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.
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.
Yes, but you're a Conservative and Alastair isn't.
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.
Yes. It does seem that the core of society and the core of the working masses are being harshly treated. These are the silent elements as such. Nothing at all to do with Reform/Restore/Refurbish your carpets plc.
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.
I have a soft spot for Alex Hartley. I think her commentary is pretty good and I enjoy her accent. She is a minor national treasure. But the Hundred makes everything it touches stupid and inane You could have Simon Scharma and Joanna Lumley on there and they'd come over with the gravitas of Radio 1 DJs.
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.
Or simply unused to the far attention of the media to national politicians. He'll catch in pretty quickly after the experience yf the last couple of days, I think.
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.
Nope it’s created by a minimum wage that has now probably gone above the optimum point
Attached to public sector pay being kept to low for equally obvious reasons
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.
FPTP is going to inevitably lead to coalition while we’ve got 5+ party politics.
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.
I agree with both you and Pete but I’m giving him a chance and I hope he succeeds.
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.
Or simply unused to the far attention of the media to national politicians. He'll catch in pretty quickly after the experience yf the last couple of days, I think.
If not, then he will crash and burn.
He's probably smart enough to adapt in a way Starmer couldn't.
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.
FPTP is going to inevitably lead to coalition while we’ve got 5+ party politics.
What evidence is there that we have 5+ party politics? Based on recent actual general elections.
2010 is the only time the big 3 parties have won less than 90% of constituencies between them in England and Wales (89.3% in 2010, 91.8% in 2024).
You are hyperventilating over midterm polls. EICIPM and a plethora of other instances show how ridiculous that is.
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.
The Hundred has far too much commentary. Get rid of them
cricket fans have been saying that for years.
They're trying their best to reduce the ennui of normal cricket?
They're trying to drive away cricket fans to bring in people who don't watch cricket.
There might be some merit in the latter, if it wasn't for the fact the Hundred is about as interesting and coherent as Streeting's attempts at political philosophy.
But the first rule of trying to attract a new audience is - don't repel the current one.
The Hundred has far too much commentary. Get rid of them
cricket fans have been saying that for years.
They're trying their best to reduce the ennui of normal cricket?
They're trying to drive away cricket fans to bring in people who don't watch cricket.
There might be some merit in the latter, if it wasn't for the fact the Hundred is about as interesting and coherent as Streeting's attempts at political philosophy.
But the first rule of trying to attract a new audience is - don't repel the current one.
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.
Hm. Credit for this predates and goes well beyond Burnham, but the change in Manchester over the last 30 years outstrips absolutely everywhere in the country except London - and Liverpool by miles - and given the base that Manchester started from I'd say what has been achieved in Manchester is more impressive than what has been achieved in London.
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.
There was a minister in one of the Blair ministries who resigned early because she thought it was outside her competence (Ruth something?), but this is the first one I can think of who resigned because it was triggering. Unless somebody knows different?
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...
We'll find out what sort of connection he has with the community he represents when the byelection result comes through.
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.
There was a minister in one of the Blair ministries who resigned early because she thought it was outside her competence (Ruth something?), but this is the first one I can think of who resigned because it was triggering. Unless somebody knows different?
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.
FPTP is going to inevitably lead to coalition while we’ve got 5+ party politics.
It’s going to lead to very weird results when MPs are elected on 26% of the vote
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.
Do we really believe opening a political talking shop outside London is going to make a difference?
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.
There was a minister in one of the Blair ministries who resigned early because she thought it was outside her competence (Ruth something?), but this is the first one I can think of who resigned because it was triggering. Unless somebody knows different?
Estelle Morris, Education Secretary I think.
She resigned because she felt she could not manage what the role demanded.
This was in no way linked to civil servants telling her morning, noon and night that as a teacher she simply didn't understand how to run education.
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.
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.
Yes, but you're a Conservative and Alastair isn't.
If he's just having a political wank, he shouldn't put a pretentious title like 'The Strategic Drift of the Conservatives' on it and gussy it up as informed commentary.
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.
Nope it’s created by a minimum wage that has now probably gone above the optimum point
Attached to public sector pay being kept to low for equally obvious reasons
And stagnant private sector wages for the low rankers. Loss of labour power has impart led to this. Those with good unions, solidarity and leverage do significantly better in wage negotiations than those without see train drivers when compared to supermarket dalits.
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.
Hm. Credit for this predates and goes well beyond Burnham, but the change in Manchester over the last 30 years outstrips absolutely everywhere in the country except London - and Liverpool by miles - and given the base that Manchester started from I'd say what has been achieved in Manchester is more impressive than what has been achieved in London.
(Northern Ireland beats everywhere easily, but that's a special case for obvious reasons. It also has a very large amount of public spending per capita, again for reasons)
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...
We'll find out what sort of connection he has with the community he represents when the byelection result comes through.
Is Farage doing any campaigning in Clacton? We’ve heard nothing from him lately. I thought he was meant to be putting his case why not declaring a gift of £5 million is fine.
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.
