remember 2010-2015. Even if the Labour leadership have privately developed a higher level of trust in the current LibDem party, there are lots of voters out there who haven't.

And add to that that on the other side, the LibDems really want electoral reform and know that they stand most chance of that (as well as having more influence generally) with a hung Parliament. At the moment it's looking the next election will produce a strong Labour majority with or without tactical voting, so many LibDems don't have much reason to do anything to make Labour's majority even bigger when the Labour leadership seems to be dead set on keeping first past the post for elections (which from the POV of any LibDem who wants the Tories out, will just mean another Tory majority Government when the pendulum swings again).

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

And add to that that on the other side, the LibDems really want electoral reform and know that they stand most chance of that (as well as having more influence generally) with a hung Parliament. At the moment it's looking the next election will produce a strong Labour majority with or without tactical voting, so many LibDems don't have much reason to do anything to make Labour's majority even bigger when the Labour leadership seems to be dead set on keeping first past the post for elections (which from the POV of any LibDem who wants the Tories out, will just mean another Tory majority Government when the pendulum swings again).

Indeed the real issue here is norm just gets perpetuated so we carry on with the same stale politics that now plague the progress of this country. History tells us that this country is highly unlikely to cause an upset so we get five years of Labour who now feel they don't have to even tell us what they are planning other than not spending anymore money - how are they going to fix broken Britain if they dont is beyond me.

 

[AM9]

Indeed the real issue here is norm just gets perpetuated so we carry on with the same stale politics that now plague the progress of this country. History tells us that this country is highly unlikely to cause an upset so we get five years of Labour who now feel they don't have to even tell us what they are planning other than not spending anymore money - how are they going to fix broken Britain if they dont is beyond me.

There's no need for any party to announce their national manifesto in a by election, - only how they will work for and represent their constituents. It's not as if that prospective MP has any choice in the running of the nation, other than voting as directed by the whipping level.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

There's no need for any party to announce their national manifesto in a by election, - only how they will work for and represent their constituents. It's not as if that prospective MP has any choice in the running of the nation, other than voting as directed by the whipping level.

Im talking about general election

 

[NorthKent1989]

It's extraordinary how that thuggish hard-right yob Anderson seems to be able to get away with anything. Sunak's stupidity in a) hiring him in the first place and b) not firing him now is breathtaking. All that Winchester College education wasted, it seems.

The most loathsome MP since Enoch Powell, bar none.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Sep 2023 ==



Inconsistency of course. Gambling is fine, nitrous oxide is not. The cynical reasons for the respective decisions have of course already been discussed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Sep 2023 ==



By contrast I'm surprised how many of Generation X (born between about 1960 and 1980 though definitions vary) have drifted rightwards. This is my own generation; given that many of our generation hated Thatcher in the late 80s/early 90s, voted against the Tories in 1992 (which was very much an election were voting patterns depended on generation), had the fall of the Berlin Wall and release of Nelson Mandela in or close to our teenage years, and have spent most or all of our adult lives in the EU (and most or all of our lives full stop in the EEC), I'm surprised so many of us seem to have become Tory Brexiters and turned our backs on the politics and zeitgeist of our youth. It's not as if many GenXers can remember pre-1973, so there is little 'nostalgia' reason for supporting Brexit!

GenX have also been affected by some of the issues affecting millennials, for example I was not able to buy my own flat until almost 40; when prices were low around the mid-late 90s I wasn't earning enough anyway and by the time I was earning enough, prices had increased.

Will millennials do the same and drift rightwards, or is there something fundamentally different about them?

I think the whole Millennials drifting leftward is a tad optimistic, while this is certainly the case in large, cosmopolitan cities like London, Liverpool, Manchester etc.

The Home Counties and Rural Areas & Towns are still attracting millennial Tories, I know enough of them, even if they’re not full on right wing and only centre right, the furthest left they’ll go is Lib Dem.

I’d say with this cohort it’s divided right now, between those who’ll hold their breath and vote Starmer, those who will vote Lib Dem and those just politically homeless (I feel this is the case with the majority of people right now across the board)

I spent the summer traveling around the South West in particular, still very much centre right down there, much he sand in the South East, even I was shocked at how many people my age and a bit older would consider Tory if Sunak wasn’t the leader.

The media has a awful habit of either generalising millennials or lumping us with Gen Z who are arguably more left wing than most millennials

 

[AM9]

Im talking about general election

But there isn't a general election at the moment so there's no point in any party announcing their manifesto or even most of what they are planning yet, especially as this government is no doubt going to spring some bribes to certain parts of the electorate before they announce a date anyway. Come the announcement, then all participating parties will release their policy intentions.

