FPTP can be a brilliant system, as individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes, and traditionally allows for stable government with two excellent and broadly based parties, both committed to centrist social democracy, to offer visions of an incrementally improving future and to compete on being brilliantly good at running a country and the state funded bits of it especially.
A very simple AV is marginally better because it gives space to newbies to grow up and compete with the big boys because you can vote for them and a traditional party backup if you want.
Like Ratner they have both damaged their reputations and given the appalling state of competence and policy ideas of all parties, new and old, there is no voting system that can both provide a majority supported government. Most people will be voting against a party, not in favour of one.
For any voting system to work you need outstandingly capable parties and candidates. We don't.
STV is proportional, and individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes. It’s as close to the perfect British electoral system as you can get.
The only objection to it for political nerds is that the results take a long time to come out, so it makes election night less exciting.
Not sure. The Electoral reform Society says this of STV:
Rather than one person representing everyone in a small area, bigger areas elect a small group of representatives, such as 4 or 5. These representatives reflect the diversity of opinions in the area.
Which is a big move away from the single individual representing all the people of a single seat, which is one of FPTP's merits.
A single individual representing all the people of a single seat, even if that individual was opposed by 70% of voters in that seat, is one of FPTP's disadvantages. The other is that, if you support a particular Party, you have only the one choice - the one that the Party machine has nominated. With STV you can choose between candidates of the same party.
I'd start with some sort of PR for local elections - it's absurd to see Councils as one party states on relatively low vote shares certainly compared to the vote shares governing parties get in actual one party states.
Examples like Newham, Richmond and doubtless some Conservative run authorities show how too many voices are cut out of the decision making process under FPTP. In my Borough, Newham, Labour won all 60 seats three times running - 2010, 2014 and 2018 - and yes they got 60% or more of the vote but that meant the 40% who didn't vote Labour were completely unrepresented.
Instead of an opposition of perhaps 20-25 Councillors with different voices to put forward different viewpoints and hold the ruling group to account, Labour held every seat. We deride one party states in authoritarian countries - why should we allow them in a plural democracy?
Let's have some form of proportional voting at local elections to ensure all voices in a community (or as many as possible) are represented on the local council and even if one side gets more than 50% and has a majority, they can be held to account by an active opposition.
FPTP can be a brilliant system, as individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes, and traditionally allows for stable government with two excellent and broadly based parties, both committed to centrist social democracy, to offer visions of an incrementally improving future and to compete on being brilliantly good at running a country and the state funded bits of it especially.
A very simple AV is marginally better because it gives space to newbies to grow up and compete with the big boys because you can vote for them and a traditional party backup if you want.
Like Ratner they have both damaged their reputations and given the appalling state of competence and policy ideas of all parties, new and old, there is no voting system that can both provide a majority supported government. Most people will be voting against a party, not in favour of one.
For any voting system to work you need outstandingly capable parties and candidates. We don't.
STV is proportional, and individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes. It’s as close to the perfect British electoral system as you can get.
The only objection to it for political nerds is that the results take a long time to come out, so it makes election night less exciting.
On topic, just about any system is better than FPTP but it does have one redeeming feature - possibly only one, but it's a biggy. People know it, are familiar with it, and they understand it. They are therefore suspicious and widely dismissive of proposed alternatives. This is a massive problem for the alternatives especially as it is not particularly clear which of them is best.
A further difficulty is the relatively complicated nature of the alternatives. This is particularly true of D'Hondt, which is an excellent system but hard to explain without pencil, paper, and diagrams. Also, Brenda of Bristol is notoriously stupid, so explaining anything to her is going to be difficult even if it is obviously in her own best interests. So she ain't gonna have it, at any price. Since she has the same vote as those that do understand D'Hondt and much else, she is perfectly positioned to block any advance.
So it ain't gonna happen. Ever.
Even if we just went for the old Mayoral system it would be better than we currently have.
1) have your protest vote 2) these are the top two candidates, and Dave won more votes based on combined first and second preferences than John so Dave wins with 48% of the total vote.