FPTP is going to inevitably lead to coalition while we’ve got 5+ party politics.
What evidence is there that we have 5+ party politics? Based on recent actual general elections.
2010 is the only time the big 3 parties have won less than 90% of constituencies between them in England and Wales (89.3% in 2010, 91.8% in 2024).
You are hyperventilating over midterm polls. EICIPM and a plethora of other instances show how ridiculous that is.
It’s a good point and potential corrective, but I think we do now have something approaching European bloc politics, even if the big 2 shapeshift to capture bits of other blocs from time to time.
Electorally we now have 4 well established Westminster and local seat clusters in GB for the following, all of which have direct European read across:
- Statist centre-left (Labour) - Traditionalist centre right / quasi-populist right (Con) - Liberal pro-Euro centrism (Lib Dems) - Separatist / regionalist parties (SNP, Plaid)
We are on the cusp of a sustainable presence for a national populist / anti-immigration party, and it’s hard to see the Tories gathering all those voters back in. Reform just need one GE where they make regional seat gains in the Danelaw East. They have equivalents in most EU countries, usually with a pro-Russian philosophy.
The Green ascendancy seems more fragile to me. European countries do usually have the equivalents: either eco parties or more often hard left, anti-Semitic blocs like Melenchon’s LFI. Some pro Russian, others more in the non-aligned tradition. But I don’t think they’ve fully established themselves here yet, and there’s no obvious regional hotbed.
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...
We'll find out what sort of connection he has with the community he represents when the byelection result comes through.
Is Farage doing any campaigning in Clacton? We’ve heard nothing from him lately. I thought he was meant to be putting his case why not declaring a gift of £5 million is fine.
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.
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.
Yes, but you're a Conservative and Alastair isn't.
If he's just having a political wank, he shouldn't put a pretentious title like 'The Strategic Drift of the Conservatives' on it and gussy it up as informed commentary.
Not that informed. He has no idea what Conservatives think.
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...
We'll find out what sort of connection he has with the community he represents when the byelection result comes through.
Is Farage doing any campaigning in Clacton? We’ve heard nothing from him lately. I thought he was meant to be putting his case why not declaring a gift of £5 million is fine.
He's realised that the Silly Season is upon us so he's leaving the field to Binface.
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.
Hm. Credit for this predates and goes well beyond Burnham, but the change in Manchester over the last 30 years outstrips absolutely everywhere in the country except London - and Liverpool by miles - and given the base that Manchester started from I'd say what has been achieved in Manchester is more impressive than what has been achieved in London.
Agreed. The centre used to be car parks and empty warehouses. It shows the way. But it’s culture and infrastructure that got it there.
In addition to mayors and general good luck I would credit:
- the IRA - Manchester United (and latterly City, maybe), but specifically what they did for aspirational real estate in Cheshire - On a similar note, Hollyoaks - Oasis, the Stone Roses, Inspiral Carpets and Happy Mondays - The WCML - Cold Feet - Queer as Folk
Somewhere along the line popular culture determined that there’s only one alternative to London, outwith Scotland, and that’s Manchester.
Musk really is the great hero of our age. He's doing stuff that is amazing. And yet he chooses to mix it with the political dopes (all of them).
I think Brunel managed not to be so daft. Although daft in different ways.
Odyssey was excellent btw - saw it in 70mm (not IMAX) and was blown away. One quibble - the climactic fight started brilliantly but I was bored by the end, way too long. Should have been 30 seconds of slaughter, but that wouldn't have worked with Nolan's message. All the "woke" stuff was actually the most interesting - the opening scene on the beach, Agamemnon's death, and I really thought they should have made more of Travis Scott - it felt entirely appropriate to depict the poem in that way. probably the closest depiction to how the story was once told.
It was also funny to see parts of Scotland that I know well. "That's the Black Isle"!
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.
Do we really believe opening a political talking shop outside London is going to make a difference?
Seems like pointless excercise to me.
Not opening a political talking shop - moving the existing political talking shop. Along with the machinery of government.
Musk really is the great hero of our age. He's doing stuff that is amazing. And yet he chooses to mix it with the political dopes (all of them).
I think Brunel managed not to be so daft. Although daft in different ways.
Odyssey was excellent btw - saw it in 70mm (not IMAX) and was blown away. One quibble - the climactic fight started brilliantly but I was bored by the end, way too long. Should have been 30 seconds of slaughter, but that wouldn't have worked with Nolan's message. All the "woke" stuff was actually the most interesting - the opening scene on the beach, Agamemnon's death, and I really thought they should have made more of Travis Scott - it felt entirely appropriate to depict the poem in that way. probably the closest depiction to how the story was once told.
It was also funny to see parts of Scotland that I know well. "That's the Black Isle"!
I guess we should have all expected the greatest tale to be good ground for a good director.
I last read the Odyssey when I was in my teens. I plan to re-read it now. I have a Folio Society Limited Edition copy that is oozing 'read me' on my shelf (At some cost). I'll watch the film afterwards.
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.
