That's my point really. Labour's biggest risk is that the Tories become moderately reasonable again. Then they'd actually have to step up.

But isn't the argument about critical thinking skills? I'm sure it's nice to believe in Gaia but there is demonstratively no evidence for it.

The question of harm done is independent to that of gullibility.

I can totally understand not really wanting to engage with these stupid people but to suggest that it doesn't matter that he believes that is disingenuous.

If he's stupid enough to think the Earth is flat then he is stupid enough to do other things in his actual job wrong or in a dangerous manner.

Well they might have suspected based on exit polls but they definitely can't have known.

But one of the main reasons that the conservatives are so unpopular is because they've been chasing the right and leaving the centralist politics basically defended, which is why Labour wandered over there, and they have clearly done well out of that.

Yeah. She has convinced herself that her complete failure is a result of a grand conspiracy. This conspiracy requires some of the most uncharitable and profit driven people in the world, to be bleeding heart liberals, which is why no one believes it.

Apparently a bunch of venture capitalists, economists and fellow politicians decided that, rather than making vast sums of money under her "brilliant" scheme, it was instead better to crash the economy just despite her.

The fact it was even close is ridiculous. She's the most terrible MP and PM we've ever had and yet she got a large number of people to vote for her.

There's something in the water over there.

I don't see how that makes them vulnerable though. I can't see the reform voters going back to the conservatives so reform are going to continue to split the conservative vote forever.

A recount is called if one of the sides requires one. Obviously if you only had a difference of 10 votes, it'd be daft not to demand recount, but technically it only happens if a candidate requests one.

Remember the votes are technically recounted already. They are counted three times, by three separate people, who don't know what the other two people have found as results, so they cannot be influenced by their number. If all three people get the same answer, the count is probably correct, discounting incredibly bad luck, which is statistically unlikely.

If a recount is requested then three new people perform the task just to discount the possibility of collusion.

Oh good, so now Truss can now piss off too the US and moan about the apparent conspiracy that was against her all she likes, and it won't inconvenience her constituents anymore.

And of course no one in the US will really care, because will have no idea who the hell she is.

The reason a lot of people voted against it was that there was a concern that if it was implemented the government would consider themselves to have taken action and would just shut down any talk about proportional representation by arguing that we already had it. Even though we wouldn't have.

The theory was that by not voting for the weak source option the idea of proportional representation could be floated at a later date, and to be honest I actually agree with the analysis.

What an utterly moronic stance that stems totally from your complete lack of understanding of what was actually offered.

Proportional representation was never on the table, what was offered was single transferable vote, which would keep the first past the post system but add the option to transfer your vote to another candidate if your preferred candidate lost. There was never proportional representation stop with the false narrative.