Now the downside of the system is that it gives none Reform voters 2 chances of picking the candidate most likely to beat the Reform candidate who got 35% of first round votes but the upside is that 13% more voters got their choice of candidate elected..
On PT somebody said it's a remote prospect that the Dems take the Senate in the Midterms. In fact they are the favs to do so @ 1.8.
It was me and I wouldn't be taking those odds. If you do, make sure you check out the definitions. In particular, you need to know how they deal with candidates who present under one one Party but Caucus under another.
Remember also that you are dealing with Betfair who tend to make the rules up as they go along.
And of course the prospect of vote rigging is not negligible.
FPTP can be a brilliant system, as individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes, and traditionally allows for stable government with two excellent and broadly based parties, both committed to centrist social democracy, to offer visions of an incrementally improving future and to compete on being brilliantly good at running a country and the state funded bits of it especially.
A very simple AV is marginally better because it gives space to newbies to grow up and compete with the big boys because you can vote for them and a traditional party backup if you want.
Like Ratner they have both damaged their reputations and given the appalling state of competence and policy ideas of all parties, new and old, there is no voting system that can both provide a majority supported government. Most people will be voting against a party, not in favour of one.
For any voting system to work you need outstandingly capable parties and candidates. We don't.
STV is proportional, and individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes. It’s as close to the perfect British electoral system as you can get.
The only objection to it for political nerds is that the results take a long time to come out, so it makes election night less exciting.
STV is various things, some of them good, but it's not proportional. If you imagine a party that is quite popular but disliked by a majority (Reform is a plausible example), you can get 30% of the votes under STV and zero seats. What you need to succeed in STV is to be quite popular (so you get to the last two) and not terriby unpopular with the majority. That's why the LibDems have been keen, though I'm not sure if they still are, because they may fail to get to the last two.
I'd start with some sort of PR for local elections - it's absurd to see Councils as one party states on relatively low vote shares certainly compared to the vote shares governing parties get in actual one party states.
Examples like Newham, Richmond and doubtless some Conservative run authorities show how too many voices are cut out of the decision making process under FPTP. In my Borough, Newham, Labour won all 60 seats three times running - 2010, 2014 and 2018 - and yes they got 60% or more of the vote but that meant the 40% who didn't vote Labour were completely unrepresented.
Instead of an opposition of perhaps 20-25 Councillors with different voices to put forward different viewpoints and hold the ruling group to account, Labour held every seat. We deride one party states in authoritarian countries - why should we allow them in a plural democracy?
Let's have some form of proportional voting at local elections to ensure all voices in a community (or as many as possible) are represented on the local council and even if one side gets more than 50% and has a majority, they can be held to account by an active opposition.
We already have PR in Scotland. We use STV, which, in my opinion, is the best of the various methods we currently use. I would be very happy to use STV for Westminster and Holyrood elections.
FPTP can be a brilliant system, as individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes, and traditionally allows for stable government with two excellent and broadly based parties, both committed to centrist social democracy, to offer visions of an incrementally improving future and to compete on being brilliantly good at running a country and the state funded bits of it especially.
A very simple AV is marginally better because it gives space to newbies to grow up and compete with the big boys because you can vote for them and a traditional party backup if you want.
Like Ratner they have both damaged their reputations and given the appalling state of competence and policy ideas of all parties, new and old, there is no voting system that can both provide a majority supported government. Most people will be voting against a party, not in favour of one.
For any voting system to work you need outstandingly capable parties and candidates. We don't.
STV is proportional, and individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes. It’s as close to the perfect British electoral system as you can get.
The only objection to it for political nerds is that the results take a long time to come out, so it makes election night less exciting.
I agree.
I hope most political parties put PR ranked choice (1,2,3) voting (but not a list system please) in their manifestos for the next GE so it can be passed without a referendum or stonewalling by the Lords.
LDs, Greens, Reform, SNP and PC are all in favour of some form of PR. Only the current Labour and Tory leadership are against.