Hm. Credit for this predates and goes well beyond Burnham, but the change in Manchester over the last 30 years outstrips absolutely everywhere in the country except London - and Liverpool by miles - and given the base that Manchester started from I'd say what has been achieved in Manchester is more impressive than what has been achieved in London.
Agreed. The centre used to be car parks and empty warehouses. It shows the way. But it’s culture and infrastructure that got it there.
In addition to mayors and general good luck I would credit:
- the IRA - Manchester United (and latterly City, maybe), but specifically what they did for aspirational real estate in Cheshire - On a similar note, Hollyoaks - Oasis, the Stone Roses, Inspiral Carpets and Happy Mondays - The WCML - Cold Feet - Queer as Folk
Somewhere along the line popular culture determined that there’s only one alternative to London, outwith Scotland, and that’s Manchester.
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...
We'll find out what sort of connection he has with the community he represents when the byelection result comes through.
Is Farage doing any campaigning in Clacton? We’ve heard nothing from him lately. I thought he was meant to be putting his case why not declaring a gift of £5 million is fine.
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.
FPTP is going to inevitably lead to coalition while we’ve got 5+ party politics.
What evidence is there that we have 5+ party politics? Based on recent actual general elections.
2010 is the only time the big 3 parties have won less than 90% of constituencies between them in England and Wales (89.3% in 2010, 91.8% in 2024).
You are hyperventilating over midterm polls. EICIPM and a plethora of other instances show how ridiculous that is.
It’s a good point and potential corrective, but I think we do now have something approaching European bloc politics, even if the big 2 shapeshift to capture bits of other blocs from time to time.
Electorally we now have 4 well established Westminster and local seat clusters in GB for the following, all of which have direct European read across:
- Statist centre-left (Labour) - Traditionalist centre right / quasi-populist right (Con) - Liberal pro-Euro centrism (Lib Dems) - Separatist / regionalist parties (SNP, Plaid)
We are on the cusp of a sustainable presence for a national populist / anti-immigration party, and it’s hard to see the Tories gathering all those voters back in. Reform just need one GE where they make regional seat gains in the Danelaw East. They have equivalents in most EU countries, usually with a pro-Russian philosophy.
The Green ascendancy seems more fragile to me. European countries do usually have the equivalents: either eco parties or more often hard left, anti-Semitic blocs like Melenchon’s LFI. Some pro Russian, others more in the non-aligned tradition. But I don’t think they’ve fully established themselves here yet, and there’s no obvious regional hotbed.
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.
Hm. Credit for this predates and goes well beyond Burnham, but the change in Manchester over the last 30 years outstrips absolutely everywhere in the country except London - and Liverpool by miles - and given the base that Manchester started from I'd say what has been achieved in Manchester is more impressive than what has been achieved in London.
Agreed. The centre used to be car parks and empty warehouses. It shows the way. But it’s culture and infrastructure that got it there.
In addition to mayors and general good luck I would credit:
- the IRA - Manchester United (and latterly City, maybe), but specifically what they did for aspirational real estate in Cheshire - On a similar note, Hollyoaks - Oasis, the Stone Roses, Inspiral Carpets and Happy Mondays - The WCML - Cold Feet - Queer as Folk
Somewhere along the line popular culture determined that there’s only one alternative to London, outwith Scotland, and that’s Manchester.
It seems improbable now, but it's hard to overestimate the shock of Cold Feet - a comedy drama.featuring attractive-ish people set somewhere which wasn't London or its outer orbit.
Musk really is the great hero of our age. He's doing stuff that is amazing. And yet he chooses to mix it with the political dopes (all of them).
I think Brunel managed not to be so daft. Although daft in different ways.
Brunel's daftness tended not to manifest itself in politics, as he utterly despised all politicians and almost all civil servants - the notable exception was Sir Benjamin Hawes, who just happened to be his brother in law.
His daftnesses included, most notably, his stubborn adherence to the idea of different gauges according to the speed of the line, and his refusal to patent any of his ideas meaning other people reaped the profits from them.
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.
FPTP is going to inevitably lead to coalition while we’ve got 5+ party politics.
What evidence is there that we have 5+ party politics? Based on recent actual general elections.
2010 is the only time the big 3 parties have won less than 90% of constituencies between them in England and Wales (89.3% in 2010, 91.8% in 2024).
You are hyperventilating over midterm polls. EICIPM and a plethora of other instances show how ridiculous that is.
The share of the vote won by the top two or top three parties has been declining for years. We’ve had two general elections recently deliver hung Parliaments: FPTP has already been failing 40% of the time. The 2024 result saw a record level of disproportionality. The gap between second and third party in MPs is at a post-war low. Labour’s winning general election vote share was the lowest since universal suffrage. Local election results in England show a record high number of parties winning significant seats. The last Scottish Parliament election had the highest number of parties winning seats ever, didn’t it? I think ditto the last Senedd election? The top two parties control the lowest proportion of PCCs ever. Etc.
Sure, maybe we go back to 2-party or 2.5-party politics at the next general election, but maybe we don’t. As I said, FPTP is going to inevitably lead to coalition while we’ve got 5+ party politics.
