How different voting systems change the election outcome – politicalbetting.com

System

How different voting systems change the election outcome – politicalbetting.com

My colleague Anouschka has done some brilliant work with @theguardian.com using our latest MRP and some new polling to work out how different electoral systems would change the composition of Parliament. www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-…

Read the full story here

eek

First Past The Post

RobD

Good luck fiting 1052 MPs in the chamber.

Sandpit

3rd choice, hoping to get some second preferences.

Andy_JS

I find this conclusion a bit odd, because for example at the last election right-wing parties got about 40% of the vote and 20% of the seats.

Andy_JS

I find this conclusion a bit odd, because for example at the last election parties to the right of centre got about 40% of the vote and 20% of the seats.

TheScreamingEagles

RobD said:

Good luck fiting 1052 MPs in the chamber.

Build a new Parliament in York.

DecrepiterJohnL

It seems based on the premise that we could change the voting system without voters finding out about it.

DecrepiterJohnL

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

Good luck fiting 1052 MPs in the chamber.

Build a new Parliament in York.

York is not in Manchester, so that's a non-starter.

Sandpit

Ah, so the Russian WildBerries website has a special category called “Everything for the SMO”

https://x.com/vic_010100/status/2079858617008714116

Here’s where you find your headgear, flak jackets, drones, fibre optic cables, radios, night sights, even drone attachments for dropping cylindrical shaped objects.

But definitely not a legitimate military target, no, not at all…

bondegezou

The Guardian article isn't very good. They model radically different sized parliaments rather than trying to look how each system would work with a 650 seat House.

They also focus on current polls. On current polling, Reform are in the lead and benefit from FPTP. But consider what would've happened at the last General election. Reform wouldn't received a massive boost from PR.

FF43

My tuppence to last thread's bus debate.

Capping fares is popular but subsidising marginal journeys is much more useful. eg additional early or late service; extending the route to the next village. That's because availability is more important than cost. Being able to travel from where you are to where you are going at the required time matters more than whether the fare is £2 or £3.

DavidL

RobD said:

Good luck fiting 1052 MPs in the chamber.

Maybe we should have size criteria, not allowed to elect anyone over 5 ft 6 and a maximum 2 feet in width.

DavidL

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

Good luck fiting 1052 MPs in the chamber.

Build a new Parliament in York.

York is a lovely place. Why on earth would you want to fill it with politicians?

stodge

Afternoon all

It's an interesting conjecture and I just wonder whether, given the bitter and rancorous nature of the last referendum, there might be a desire to simply have this as a manifesto pledge to be enacted (or not) if the party concerns wins a majority (and that leaves a get-out).

It's a useful fault line for Badenoch and the Conservatives whose opposition to any change in the electoral system and indeed reversion of contests like the London Mayoral election to FPTP will stand out.

On the other hand, it's a useful piece of bait on the hook to reel in the LDs and perhaps the Greens in any post-election horsetrading.

Davey will need to tread very carefully - the party will likely fragment (as will others) if we move to a more proportional system (such as STV). Again, it'snot something about which I would be shouting at this time.

I'm still getting my head round Burnham - all I know is he's a far more skilled political operator than his predecessor (which wouldn't be difficult) though whether the politics alone is enough I'm not sure.

I tried to read Badenoch's lengthy critique of Burnham but it was tediously weak. Simply saying Burnham doesn't like Thatcherism means nothing - we may all have been Thatcherites once (and some on here still are it seems) but that's ancient history.

Mrs Stodge, as useful a political barometer as any, is very happy with the bus fare cap coming back to £2. Yes, she only pays £1.75 in London thanks to Sadiq but when we are away and going in to Derby or Matlock, it's nice to think we've saved a couple of quid on bus fares which pays for a large coffee at Naughty But Nice in Alfreton.

TheScreamingEagles

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

Good luck fiting 1052 MPs in the chamber.

Build a new Parliament in York.

York is a lovely place. Why on earth would you want to fill it with politicians?

I’ve got property in York that would increase in price/rental yield if Parliament moved.

eek

bondegezou said:

The Guardian article isn't very good. They model radically different sized parliaments rather than trying to look how each system would work with a 650 seat House.

They also focus on current polls. On current polling, Reform are in the lead and benefit from FPTP. But consider what would've happened at the last General election. Reform wouldn't received a massive boost from PR.

I suspect a form of PR would actually give Reform more seats than FPTP would. In the FPTP world that we understand the battle is picking the none Reform candidate with a chance of winning and Labour are no longer the unvoteable option that they were a month ago.

Big_G_NorthWales

Good afternoon

I doubt the 2034 election will be relevant to me to be fair but maybe I will have my pacemaker battery changed if required !!!

On the bus fares, Burnham in front of a bus with the £2 announcement shown prominently doesn't show it does not come in to 2027

Also seems there is the small print as ever:

Sky states further details of bus fare cap 'eligibility' still to be ironed out

Prime Minister Andy Burnham announced this morning he will cap single bus fare routes in England outside of London at £2 for all of 2027.

But it's not completely clear exactly which services this will apply to.

Lots of routes are excluded from the current £3 fare cap, according to gov.uk.

The Department for Transport said they would share more details in due course, but pointed out that under the £3 cap only open services that allow any member of the public to board, as well as services that allow free travel for the whole of the route, are eligible.

That would exclude dedicated school bus services.

On a visit to a bus depot in Bath to promote the policy, Burnham appeared in front of a branded bus with an asterisk that read "subject to local operator opt in".

*maximum fare, subject to local operator opt in

eek

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

Good luck fiting 1052 MPs in the chamber.

Build a new Parliament in York.

York is a lovely place. Why on earth would you want to fill it with politicians?

There is a reason why I've continually suggest Bradford, I wouldn't need and don't want to visit there...

Stuartinromford

DavidL said:

RobD said:

Good luck fiting 1052 MPs in the chamber.

Maybe we should have size criteria, not allowed to elect anyone over 5 ft 6 and a maximum 2 feet in width.

Presumably that gives us Rishi, Colin Moynihan... Who else?

RobD

bondegezou said:

The Guardian article isn't very good. They model radically different sized parliaments rather than trying to look how each system would work with a 650 seat House.

They also focus on current polls. On current polling, Reform are in the lead and benefit from FPTP. But consider what would've happened at the last General election. Reform wouldn't received a massive boost from PR.

Probably difficult to model the AMS system with 631 seats as you'd have to drastically recuce the number of constituencies.

BartholomewRoberts

Sandpit said:

Ah, so the Russian WildBerries website has a special category called “Everything for the SMO”

https://x.com/vic_010100/status/2079858617008714116

Here’s where you find your headgear, flak jackets, drones, fibre optic cables, radios, night sights, even drone attachments for dropping cylindrical shaped objects.

But definitely not a legitimate military target, no, not at all…

Dual-use targets are legitimate military targets.

This is self-evidently legitimate.

RobD

eek said:

bondegezou said:

The Guardian article isn't very good. They model radically different sized parliaments rather than trying to look how each system would work with a 650 seat House.

They also focus on current polls. On current polling, Reform are in the lead and benefit from FPTP. But consider what would've happened at the last General election. Reform wouldn't received a massive boost from PR.

I suspect a form of PR would actually give Reform more seats than FPTP would. In the FPTP world that we understand the battle is picking the none Reform candidate with a chance of winning and Labour are no longer the unvoteable option that they were a month ago.

Who remembers Labour's attempt to fix the voting system in Scotland to ensure no SNP majority?

BartholomewRoberts

RobD said:

eek said:

bondegezou said:

The Guardian article isn't very good. They model radically different sized parliaments rather than trying to look how each system would work with a 650 seat House.

They also focus on current polls. On current polling, Reform are in the lead and benefit from FPTP. But consider what would've happened at the last General election. Reform wouldn't received a massive boost from PR.

I suspect a form of PR would actually give Reform more seats than FPTP would. In the FPTP world that we understand the battle is picking the none Reform candidate with a chance of winning and Labour are no longer the unvoteable option that they were a month ago.

Who remembers Labour's attempt to fix the voting system in Scotland to ensure no SNP majority?

At least they can console themselves that they'll always have the Welsh Senedd.

Oh . . .

Sandpit

FF43 said:

My tuppence to last thread's bus debate.

Capping fares is popular but subsidising marginal journeys is much more useful. eg additional early or late service; extending the route to the next village. That's because availability is more important than cost. Being able to travel from where you are to where you are going at the required time matters more than whether the fare is £2 or £3.

That’s a fair point. If you’re running busses into a town from surrounding villages, for example, at least make sure there’s one bus back after the town’s theatre show finishes at 10pm.

eek

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sandpit said:

Ah, so the Russian WildBerries website has a special category called “Everything for the SMO”

https://x.com/vic_010100/status/2079858617008714116

Here’s where you find your headgear, flak jackets, drones, fibre optic cables, radios, night sights, even drone attachments for dropping cylindrical shaped objects.

But definitely not a legitimate military target, no, not at all…

Dual-use targets are legitimate military targets.