About 66% of Labour members and several major trade unions (including UNISON and Unite) support a move to PR but the current leadership under Keir Starmer has ruled out immediate changes, maintaining that FPTP is the "right system" for providing strong government. Ha. However Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan are strongly in favour of PR so a change in Labour leadership may change Labour's position on PR. Angela Raynor is against PR for General Elections but despite her personal preference, she has previously said that she would support a move to PR if the Labour Party Conference voted to make it official party policy.
The Tory Party officially remains committed to First Past the Post, arguing it maintains a direct link between voters and their local MP. However, 2024–2025 polling suggests that support for PR among Conservative voters has increased significantly, reaching over 50% in some surveys, including HYUFD.
An open list system combines fairness with democracy better than PR. "Open" means that the voter, not the party, decide who gets the seats that the party wins. The list aspect ensures that the seats won are directly proiportional to the votes obtained. I know from 50 years of doorstep activity that 80% of voters go for the party rather than the individual, but with an open list the voter can choose between voting for an individual or simply for the party.
PR ranked choice (which I think is only seen in Anglo-Saxon countries for some reason) biases the system in favour of centrist parties - "I prefer Labour but I'll put up with the LibDems", etc. That msy be what many people want, but it's not fair. The list system, as practiced in Denmark, Sweden, Germany, etc., allows the voter to choose not just the party but the shade of opinion that they favour within the party, encounraging parties to offer a range of shades. In practice, like all PR systems, it usually leads to coalitions, which means that centrism wins anyway, but as an electoral choice rather than a systemic feature.
The problem is you lose the geographic link which I think is important. If you have an open list system within constituencies of say 4 or 5 seats to keep the geography link, then it is very similar to STV except that you would vote for a party rather than an individual. List systems, even open ones, strengthen the power of parties.
There are no easy replacements for the airborne warning and control system aircraft.
There are plenty of E-3s in the boneyard at DM but none of them have been through the 40/45 update so it would take 1-2 years to regenerate one from there. I suspect they just won't bother and keep the fleet at 15 unless they lose any more!
Yet another blunder from Starmer this morning. He's decided to personally intervene in the employment dispute with doctors, and his idea is to threaten the withdrawal of "thousands of extra training posts". Does he not realise that extra doctors hugely benefits patients?
More generally, I am fed up with politicians who cover up their inability to deliver anything by picking a fight. The most egregious example is of course trump, but a portion of most parties seem to be keen on the idea, mostly because it makes them feel powerful. Yes, there is a portion of the population who are dumb enough to fall for this, and automatically pick a side to support in any dispute, but it's incredibly corrosive to society and ultimately it's a con - we need leaders who know how to make our lives better, not promises to make someone else more miserable.
Starmer is right on this, 58% of voters oppose doctors going on strike. He wants more training places too but is prepared to punish doctors if they reject the above current inflation rate pay rise they have been offered
Starmer is issuing stupid threats. Either you need the extra training places or you don't. Suppose doctors don't give in on pay, does that mean we don't need the training places?
- The idea that there aren’t enough U.K. candidates suitable to be medics begs the question. Which is, how do the countries that produce a surplus of medics manage?
A better secondary education system - I'm sure my niece got into medicine in spite of (and to spite) her 11+ education rather than be helped by it.
That is a part of it, yes.
To say that we have all the possible candidates for becoming doctors is to argue that no child is being failed by the education system.
Not something that any teacher I have met thinks is true.
There's also a big pipeline effect here. In the late 1990s, there were about 5000 medical school places a year, who feed forward to properly senior doctors now. We've now got roughly twice as many entering the pipeline each year, which has revealed bottlenecks further along.
Medical schools are pitching for 15000 places a year as a steady-state target. Whether that many of our brilliant young people are brilliant in that way and to that degree, I'm not sure. Part of the answer may well lie in working out what non-doctor medical roles look like.
But a lot of our doctor shortage is due to choices made decades ago, which are being solved at the standard rate of one year per year.