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.
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.
I look forward to reading it.
I suppose the questions about Badenoch's "Waiting by the tree in case a rabbit hits it" (Chinese proverb) strategy are
(a) Will Reform's numbers fall far enough? If they only fall to where they were at the last election and Labour's numbers only fall somewhat compared with 2024, there will be a movement of seats between Labour and Reform with the Conservatives only modest beneficiaries compared with last time's catastrophic results.
(b) If Reform does effectively disappear will their voters move to the Conservatives, vote for another populist right party, or stay at home? Labour will benefit if it's the latter two.
It feels very high stakes. I think it requires Reform to effectively disappear and go back to the previous state. Which to be clear is an entirely plausible outcome, but not one that's happening right now, unless there's something Alastair and I are missing?
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
This is the classic city Vs country problem. In London, say, the late night bus will be rammed. In sleepy Wilts there will be a couple of people and a tired and bored driver.
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.
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.
I look forward to reading it.
I suppose the questions about Badenoch's "Waiting by the tree in case a rabbit hits it" (Chinese proverb) strategy are
(a) Will Reform's numbers fall far enough? If they only fall to where they were at the last election and Labour's numbers only fall somewhat compared with 2024, there will be a movement of seats between Labour and Reform with the Conservatives only modest beneficiaries compared with last time's catastrophic results.
(b) If Reform does effectively disappear will their voters move to the Conservatives, vote for another populist right party, or stay at home? Labour will benefit if it's the latter two.
It feels very high stakes. I think it requires Reform to effectively disappear and go back to the previous state. Which to be clear is an entirely plausible outcome, but not one that's happening right now, unless there's something Alastair and I are missing?
Where does Reform fall to, in your view, if Farage is not its leader or, worse, disassociates himself and retires?
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.
Uni is about more than just higher salaries. And you need to look at the whole career to rather than just starting salaries. But there is no doubt we are seeing a great levelling with the minimum wages rises of recent times.
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.
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.
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.
I look forward to reading it.
I suppose the questions about Badenoch's "Waiting by the tree in case a rabbit hits it" (Chinese proverb) strategy are
(a) Will Reform's numbers fall far enough? If they only fall to where they were at the last election and Labour's numbers only fall somewhat compared with 2024, there will be a movement of seats between Labour and Reform with the Conservatives only modest beneficiaries compared with last time's catastrophic results.
(b) If Reform does effectively disappear will their voters move to the Conservatives, vote for another populist right party, or stay at home? Labour will benefit if it's the latter two.
It feels very high stakes. I think it requires Reform to effectively disappear and go back to the previous state. Which to be clear is an entirely plausible outcome, but not one that's happening right now, unless there's something Alastair and I are missing?
Where does Reform fall to, in your view, if Farage is not its leader or, worse, disassociates himself and retires?
As I say that's a plausible scenario, which is not happening yet, and which Badenoch's entire strategy seems to depend on.
While Reform leads polls then FPTP advantages the right but with polling showing Burnham Labour tied with Reform or even taking the lead that means Reform loses its FPTP majority or even most seats. Interestingly by contrast PR with an AMS gives Reform and the Conservatives 51% of the seats even now on current polls and add in Restore who could win seats under PR but not FPTP that gives a bigger share still for the right. AV would also stop a split on the right under FPTP reducing the numbers of rightwing seats, indeed AV was introduced in Australia by a conservative government as FPTP often helped Labour win despite the combined right of centre Coalition parties vote being bigger.
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.
Do we really believe opening a political talking shop outside London is going to make a difference?
Seems like pointless excercise to me.
Not opening a political talking shop - moving the existing political talking shop. Along with the machinery of government.
While Reform leads polls then FPTP advantages the right but with polling showing Burnham Labour tied with Reform or even taking the lead that means Reform loses its FPTP majority or even most seats. Interestingly by contrast PR with an AMS gives Reform and the Conservatives 51% of the seats even now on current polls and add in Restore who could win seats under PR but not FPTP that gives a bigger share still for the right. AV would also stop a split on the right under FPTP reducing the numbers of rightwing seats, indeed AV was introduced in Australia by a conservative government as FPTP often helped Labour win despite the combined right of centre Coalition parties vote being bigger https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2026/jul/22/how-britain-would-look-proportional-representation-local-mp
Were a general election held now, I think Restore would win 1 seat under FPTP.
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.
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.
Yes, but you're a Conservative and Alastair isn't.
If he's just having a political wank, he shouldn't put a pretentious title like 'The Strategic Drift of the Conservatives' on it and gussy it up as informed commentary.
Not that informed. He has no idea what Conservatives think.
The problem right now isn't what Conservatives think. It's that there aren't enough of them to think.
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.
Hm. Credit for this predates and goes well beyond Burnham, but the change in Manchester over the last 30 years outstrips absolutely everywhere in the country except London - and Liverpool by miles - and given the base that Manchester started from I'd say what has been achieved in Manchester is more impressive than what has been achieved in London.
Agreed. The centre used to be car parks and empty warehouses. It shows the way. But it’s culture and infrastructure that got it there.