 

[nw1]

The problem with this is that plenty of people in the Labour party and the Labour support base still remember 2010-2015. Even if the Labour leadership have privately developed a higher level of trust in the current LibDem party, there are lots of voters out there who haven't. You don't get to treat your voters or even your local party as your own private army, and their votes aren't yours to imperiously direct around to other parties. There are significant numbers of people who would (and did) vote Reform/UKIP/Brexit rather than risk being treated like that, or giving even tacit comfort to a party they regard as back-sliding Judases.

Even still 2010-15 is some time ago now, the era of Cameron and very different to the period since 2016. Revisiting that is a complete waste of energy.

Also (speaking as someone who could support Labour or the Lib Dems) I don't really think Labour have any moral right to criticise the Lib Dems for the tuition fees issue, when Labour also slipped up badly morally (from a liberal-left perspective) over the Iraq war. This, both parties have thus made one major moral slip up each, which effectively makes it a tie with neither party holding the moral high ground over the other.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Sep 2023 ==

And add to that that on the other side, the LibDems really want electoral reform and know that they stand most chance of that (as well as having more influence generally) with a hung Parliament. At the moment it's looking the next election will produce a strong Labour majority with or without tactical voting, so many LibDems don't have much reason to do anything to make Labour's majority even bigger when the Labour leadership seems to be dead set on keeping first past the post for elections (which from the POV of any LibDem who wants the Tories out, will just mean another Tory majority Government when the pendulum swings again).

That is an interesting point.

But, given that the chief beneficiaries of FPTP are the Tories (in the sense that they will have been in power for more than 70% of the period from 1979-2024 despite always getting under 45% of the vote), I would argue that ditching FPTP would actually be good for Labour. They would, IMO, be a member of the government for a significantly greater percentage of the time than they would under FPTP.

It is also a risky strategy for the Lib Dems: do you try to deliberately erode the Labour vote to achieve a hung parliament with Labour the largest party (which would actually be my preference, as I want to see electoral reform)? This could work, but it risks eroding the Labour vote so much that you get another Tory government, which the current Lib Dems, I'm sure, would not want as they are ideologically quite different to the current Tories.

 

[yorksrob]

Looking at the "Conservative party" part of the title, it looks as though Miss Truss will be making a speech today:

Liz Truss urges PM to cut taxes a year after Downing Street exit

The ex-PM uses a speech to defend her tenure in office and to urge Rishi Sunak to cut taxes and delay net-zero commitments.

www.bbc.co.uk

"Her premiership did not survive the massive U-turn and she resigned less than a month after the mini-budget.

The speech will be one of the few occasions she has spoken in public about her tenure and she is expected to say: "Some people said we were in too much of a rush.

"And it is certainly true that I didn't just try to fatten the pig on market day - I tried to rear the pig and slaughter it as well. I confess to that.

"But the reason we were in a rush was because voters wanted to see results.

"I knew with the level of resistance and the lack of preparation time that things weren't going to be perfect."

She is expected to say that communication "could have been better and the operation better honed" but also that she was unable to implement her plans because there was a "powerful force comprising the economic and political elite, corporatists, parts of the media and even a section of the Conservative parliamentary party" opposed to her ideas.

She will also argue that her tax cuts were not unfunded as they would have increased revenue in the long term.

In addition to reflecting on her time in office, Ms Truss will use her speech to urge the government to reinstate VAT-free shopping for tourists and abolish the windfall tax on oil and gas firms.

"We need to get a grip on the ballooning welfare and pensions bill. This means slowing the rate of increases to benefits and tougher work requirements. It also means raising the retirement age further," she will say."

Fair to say I'm not a fan of Sunak, particularly with regard to the railway, however I'm mightily relieved that this lunatic was removed.

Unfortunately whoever leads the Conservative party, there's a danger that someone will be waiting in the wings to impose "Trussonomics" on us.

 

[nw1]

Looking at the "Conservative party" part of the title, it looks as though Miss Truss will be making a speech today:

Liz Truss urges PM to cut taxes a year after Downing Street exit

The ex-PM uses a speech to defend her tenure in office and to urge Rishi Sunak to cut taxes and delay net-zero commitments.

www.bbc.co.uk

Fair to say I'm not a fan of Sunak, particularly with regard to the railway, however I'm mightily relieved that this lunatic was removed.