This is self-evidently legitimate.

+2, as soon as that category appeared every WildBerries warehouse became completely fair game as they are admitting to being a miliitary supplier.

BlancheLivermore

Sandpit said:

FF43 said:

My tuppence to last thread's bus debate.

Capping fares is popular but subsidising marginal journeys is much more useful. eg additional early or late service; extending the route to the next village. That's because availability is more important than cost. Being able to travel from where you are to where you are going at the required time matters more than whether the fare is £2 or £3.

That’s a fair point. If you’re running busses into a town from surrounding villages, for example, at least make sure there’s one bus back after the town’s theatre show finishes at 10pm.

Last bus on my route leaves at 18:15

Eabhal

FF43 said:

My tuppence to last thread's bus debate.

Capping fares is popular but subsidising marginal journeys is much more useful. eg additional early or late service; extending the route to the next village. That's because availability is more important than cost. Being able to travel from where you are to where you are going at the required time matters more than whether the fare is £2 or £3.

Network effects are incredibly strong - those “marginal” routes are what underpin the whole system. Buses in Edinburgh don’t require a subsidy because the system is comprehensive, frequent and entirely integrated.

But that requires 1) public ownership and 2) no fiddling from councillors. If you don’t have 1), the low-passenger routes and stops are cut to make a quick buck even though the network as a whole relies on them (this is Glasgow). If you don’t have 2), you have endless sob stories from people who have a route changed or stop moved and no changes can ever be made.

Pulpstar

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good afternoon

I doubt the 2034 election will be relevant to me to be fair but maybe I will have my pacemaker battery changed if required !!!

On the bus fares, Burnham in front of a bus with the £2 announcement shown prominently doesn't show it does not come in to 2027

Also seems there is the small print as ever:

Sky states further details of bus fare cap 'eligibility' still to be ironed out

Prime Minister Andy Burnham announced this morning he will cap single bus fare routes in England outside of London at £2 for all of 2027.

But it's not completely clear exactly which services this will apply to.

Lots of routes are excluded from the current £3 fare cap, according to gov.uk.

The Department for Transport said they would share more details in due course, but pointed out that under the £3 cap only open services that allow any member of the public to board, as well as services that allow free travel for the whole of the route, are eligible.

That would exclude dedicated school bus services.

On a visit to a bus depot in Bath to promote the policy, Burnham appeared in front of a branded bus with an asterisk that read "subject to local operator opt in".

*maximum fare, subject to local operator opt in

Our nearest secondary catchment school is 9 miles away from our house so we're entitled to free transport to it in 7 years time if rules remain as they are.

Notts CC

Pupils aged 11–16 years
Pupils of secondary school age 11–16 are entitled to free transport to their nearest suitable school if that school is three miles or more from home.

I'd assume most school bus journeys would be longer than 3 miles or else an 11 yr old kid could reasonably be expected to walk or cycle to school ?

Eabhal

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good afternoon

I doubt the 2034 election will be relevant to me to be fair but maybe I will have my pacemaker battery changed if required !!!

On the bus fares, Burnham in front of a bus with the £2 announcement shown prominently doesn't show it does not come in to 2027

Also seems there is the small print as ever:

Sky states further details of bus fare cap 'eligibility' still to be ironed out

Prime Minister Andy Burnham announced this morning he will cap single bus fare routes in England outside of London at £2 for all of 2027.

But it's not completely clear exactly which services this will apply to.

Lots of routes are excluded from the current £3 fare cap, according to gov.uk.

The Department for Transport said they would share more details in due course, but pointed out that under the £3 cap only open services that allow any member of the public to board, as well as services that allow free travel for the whole of the route, are eligible.

That would exclude dedicated school bus services.

On a visit to a bus depot in Bath to promote the policy, Burnham appeared in front of a branded bus with an asterisk that read "subject to local operator opt in".

*maximum fare, subject to local operator opt in

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I wouldn’t expect to jump on an Ember bus to Inverness for £2.

FF43

Sandpit said:

FF43 said:

My tuppence to last thread's bus debate.

Capping fares is popular but subsidising marginal journeys is much more useful. eg additional early or late service; extending the route to the next village. That's because availability is more important than cost. Being able to travel from where you are to where you are going at the required time matters more than whether the fare is £2 or £3.

That’s a fair point. If you’re running busses into a town from surrounding villages, for example, at least make sure there’s one bus back after the town’s theatre show finishes at 10pm.

Exactly. If you are deciding whether to take the bus to work rather than the car a last bus at 6 doesn't give you any margin if you normally finish work at 5:30 and you're running late. So you don't risk ever taking the bus. This is a very common situation.

There needs to be at least one further bus, where the fares collected on that service maybe don't cover the cost of running it and need to be subsidised.

bondegezou

stodge said:

Afternoon all

It's an interesting conjecture and I just wonder whether, given the bitter and rancorous nature of the last referendum, there might be a desire to simply have this as a manifesto pledge to be enacted (or not) if the party concerns wins a majority (and that leaves a get-out).

It's a useful fault line for Badenoch and the Conservatives whose opposition to any change in the electoral system and indeed reversion of contests like the London Mayoral election to FPTP will stand out.

On the other hand, it's a useful piece of bait on the hook to reel in the LDs and perhaps the Greens in any post-election horsetrading.

Davey will need to tread very carefully - the party will likely fragment (as will others) if we move to a more proportional system (such as STV). Again, it'snot something about which I would be shouting at this time.

I'm still getting my head round Burnham - all I know is he's a far more skilled political operator than his predecessor (which wouldn't be difficult) though whether the politics alone is enough I'm not sure.

I tried to read Badenoch's lengthy critique of Burnham but it was tediously weak. Simply saying Burnham doesn't like Thatcherism means nothing - we may all have been Thatcherites once (and some on here still are it seems) but that's ancient history.

Mrs Stodge, as useful a political barometer as any, is very happy with the bus fare cap coming back to £2. Yes, she only pays £1.75 in London thanks to Sadiq but when we are away and going in to Derby or Matlock, it's nice to think we've saved a couple of quid on bus fares which pays for a large coffee at Naughty But Nice in Alfreton.

Lijphart’s work showed that proportional systems are associated with more parties, which implies that switching to PR will see the number of parties grow, maybe by existing parties splitting. However, the effect is not large. It wouldn’t predict that Labour AND the Tories AND the LibDems AND Reform AND the Greens would all split; just maybe some of them. I don’t see why the LibDems are the most prone of those to split?

New Zealand serves as a real-life experiment of switching from FPTP to PR and didn’t see much in the way of parties splitting. I suspect institutional momentum and history will help keep parties together.

Indeed, I would argue that the party splitting you might expect under PR has already happened. The Tories have already split with the rise of Reform (and now Restore). Labour have already split with the rise of the Greens (and maybe Your Party). The tragedy of recent UK politics is that we’ve moved to a PR-appropriate party system while maintaining FPTP, leading to things like Starmer’s loveless majority in the Commons.

Malmesbury

FF43 said:

Sandpit said:

FF43 said:

My tuppence to last thread's bus debate.

Capping fares is popular but subsidising marginal journeys is much more useful. eg additional early or late service; extending the route to the next village. That's because availability is more important than cost. Being able to travel from where you are to where you are going at the required time matters more than whether the fare is £2 or £3.

That’s a fair point. If you’re running busses into a town from surrounding villages, for example, at least make sure there’s one bus back after the town’s theatre show finishes at 10pm.

Exactly. If you are deciding whether to take the bus to work rather than the car a last bus at 6 doesn't give you any margin if you normally finish work at 5:30 and you're running late. So you don't risk ever taking the bus. This is a very common situation.

There needs to be at least one further bus, where the fares collected on that service maybe don't cover the cost of running it and need to be subsidised.

It’s also true that policy is made by a political class in London that only see the inside of taxis. Which are generally expensed.

When they do use public transport, the buses run 24/7 all over the place.

Most don’t use them, but live in a world where a main road without a bus in sight is rare.

BartholomewRoberts

bondegezou said:

stodge said:

Afternoon all

It's an interesting conjecture and I just wonder whether, given the bitter and rancorous nature of the last referendum, there might be a desire to simply have this as a manifesto pledge to be enacted (or not) if the party concerns wins a majority (and that leaves a get-out).

It's a useful fault line for Badenoch and the Conservatives whose opposition to any change in the electoral system and indeed reversion of contests like the London Mayoral election to FPTP will stand out.

On the other hand, it's a useful piece of bait on the hook to reel in the LDs and perhaps the Greens in any post-election horsetrading.

Davey will need to tread very carefully - the party will likely fragment (as will others) if we move to a more proportional system (such as STV). Again, it'snot something about which I would be shouting at this time.

I'm still getting my head round Burnham - all I know is he's a far more skilled political operator than his predecessor (which wouldn't be difficult) though whether the politics alone is enough I'm not sure.

I tried to read Badenoch's lengthy critique of Burnham but it was tediously weak. Simply saying Burnham doesn't like Thatcherism means nothing - we may all have been Thatcherites once (and some on here still are it seems) but that's ancient history.

