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.

No, now I'm old and don't smoke anymore, but my mind still does this stuff to me anyway.

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!

That's the problem: there has been a consultation, but he's opposed anyway and is deploying the classic nimby tactic of asking for yet more consultations!

Building pylons is absolutely necessary and non-negotiable if we are going to decarbonise the grid — indeed, in some ways, it's the hardest bit.

I mean, if I said to you, 'Calculate 13x16' (or some other sum you don't know off the top of your head) you could either do it or not do it. That would be a willed choice, whether or not you knew the answer.

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

As a massive partisan of the Labour party, I'm inclined to pick the three Labour PMs prior to Starmer (who, as you say, hasn't done anything yet), who won majorities: Attlee, Harold Wilson, Tony Blair.

However! That would be silly, even for me.

So:

1. Attlee - you're right, he was the greatest, especially if we include his pre-PM career as deputy to your second-greatest!
2. David Lloyd George - finished off the First World War, enacted the People's Budget, extended suffrage to women, first major programme of council housing, more education - loads of good stuff.
3. Earl Grey - for the Great Reform Act, which was a necessary precondition to Britain becoming a modern democracy

I'll also offer a friendly critique of your other selections:

• Churchill: judged on his War Ministry alone, I'd agree. But he was also PM later, and was a bit rubbish.
• Gordon Brown: was the perfect person to lead us through the GFC, but otherwise was fairly inconsequential at the time prior to that when he could've made more of a difference. Also, he sold the gold (I'M JOKING, OBVIOUSLY).

Duke of Wellington, definitely. I bet there were others, especially if you include Baronets (and not only Knights proper) who also use the title 'Sir'.

No amount of ranting can change the facts.

I am not projecting. As I said, it's part of a pattern of behaviour, as demonstrated by the Greens co-leader's opposition to pylons and by their official opposition to HS2. Here are some more examples, although to be honest, I'm not sure how many more you need to accept that the Greens consistently do this: siding with nimbys over the environment is a deliberate electoral strategy for them.