There is really only one electoral strategy for them and it's the mirror image of the best strategy for Labour: chase the people they lost to their left. The risk of losing voters to Reform is real, but it will be mitigated by winning over the voters they most need: Labour and Lib Dem voters.

For the Tories in particular, this is the best strategy not only electorally, but morally. They should not be normalising the toxicity of Reform by chasing the mix of fantasists, conspiracists and racists that make up Farage's fan club. Even as a Labour voter who would never consider voting Conservative, I see the fact that some Conservatives have already started speaking out against the two-child benefit cap, the housing crisis and the dropping of net zero targets, as an encouraging sign.

the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) is “no longer simply a public service department” but an “economic growth department”, because health and the economy are “inextricably linked” and improving the health of the nation can help to “drive the economic growth of the country”.

“That is a major shift in mindset,” he said. “It’s a rethinking of the role of the department.

“It also means ending the begging bowl culture, where the only interaction the Treasury has with DHSC is that we need more money for X, Y and Z.

“The starting point has got to be, ‘We will help you achieve your mission for growth and improve the prosperity and lives of everyone in this country by making sure that we are with you lockstep in driving growth’.”

This is quite interesting, if I'm understanding it right. Historically, the focus has been 'What can we do that's cheap in the short-term?', but switching it to 'What can we do that will be promote growth in the long term?' is a genuine shift that might make the NHS (and the state as a whole) cheaper and more effective. It's at least worth a try, I think.

It also fits neatly with the overall aims of the government in terms of using the state to promote economic growth. Angela Rayner was making similar arguments about justice and mental health just before the election: that investing in those things now will save money in the long term. You can make the same argument about housing and green energy. This seems to be part of the same driving concept.

Most people everywhere are very politically unaware. Here's a decent site that demonstrates this. Basically, the knowledge we (by which I mean humans, not just Americans, of which I am not one) have leads us to make inaccurate assumptions about the other stuff.

Along with appointing Timpson to the Prisons brief, this is another really good sign of a government that cares more about getting things done than vibes. Although, the vibes are good, too!

It's not a perfect heuristic, but it works a good amount of the time!

If Rowling is criticising Dodds on this issue, Dodds is going the right way.

I think this is probably it. I think this argument is strongly related to the idea of consciousness as an emergent property of sensory experience. I find it simple to imagine the idea of a body with no will or no consciousness (i.e., a philosophical zombie). But I find it very difficult, almost impossible, in fact, to imagine a consciousness with no will, even if it's only the will to think a given thought.

That approach has just been tested to destruction under the Tories, who let local communities veto necessary, good, sustainable plans time and time again.

But they do elect leaders, as I understand, to act as spokespeople, and in this case they've elected as a spokesperson someone who's opposed to green infrastructure.

Another way of putting it is to say that at least 25% of Green MPs oppose green infrastructure.

He is the co-leader of the Greens, so it's fair to say that he speaks for the party.

He is opposed to a policy which has already been thoroughly consulted on. The consultation found that the only alternatives would be to bury the lines, which would be more environmentally destructive, or do nothing, which would be more environmentally destructive. So, yes, he is opposed to green infrastructure, which is sadly quite consistent with the actual record (as opposed to the rhetoric) of the Green party.

EDIT: I should have added, the demand for endless 'consultations' is a well-worn delaying and blocking tactic. But it's especially hypocritical of the Greens who constantly use the (accurate!) rhetoric that we're in a 'climate emergency' to win votes.

I think a lot of people struggle to tell the difference between something that changes the view and something that ruins the view. Wind turbines will change a view, of course, because they're a new addition. But there's no sense in which they make it worse!

Putting it underground is worse for the environment in and of itself, because of the direct damage to soil and plantlife (and so indirect damage to animal life). It's also more expensive, which leaves you with less money to spend (on, e.g., just picking an example at random, green development). And it takes longer, which means relying on fossil fuels for longer.

So, his proposed solution is worse for the environment in three different ways. If his solution is less green than the thing he's opposing, then it's fair to say he opposes green development.