Mrs Stodge, as useful a political barometer as any, is very happy with the bus fare cap coming back to £2. Yes, she only pays £1.75 in London thanks to Sadiq but when we are away and going in to Derby or Matlock, it's nice to think we've saved a couple of quid on bus fares which pays for a large coffee at Naughty But Nice in Alfreton.

Lijphart’s work showed that proportional systems are associated with more parties, which implies that switching to PR will see the number of parties grow, maybe by existing parties splitting. However, the effect is not large. It wouldn’t predict that Labour AND the Tories AND the LibDems AND Reform AND the Greens would all split; just maybe some of them. I don’t see why the LibDems are the most prone of those to split?

New Zealand serves as a real-life experiment of switching from FPTP to PR and didn’t see much in the way of parties splitting. I suspect institutional momentum and history will help keep parties together.

Indeed, I would argue that the party splitting you might expect under PR has already happened. The Tories have already split with the rise of Reform (and now Restore). Labour have already split with the rise of the Greens (and maybe Your Party). The tragedy of recent UK politics is that we’ve moved to a PR-appropriate party system while maintaining FPTP, leading to things like Starmer’s loveless majority in the Commons.

Reform have 8 MPs and Restore have 1. Not exactly setting Parliament alight.

FPTP encourages parties to offer big tents but gives the power to the voters to determine whether they have or not. Midterm polls should always be taken with a mound of salt, but the power is in voters hands to determine it prior to the election as opposed to PR where all the horse trading happens after the vote.

bondegezou

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

stodge said:

Afternoon all

It's an interesting conjecture and I just wonder whether, given the bitter and rancorous nature of the last referendum, there might be a desire to simply have this as a manifesto pledge to be enacted (or not) if the party concerns wins a majority (and that leaves a get-out).

It's a useful fault line for Badenoch and the Conservatives whose opposition to any change in the electoral system and indeed reversion of contests like the London Mayoral election to FPTP will stand out.

On the other hand, it's a useful piece of bait on the hook to reel in the LDs and perhaps the Greens in any post-election horsetrading.

Davey will need to tread very carefully - the party will likely fragment (as will others) if we move to a more proportional system (such as STV). Again, it'snot something about which I would be shouting at this time.

I'm still getting my head round Burnham - all I know is he's a far more skilled political operator than his predecessor (which wouldn't be difficult) though whether the politics alone is enough I'm not sure.

I tried to read Badenoch's lengthy critique of Burnham but it was tediously weak. Simply saying Burnham doesn't like Thatcherism means nothing - we may all have been Thatcherites once (and some on here still are it seems) but that's ancient history.

Mrs Stodge, as useful a political barometer as any, is very happy with the bus fare cap coming back to £2. Yes, she only pays £1.75 in London thanks to Sadiq but when we are away and going in to Derby or Matlock, it's nice to think we've saved a couple of quid on bus fares which pays for a large coffee at Naughty But Nice in Alfreton.

Lijphart’s work showed that proportional systems are associated with more parties, which implies that switching to PR will see the number of parties grow, maybe by existing parties splitting. However, the effect is not large. It wouldn’t predict that Labour AND the Tories AND the LibDems AND Reform AND the Greens would all split; just maybe some of them. I don’t see why the LibDems are the most prone of those to split?

New Zealand serves as a real-life experiment of switching from FPTP to PR and didn’t see much in the way of parties splitting. I suspect institutional momentum and history will help keep parties together.

Indeed, I would argue that the party splitting you might expect under PR has already happened. The Tories have already split with the rise of Reform (and now Restore). Labour have already split with the rise of the Greens (and maybe Your Party). The tragedy of recent UK politics is that we’ve moved to a PR-appropriate party system while maintaining FPTP, leading to things like Starmer’s loveless majority in the Commons.

Reform have 8 MPs and Restore have 1. Not exactly setting Parliament alight.

FPTP encourages parties to offer big tents but gives the power to the voters to determine whether they have or not. Midterm polls should always be taken with a mound of salt, but the power is in voters hands to determine it prior to the election as opposed to PR where all the horse trading happens after the vote.

No. You avoid horse trading by a party winning a clear Parliamentary majority, but FPTP doesn’t deliver that reliably. It delivers that when the number of parties is low. Now, with current and recent polling, no party is going to get an absolute majority, FPTP notwithstanding.

The choice now is either horse trading and the parties winning a proportional number of seats to their vote, or horse trading and the parties winning a somewhat random number of seats.

BlancheLivermore

It looks like Burnham is trying to buy about 1% in the polls for each billion he spends on bungs before the budget

Healey will have to be a brilliant chancellor to balance the Burnham bungs

BartholomewRoberts

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

stodge said:

Afternoon all

It's an interesting conjecture and I just wonder whether, given the bitter and rancorous nature of the last referendum, there might be a desire to simply have this as a manifesto pledge to be enacted (or not) if the party concerns wins a majority (and that leaves a get-out).

It's a useful fault line for Badenoch and the Conservatives whose opposition to any change in the electoral system and indeed reversion of contests like the London Mayoral election to FPTP will stand out.

On the other hand, it's a useful piece of bait on the hook to reel in the LDs and perhaps the Greens in any post-election horsetrading.

Davey will need to tread very carefully - the party will likely fragment (as will others) if we move to a more proportional system (such as STV). Again, it'snot something about which I would be shouting at this time.

I'm still getting my head round Burnham - all I know is he's a far more skilled political operator than his predecessor (which wouldn't be difficult) though whether the politics alone is enough I'm not sure.

I tried to read Badenoch's lengthy critique of Burnham but it was tediously weak. Simply saying Burnham doesn't like Thatcherism means nothing - we may all have been Thatcherites once (and some on here still are it seems) but that's ancient history.

Mrs Stodge, as useful a political barometer as any, is very happy with the bus fare cap coming back to £2. Yes, she only pays £1.75 in London thanks to Sadiq but when we are away and going in to Derby or Matlock, it's nice to think we've saved a couple of quid on bus fares which pays for a large coffee at Naughty But Nice in Alfreton.

Lijphart’s work showed that proportional systems are associated with more parties, which implies that switching to PR will see the number of parties grow, maybe by existing parties splitting. However, the effect is not large. It wouldn’t predict that Labour AND the Tories AND the LibDems AND Reform AND the Greens would all split; just maybe some of them. I don’t see why the LibDems are the most prone of those to split?

New Zealand serves as a real-life experiment of switching from FPTP to PR and didn’t see much in the way of parties splitting. I suspect institutional momentum and history will help keep parties together.

Indeed, I would argue that the party splitting you might expect under PR has already happened. The Tories have already split with the rise of Reform (and now Restore). Labour have already split with the rise of the Greens (and maybe Your Party). The tragedy of recent UK politics is that we’ve moved to a PR-appropriate party system while maintaining FPTP, leading to things like Starmer’s loveless majority in the Commons.

Reform have 8 MPs and Restore have 1. Not exactly setting Parliament alight.

FPTP encourages parties to offer big tents but gives the power to the voters to determine whether they have or not. Midterm polls should always be taken with a mound of salt, but the power is in voters hands to determine it prior to the election as opposed to PR where all the horse trading happens after the vote.

No. You avoid horse trading by a party winning a clear Parliamentary majority, but FPTP doesn’t deliver that reliably. It delivers that when the number of parties is low. Now, with current and recent polling, no party is going to get an absolute majority, FPTP notwithstanding.

The choice now is either horse trading and the parties winning a proportional number of seats to their vote, or horse trading and the parties winning a somewhat random number of seats.

The last election shows you to be wrong.

Midterm polls are meaningless and underpinning your whole flawed argument.

FF43

BlancheLivermore said:

Sandpit said:

FF43 said:

My tuppence to last thread's bus debate.

Capping fares is popular but subsidising marginal journeys is much more useful. eg additional early or late service; extending the route to the next village. That's because availability is more important than cost. Being able to travel from where you are to where you are going at the required time matters more than whether the fare is £2 or £3.

That’s a fair point. If you’re running busses into a town from surrounding villages, for example, at least make sure there’s one bus back after the town’s theatre show finishes at 10pm.

Last bus on my route leaves at 18:15

I was in Shrewsbury a while ago and was disappointed to see there were no buses after six or on Sundays. Public transport at these times is taxis, fares typically £15 or £20. I think the same thing in Telford. These are important towns lacking functional public transport.

Dopermean

Pulpstar said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good afternoon

I doubt the 2034 election will be relevant to me to be fair but maybe I will have my pacemaker battery changed if required !!!

On the bus fares, Burnham in front of a bus with the £2 announcement shown prominently doesn't show it does not come in to 2027

Also seems there is the small print as ever:

Sky states further details of bus fare cap 'eligibility' still to be ironed out

Prime Minister Andy Burnham announced this morning he will cap single bus fare routes in England outside of London at £2 for all of 2027.

But it's not completely clear exactly which services this will apply to.