YouGov sees small changes this week Reform UK: 23% (no change from 22-23 Mar) Greens: 19% (+1) Conservatives: 19% (+2) Labour: 18% (-1) Lib Dems: 12% (-1)
The Conservatives now second tied with the Greens and only 4% behind Reform is a much better result for Kemi.
Labour now third behind the Tories and Greens as well as Reform a dreadful result for Starmer with Yougov
Once Reform gets behind the Tories and the Greens in the polls, there is the very potent message from Kemi "Voting Reform lets in the bonkers Greens!" without having to label Reform as equally bonkers...
There is a lot that Labour *should* be doing this term. Changing the vote system could be one of them. Rejoining EFTA should be another.
But Starmer prefers to coast without realising that the world has changed dramatically these last four-five years and whatever rules or norms that passed for true just ten years ago don't apply anymore.
Chatting to Mandelson and Palantir lobbyists about how to get NHS trusts to sign up to Palantir tech, awarded without competition, and which apparently trusts dont want to use.
Streeting should not be responsible for this contract - clear COI.
FPTP can be a brilliant system, as individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes, and traditionally allows for stable government with two excellent and broadly based parties, both committed to centrist social democracy, to offer visions of an incrementally improving future and to compete on being brilliantly good at running a country and the state funded bits of it especially.
A very simple AV is marginally better because it gives space to newbies to grow up and compete with the big boys because you can vote for them and a traditional party backup if you want.
Like Ratner they have both damaged their reputations and given the appalling state of competence and policy ideas of all parties, new and old, there is no voting system that can both provide a majority supported government. Most people will be voting against a party, not in favour of one.
For any voting system to work you need outstandingly capable parties and candidates. We don't.
STV is proportional, and individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes. It’s as close to the perfect British electoral system as you can get.
The only objection to it for political nerds is that the results take a long time to come out, so it makes election night less exciting.
STV is various things, some of them good, but it's not proportional. If you imagine a party that is quite popular but disliked by a majority (Reform is a plausible example), you can get 30% of the votes under STV and zero seats. What you need to succeed in STV is to be quite popular (so you get to the last two) and not terriby unpopular with the majority. That's why the LibDems have been keen, though I'm not sure if they still are, because they may fail to get to the last two.
STV works best in multi-member constituencies, which helps remove the disadvantage you stated. Our ward has five councillors; 2 SNP, a Conservative and 2 independents, one of whom was elected as a Conservative, switched to Reform, and is now independent. The council is 12 SNP, 11 Labour, 5 Conservatives, 2 Reform (elected as Conservatives ) and 3 independents.
Yet another blunder from Starmer this morning. He's decided to personally intervene in the employment dispute with doctors, and his idea is to threaten the withdrawal of "thousands of extra training posts". Does he not realise that extra doctors hugely benefits patients?
More generally, I am fed up with politicians who cover up their inability to deliver anything by picking a fight. The most egregious example is of course trump, but a portion of most parties seem to be keen on the idea, mostly because it makes them feel powerful. Yes, there is a portion of the population who are dumb enough to fall for this, and automatically pick a side to support in any dispute, but it's incredibly corrosive to society and ultimately it's a con - we need leaders who know how to make our lives better, not promises to make someone else more miserable.
Starmer is right on this, 58% of voters oppose doctors going on strike. He wants more training places too but is prepared to punish doctors if they reject the above current inflation rate pay rise they have been offered
He has the right diagnosis, but along with all captured polys (in his case, by unions), the wrong prescription.
What he should be doing is promising to lower the bar to entering the profession, and, I don't know, suggesting any industrial action results in a year's lost pension contribution.
Speak quietly, and throw around an awful lot of stick.......
Speaking as somebody whose only medical qualification is a paediatric first aid certificate, he really, really shouldn’t.
Unless you mean by that increasing training places so more people who meet the bar can get on them.
I did indeed mean that - there are thousands more people who could be doctors each year, but are blocked because of vested interests of a body who now include whinging strikers.
Really you think there are thousands of people who could be doctors - I think reality is there a thousands of people who think they could be doctors but would discover they couldn't be. My niece is straight A's and incredibly hard working and she is finding her medical degree seriously hard work...
