>>509263877
just saying what i think will happen, not necessarily what i want to happen
>>509263886
not sure about in 2029 but right now it would have to be cooper/rayner/streeting probably in that order
in 2029 there could be a mysterious by-election and burnham gets a seat and becomes eligible. everyone knows he wants a crack at it and he's one of the most liked politicians by the normies in the country in terms of polling
>>509264043
reform is losing % and labour is gaining as i said. come back in a few months and repeat those numbers, reform hasnt even made any significant headlines in weeks
>>509263984
something doesn't have to be true for it to be effective political strategy in disparaging your opponents