Lots of routes are excluded from the current £3 fare cap, according to gov.uk.

The Department for Transport said they would share more details in due course, but pointed out that under the £3 cap only open services that allow any member of the public to board, as well as services that allow free travel for the whole of the route, are eligible.

That would exclude dedicated school bus services.

On a visit to a bus depot in Bath to promote the policy, Burnham appeared in front of a branded bus with an asterisk that read "subject to local operator opt in".

*maximum fare, subject to local operator opt in

Our nearest secondary catchment school is 9 miles away from our house so we're entitled to free transport to it in 7 years time if rules remain as they are.

Notts CC

Pupils aged 11–16 years
Pupils of secondary school age 11–16 are entitled to free transport to their nearest suitable school if that school is three miles or more from home.

I'd assume most school bus journeys would be longer than 3 miles or else an 11 yr old kid could reasonably be expected to walk or cycle to school ?

Depends on the motor traffic, I'd be very nervous about an 11 year old cycling even a short distance to school here, not because of their cycling ability but being able to predict driver behaviour, certain drivers are no more considerate of child cyclists than adults.

MoonRabbit

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

Good luck fiting 1052 MPs in the chamber.

Build a new Parliament in York.

Boris kicked the York thing off, It’s a levelling up gimmick thing isn’t it. Yet another thing Boris and Burnham governments share, quickly reaching for gimmicks, levelling up gimmicks their favourite.
Gimmicks isn’t governing properly.

They say York imo simply because of the history of being a capital, but mostly eyeing the land by the station.
I don’t like the idea at all because a parliament is not just one building and 650 MPs, it will need thousands and thousands of people, they all need somewhere, and It will completely change York for the worst in my opinion.

The only place a second Parliament, or temporary home can be in big city, Manchester or Birmingham, becuase of so much that comes with it that needs infrastructure.

I still sure London is the right place, it’s currently close to the ministries of government - how’s it work having government and Parliament in different parts of country? The answer is remote voting to make it work, and using remote voting means you don’t even need 2nd Parliament. Even if need to vacateParliament for refurb, use somewhere in London temporary.

Gimmicks isn’t governing properly.

Nigelb

RobD said:

Good luck fiting 1052 MPs in the chamber.

A good excuse not to spend tens of billions in the Victorian pile.
Another argument for PR.

Omnium

BlancheLivermore said:

It looks like Burnham is trying to buy about 1% in the polls for each billion he spends on bungs before the budget

Healey will have to be a brilliant chancellor to balance the Burnham bungs

This 'cost of living crisis' which he is pandering to is complete nonsense. Some people are poor in the UK, but its only a relative thing.

The poor really have never had it so good. That's not of course to say that they shouldn't aspire to better. That aspiration should mostly be fulfilled by their own hard work, but the odd favourable government policy can't hurt.

Cookie

MoonRabbit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

Good luck fiting 1052 MPs in the chamber.

Build a new Parliament in York.

Boris kicked the York thing off, It’s a levelling up gimmick thing isn’t it. Yet another thing Boris and Burnham governments share, quickly reaching for gimmicks, levelling up gimmicks their favourite.
Gimmicks isn’t governing properly.

They say York imo simply because of the history of being a capital, but mostly eyeing the land by the station.
I don’t like the idea at all because a parliament is not just one building and 650 MPs, it will need thousands and thousands of people, they all need somewhere, and It will completely change York for the worst in my opinion.

The only place a second Parliament, or temporary home can be in big city, Manchester or Birmingham, becuase of so much that comes with it that needs infrastructure.

I still sure London is the right place, it’s currently close to the ministries of government - how’s it work having government and Parliament in different parts of country? The answer is remote voting to make it work, and using remote voting means you don’t even need 2nd Parliament. Even if need to vacateParliament for refurb, use somewhere in London temporary.

Gimmicks isn’t governing properly.

I agree with most of that.
The arguments for not-London include:
- it's tucked away in the far corner of the country miles from anywhere
- it's atypical of everywhere else
- it's bloody expensive
- with government in London, the view of government tends to default to 'the rest of the country is a slightly embarassing encumberance whose best hope is the odd handout from London'

Obviously I'd say Manchester is best - central, accessible, large enough to accommodate an influx, attractive enough for people to want to live there, has a load of highly accessible brownfield land which could be used for the purpose - but this is equally true of Birmingham.

Mexicanpete

BlancheLivermore said:

Sandpit said:

FF43 said:

My tuppence to last thread's bus debate.

Capping fares is popular but subsidising marginal journeys is much more useful. eg additional early or late service; extending the route to the next village. That's because availability is more important than cost. Being able to travel from where you are to where you are going at the required time matters more than whether the fare is £2 or £3.

That’s a fair point. If you’re running busses into a town from surrounding villages, for example, at least make sure there’s one bus back after the town’s theatre show finishes at 10pm.

Last bus on my route leaves at 18:15

You'll get happy hour in, and anyway don't you have to be up early for work?

rcs1000

RobD said:

eek said:

bondegezou said:

The Guardian article isn't very good. They model radically different sized parliaments rather than trying to look how each system would work with a 650 seat House.

They also focus on current polls. On current polling, Reform are in the lead and benefit from FPTP. But consider what would've happened at the last General election. Reform wouldn't received a massive boost from PR.

I suspect a form of PR would actually give Reform more seats than FPTP would. In the FPTP world that we understand the battle is picking the none Reform candidate with a chance of winning and Labour are no longer the unvoteable option that they were a month ago.

Who remembers Labour's attempt to fix the voting system in Scotland to ensure no SNP majority?

I think it was designed for permanent Labour-led coalitions...

FrancisUrquhart

I would rather watch the Hundred than discuss AV / PR yet again.

BartholomewRoberts

Omnium said:

BlancheLivermore said:

It looks like Burnham is trying to buy about 1% in the polls for each billion he spends on bungs before the budget

Healey will have to be a brilliant chancellor to balance the Burnham bungs

This 'cost of living crisis' which he is pandering to is complete nonsense. Some people are poor in the UK, but its only a relative thing.

The poor really have never had it so good. That's not of course to say that they shouldn't aspire to better. That aspiration should mostly be fulfilled by their own hard work, but the odd favourable government policy can't hurt.

The problem is our current tax and benefit system heftily penalises those who aspire to better, which is something I've railed against for years as have others on both left and right.

One effect of years of focus on "the poor" is that national minimum (living) wage has never been higher than it is today, but the differential between that and more aspirational/skilled jobs in the 'squeezed middle' has shrank a lot. It is not the poorest who have a relatively significant cost of living crisis, it is the more aspirational lower middle that does.

Thanks to frozen and cut thresholds, anyone who goes to university today and gets a degree will be making repayments even if they are on national minimum wage. So the entire differential between minimum wage and their income they get (which has already shrank a lot) is also being taxed at 9% extra on top of income tax and NICs.

kinabalu

BlancheLivermore said:

It looks like Burnham is trying to buy about 1% in the polls for each billion he spends on bungs before the budget

Healey will have to be a brilliant chancellor to balance the Burnham bungs

1% of poll increase for each billion of extra spend would be a fabulous return. Any politician would bite your hand off if you offered them that.

BartholomewRoberts

FrancisUrquhart said:

I would rather watch the Hundred than discuss AV / PR yet again.

Steady on ...

Nigelb

New Hampshire - Democratic Presidential Polling:

AOC: 22%
Buttigieg: 21%
Kelly: 9%
Newsom: 8%
Sanders: 6%
Harris: 5%
Ossoff: 2%
Shapiro: 2%
Khanna: 2%
Booker: 2%

UNH / July 20, 2026
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/2079962268863717561

oxfordsimon

I don't like systems that inevitably lead to coalition which then places all the power in the hands of backroom discussions where manifesto commitments are discarded without any further input from the electorate.

It means that the mandate for a coalition deal is shaky at best. But running a referendum on a coalition deal might be seen as overkill.

I am rather a fan of run off election systems so that every member has the support of 50%+1 of their constituents.

I am a believer of having small, similarly sized constituencies so that there is a proper connection between MP and the communities they represent.

BlancheLivermore

Mexicanpete said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Sandpit said:

FF43 said:

My tuppence to last thread's bus debate.

Capping fares is popular but subsidising marginal journeys is much more useful. eg additional early or late service; extending the route to the next village. That's because availability is more important than cost. Being able to travel from where you are to where you are going at the required time matters more than whether the fare is £2 or £3.

That’s a fair point. If you’re running busses into a town from surrounding villages, for example, at least make sure there’s one bus back after the town’s theatre show finishes at 10pm.

Last bus on my route leaves at 18:15

You'll get happy hour in, and anyway don't you have to be up early for work?

That’s the last bus home from the brewery on beer days off. It’s happy hour all day!

Mexicanpete

FrancisUrquhart said:

I would rather watch the Hundred than discuss AV / PR yet again.

Go Fire!