ISTR that some years ago, @Foxy reported that circumstances had forced an entire year's training intake to be of a 'lesser' standard. Lesser being strictly comparative, AIUI. That cohort must be well on through the training system now. It would be interesting to know how they have fared in training, and whether the 'lesser' factor is still apparent.
That was as a result of the A level thing in COVID. Some university classes increased in size by 25%
I'd start with some sort of PR for local elections - it's absurd to see Councils as one party states on relatively low vote shares certainly compared to the vote shares governing parties get in actual one party states.
Examples like Newham, Richmond and doubtless some Conservative run authorities show how too many voices are cut out of the decision making process under FPTP. In my Borough, Newham, Labour won all 60 seats three times running - 2010, 2014 and 2018 - and yes they got 60% or more of the vote but that meant the 40% who didn't vote Labour were completely unrepresented.
Instead of an opposition of perhaps 20-25 Councillors with different voices to put forward different viewpoints and hold the ruling group to account, Labour held every seat. We deride one party states in authoritarian countries - why should we allow them in a plural democracy?
Let's have some form of proportional voting at local elections to ensure all voices in a community (or as many as possible) are represented on the local council and even if one side gets more than 50% and has a majority, they can be held to account by an active opposition.
We already have PR in Scotland. We use STV, which, in my opinion, is the best of the various methods we currently use. I would be very happy to use STV for Westminster and Holyrood elections.
Indeed and I would introduce STV for all elections other than Westminster in England without hesitation.
I do think we need more thought about how we elect to the Commons.
One aspect I've not seen mentioned with reference to Local Government Re-organisation - in Surrey, as you know, the County, District and Borough Councils are being abolished to be replaced by two Unitaries. One of the "losers" from this will be locally based residents and independents who can win at the smaller District/Borough level but can't win against the main parties in larger Divisions outside their main area.
There's an active group of Residents in Hinchley Wood who always won the Hinchley Wood Ward on Elmbridge Council but they never competed for the County Division which is Claygate, Hinchley Wood & Oxshott as Claygate and Oxshott are outside their pirview. The new Unitary will elect two Councillors from the County Division and as a result the voice of the Hinchley Wood Residents is likely to be silenced at that tier of the council.
There's a part of me that believes in plural democracy and thinks this is just plain wrong.
YouGov in their commentary note 12% for the LDs is their lowest with YG this parliament. I dont think the -1 that caused it is of any significance nor in and of itself is dramatic but i will be interested if the likely relatively better locals for the LDs (for so they usually are) thrusts them back to a Summer/Autumn 25 level or, conversely, if their recent slight dip translates to a disappointing May round. Theyre hovering a bit between 'lack of coverage dip/blip' and 'problem territory' as it stands
There are no easy replacements for the airborne warning and control system aircraft.
There are plenty of E-3s in the boneyard at DM but none of them have been through the 40/45 update so it would take 1-2 years to regenerate one from there. I suspect they just won't bother and keep the fleet at 15 unless they lose any more!
This from 2023 suggests it is a miracle that those that still fly do at all, based on a long-gone 707 airframe:
Yet another blunder from Starmer this morning. He's decided to personally intervene in the employment dispute with doctors, and his idea is to threaten the withdrawal of "thousands of extra training posts". Does he not realise that extra doctors hugely benefits patients?
More generally, I am fed up with politicians who cover up their inability to deliver anything by picking a fight. The most egregious example is of course trump, but a portion of most parties seem to be keen on the idea, mostly because it makes them feel powerful. Yes, there is a portion of the population who are dumb enough to fall for this, and automatically pick a side to support in any dispute, but it's incredibly corrosive to society and ultimately it's a con - we need leaders who know how to make our lives better, not promises to make someone else more miserable.
Starmer is right on this, 58% of voters oppose doctors going on strike. He wants more training places too but is prepared to punish doctors if they reject the above current inflation rate pay rise they have been offered
Starmer is issuing stupid threats. Either you need the extra training places or you don't. Suppose doctors don't give in on pay, does that mean we don't need the training places?