In addition to mayors and general good luck I would credit:
- the IRA - Manchester United (and latterly City, maybe), but specifically what they did for aspirational real estate in Cheshire - On a similar note, Hollyoaks - Oasis, the Stone Roses, Inspiral Carpets and Happy Mondays - The WCML - Cold Feet - Queer as Folk
Somewhere along the line popular culture determined that there’s only one alternative to London, outwith Scotland, and that’s Manchester.
It seems improbable now, but it's hard to overestimate the shock of Cold Feet - a comedy drama.featuring attractive-ish people set somewhere which wasn't London or its outer orbit.
"Gavin and Stacey" involved a young woman from the rough, extremely left-wing anti-Thatcher Barry in Wales in love with a young man from the pro-business extremely right-wing pro-Thatcher Billericay in Essex. Twenty years prior that would not have been credible
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.
Do we really believe opening a political talking shop outside London is going to make a difference?
Seems like pointless excercise to me.
Not opening a political talking shop - moving the existing political talking shop. Along with the machinery of government.
Moving still seems pointless to mw
It's such a big project that it would have been wise to get multi-party buy-in, IMHO. Seems unlikely that it will be irreversible by the time of the next GE.
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.
Do we really believe opening a political talking shop outside London is going to make a difference?
Seems like pointless excercise to me.
Not opening a political talking shop - moving the existing political talking shop. Along with the machinery of government.
Moving still seems pointless to mw
If the UK were a new country, London would be one of the last places you'd consider for a capital. The only reason to have it there now is inertia. But inertia shouldn't be underestimated as a reason for anything.
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.
Hm. Credit for this predates and goes well beyond Burnham, but the change in Manchester over the last 30 years outstrips absolutely everywhere in the country except London - and Liverpool by miles - and given the base that Manchester started from I'd say what has been achieved in Manchester is more impressive than what has been achieved in London.
Agreed. The centre used to be car parks and empty warehouses. It shows the way. But it’s culture and infrastructure that got it there.
In addition to mayors and general good luck I would credit:
- the IRA - Manchester United (and latterly City, maybe), but specifically what they did for aspirational real estate in Cheshire - On a similar note, Hollyoaks - Oasis, the Stone Roses, Inspiral Carpets and Happy Mondays - The WCML - Cold Feet - Queer as Folk
Somewhere along the line popular culture determined that there’s only one alternative to London, outwith Scotland, and that’s Manchester.
It seems improbable now, but it's hard to overestimate the shock of Cold Feet - a comedy drama.featuring attractive-ish people set somewhere which wasn't London or its outer orbit.
I was more a Cracker man (the one with Robbie Coltraine, not literally). There were some attractive people in that, and some not so attractive...
I see Laura Loomer has switched horses on Ukraine v Russia. From being a big MAGA mouthpiece against Ukraine she is there at the moment and has been posting that she was wrong and Ukraine are right.
She is very tight with MAGA leadership so an interesting change of tune.
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.
Do we really believe opening a political talking shop outside London is going to make a difference?
Seems like pointless excercise to me.
Not opening a political talking shop - moving the existing political talking shop. Along with the machinery of government.
Moving still seems pointless to mw
Moving would make more sense in the context of a clear multi-year refurbishment plan for Westminster, but there doesn't seem to be any correlation between that and No. 10 North.
I see Laura Loomer has switched horses on Ukraine v Russia. From being a big MAGA mouthpiece against Ukraine she is there at the moment and has been posting that she was wrong and Ukraine are right.
She is very tight with MAGA leadership so an interesting change of tune.
Tens of millions? oh FFS. At least get the basic numbers right. How big was the number in last thirty years? Thirty million imported? Forty million? Eight five?
Tens of millions? oh FFS. At least get the basic numbers right. How big was the number in last thirty years? Thirty million imported? Forty million? Eight five?
Utter hogwash on stilts
Well its just about over 10m over 30 years isn't it? Using tens of millions to describe 'a number over 10m' jars but I can see what Zia is getting at.
York is a lovely place. Why on earth would you want to fill it with politicians?
If politicians and Whitehall mandarins had to use the A64 with any degree of regularity, or the A1237 from Askham Bryan to Hopgrove, or the A166 through Stamford Bridge or the A59 from York to the A1 via Kirk Hammerton, well… you’d soon find that bypasses were built and A roads were upgraded to a dual carriageway overnight.
York is a lovely place. Why on earth would you want to fill it with politicians?
If politicians and Whitehall mandarins had to use the A64 with any degree of regularity, or the A1237 from Askham Bryan to Hopgrove, or the A166 through Stamford Bridge or the A59 from York to the A1 via Kirk Hammerton, well… you’d soon find that bypasses were built and A roads were upgraded to a dual carriageway overnight.
And don’t get me started on the trains…
You can’t anyway, given they’re either late or cancelled.
Tens of millions? oh FFS. At least get the basic numbers right. How big was the number in last thirty years? Thirty million imported? Forty million? Eight five?