BlancheLivermore

kinabalu said:

BlancheLivermore said:

It looks like Burnham is trying to buy about 1% in the polls for each billion he spends on bungs before the budget

Healey will have to be a brilliant chancellor to balance the Burnham bungs

1% of poll increase for each billion of extra spend would be a fabulous return. Any politician would bite your hand off if you offered them that.

For a temporary bounce before Budget reality bites?

Stereodog

On the topic of bus subsidies, if I start my journey at the start of the route and ask for a ticket to the middle of the route, very often the bus driver will just give me a ticket to the end of the route. Obviously it doesn't matter to me as the fare is capped but it makes me wonder whether the bus company is pocketing extra money in subsidies from the government. Does anyone know how the scheme works from that end of things?

Mexicanpete

oxfordsimon said:

I don't like systems that inevitably lead to coalition which then places all the power in the hands of backroom discussions where manifesto commitments are discarded without any further input from the electorate.

It means that the mandate for a coalition deal is shaky at best. But running a referendum on a coalition deal might be seen as overkill.

I am rather a fan of run off election systems so that every member has the support of 50%+1 of their constituents.

I am a believer of having small, similarly sized constituencies so that there is a proper connection between MP and the communities they represent.

Nigel Farage waves...

FF43

Excellent article - ie I agree with it - from Alastair Meeks on just how bad a place the Conservatives are in. I give Reform a higher prospect of crashing and burning, allowing the Tories to mop up, than maybe he does. But that this seems to be Badenoch's only strategy is desperate.

https://alastair-meeks.medium.com/rock-bottom-25ddbd298cce

Nigelb

Deciding whether to support a massive increase in generic drug prices for voters, just before the 2028 election, is going to be interesting for Congressional Republicans.

TRUMP ESCALATES GENERIC DRUG TARIFFS

Trump announced that generic drug imports will face a 0% tariff from 1 August 2026 for two years, rising to 100% for one year and 200% thereafter.

The measure aims to reshore generic pharmaceutical manufacturing to the U.S., while existing policies on patented and branded drugs remain unchanged.
https://x.com/DeItaone/status/2079709091514220796

Stuartinromford

kinabalu said:

BlancheLivermore said:

It looks like Burnham is trying to buy about 1% in the polls for each billion he spends on bungs before the budget

Healey will have to be a brilliant chancellor to balance the Burnham bungs

1% of poll increase for each billion of extra spend would be a fabulous return. Any politician would bite your hand off if you offered them that.

After all, Jeremy Hunt did £10 billion of NI reductions for approximately zero poll bounce.

Mexicanpete

Who is this awful Northern bimbette with the microphone at Southampton?

Northern_Al

kinabalu said:

BlancheLivermore said:

It looks like Burnham is trying to buy about 1% in the polls for each billion he spends on bungs before the budget

Healey will have to be a brilliant chancellor to balance the Burnham bungs

1% of poll increase for each billion of extra spend would be a fabulous return. Any politician would bite your hand off if you offered them that.

Yep. 100% Labour in the polls for a mere 80 billion. A bargain.

oxfordsimon

Cookie said:

MoonRabbit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

Good luck fiting 1052 MPs in the chamber.

Build a new Parliament in York.

Boris kicked the York thing off, It’s a levelling up gimmick thing isn’t it. Yet another thing Boris and Burnham governments share, quickly reaching for gimmicks, levelling up gimmicks their favourite.
Gimmicks isn’t governing properly.

They say York imo simply because of the history of being a capital, but mostly eyeing the land by the station.
I don’t like the idea at all because a parliament is not just one building and 650 MPs, it will need thousands and thousands of people, they all need somewhere, and It will completely change York for the worst in my opinion.

The only place a second Parliament, or temporary home can be in big city, Manchester or Birmingham, becuase of so much that comes with it that needs infrastructure.

I still sure London is the right place, it’s currently close to the ministries of government - how’s it work having government and Parliament in different parts of country? The answer is remote voting to make it work, and using remote voting means you don’t even need 2nd Parliament. Even if need to vacateParliament for refurb, use somewhere in London temporary.

Gimmicks isn’t governing properly.

I agree with most of that.
The arguments for not-London include:
- it's tucked away in the far corner of the country miles from anywhere
- it's atypical of everywhere else
- it's bloody expensive
- with government in London, the view of government tends to default to 'the rest of the country is a slightly embarassing encumberance whose best hope is the odd handout from London'

Obviously I'd say Manchester is best - central, accessible, large enough to accommodate an influx, attractive enough for people to want to live there, has a load of highly accessible brownfield land which could be used for the purpose - but this is equally true of Birmingham.

There are other cities that would have the capacity for being the home of a replacement parliament. Sharing the investment beyond our 2nd and 3rd cities must be worth considering.

It is rather predictable to just think about the usual big cities. They already attract a lot of investment.

oxfordsimon

Mexicanpete said:

oxfordsimon said:

I don't like systems that inevitably lead to coalition which then places all the power in the hands of backroom discussions where manifesto commitments are discarded without any further input from the electorate.

It means that the mandate for a coalition deal is shaky at best. But running a referendum on a coalition deal might be seen as overkill.

I am rather a fan of run off election systems so that every member has the support of 50%+1 of their constituents.

I am a believer of having small, similarly sized constituencies so that there is a proper connection between MP and the communities they represent.

Nigel Farage waves...

One bad MP is not reason to reject the concept.

DecrepiterJohnL

BlancheLivermore said:

It looks like Burnham is trying to buy about 1% in the polls for each billion he spends on bungs before the budget

Healey will have to be a brilliant chancellor to balance the Burnham bungs

Loose lips sink governments. Andy Burnham does seem especially prone to announcing policy off the cuff, some of which are later walked back (eg Waspi women, and even the bus announcement is now being caveated) and which might also create diplomatic problems if he is not careful. It is good that Burnham is reactive in a way Starmer was not but there needs to be a happy medium.

Gallowgate

oxfordsimon said:

Mexicanpete said:

oxfordsimon said:

I don't like systems that inevitably lead to coalition which then places all the power in the hands of backroom discussions where manifesto commitments are discarded without any further input from the electorate.

It means that the mandate for a coalition deal is shaky at best. But running a referendum on a coalition deal might be seen as overkill.

I am rather a fan of run off election systems so that every member has the support of 50%+1 of their constituents.

I am a believer of having small, similarly sized constituencies so that there is a proper connection between MP and the communities they represent.

Nigel Farage waves...

One bad MP is not reason to reject the concept.

Coalitions where the relative strength of each “faction” is determined by the voters is much better than coalitions where the relative strength of each faction can be hidden behind a manifesto that then changes or waxes and wanes through a parliament, as we have now.

We have coalitions under FPTP just the voters have little say over them.

Omnium

BartholomewRoberts said:

Omnium said:

BlancheLivermore said:

It looks like Burnham is trying to buy about 1% in the polls for each billion he spends on bungs before the budget

Healey will have to be a brilliant chancellor to balance the Burnham bungs

This 'cost of living crisis' which he is pandering to is complete nonsense. Some people are poor in the UK, but its only a relative thing.

The poor really have never had it so good. That's not of course to say that they shouldn't aspire to better. That aspiration should mostly be fulfilled by their own hard work, but the odd favourable government policy can't hurt.

The problem is our current tax and benefit system heftily penalises those who aspire to better, which is something I've railed against for years as have others on both left and right.

One effect of years of focus on "the poor" is that national minimum (living) wage has never been higher than it is today, but the differential between that and more aspirational/skilled jobs in the 'squeezed middle' has shrank a lot. It is not the poorest who have a relatively significant cost of living crisis, it is the more aspirational lower middle that does.

Thanks to frozen and cut thresholds, anyone who goes to university today and gets a degree will be making repayments even if they are on national minimum wage. So the entire differential between minimum wage and their income they get (which has already shrank a lot) is also being taxed at 9% extra on top of income tax and NICs.

The current system heftily penalises pretty much everybody. The state is too big and expensive.

The only people who really don't get taxed are the very wealthy - they can just pass wealth around by gifts etc. If you're worth 5m then you'll probably die and (your estate) pay a load of tax. If you're worth 500m the equation will be very different.

The only people that unreasonably benefit are the self-diagnosed poor.

Wulfrun_Phil

Northern_Al said:

kinabalu said:

BlancheLivermore said:

It looks like Burnham is trying to buy about 1% in the polls for each billion he spends on bungs before the budget

Healey will have to be a brilliant chancellor to balance the Burnham bungs

1% of poll increase for each billion of extra spend would be a fabulous return. Any politician would bite your hand off if you offered them that.

Yep. 100% Labour in the polls for a mere 80 billion. A bargain.

Or a mere 22% Labour polling boost in return for a fiscal black hole no greater than that bequeathed to Labour by Sunak.

Sunil_Prasannan

FF43 said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Sandpit said:

FF43 said:

My tuppence to last thread's bus debate.

Capping fares is popular but subsidising marginal journeys is much more useful. eg additional early or late service; extending the route to the next village. That's because availability is more important than cost. Being able to travel from where you are to where you are going at the required time matters more than whether the fare is £2 or £3.

