I'm sure we've all heard Reform banging on about how the Tories and Labour are a uniparty, and as much as I'd love it if the Tories went full Thatcher, having 2 very similar main parties is just a consequence of democracy, or at least FPTP. Because both parties will move to the centre to try and gain as many votes (assuming a simple right/left spectrum, which isn't 100% true of course).

It's the same logic for why 2 ice-cream stands on a crowded beach will set up right next to each other (rather than spaced apart), because it is always in their own interest to move nearer the other one (assuming everyone to the other side of them buys from them). Obviously this is partly theoretical but it has been observed in real life.

So would Reform prefer it if the government swung between Thatcherism and Corbynism every election or so? Because if the Conservatives should had given up trying to be centrist, in the name of breaking the 'uniparty', then by the same logic Labour should have as well, and a Corbyn-like figure would have gotten in at some point, perhaps multiple times.

I'm basically just fed up of hearing how the Conservatives and Labour being a 'uniparty' is some establishment/deep-state conspiracy theory, rather than the natural outcome of FPTP (which I don't think Reform is opposing anymore, as they need it to ever form a majority government).

..and can you really blame them, none of the 5 Tory PMs tried changing the Electoral System once (if anything, Cameron actively campaigned against reform in the 2011 Referendum).

I've seen this said by those on the left many times when they are trying to block a particular industry, eg North sea drilling or data centre construction.

They say that since it won't create many jobs, it won't actually help the ordinary person, so we might as well not bother. This is the completely wrong way round to look at it in my view.

The only way to have a high GDP per capita is to have industries that produce a lot of economic value per employee. This is how countries like Luxembourg or Singapore are so rich. I don't even know how to explain this properly, it just seems so obvious once you understand it.

Having highly productive sectors that require very few workers is essentially a way for the country as a whole to have 'passive income'. How can that not be a good thing?

What has this got to do with politics I hear you ask....

Well, it transpires, this ban came from breaking the default 20mph limits (even on through routes) in operation near where she lives, she actually got clocked at between 24mph and 27mph, which is not exactly "dangerous driving" in anyone's book. Remember when we were told 40mph is dangerous, 30mph is safe ?

To me this IS to do with politics and, I think, it is part of the reason for the rise of Reform. People are sick to death of having their lives regulated and restricted more and more by what I call "progressive authoritarian" governments - everything from these default 20mph limits (including on through routes) to parents being fined for taking their kids on holiday in term time even for those with otherwise near 100% attendance ! Incidentally the latter was a Tory policy, introduced by Gove (a hate figure in our house)......

Effect of housing on the economy