Part of me suspects that this is more bad comms/messaging.
Clearly if the union rejects the deal - then they dont get to keep the bits they like and still negotiate on the bits they don't like. The whole thing fails.
Then some bright spark at No. 10 decided to use this reality to threaten BMA, but obviously everyone actually wants those training places - we need them!
FPTP can be a brilliant system, as individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes, and traditionally allows for stable government with two excellent and broadly based parties, both committed to centrist social democracy, to offer visions of an incrementally improving future and to compete on being brilliantly good at running a country and the state funded bits of it especially.
A very simple AV is marginally better because it gives space to newbies to grow up and compete with the big boys because you can vote for them and a traditional party backup if you want.
Like Ratner they have both damaged their reputations and given the appalling state of competence and policy ideas of all parties, new and old, there is no voting system that can both provide a majority supported government. Most people will be voting against a party, not in favour of one.
For any voting system to work you need outstandingly capable parties and candidates. We don't.
STV is proportional, and individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes. It’s as close to the perfect British electoral system as you can get.
The only objection to it for political nerds is that the results take a long time to come out, so it makes election night less exciting.
I would have thought that if you simply add more people to count the votes, then you can get the result almost as quickly as you want. In Ireland the parties have an unofficial system of tallymen, who have a pretty good track record of discerning the result before the official first count is completed.
On PT somebody said it's a remote prospect that the Dems take the Senate in the Midterms. In fact they are the favs to do so @ 1.8.
It was me and I wouldn't be taking those odds. If you do, make sure you check out the definitions. In particular, you need to know how they deal with candidates who present under one one Party but Caucus under another.
Remember also that you are dealing with Betfair who tend to make the rules up as they go along.
And of course the prospect of vote rigging is not negligible.
It's not a bet I'm looking at - certainly not this far out - but I'll be happy enough if it happens. What definitely is a remote prospect (sadly) is the 2/3 needed to perform the lifesaving operation.
FPTP can be a brilliant system, as individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes, and traditionally allows for stable government with two excellent and broadly based parties, both committed to centrist social democracy, to offer visions of an incrementally improving future and to compete on being brilliantly good at running a country and the state funded bits of it especially.
A very simple AV is marginally better because it gives space to newbies to grow up and compete with the big boys because you can vote for them and a traditional party backup if you want.
Like Ratner they have both damaged their reputations and given the appalling state of competence and policy ideas of all parties, new and old, there is no voting system that can both provide a majority supported government. Most people will be voting against a party, not in favour of one.
For any voting system to work you need outstandingly capable parties and candidates. We don't.
STV is proportional, and individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes. It’s as close to the perfect British electoral system as you can get.
The only objection to it for political nerds is that the results take a long time to come out, so it makes election night less exciting.
I agree.
I hope most political parties put PR ranked choice (1,2,3) voting (but not a list system please) in their manifestos for the next GE so it can be passed without a referendum or stonewalling by the Lords.
LDs, Greens, Reform, SNP and PC are all in favour of some form of PR. Only the current Labour and Tory leadership are against.
About 66% of Labour members and several major trade unions (including UNISON and Unite) support a move to PR but the current leadership under Keir Starmer has ruled out immediate changes, maintaining that FPTP is the "right system" for providing strong government. Ha. However Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan are strongly in favour of PR so a change in Labour leadership may change Labour's position on PR. Angela Raynor is against PR for General Elections but despite her personal preference, she has previously said that she would support a move to PR if the Labour Party Conference voted to make it official party policy.
The Tory Party officially remains committed to First Past the Post, arguing it maintains a direct link between voters and their local MP. However, 2024–2025 polling suggests that support for PR among Conservative voters has increased significantly, reaching over 50% in some surveys, including HYUFD.