Utter hogwash on stilts
Yusuf carefully chose thirty years presumably because his own parents were 'imported' forty years ago and if they had been prevented the country would have avoided Zia's own presence.
Tens of millions? oh FFS. At least get the basic numbers right. How big was the number in last thirty years? Thirty million imported? Forty million? Eight five?
Utter hogwash on stilts
Yusuf carefully chose thirty years presumably because his own parents were 'imported' forty years ago and if they had been prevented the country would have avoided Zia's own presence.
Presumably '30 years' because that was almost exactly the time the taps were turned on. Not much immigration 1986-1996 AFAIR.
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.
York is a lovely place. Why on earth would you want to fill it with politicians?
If politicians and Whitehall mandarins had to use the A64 with any degree of regularity, or the A1237 from Askham Bryan to Hopgrove, or the A166 through Stamford Bridge or the A59 from York to the A1 via Kirk Hammerton, well… you’d soon find that bypasses were built and A roads were upgraded to a dual carriageway overnight.
And don’t get me started on the trains…
You can’t anyway, given they’re either late or cancelled.
Welsh Fire vs Southerm Brave: well done to these two franchises for not changing their names, but they are daft names. Neither "Welsh" nor "Southern" are satisfactory answers to the question "Who are we playing Dad"? Welsh Fire is at least a thing, if a slightly abstract one. Southern Brave is just two unrelated adjectives. The question "why are Phil Salt and Luke Wood playing for Southern?" is also difficult to answer, as is "why is Joe Root playing for Welsh?"
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.
Do we really believe opening a political talking shop outside London is going to make a difference?
Seems like pointless excercise to me.
Not opening a political talking shop - moving the existing political talking shop. Along with the machinery of government.
Moving still seems pointless to mw
If the UK were a new country, London would be one of the last places you'd consider for a capital. The only reason to have it there now is inertia. But inertia shouldn't be underestimated as a reason for anything.
Welsh Fire vs Southerm Brave: well done to these two franchises for not changing their names, but they are daft names. Neither "Welsh" nor "Southern" are satisfactory answers to the question "Who are we playing Dad"? Welsh Fire is at least a thing, if a slightly abstract one. Southern Brave is just two unrelated adjectives. The question "why are Phil Salt and Luke Wood playing for Southern?" is also difficult to answer, as is "why is Joe Root playing for Welsh?"
The whole idea was they were to be city based, of course, which was never going to work in a million years as expecting e.g. Northampton, Leicester and Derby to form links with a side called ‘Nottingham’ was about as plausible as the average Post Office lawyer’s defence at the Horizon Inquiry.
Labour does best under the modelling with STV, which is a point that Labour politicians might like to observe, it being also by far the best system for us voters.
A federal magistrate judge has ruled that Trump must turn over detailed financial information in connection with his defamation lawsuit against the BBC.
The decision opened the door for the BBC to explore the finances of more than 400 companies owned by a Trump family trust.
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.
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.
I look forward to reading it.
I suppose the questions about Badenoch's "Waiting by the tree in case a rabbit hits it" (Chinese proverb) strategy are
(a) Will Reform's numbers fall far enough? If they only fall to where they were at the last election and Labour's numbers only fall somewhat compared with 2024, there will be a movement of seats between Labour and Reform with the Conservatives only modest beneficiaries compared with last time's catastrophic results.
(b) If Reform does effectively disappear will their voters move to the Conservatives, vote for another populist right party, or stay at home? Labour will benefit if it's the latter two.
It feels very high stakes. I think it requires Reform to effectively disappear and go back to the previous state. Which to be clear is an entirely plausible outcome, but not one that's happening right now, unless there's something Alastair and I are missing?
The question is how the Conservatives build a new voting coalition on top of the old one.
That's what will create the extra 10% in the polls Alastair Meeks mentions.
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.
Do we really believe opening a political talking shop outside London is going to make a difference?
Seems like pointless excercise to me.
Not opening a political talking shop - moving the existing political talking shop. Along with the machinery of government.
Moving still seems pointless to mw
If the UK were a new country, London would be one of the last places you'd consider for a capital. The only reason to have it there now is inertia. But inertia shouldn't be underestimated as a reason for anything.
Tens of millions? oh FFS. At least get the basic numbers right. How big was the number in last thirty years? Thirty million imported? Forty million? Eight five?
Utter hogwash on stilts
It was 58.2 million in 1996 and it's approx 69.5 million today, so you could just about argue it's (one) tens of millions.
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.
Do we really believe opening a political talking shop outside London is going to make a difference?
Seems like pointless excercise to me.
Not opening a political talking shop - moving the existing political talking shop. Along with the machinery of government.
Moving still seems pointless to mw
If the UK were a new country, London would be one of the last places you'd consider for a capital. The only reason to have it there now is inertia. But inertia shouldn't be underestimated as a reason for anything.
Why? It's on a sheltered wide and accessible river estuary facing the continent, and good for trade.
It's a logical choice. Far more so than, say, Bristol or Newcastle.
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.
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.
I look forward to reading it.
