Sure. So, running with that assumption, does 13 people (unlucky for them) standing for a photo op, with some barely readable and very small placards, help achieve that? Or is it just protest politics at its finest and very most ineffective?

I'm not sure it's that interesting unfortunately. There's an element in the Labour Party who would much prefer not to be in government, so they could instead live out their dream of eternal protest politics.

I fear this particular take on Reform's policy risks ignoring all the events of the past 10 years, the Brexit referendum, and voting intention polling trends.

If people thought this rationally, Brexit wouldn't have happened and Reform wouldn't exist. They don't though, so it did and they do.

Just been through that account you posted about, blocking anyone they'd retweeted and all the followers.

It's the usual selection of anonymous and sockpuppet accounts for the most part. Looks like all the US Gov departments joined BSky yesterday, so that was supported by mass account creation.

Not often you get to hear of a plan with no drawbacks, but here we are!

It's always been that way.

Keep the buildings/estates and open them up to tourists, keep the ceremonies and parades, get rid of the monarchy.

I'll never understand why we publicly fund one family living in extraordinary luxury, while they pay little/no tax, and hoard property, land and wealth.

Credit where due, ZP has a level of cut through the Lib Dems can only dream of. He's also calculated Green voters + Corbynites won't deliver needed results, so he's trying to broaden appeal.

Whether he can do this without losing core support, or getting caught out on lack of detail, I don't know.

There's a critical differenciation between ranting and speaking passionately.

I'd firmly say you're on the safe side of speaking with passion when you go against your intention of "calm nuance". It's important to do this and it's what makes you one of my favourite political commentators.

I agree. I think many issues also stem from Starmer's lawyer style. While it's highly effective in certain scenarios, that style doesn't cater for times where a PM needs to come out swinging. It also doesn't drive a style of comms that can adequately cope with the styles of say Polanski and Farage.

That's fair, Polanski's inexperience shows at times. He should have pushed back on Scandinavian countries as examples of why wealth taxes don't work, adding the context of them having smaller economies/populations.

However, his ability to articulate relatable issues/solutions is very effective.

If this Labour government had even the scintilla of any political nous it would now be showing pictures of some of those the Conservatives and Reform claim they'll deport. From the famous sports players to the people who keep public services running.

I'm a Labour member, so my expectations are potentially different, but one of Zack's talents is his ability to talk about issues without needing political punch at all times.

It's refreshing to see someone addressing issues at least some of the time and taking a break from political point scoring.

This gets to the core issue. Many mistakenly think "taxing the rich" means people on 6-figure salaries paying more tax, when it's actually about adequately taxing non-salary based wealth people accrue from assets.

That's what wealth tax actually means and it's why the rich s**t themselves about it.

The problem for Farage when attempting to deny links to Russia/Putin, is that he has so many demonstrable and undeniable links to Russia/Putin, he just ends up drawing more attention to his links to Russia/Putin.

Still, worked for Trump I suppose, so it all hinges on how thick British voters are...

Woah there! It's a war zone! How dare you cover the brutal horrors of war like this!!!! 🤣