An open list system combines fairness with democracy better than PR. "Open" means that the voter, not the party, decide who gets the seats that the party wins. The list aspect ensures that the seats won are directly proiportional to the votes obtained. I know from 50 years of doorstep activity that 80% of voters go for the party rather than the individual, but with an open list the voter can choose between voting for an individual or simply for the party.
PR ranked choice (which I think is only seen in Anglo-Saxon countries for some reason) biases the system in favour of centrist parties - "I prefer Labour but I'll put up with the LibDems", etc. That msy be what many people want, but it's not fair. The list system, as practiced in Denmark, Sweden, Germany, etc., allows the voter to choose not just the party but the shade of opinion that they favour within the party, encounraging parties to offer a range of shades. In practice, like all PR systems, it usually leads to coalitions, which means that centrism wins anyway, but as an electoral choice rather than a systemic feature.
The problem is you lose the geographic link which I think is important. If you have an open list system within constituencies of say 4 or 5 seats to keep the geography link, then it is very similar to STV except that you would vote for a party rather than an individual. List systems, even open ones, strengthen the power of parties.
Morning all! Not 'Good' as it's a bit damp and miserable round here!
However, on topic the Irish seem to manage the ink between individual constituency nd parliamentarian well enough, given the number of independents elected.
FPTP can be a brilliant system, as individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes, and traditionally allows for stable government with two excellent and broadly based parties, both committed to centrist social democracy, to offer visions of an incrementally improving future and to compete on being brilliantly good at running a country and the state funded bits of it especially.
A very simple AV is marginally better because it gives space to newbies to grow up and compete with the big boys because you can vote for them and a traditional party backup if you want.
Like Ratner they have both damaged their reputations and given the appalling state of competence and policy ideas of all parties, new and old, there is no voting system that can both provide a majority supported government. Most people will be voting against a party, not in favour of one.
For any voting system to work you need outstandingly capable parties and candidates. We don't.
STV is proportional, and individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes. It’s as close to the perfect British electoral system as you can get.
The only objection to it for political nerds is that the results take a long time to come out, so it makes election night less exciting.
I agree.
I hope most political parties put PR ranked choice (1,2,3) voting (but not a list system please) in their manifestos for the next GE so it can be passed without a referendum or stonewalling by the Lords.
LDs, Greens, Reform, SNP and PC are all in favour of some form of PR. Only the current Labour and Tory leadership are against.
About 66% of Labour members and several major trade unions (including UNISON and Unite) support a move to PR but the current leadership under Keir Starmer has ruled out immediate changes, maintaining that FPTP is the "right system" for providing strong government. Ha. However Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan are strongly in favour of PR so a change in Labour leadership may change Labour's position on PR. Angela Raynor is against PR for General Elections but despite her personal preference, she has previously said that she would support a move to PR if the Labour Party Conference voted to make it official party policy.
The Tory Party officially remains committed to First Past the Post, arguing it maintains a direct link between voters and their local MP. However, 2024–2025 polling suggests that support for PR among Conservative voters has increased significantly, reaching over 50% in some surveys, including HYUFD.
An open list system combines fairness with democracy better than PR. "Open" means that the voter, not the party, decide who gets the seats that the party wins. The list aspect ensures that the seats won are directly proiportional to the votes obtained. I know from 50 years of doorstep activity that 80% of voters go for the party rather than the individual, but with an open list the voter can choose between voting for an individual or simply for the party.
PR ranked choice (which I think is only seen in Anglo-Saxon countries for some reason) biases the system in favour of centrist parties - "I prefer Labour but I'll put up with the LibDems", etc. That msy be what many people want, but it's not fair. The list system, as practiced in Denmark, Sweden, Germany, etc., allows the voter to choose not just the party but the shade of opinion that they favour within the party, encounraging parties to offer a range of shades. In practice, like all PR systems, it usually leads to coalitions, which means that centrism wins anyway, but as an electoral choice rather than a systemic feature.
The problem is you lose the geographic link which I think is important. If you have an open list system within constituencies of say 4 or 5 seats to keep the geography link, then it is very similar to STV except that you would vote for a party rather than an individual. List systems, even open ones, strengthen the power of parties.