I suppose the questions about Badenoch's "Waiting by the tree in case a rabbit hits it" (Chinese proverb) strategy are
(a) Will Reform's numbers fall far enough? If they only fall to where they were at the last election and Labour's numbers only fall somewhat compared with 2024, there will be a movement of seats between Labour and Reform with the Conservatives only modest beneficiaries compared with last time's catastrophic results.
(b) If Reform does effectively disappear will their voters move to the Conservatives, vote for another populist right party, or stay at home? Labour will benefit if it's the latter two.
It feels very high stakes. I think it requires Reform to effectively disappear and go back to the previous state. Which to be clear is an entirely plausible outcome, but not one that's happening right now, unless there's something Alastair and I are missing?
Where does Reform fall to, in your view, if Farage is not its leader or, worse, disassociates himself and retires?
As I say that's a plausible scenario, which is not happening yet, and which Badenoch's entire strategy seems to depend on.
I always rate Alistair's analysis but there is a strategy, and that is the economy.
It's a weakness that both Reform and Labour share.
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.
Hm. Credit for this predates and goes well beyond Burnham, but the change in Manchester over the last 30 years outstrips absolutely everywhere in the country except London - and Liverpool by miles - and given the base that Manchester started from I'd say what has been achieved in Manchester is more impressive than what has been achieved in London.
Agreed. The centre used to be car parks and empty warehouses. It shows the way. But it’s culture and infrastructure that got it there.
In addition to mayors and general good luck I would credit:
- the IRA - Manchester United (and latterly City, maybe), but specifically what they did for aspirational real estate in Cheshire - On a similar note, Hollyoaks - Oasis, the Stone Roses, Inspiral Carpets and Happy Mondays - The WCML - Cold Feet - Queer as Folk
Somewhere along the line popular culture determined that there’s only one alternative to London, outwith Scotland, and that’s Manchester.
It seems improbable now, but it's hard to overestimate the shock of Cold Feet - a comedy drama.featuring attractive-ish people set somewhere which wasn't London or its outer orbit.
Speaking of telly, there's also Salford media city.
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.
Do we really believe opening a political talking shop outside London is going to make a difference?
Seems like pointless excercise to me.
Not opening a political talking shop - moving the existing political talking shop. Along with the machinery of government.
Moving still seems pointless to mw
If the UK were a new country, London would be one of the last places you'd consider for a capital. The only reason to have it there now is inertia. But inertia shouldn't be underestimated as a reason for anything.
Why? It's on a sheltered wide and accessible river estuary facing the continent, and good for trade.
It's a logical choice. Far more so than, say, Bristol or Newcastle.
Those make it a good location for a city but not for a capital. It's extremely peripheral, economically atypical and bloody expensive. And in strategic terms you don't particularly want your capital within striking distance of your enemies.
Welsh Fire vs Southerm Brave: well done to these two franchises for not changing their names, but they are daft names. Neither "Welsh" nor "Southern" are satisfactory answers to the question "Who are we playing Dad"? Welsh Fire is at least a thing, if a slightly abstract one. Southern Brave is just two unrelated adjectives. The question "why are Phil Salt and Luke Wood playing for Southern?" is also difficult to answer, as is "why is Joe Root playing for Welsh?"
It's like when you go to a corporate away day and each table has to make up its own team name.
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.
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.
Yes, but you're a Conservative and Alastair isn't.
But I’m a psephologist. I know exactly how UK politics is tilting right now, and what happens next. Hence I put it in a header.
Tens of millions? oh FFS. At least get the basic numbers right. How big was the number in last thirty years? Thirty million imported? Forty million? Eight five?
Utter hogwash on stilts
It was 58.2 million in 1996 and it's approx 69.5 million today, so you could just about argue it's (one) tens of millions.
Of course, not all is immigration but a lot is.
I suspect our population would have declined without immigration. Ovet 10m seems right to me. (I suspect tge true population is rather more than 69.5m today).
Comments
But the Hundred makes everything it touches stupid and inane You could have Simon Scharma and Joanna Lumley on there and they'd come over with the gravitas of Radio 1 DJs.
He'll catch in pretty quickly after the experience yf the last couple of days, I think.
If not, then he will crash and burn.
Attached to public sector pay being kept to low for equally obvious reasons
They've achieved the impossible and made cricket ugly.
I love short form cricket. The T20 Blast is utterly lovely. But everything about the hundred seems contrived to repel.
Darts on later. That will do me.
2010 is the only time the big 3 parties have won less than 90% of constituencies between them in England and Wales (89.3% in 2010, 91.8% in 2024).
You are hyperventilating over midterm polls. EICIPM and a plethora of other instances show how ridiculous that is.
https://x.com/NatalieFleetMP/status/2079949982325448906#m
There might be some merit in the latter, if it wasn't for the fact the Hundred is about as interesting and coherent as Streeting's attempts at political philosophy.
But the first rule of trying to attract a new audience is - don't repel the current one.
Elon Musk Says He’d Give Mel Gibson $100 Million For An ‘Accurate’ Odyssey
https://x.com/PaulTassi/status/2079917928728625350
Seems like pointless excercise to me.
