I don't think this will work. These candidates are all very disparate people, and you won't have to scratch them very hard to find some deeper philosophical and political contentions. The name "independent" sort of gives it away. The query as for Corbyn is whether Starmer would wish to reinstate the party whip to keep the opposition pinioned as it were. and whether Corbyn would accept or he'd be happier and freer in his independent state. In regard to "Father of the House" this is not certain, apparently there's a totally unknown Tory who came into Parliament on the same day, but was a few new MPs ahead of him in taking the Oath of Allegiance.

In regard to GG, not so surprised he failed to hold on to his seat, facing an experienced and local candidate for Labour. GG got his protest vote, and like a meteor flashing across the sky, came rapidly to earth rather burnt out. As I've mentioned before I've found his bombast very hard to take, perhaps the electorate felt the same. . In his interview with Piers Morgan he went deep down the rabbit hole of conspiracy with the Bucha massacre. Now I have no idea what actually happened here, but neither does he,, and he'd have been wiser to keep his council. There'll be few in the House of Commons who'll miss him, though personally I would still have liked him to have been there - one less hypocrite in a house of 650 (-minus a few other honourable mentions of course) .

However many these points in regard to the shaky nature of Starmer's huge majority have been made elsewhere, in the face of all the huge converging issues facing the country,. even David Dimbleby sort of inferred that in the interview he gave which I've posted here. .

The idea that the Tories would merge with Reform? Some Tories will no doubt defect, but I believe there are still enough Tories to find that idea totally repugnant, and would never do so, it would magnify the split and that would be their final demise.