BigFish

No, I really don't. It is an 18 year old manifesto for solutions to problems that no longer apply. Most of the authors ceased to be active in politics many years ago. I do think that if the LibDems missed a trick by not picking Layla Moran over Davey. The suggestion that any of the parties are in the same place as they were in 2004 doesn't really seem credible. Neo-liberalism is unlikely to win any significant support anywhere except amongst a few diehards in the old Conservative Party.

2010 was a lifetime ago (as is 2004 when the Orange Book you are so vexed by was written). That result is no longer possible. For me that was the last of the post-Thatcher/neo-liberal elections. Nationalism, Brexitism, Climate Crisis, identity politics, the banking crisis & Covid have destroyed that landscape. The lesson the LibDems have taken to heart is that under no circumstances enter a coalition in a FPP system. There can also be no coalition between Nationlist SNP and Unionist Labour. However, there is a window for a confidence and supply arrangement and a minority Labour government. There is no similar window for the Tories, it is win a majority or bust

Not really certain this stacks up. LibDems have always been able to play to the left of of Tories and the right of Labour. But they are socially liberal, which stands in stark contract to Johnson's Blukip wing vote. They will be fishing in the floating vote cohort-younger, more educated. Where famously "LibDems winning here" claims stack up they will get support from Greens and Labour voters

That is not how the psephology works in what is a pretty unfair electoral system. The first key point is the relative Labour position vis a vis the Conservatives. Secondly, it the Conservative position compared with other parties in seats Labour cannot win. Thirdly, Labour doesn't need a majority or even to be the largest party to form the next government. They just need to deprive the Conservatives of a working majority e.g. restricting them to 313 seats or the conservatives Losing 45 seats. Enormous caveats apply to all this of course. So Thursday the Labour position was calculated by various pollsters +5% when compared to the Conservatives. At the 2019 GE this was actually -11.5%, so Thursday saw a swing on the first point of greater than 8%. There are 105 Tory held seats with majorities of less than 8%, so it is pretty clear that they would struggle if Thursday's voting pattern was repeated. On the second point it is pretty clear the Tories are losing support directly to the LibDems & SNP. Lastly a minority Labour government is possible, a minority Conservative one is not.

It is 264 now https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2022/may/05/elections-2022-results-live-local-council-england-scotland-wales

Also had Labour > 200 gains a triumph, currently 224 and counting.......I expect that is what they will report tomorrow 😀

2017 Conservatives 2.4% in front, 2018 Conservatives/Labour level e.g. swing to Labour from Conservatives 1.2% in 2018.

😀 That is an interesting question, have the Tories done enough yesterday to save Johnson's skin?

What when the seats contested yesterday in Scotland and Wales were last contested, that 2017? In 2018, Labour were still riding on this & still held the Red Wall. When you are starting from this position and already holding the majority of the seats making gains is difficult, or rather remarkable. But I don't really care, because it was a really bad night for the Tories and that can only be good.

Em, not really. Last time these were fought over we were at peak Corbyn and the hapless May was hopelessly adrift. Also Labour still held all those "Red Wall" seats, they didn't fall until 2019. The projected national vote share was pretty much neck and neck at 35% each. This year Labour's PNV held up well leading to a 35 to 30 Lead (remember that this is a 2.5% swing to Labour from a time when they still held Red Wall seats, not from the lower baseline when they had lost them). With the LibDems sweeping through core vote Tory areas that is more than enough to defenestrate the Tories and leave them as the major party.

Maybe not. All the suggestions are supposition though, not really added anything to a debate that posters have been having all season. As @Parma Ham's gone mouldy wrote promises made don't necessarily have to be kept.

Perhaps it is a case that it is a trick you can only get away with once per player/career.

You forget the golden PinkUn rule, anyone and everyone is better than those we have or get in. Every time.

😀, by better team I was talking of this season, so this years Villa @chicken. I think I should have been clearer. I agree though that this team is not actually significantly worse that our last EPL season (although neither can be described as anything but poor and it does mean no progress has been made).

I think the whole debate is based on supposition. Reading between your lines @Parma Ham's gone mouldy it would seem in the hard world of football you can't believe in pretty much anything that is reported or said. In summary we don't know who made this call or why. What we do know is how this season went. Would keeping Buendia have changed the outcome. His two goals and five assists in a better team would seem to indicate no, but the counter factual is more attractive in that it is untested by reality. I know and understand your weapon argument. However, I also remember Worthy's "earning the right to play" one. In each of Farke's EPL seasons the tema failed to do this. That for me is the root cause of the relegations, the inability to make it difficult for better teams from front to back. That is more fundamental than whether we kept Buendia or bought a CDM.

I know you didn't mean it, but strip out the sarcasm and this is actually true.

Fixed that for you

Thx @Badger, rather indicates that there are experts round the club with innovative funding solutions.

Two good points here. This rather points to a different take on the yo-yo club phenominum. In that it appears to indicate the Farke rather out performed in our promotion seasons and we rather overrated our teams. That would indicate that the gulf in quality between what we had when promoted and what we needed was larger than other promoted clubs and the failure was less about recruitment for the Prem and more about recruitment in the Champs. Skipp & Buendia left us further back this year, we needed their replacements in the building last season.

If he can't get a start in a sliding Villa team, he is unlikely to get a move to a better club.

Priceless For some posters every transfer failure is down to lack of quality in the recruitment team. Every is success is luck.

😀Personally I would guess that the fanbase collectively lack the capital or the motivation to make something like this work. Much easier to hang on to the pipedream of a billionaire benefactor who doesn't exist.

I looked at their website, in part because I didn't understand a word of this, and there was the NCFC badge amongst the others? Is there something you know, @Parma Ham's gone mouldy?

Keith Scott, Big Vince maybe......... (I wanted to avoid naming any, but the question won't go away otherwise. I am sure others can add more. For the record I wouldn't include you Midland, I think your opinions are usually wrong but you are claerly a fan)