This was in no way linked to civil servants telling her morning, noon and night that as a teacher she simply didn't understand how to run education.
Musk really is the great hero of our age. He's doing stuff that is amazing. And yet he chooses to mix it with the political dopes (all of them).
I think Brunel managed not to be so daft. Although daft in different ways.
Electorally we now have 4 well established Westminster and local seat clusters in GB for the following, all of which have direct European read across:
- Statist centre-left (Labour)
- Traditionalist centre right / quasi-populist right (Con)
- Liberal pro-Euro centrism (Lib Dems)
- Separatist / regionalist parties (SNP, Plaid)
We are on the cusp of a sustainable presence for a national populist / anti-immigration party, and it’s hard to see the Tories gathering all those voters back in. Reform just need one GE where they make regional seat gains in the Danelaw East. They have equivalents in most EU countries, usually with a pro-Russian philosophy.
The Green ascendancy seems more fragile to me. European countries do usually have the equivalents: either eco parties or more often hard left, anti-Semitic blocs like Melenchon’s LFI. Some pro Russian, others more in the non-aligned tradition. But I don’t think they’ve fully established themselves here yet, and there’s no obvious regional hotbed.
In addition to mayors and general good luck I would credit:
- the IRA
- Manchester United (and latterly City, maybe), but specifically what they did for aspirational real estate in Cheshire
- On a similar note, Hollyoaks
- Oasis, the Stone Roses, Inspiral Carpets and Happy Mondays
- The WCML
- Cold Feet
- Queer as Folk
Somewhere along the line popular culture determined that there’s only one alternative to London, outwith Scotland, and that’s Manchester.
It was also funny to see parts of Scotland that I know well. "That's the Black Isle"!
I last read the Odyssey when I was in my teens. I plan to re-read it now. I have a Folio Society Limited Edition copy that is oozing 'read me' on my shelf (At some cost). I'll watch the film afterwards.
His daftnesses included, most notably, his stubborn adherence to the idea of different gauges according to the speed of the line, and his refusal to patent any of his ideas meaning other people reaped the profits from them.
Sure, maybe we go back to 2-party or 2.5-party politics at the next general election, but maybe we don’t. As I said, FPTP is going to inevitably lead to coalition while we’ve got 5+ party politics.
I suppose the questions about Badenoch's "Waiting by the tree in case a rabbit hits it" (Chinese proverb) strategy are
(a) Will Reform's numbers fall far enough? If they only fall to where they were at the last election and Labour's numbers only fall somewhat compared with 2024, there will be a movement of seats between Labour and Reform with the Conservatives only modest beneficiaries compared with last time's catastrophic results.
(b) If Reform does effectively disappear will their voters move to the Conservatives, vote for another populist right party, or stay at home? Labour will benefit if it's the latter two.
It feels very high stakes. I think it requires Reform to effectively disappear and go back to the previous state. Which to be clear is an entirely plausible outcome, but not one that's happening right now, unless there's something Alastair and I are missing?
The Conservatives are also now projected to win more seats under AMS or party list or STV than FPTP. Indeed the Greens and Tories would now be the biggest winners from FPTP given in 2024 the LDs won over 70 MPs and their percentage of MPs in the Commons nearly matched their 12% voteshare UK wide
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2026/jul/22/how-britain-would-look-proportional-representation-local-mp
I see Laura Loomer has switched horses on Ukraine v Russia. From being a big MAGA mouthpiece against Ukraine she is there at the moment and has been posting that she was wrong and Ukraine are right.
She is very tight with MAGA leadership so an interesting change of tune.
Though I dare say like tons of things that word meant something very different.
@ZiaYusufUK
Over the past three decades, Labour and the Tories have imported tens of millions of people to Britain.
https://x.com/ZiaYusufUK/status/2079996367204946217
===
Tens of millions? oh FFS. At least get the basic numbers right. How big was the number in last thirty years? Thirty million imported? Forty million? Eight five?
Utter hogwash on stilts
They now update me with every possible WS2 transfer move
And don’t get me started on the trains…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/womens-super-league-two/table
Boxes to tick.
https://www.cricinfo.com/story/david-warner-pleads-guilty-to-drink-driving-1546988
The question "why are Phil Salt and Luke Wood playing for Southern?" is also difficult to answer, as is "why is Joe Root playing for Welsh?"
The decision opened the door for the BBC to explore the finances of more than 400 companies owned by a Trump family trust.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/21/trum-bbc-lawsuit-finances
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/21/trum-bbc-lawsuit-finances
That's what will create the extra 10% in the polls Alastair Meeks mentions.
Of course, not all is immigration but a lot is.
It's a logical choice. Far more so than, say, Bristol or Newcastle.
It's a weakness that both Reform and Labour share.
It's extremely peripheral, economically atypical and bloody expensive. And in strategic terms you don't particularly want your capital within striking distance of your enemies.
Anyway busy. Malton on Friday.
(I suspect tge true population is rather more than 69.5m today).