That’s a fair point. If you’re running busses into a town from surrounding villages, for example, at least make sure there’s one bus back after the town’s theatre show finishes at 10pm.

Last bus on my route leaves at 18:15

I was in Shrewsbury a while ago and was disappointed to see there were no buses after six or on Sundays. Public transport at these times is taxis, fares typically £15 or £20. I think the same thing in Telford. These are important towns lacking functional public transport.

No Glasgow Subway after 6pm on Sunday!

MarqueeMark

Sandpit said:

Ah, so the Russian WildBerries website has a special category called “Everything for the SMO”

https://x.com/vic_010100/status/2079858617008714116

Here’s where you find your headgear, flak jackets, drones, fibre optic cables, radios, night sights, even drone attachments for dropping cylindrical shaped objects.

But definitely not a legitimate military target, no, not at all…

All currently "out of stock".

Delivery dates uncertain. Maybe 2028?

Nigelb

FF43 said:

Excellent article - ie I agree with it - from Alastair Meeks on just how bad a place the Conservatives are in. I give Reform a higher prospect of crashing and burning, allowing the Tories to mop up, than maybe he does. But that this seems to be Badenoch's only strategy is desperate.

https://alastair-meeks.medium.com/rock-bottom-25ddbd298cce

Is Kemi campaigning for Binface, then ?

ydoethur

Sunil_Prasannan said:

FF43 said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Sandpit said:

FF43 said:

My tuppence to last thread's bus debate.

Capping fares is popular but subsidising marginal journeys is much more useful. eg additional early or late service; extending the route to the next village. That's because availability is more important than cost. Being able to travel from where you are to where you are going at the required time matters more than whether the fare is £2 or £3.

That’s a fair point. If you’re running busses into a town from surrounding villages, for example, at least make sure there’s one bus back after the town’s theatre show finishes at 10pm.

Last bus on my route leaves at 18:15

I was in Shrewsbury a while ago and was disappointed to see there were no buses after six or on Sundays. Public transport at these times is taxis, fares typically £15 or £20. I think the same thing in Telford. These are important towns lacking functional public transport.

No Glasgow Subway after 6pm on Sunday!

So you have to get sandwiches at Pret?

DecrepiterJohnL

Gallowgate said:

oxfordsimon said:

Mexicanpete said:

oxfordsimon said:

I don't like systems that inevitably lead to coalition which then places all the power in the hands of backroom discussions where manifesto commitments are discarded without any further input from the electorate.

It means that the mandate for a coalition deal is shaky at best. But running a referendum on a coalition deal might be seen as overkill.

I am rather a fan of run off election systems so that every member has the support of 50%+1 of their constituents.

I am a believer of having small, similarly sized constituencies so that there is a proper connection between MP and the communities they represent.

Nigel Farage waves...

One bad MP is not reason to reject the concept.

Coalitions where the relative strength of each “faction” is determined by the voters is much better than coalitions where the relative strength of each faction can be hidden behind a manifesto that then changes or waxes and wanes through a parliament, as we have now.

We have coalitions under FPTP just the voters have little say over them.

The counter-view would be that big tent in-party coalitions mean that the manifesto can be relied upon whereas, as students discovered in 2010, post-election coalitions between different parties mean that election pledges go out the window.

MarqueeMark

oxfordsimon said:

Mexicanpete said:

oxfordsimon said:

I don't like systems that inevitably lead to coalition which then places all the power in the hands of backroom discussions where manifesto commitments are discarded without any further input from the electorate.

It means that the mandate for a coalition deal is shaky at best. But running a referendum on a coalition deal might be seen as overkill.

I am rather a fan of run off election systems so that every member has the support of 50%+1 of their constituents.

I am a believer of having small, similarly sized constituencies so that there is a proper connection between MP and the communities they represent.

Nigel Farage waves...

One bad MP is not reason to reject the concept.

In the case of Farage, it realliy is...

Omnium

I've had a few spam emails today from some scum of the earth operation. What's a bit surprising is that they say that if I've had car finance I could, on average, make a claim for £1.

Obviously I clicked on all the links with such fabulous sums available.

If Burnham suggest a policy where these scumbags are locked up for eternity then I may reconsider my views.

Mexicanpete

DecrepiterJohnL said:

BlancheLivermore said:

It looks like Burnham is trying to buy about 1% in the polls for each billion he spends on bungs before the budget

Healey will have to be a brilliant chancellor to balance the Burnham bungs

Loose lips sink governments. Andy Burnham does seem especially prone to announcing policy off the cuff, some of which are later walked back (eg Waspi women, and even the bus announcement is now being caveated) and which might also create diplomatic problems if he is not careful. It is good that Burnham is reactive in a way Starmer was not but there needs to be a happy medium.

Burnham strikes me as half way along the road to being a Johnsonian bullshiner.

Not impressed, even if I still hope he smashes Teams Farage and Badenoch out of the park (until we get PR).

Cookie

oxfordsimon said:

Cookie said:

MoonRabbit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

Good luck fiting 1052 MPs in the chamber.

Build a new Parliament in York.

Boris kicked the York thing off, It’s a levelling up gimmick thing isn’t it. Yet another thing Boris and Burnham governments share, quickly reaching for gimmicks, levelling up gimmicks their favourite.
Gimmicks isn’t governing properly.

They say York imo simply because of the history of being a capital, but mostly eyeing the land by the station.
I don’t like the idea at all because a parliament is not just one building and 650 MPs, it will need thousands and thousands of people, they all need somewhere, and It will completely change York for the worst in my opinion.

The only place a second Parliament, or temporary home can be in big city, Manchester or Birmingham, becuase of so much that comes with it that needs infrastructure.

I still sure London is the right place, it’s currently close to the ministries of government - how’s it work having government and Parliament in different parts of country? The answer is remote voting to make it work, and using remote voting means you don’t even need 2nd Parliament. Even if need to vacateParliament for refurb, use somewhere in London temporary.

Gimmicks isn’t governing properly.

I agree with most of that.
The arguments for not-London include:
- it's tucked away in the far corner of the country miles from anywhere
- it's atypical of everywhere else
- it's bloody expensive
- with government in London, the view of government tends to default to 'the rest of the country is a slightly embarassing encumberance whose best hope is the odd handout from London'

Obviously I'd say Manchester is best - central, accessible, large enough to accommodate an influx, attractive enough for people to want to live there, has a load of highly accessible brownfield land which could be used for the purpose - but this is equally true of Birmingham.

There are other cities that would have the capacity for being the home of a replacement parliament. Sharing the investment beyond our 2nd and 3rd cities must be worth considering.

It is rather predictable to just think about the usual big cities. They already attract a lot of investment.

I don't necessarily disagree. As Moonrabbit says, York is probably too small - but there's a lot of options inbetween. I had quite liked the idea of Stoke or Coventry - central, connected, in need of regeneration, cheap - but when I suggested this to a civil servant she was, I thought, unreasonably furious (though in th next breath conolaining that she, a senior civil servant, could only afford a poky two-bedroom flat in a semi-feral area of London). But she was prepared to countenance the idea of living in Manchester or Birmingham.

Alternatively, with a fast and frequent railway connecting Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds and Sheffield you could conceivably have a multipolar capiral.

Cookie

Mexicanpete said:

Who is this awful Northern bimbette with the microphone at Southampton?

I'm not watching but I sincerely hope you're not referring to Alex Hartley.

BlancheLivermore

I hope that there’s still a Humphrey haunting Whitehall, warning of the inevitable consequences of lunacies like rent controls

bondegezou

Another result for Burnham’s Britain!

Ex-CEO of Southern Water among four charged with conspiracy to defraud

https://news.sky.com/story/ex-ceo-of-southern-water-among-four-charged-with-conspiracy-to-defraud-13565944

Sunil_Prasannan

Exhaustive voting is as much "quasi-AV" as @TheScreamingEagles is "quasi-Indian"!

🤣

Sandpit

MarqueeMark said:

Sandpit said:

Ah, so the Russian WildBerries website has a special category called “Everything for the SMO”

https://x.com/vic_010100/status/2079858617008714116

Here’s where you find your headgear, flak jackets, drones, fibre optic cables, radios, night sights, even drone attachments for dropping cylindrical shaped objects.

But definitely not a legitimate military target, no, not at all…

All currently "out of stock".

Delivery dates uncertain. Maybe 2028?

WildBerries new tracking status:

“Your package is on fire 🔥”

https://x.com/angelshalagina/status/2079891432731558284

PoodleInASlipstream

Dopermean said:

Pulpstar said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good afternoon

I doubt the 2034 election will be relevant to me to be fair but maybe I will have my pacemaker battery changed if required !!!

On the bus fares, Burnham in front of a bus with the £2 announcement shown prominently doesn't show it does not come in to 2027

Also seems there is the small print as ever:

Sky states further details of bus fare cap 'eligibility' still to be ironed out

Prime Minister Andy Burnham announced this morning he will cap single bus fare routes in England outside of London at £2 for all of 2027.