Unfortunately whoever leads the Conservative party, there's a danger that someone will be waiting in the wings to impose "Trussonomics" on us.

I think she is utterly deluded when going on about the "elite" as if she isn't part of it, certainly. An Oxford-educated ex-PM (which, taken together, surely qualifies her for automatic membership of the "elite"), wanting to cut taxes and benefits, abolish windfall taxes, and raise the retirement age further presumably to fund such tax cuts, is she not implementing policies to benefit the elite and to screw the rest of us?

She, Truss, is absolutely a member of the elite. People like her, clear members of the elite who think that they are not, and who think we will believe such nonsense, are clearly living on another planet.

Work until you drop to benefit Elizabeth Truss Global Banking Group plc.

 

[yorksrob]

I think she is utterly deluded when going on about the "elite" as if she isn't part of it, certainly. An Oxford-educated ex-PM (which, taken together, surely qualifies her for automatic membership of the "elite"), wanting to cut taxes and benefits, abolish windfall taxes, and raise the retirement age further presumably to fund such tax cuts, is she not implementing policies to benefit the elite and to screw the rest of us?

She, Truss, is absolutely a member of the elite. People like her, clear members of the elite who think that they are not, and who think we will believe such nonsense, are clearly living on another planet.

Work until you drop to benefit Elizabeth Truss Global Banking Group plc.

Quite.

The problem is, while I suspect Truss herself has been neutralised, how many of her ilk are lurking within the parliamentary and wider party.

Truss represents the Tory party's version of the militant tendancy and is potentially very dangerous to the country.

 

[sor]

The Home Counties and Rural Areas & Towns are still attracting millennial Tories, I know enough of them, even if they’re not full on right wing and only centre right, the furthest left they’ll go is Lib Dem.

I'm not in a home county but not far away, and yet it's actually the Greens who have cleaned up so far in the local elections. It turns out that when one of your MPs is a health secretary who uses his office for "extracurricular activities", and the other is the environment sec whose own area is riddled with sewage pollution, and the major town is occupied by a 2019 intake MP who just spouts culture war crap instead of helping with the town's issues, these formerly Tory councils are falling into opposition hands.

I am a millennial and I can only really think of one person of my age who is proudly Tory and Brexit, though this was before the last few years of Quality Government. I'll have to ask again when I see him.

But why do we need anecdotes when the likes of the FT have done it for us? Their reporting suggests that millennials are getting more and more left wing as they get older. I guess living through multiple "once in a generation" financial events means unbridled capitalism loses its sheen. https://www.ft.com/content/c361e372-769e-45cd-a063-f5c0a7767cf4

I spent the summer traveling around the South West in particular, still very much centre right down there, much he sand in the South East, even I was shocked at how many people my age and a bit older would consider Tory if Sunak wasn’t the leader.

The media has a awful habit of either generalising millennials or lumping us with Gen Z who are arguably more left wing than most millennials

The South West returning to Lib Dems would really just be healing at this point - it was always their stronghold, and in places like Cornwall where the council only relatively recently turned Tory people are feeling buyers' remorse. I would love a return to the heady days (when I grew up there) where I'd vote Mebyon Kernow since the Lib Dem would get in anyway

 

[jfollows]

Quite.

The problem is, while I suspect Truss herself has been neutralised, how many of her ilk are lurking within the parliamentary and wider party.

Truss represents the Tory party's version of the militant tendancy and is potentially very dangerous to the country.

I agree.
Liz Truss is a delusional member of a poisonous elite, whose supporters are self-interested and in no way representative of the country as a whole. In her self-delusion she has something in common with Boris Johnson, but she takes it further by blaming everyone but herself for the state of the country and thinks that only she has the right "solution" to the problem.
When she was standing against Rishi for the leadership job she went on about electing someone "who delivers" and I asked my self "but what exactly has she delivered?" and concluded the answer to be "nothing". Versus Rishi who - like it or not - had been Chancellor and made difficult decisions. So her self-delusion was clear to me then.
But, as you say, her supporters still exist and are themselves as deluded as she is.

PS Perhaps I should add that I do think the extent of Liz Truss's delusion tells me that she is unwell, in a way that isn't the case with Boris Johnson for whom self-delusion is just a distorted kind of self-interest. I mean, clearly I have no real knowledge about Liz Truss but I do consider what she says and does to be the product of an unstable mind, and I dismiss them as such, whereas there are people who actually take her seriously (I gather).