And the next one, .@littletrees2 . There is pathos in watching people simultaneously helping Starmer, while thinking they are helping a useless Thatcher Tribute Band. But
millions of innocents will pay for this naive silliness

.@paulsul93664848 You think taxes can’t and won’t get even higher under Starmer? Dear me, naivety is an epidemic these days…

anna holligan 🎙 Nicki Minaj BBC News (UK) BBC Radio 5 Live BBC One Peter Hitchens Peter Hitchens speaking truth to power

I wonder if internet shopping, with its simple procedures for returning unwanted goods, has made people complacent about ordering a Starmer govt on July 4. Sorry, you won’t ever be able to send it back. Imagine your unwanted goods moving in with you and refusing to leave, ever.

From my Mail on Sunday column today.

.@ricky_k67. Voting, in a FPTP system, is utterly simple. The *effect* of the vote, not the aim of the voter, defines its purpose. If you vote Reform, you *will* help Labour to win.

A vote for Reform is a vote for Labour. It is that simple.

Calvinism and Marxism have some things in common

Peter Hitchens 'First, you should consult an article he (Gove) wrote for The Times, 25/02/03. The headline on it says ‘I can’t fight my feelings any more: I love Tony’.  It is not misleading.' Peter Hitchens

.Toby Young

.@allisonpearson . As in 1997, the Tories *want* to run away and get rich, so of course they don’t think Labour can lose . You say you want to punish them . By far the best way of doing so is to force them to stay on.

.@allisonpearson I don’t get your logic. You loathe the Tories because they’re quite Blairite and very useless. So you help Labour, which is ultra-Blairite and Olympically useless. And you have this bizarre belief that a vote is some sort of moral sacrament. It’s a practical
act.

.@allisonpearson I think Labour can lose the election and hope they do. They need an unprecedented swing to get a majority. And I’ve seen big leads shrivel
many times. Do you actually want Starmer in Number Ten? If not, stop pretending you know the result, when you don’t.

From my Mail on Sunday column today.

.@dead_as_a_dodo. This is a blank map, an invasion plan with no ships or troops, a book without any middle chapters. How on earth do you think this amazing thing will happen? Labour won't give up power again, hence the 'votes at 16' plan. And other things they're not telling you

Not an answer, .Curious Dave. You haven't read the article. Though I agree that the continued use of customary measures by the world's richest and most powerful country does tend to undermine claims that such measures are backward and anti-modern.

And replaced by a Thatcher Tribute Band? If, .@sensiblesorcery, intelligent people had grasped in 1997 just how radical Blairism was, they'd have voted for the useless awful John Major and so saved this country form much irreversible disaster. But they thought like you.

Indeed

.Robert 3945 There is no such party, for me or for most people.

Once again, .@allisonpearson, I point out that you do not know this. Elections in 1964, 1970 and 1992 all turned out *far* closer than polls predicted. In two cases Labour lost when expected to win. By saying this, from your privileged platform, you help Starmer. Stop it.