But it's not completely clear exactly which services this will apply to.

Lots of routes are excluded from the current £3 fare cap, according to gov.uk.

The Department for Transport said they would share more details in due course, but pointed out that under the £3 cap only open services that allow any member of the public to board, as well as services that allow free travel for the whole of the route, are eligible.

That would exclude dedicated school bus services.

On a visit to a bus depot in Bath to promote the policy, Burnham appeared in front of a branded bus with an asterisk that read "subject to local operator opt in".

*maximum fare, subject to local operator opt in

Our nearest secondary catchment school is 9 miles away from our house so we're entitled to free transport to it in 7 years time if rules remain as they are.

Notts CC

Pupils aged 11–16 years
Pupils of secondary school age 11–16 are entitled to free transport to their nearest suitable school if that school is three miles or more from home.

I'd assume most school bus journeys would be longer than 3 miles or else an 11 yr old kid could reasonably be expected to walk or cycle to school ?

Depends on the motor traffic, I'd be very nervous about an 11 year old cycling even a short distance to school here, not because of their cycling ability but being able to predict driver behaviour, certain drivers are no more considerate of child cyclists than adults.

Yes, even short distances can be a safety issue. The nearest high school to me is 2.5 miles away, but that's 2.5 miles on a twisty rural road with no pavements and no lights. Anyone walking or cycling is at real risk of being hit by a car - in the dark of winter I'd say almost a certainty. Even in daylight I would not willingly walk that road.

stodge

oxfordsimon said:

I don't like systems that inevitably lead to coalition which then places all the power in the hands of backroom discussions where manifesto commitments are discarded without any further input from the electorate.

It means that the mandate for a coalition deal is shaky at best. But running a referendum on a coalition deal might be seen as overkill.

I am rather a fan of run off election systems so that every member has the support of 50%+1 of their constituents.

I am a believer of having small, similarly sized constituencies so that there is a proper connection between MP and the communities they represent.

The run off idea is used in France, for example. Would you advocate that in any constituency where a candidate failed to obtain a majority of votes cast in the first election, there would be a second election simply between the first two candidates or would you include any candidate who, for example, polled above 25%?

In my constituency, East Ham, Stephen Timms polled 51.1%. In Amber Valley, Labour polled 37%, Reform 28% and the Conservatives 25%.

The French run off is usually a week after the first election so we could have the Thursday after as run off day? That would change the nature of the transfer of power (if it happens) but it's practical and workable enough.

I think we need to define "small" - the current voter size is 75-80,000 voters but obviously the physical size will vary enormously.

Sandpit

Nigelb said:

FF43 said:

Excellent article - ie I agree with it - from Alastair Meeks on just how bad a place the Conservatives are in. I give Reform a higher prospect of crashing and burning, allowing the Tories to mop up, than maybe he does. But that this seems to be Badenoch's only strategy is desperate.

https://alastair-meeks.medium.com/rock-bottom-25ddbd298cce

Is Kemi campaigning for Binface, then ?

It would actually be useful to know what the Tory activists in Clacton are up to.

They held the seat until a couple of years ago, and presumably have pretty good canvass data and an activist base that may be of use to the bin man.

DecrepiterJohnL

Mexicanpete said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

BlancheLivermore said:

It looks like Burnham is trying to buy about 1% in the polls for each billion he spends on bungs before the budget

Healey will have to be a brilliant chancellor to balance the Burnham bungs

Loose lips sink governments. Andy Burnham does seem especially prone to announcing policy off the cuff, some of which are later walked back (eg Waspi women, and even the bus announcement is now being caveated) and which might also create diplomatic problems if he is not careful. It is good that Burnham is reactive in a way Starmer was not but there needs to be a happy medium.

Burnham strikes me as half way along the road to being a Johnsonian bullshiner.

Not impressed, even if I still hope he smashes Teams Farage and Badenoch out of the park (until we get PR).

High on his own supply, perhaps. Manchester is nice enough but pales against what has been achieved by London's Mayors and even the regeneration of Liverpool under Michael Heseltine. Scots PBers may know more about Edinburgh.

Stuartinromford

Sandpit said:

MarqueeMark said:

Sandpit said:

Ah, so the Russian WildBerries website has a special category called “Everything for the SMO”

https://x.com/vic_010100/status/2079858617008714116

Here’s where you find your headgear, flak jackets, drones, fibre optic cables, radios, night sights, even drone attachments for dropping cylindrical shaped objects.

But definitely not a legitimate military target, no, not at all…

All currently "out of stock".

Delivery dates uncertain. Maybe 2028?

WildBerries new tracking status:

“Your package is on fire 🔥”

https://x.com/angelshalagina/status/2079891432731558284

Don't give Evri ideas.

BlancheLivermore

Stuartinromford said:

Sandpit said:

MarqueeMark said:

Sandpit said:

Ah, so the Russian WildBerries website has a special category called “Everything for the SMO”

https://x.com/vic_010100/status/2079858617008714116

Here’s where you find your headgear, flak jackets, drones, fibre optic cables, radios, night sights, even drone attachments for dropping cylindrical shaped objects.

But definitely not a legitimate military target, no, not at all…

All currently "out of stock".

Delivery dates uncertain. Maybe 2028?

WildBerries new tracking status:

“Your package is on fire 🔥”

https://x.com/angelshalagina/status/2079891432731558284

Don't give Evri ideas.

I’d have flagged you if you’d said Royal Mail

Sandpit

BlancheLivermore said:

Sandpit said:

FF43 said:

My tuppence to last thread's bus debate.

Capping fares is popular but subsidising marginal journeys is much more useful. eg additional early or late service; extending the route to the next village. That's because availability is more important than cost. Being able to travel from where you are to where you are going at the required time matters more than whether the fare is £2 or £3.

That’s a fair point. If you’re running busses into a town from surrounding villages, for example, at least make sure there’s one bus back after the town’s theatre show finishes at 10pm.

Last bus on my route leaves at 18:15

That’s barely good enough for an office job in the centre, let alone any chance of catching happy hour afterwards.

Battlebus

Cookie said:

oxfordsimon said:

Cookie said:

MoonRabbit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

Good luck fiting 1052 MPs in the chamber.

Build a new Parliament in York.

Boris kicked the York thing off, It’s a levelling up gimmick thing isn’t it. Yet another thing Boris and Burnham governments share, quickly reaching for gimmicks, levelling up gimmicks their favourite.
Gimmicks isn’t governing properly.

They say York imo simply because of the history of being a capital, but mostly eyeing the land by the station.
I don’t like the idea at all because a parliament is not just one building and 650 MPs, it will need thousands and thousands of people, they all need somewhere, and It will completely change York for the worst in my opinion.

The only place a second Parliament, or temporary home can be in big city, Manchester or Birmingham, becuase of so much that comes with it that needs infrastructure.

I still sure London is the right place, it’s currently close to the ministries of government - how’s it work having government and Parliament in different parts of country? The answer is remote voting to make it work, and using remote voting means you don’t even need 2nd Parliament. Even if need to vacateParliament for refurb, use somewhere in London temporary.

Gimmicks isn’t governing properly.

I agree with most of that.
The arguments for not-London include:
- it's tucked away in the far corner of the country miles from anywhere
- it's atypical of everywhere else
- it's bloody expensive
- with government in London, the view of government tends to default to 'the rest of the country is a slightly embarassing encumberance whose best hope is the odd handout from London'

Obviously I'd say Manchester is best - central, accessible, large enough to accommodate an influx, attractive enough for people to want to live there, has a load of highly accessible brownfield land which could be used for the purpose - but this is equally true of Birmingham.

There are other cities that would have the capacity for being the home of a replacement parliament. Sharing the investment beyond our 2nd and 3rd cities must be worth considering.

It is rather predictable to just think about the usual big cities. They already attract a lot of investment.

I don't necessarily disagree. As Moonrabbit says, York is probably too small - but there's a lot of options inbetween. I had quite liked the idea of Stoke or Coventry - central, connected, in need of regeneration, cheap - but when I suggested this to a civil servant she was, I thought, unreasonably furious (though in th next breath conolaining that she, a senior civil servant, could only afford a poky two-bedroom flat in a semi-feral area of London). But she was prepared to countenance the idea of living in Manchester or Birmingham.

Alternatively, with a fast and frequent railway connecting Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds and Sheffield you could conceivably have a multipolar capiral.

How about following the Brazilian example and build a new Parliament in the Amazonian rainforest.

Stuartinromford

Mexicanpete said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

BlancheLivermore said:

It looks like Burnham is trying to buy about 1% in the polls for each billion he spends on bungs before the budget

Healey will have to be a brilliant chancellor to balance the Burnham bungs

Loose lips sink governments. Andy Burnham does seem especially prone to announcing policy off the cuff, some of which are later walked back (eg Waspi women, and even the bus announcement is now being caveated) and which might also create diplomatic problems if he is not careful. It is good that Burnham is reactive in a way Starmer was not but there needs to be a happy medium.

