hypochondriac

Of course you like her, she's one of the most extremist politicians in Parliament regarding Israel. I find her extremely odd in interviews, She's animated and emotional which comes across as strange and her style of delivery can be excitable and unusual. She seriously supported universal basic income which is enough of a reason to regard her as unserious, she threw a tantrum when Badenoch was appointed equalities minister which was just bizarre and over the top and I seem to recall an incident about assaulting her partner at a party conference but I think that was a long time ago. She also has sex with pans.

If that did happen I can't deny that it would be very amusing in a fatalistic kind of way. Stay up last day of the season with a 1-0 win off Archer's arse, sack Tonda and go for a 31 year old for the renewed push next year.

Not just the leader

The lib dem leader and party aren't serious politicians. Nick Clegg was what made them vaguely electable last time.

Unfortunately with Labour and especially Starmer there are just some things I am ideologically opposed to that mean I could never vote for them in a general election. Trying to ram through the terribly flawed assisted suicide Bill, the tendency for big government, politics of envy penalising richer people often for very little benefit, this Chagos deal makes no sense to me even though I knew nothing about it prior to it being reported, scrapping jury trials is horrifying both left and right, I hate the concept of digital ID that Blair keeps trying to push through because of it being ripe for abuse and farmers inheritance tax was idiotic. Added to that all the minor stuff when they came in promising that the adults were back and that grubby politicians doing dodgy deals for stuff was over. I'm not sure how I could ever vote for that stuff-particularly under Starmer.

Cheers for the honest answer. I agree there isn't really any party that doesn't come with significant downsides. Lib Dem are a joke party and I would never vote for them again, having previously done so at a general election.

If you could choose who are you wanting as the next party in government in a few years?

People always say that no one would sign for us at this point but personally I think that's bollocks. Yes we will lose out on some players but in the summer the likes of Derby, Watford and Milwall made some decent signings and no one would be saying they were or are miles more attractive than us. We should have the resources to bring in one or two players who will improve us as a team.

Isac Lidberg.

I'd be starting Charles.

Nah. I prefer strong dislike with a dash of indifference. We know we are superior and it winds them right up. You're only frothing at the mouth with rabid hatred if you really really care about them.

Much too nice for us to ever use them. Lovely kits though.

I did wonder why you'd suddenly become all erudite and witty

Not sure where you're getting this from unless you're itk.

I think you are all too optimistic. I don't think they will be decisive about it.

Imagine being such a narcissist that you turn on perhaps the only poster on here willing to stick his neck out and at least partially come to your defence.

Worth pointing out that I never replied or referenced this joker for over a year on this forum and he mentioned or commented about me almost constantly during that period. The idea that he only.ever responds when someone else mentions him is a fiction he invented in his head.

Sure but there's advantages and disadvantages to having him vs not having him. Imo I can see why those at the top of reform think that the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages and tbh I would agree with them. You've said yourself he's miles better than most of the others. Long way till the election but I reckon Jenrick attracts more votes than he repels personally.

He has higher approval ratings than anyone else currently in reform, is a decent communicator and has cut through with the normies and the general public. You can hate everything he stands for and he's ever done but undeniably he is much more of a heavyweight than most of the others in the party. I can see why they would want him involved.

Whatever you think of him, he has more legitimacy amongst the general public. Certainly compared to someone like Lee. He's more electable for Reform than someone like Lee Anderson.

Not sure why that's funny? From their perspective, having some more heavyweight politicians like Jenrick with some recognition will help them combat claims of inexperience and being fringe loons amongst the general public even if there are obvious downsides as well.

You could argue that the very reason they need some more experience and serious politicians is because they have the likes of Lee Anderson.

It's a cost benefit analysis surely. The big thing is they need to show they aren't just a bunch of chances and need some people involved with experience of government and leadership. The downside as you say though is they will be tainted with previous failures. A difficult balancing act for sure.

Agree with that. Shame we didn't win but you can't accuse the players of not putting the effort in which hasn't been the case in a number of games this year.

Cheers for that. I now feel physically unwell.