Christabel Cooper

Oh yes I know! I've been a delegate enough times. It was looking at the audience in the fringe events, which seemed proportionately less full of ordinary members than usual, which led to my initial observation.

Got to say this time around it felt more like lobbyists talking to other lobbyists plus some journos, rather than an event centered around activist engagement.

That is fairly terrifying, if true. Given the stakes.

They don't seem to have moved (enough) onto the "Reform's economic policies are batshit" part. Which would be a crucial part of that plan.

Genuinely, what *do* they do about the haemorrhage to Reform?

I accept that even the Tories can't out-Reform Reform on immigration, but is it a totally crazy pitch for them to say to Con/Ref considerers "sure, we aren't as hard line on immigration as Reform, but we are pretty tough, and importantly we are not completely batshit on the the economy."

Interesting that Reform, which is currently 10+ points ahead in the polls, has accused Starmer of "scholastic terrorism" apparently without being worried that it is labelling the Labour/Reform considerers it needs to attract as supporters of terrorism.

A major point here, is that older working class people are by and large *not* in the poorest half of society. They tend to have good pensions and own their own houses outright and consequently are economically (as well as culturally) right wing and therefore have little interest in voting Labour.

Interestingly it *is* very much working people, if you define them as "people of working age who draw their income from employment". Even Corbyn in 2019 won the plurality of people of working age. In 2024 more people of working age with an income over £100k voted Labour than Tory.

Though... Anecdotally, there are some on the far right, who are happy to admit they are racist, but vehemently reject the label "far right" - presumably because they want to believe that racism is mainstream.

And it will definitely not be popular among the subset of voters who are likely to ever consider voting Labour. Unlike the Tories, Labour doesn't have to win over the minority with *extremely* hard-line views, just those who want a system that feels fairer and under control.

Always angers me that Hunt is treated as a sensible moderate when he was responsible for that utterly cynical move on tax - which is a major cause of the dreadful and damaging fiscal position the country is now.

I don't think it would solve the whole problem by any means, but suspect it might persuade some of those - particularly the relatively small number who voted Lab in 24 and have switched to Reform, to look again at the government. (Though timescales a problem here).

People who vote Reform aren't necessarily badly off themselves but do tend to live in run down areas with low house prices and poor public services. Improving services, infrastructure and the public realm in those areas could help.

Thank you for this Ally. It means a lot that you are speaking out on this.

Of course. Makes perfect sense.

I wonder if she genuinely doesn't remember that she did the energy thing.

Yes they are more electorally important because they count double in the majority of seats where Labour is likely to face Reform as its main challenger.

It's really worth bearing in mind that Labour doesn't need to persuade all, or even most Reform voters. Just the minority that might consider Labour (who will tend to be *slightly* more liberal).

Oh absolutely, these are the crudest of crude calculations and of course based on GE2024 results which no longer apply, I was just interested to see what might be the broad shape of the two scenarios, particularly for the Greens.

Basically, the choice here *based on current polling* (big caveat!) is "potentially hurt Labour badly, to help out Reform" or "don't hurt Labour all that badly, but maybe gain only a handful of seats for Your Party/Independents".

But in 6 seats, adding the Green vote to those of Independents (who would presumably stand under Your Party) *would* be enough for those candidates to win the seat. Though this assumes (probably incorrectly) that all Green voters would be happy to transfer to Your Party.

OTOH a pact, where candidates stood aside for each other, exclusively benefits Your Party because the Greens are so far behind in most of the seats where they challenge Labour that adding in the Your Party vote doesn't help much.

Given current polling we can assume that in reality, Reform (rather than the Tories) would be the main beneficiary of a split in the progressive vote, which would give Labour a very strong anti-Reform tactical voting message to anyone considering switching to Your Party: Vote Corbyn, get Nigel.

A BMG Research poll asked for voting intention with and without the specific mention of "Your Party". The Labour vote dropped by 3 points. Applying this as a uniform swing to the GE2024 result would lose Labour 34 seats, mostly in ultra-marginal Lab-Con seats.

bmgresearch.com/wp-content/u...

Thoughts on the potential impact of a Your Party/Green pact versus the parties standing separately. Standing independently hurts Labour the most, but overwhelmingly the beneficiary is likely to be Reform. OTOH a pact helps Your Party in a handful of seats. Neither scenario really helps the Greens.

But that comes up against past US support for Ukraine which would mean he's on the losing side if Russia wins. And he doesn't want to be a "loser".

And so we go on with this endless Trump drama while people continue dying.

Trump *could* end this war by applying that pressure (or let Russia win by fully abandoning Ukraine). Instead he vacillates.

Unknowable what goes on his mind to explain why he won't make the choice. I'd guess he instinctively sides with Putin (strongman, Trump also believes in regional power blocs)

But at least wants Ukraine to be weak, unprotected by the West and susceptible to Russian manipulation and possibly future invasion. This isn't about territory, it's about sovereignty.

Russia thinks it's winning so has little incentive to agree to a ceasefire unless huge pressure is applied.

The problem with the Ukraine-Russia negotiations is that Trump completely fails to grasp that the aims of the two sides are totally incompatible, and he needs to decide which side he actually wants to win.

Ukraine wants to be a sovereign, thriving state. Russia ideally wants to subjugate Ukraine.

But progressive voters are also likely to underestimate the strength of Reform, i.e. the threat of getting a Reform MP may not be fully understood (particularly if the Conservatives also run a prominent campaign). Relying on progressive anti-Reform tactical voting *alone* is also therefore risky.