Burnham strikes me as half way along the road to being a Johnsonian bullshiner.

Not impressed, even if I still hope he smashes Teams Farage and Badenoch out of the park (until we get PR).

Those who have followed his career better-

has Andy got any form for sticking with something right-but-repulsive, on the grounds that it's the right thing to do and will be good in the medium term?

If not, he (and hence we) are in trouble.

MoonRabbit

FF43 said:

Excellent article - ie I agree with it - from Alastair Meeks on just how bad a place the Conservatives are in. I give Reform a higher prospect of crashing and burning, allowing the Tories to mop up, than maybe he does. But that this seems to be Badenoch's only strategy is desperate.

https://alastair-meeks.medium.com/rock-bottom-25ddbd298cce

I got the impression it too much enjoyed being doom laden for the Conservatives, whilst not anchored on enough actual evidence.

For the Header I have sent to TSE inbox, it explores the same thing, but building on the conclusions of pollsters and psephologists and actual evidence, I found a lot of good news for the conservatives, electoral prospects not at all doom and gloom right now for Conservative Party and its supporters.

Omnium

The Hundred has far too much commentary. Get rid of them (turn off sound) and it's much better.

Mexicanpete

Cookie said:

Mexicanpete said:

Who is this awful Northern bimbette with the microphone at Southampton?

I'm not watching but I sincerely hope you're not referring to Alex Hartley.

It might be. They called her "Al".

There's also a pretty boy who looks a bit like Justin Trudeau that I don't know*. No, not Alistair Cook. My era from Southampton was Jim Laker.

* Oh it's Steven Finn.

BartholomewRoberts

Omnium said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Omnium said:

BlancheLivermore said:

It looks like Burnham is trying to buy about 1% in the polls for each billion he spends on bungs before the budget

Healey will have to be a brilliant chancellor to balance the Burnham bungs

This 'cost of living crisis' which he is pandering to is complete nonsense. Some people are poor in the UK, but its only a relative thing.

The poor really have never had it so good. That's not of course to say that they shouldn't aspire to better. That aspiration should mostly be fulfilled by their own hard work, but the odd favourable government policy can't hurt.

The problem is our current tax and benefit system heftily penalises those who aspire to better, which is something I've railed against for years as have others on both left and right.

One effect of years of focus on "the poor" is that national minimum (living) wage has never been higher than it is today, but the differential between that and more aspirational/skilled jobs in the 'squeezed middle' has shrank a lot. It is not the poorest who have a relatively significant cost of living crisis, it is the more aspirational lower middle that does.

Thanks to frozen and cut thresholds, anyone who goes to university today and gets a degree will be making repayments even if they are on national minimum wage. So the entire differential between minimum wage and their income they get (which has already shrank a lot) is also being taxed at 9% extra on top of income tax and NICs.

The current system heftily penalises pretty much everybody. The state is too big and expensive.

The only people who really don't get taxed are the very wealthy - they can just pass wealth around by gifts etc. If you're worth 5m then you'll probably die and (your estate) pay a load of tax. If you're worth 500m the equation will be very different.

The only people that unreasonably benefit are the self-diagnosed poor.

Its a u-shape at the moment.

The very wealthy and the very poor are shielded, so everyone else is not.

Just as a snapshot, compare a newly qualified teacher after 4 years of uni with someone on minimum wage, in 2010 and today.

In 2010 they would have a starting salary of 83% more than minimum wage, with take home pay after deductions of 49% extra
Today they would have a starting salary of 28% more than minimum wage, with take home pay after deductions of 9% extra.

Go to uni for 4 years to take home 9% more than minimum wage is hardly boosting aspiration.

That snapshot is repeated in industry after industry and encouraged by our tax code.

BlancheLivermore

Omnium said:

The Hundred has far too much commentary. Get rid of them (turn off sound) and it's much better.

I’ve seen about ten minutes of the hundred. Do they still put stupid graphics over the replays? That was what really put me off

stodge

BartholomewRoberts said:

Omnium said:

BlancheLivermore said:

It looks like Burnham is trying to buy about 1% in the polls for each billion he spends on bungs before the budget

Healey will have to be a brilliant chancellor to balance the Burnham bungs

This 'cost of living crisis' which he is pandering to is complete nonsense. Some people are poor in the UK, but its only a relative thing.

The poor really have never had it so good. That's not of course to say that they shouldn't aspire to better. That aspiration should mostly be fulfilled by their own hard work, but the odd favourable government policy can't hurt.

The problem is our current tax and benefit system heftily penalises those who aspire to better, which is something I've railed against for years as have others on both left and right.

One effect of years of focus on "the poor" is that national minimum (living) wage has never been higher than it is today, but the differential between that and more aspirational/skilled jobs in the 'squeezed middle' has shrank a lot. It is not the poorest who have a relatively significant cost of living crisis, it is the more aspirational lower middle that does.

Thanks to frozen and cut thresholds, anyone who goes to university today and gets a degree will be making repayments even if they are on national minimum wage. So the entire differential between minimum wage and their income they get (which has already shrank a lot) is also being taxed at 9% extra on top of income tax and NICs.

The Conservatives used to be the party of "aspiration" but they started the freezing of personal allowances and the whole "fiscal drag" business.

The problem was no one could argue for raising tax rates so fiscal drag was the way to raise taxes. As others have argued, raising tax rates while reinstating the inflation link to personal allowances would be a step forward.

The real argument is the other side of the equation - whose benefits do you cut and how?

Omnium

BlancheLivermore said:

Omnium said:

The Hundred has far too much commentary. Get rid of them (turn off sound) and it's much better.

I’ve seen about ten minutes of the hundred. Do they still put stupid graphics over the replays? That was what really put me off

Yes - completely stupid graphics are the order of the day. It's really quite hard to work out what the score is.

Scott_xP

@jacktindale.bsky.social

Natalie Fleet has stepped-down as Safeguarding Minister because the role has been too traumatic for her (she was raped as a teenager) and she doesn't feel that she can perform the role to the standard required.

That is a very open and noble reason and perhaps the first resignation of its type.

Sandpit

Mexicanpete said:

Cookie said:

Mexicanpete said:

Who is this awful Northern bimbette with the microphone at Southampton?

I'm not watching but I sincerely hope you're not referring to Alex Hartley.

It might be. They called her "Al".

There's also a pretty boy who looks a bit like Justin Trudeau that I don't know. No, not Alistair Cook. My era from Southampton was Jim Laker.

Is she Paul Simon?

Cookie

Battlebus said:

Cookie said:

oxfordsimon said:

Cookie said:

MoonRabbit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

Good luck fiting 1052 MPs in the chamber.

Build a new Parliament in York.

Boris kicked the York thing off, It’s a levelling up gimmick thing isn’t it. Yet another thing Boris and Burnham governments share, quickly reaching for gimmicks, levelling up gimmicks their favourite.
Gimmicks isn’t governing properly.

They say York imo simply because of the history of being a capital, but mostly eyeing the land by the station.
I don’t like the idea at all because a parliament is not just one building and 650 MPs, it will need thousands and thousands of people, they all need somewhere, and It will completely change York for the worst in my opinion.

The only place a second Parliament, or temporary home can be in big city, Manchester or Birmingham, becuase of so much that comes with it that needs infrastructure.

I still sure London is the right place, it’s currently close to the ministries of government - how’s it work having government and Parliament in different parts of country? The answer is remote voting to make it work, and using remote voting means you don’t even need 2nd Parliament. Even if need to vacateParliament for refurb, use somewhere in London temporary.

Gimmicks isn’t governing properly.

I agree with most of that.
The arguments for not-London include:
- it's tucked away in the far corner of the country miles from anywhere
- it's atypical of everywhere else
- it's bloody expensive
- with government in London, the view of government tends to default to 'the rest of the country is a slightly embarassing encumberance whose best hope is the odd handout from London'

Obviously I'd say Manchester is best - central, accessible, large enough to accommodate an influx, attractive enough for people to want to live there, has a load of highly accessible brownfield land which could be used for the purpose - but this is equally true of Birmingham.

There are other cities that would have the capacity for being the home of a replacement parliament. Sharing the investment beyond our 2nd and 3rd cities must be worth considering.

It is rather predictable to just think about the usual big cities. They already attract a lot of investment.

I don't necessarily disagree. As Moonrabbit says, York is probably too small - but there's a lot of options inbetween. I had quite liked the idea of Stoke or Coventry - central, connected, in need of regeneration, cheap - but when I suggested this to a civil servant she was, I thought, unreasonably furious (though in th next breath conolaining that she, a senior civil servant, could only afford a poky two-bedroom flat in a semi-feral area of London). But she was prepared to countenance the idea of living in Manchester or Birmingham.

Alternatively, with a fast and frequent railway connecting Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds and Sheffield you could conceivably have a multipolar capiral.

How about following the Brazilian example and build a new Parliament in the Amazonian rainforest.

See my Stoke example.

ydoethur

Omnium said:

The Hundred has far too much commentary. Get rid of them

cricket fans have been saying that for years.