It's a long time since I lived in Denmark, but I think that their system is indeed PR list with geigrophic areas and an option for parties to choose not to bias the results to benefit the top slots. So Copenhagen has N seats, and parties put up N candidates. Say your preferred party gets 20% of the vote - they then get 20% of the seats, but with open list systems the voter chooses which of their N candidates should get the seats, enabling the voter to choose a shade of opinion within the party. Thus it produces a proportional result, but the actual MPs that result are chosen by the voter, not the party.
The difference from STV is that if the party gets 20% of the vote, it gets 20% of the seats, whereas with STV they could end up with zero. That recognises the reality that most voters prefer one party to another, but the voter still chooses which candidates get the seats, and the parties are well-advised to offer a range of choice.
STV is better if one favours the system loading the dice in favour of the least-disliked party, which will tend to be a centrist party - that's arguably why the LibDems have historically liked it. I see the attraction but I think the system itself should be neutral.
FPTP can be a brilliant system, as individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes, and traditionally allows for stable government with two excellent and broadly based parties, both committed to centrist social democracy, to offer visions of an incrementally improving future and to compete on being brilliantly good at running a country and the state funded bits of it especially.
A very simple AV is marginally better because it gives space to newbies to grow up and compete with the big boys because you can vote for them and a traditional party backup if you want.
Like Ratner they have both damaged their reputations and given the appalling state of competence and policy ideas of all parties, new and old, there is no voting system that can both provide a majority supported government. Most people will be voting against a party, not in favour of one.
For any voting system to work you need outstandingly capable parties and candidates. We don't.
STV is proportional, and individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes. It’s as close to the perfect British electoral system as you can get.
The only objection to it for political nerds is that the results take a long time to come out, so it makes election night less exciting.
Not sure. The Electoral reform Society says this of STV:
Rather than one person representing everyone in a small area, bigger areas elect a small group of representatives, such as 4 or 5. These representatives reflect the diversity of opinions in the area.
Which is a big move away from the single individual representing all the people of a single seat, which is one of FPTP's merits.
A single individual representing all the people of a single seat, even if that individual was opposed by 70% of voters in that seat, is one of FPTP's disadvantages. The other is that, if you support a particular Party, you have only the one choice - the one that the Party machine has nominated. With STV you can choose between candidates of the same party.
You can choose between candidates of the same party under STV only if the party stands more candidates than it wins seats.
Often that doesn't happen, and so the voters are denied such a choice.
It just goes to show that there's no perfect electoral system, and people will game any system you create.
FPTP can be a brilliant system, as individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes, and traditionally allows for stable government with two excellent and broadly based parties, both committed to centrist social democracy, to offer visions of an incrementally improving future and to compete on being brilliantly good at running a country and the state funded bits of it especially.
A very simple AV is marginally better because it gives space to newbies to grow up and compete with the big boys because you can vote for them and a traditional party backup if you want.
Like Ratner they have both damaged their reputations and given the appalling state of competence and policy ideas of all parties, new and old, there is no voting system that can both provide a majority supported government. Most people will be voting against a party, not in favour of one.
For any voting system to work you need outstandingly capable parties and candidates. We don't.
STV is proportional, and individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes. It’s as close to the perfect British electoral system as you can get.
The only objection to it for political nerds is that the results take a long time to come out, so it makes election night less exciting.
I agree.
I hope most political parties put PR ranked choice (1,2,3) voting (but not a list system please) in their manifestos for the next GE so it can be passed without a referendum or stonewalling by the Lords.
LDs, Greens, Reform, SNP and PC are all in favour of some form of PR. Only the current Labour and Tory leadership are against.
About 66% of Labour members and several major trade unions (including UNISON and Unite) support a move to PR but the current leadership under Keir Starmer has ruled out immediate changes, maintaining that FPTP is the "right system" for providing strong government. Ha. However Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan are strongly in favour of PR so a change in Labour leadership may change Labour's position on PR. Angela Raynor is against PR for General Elections but despite her personal preference, she has previously said that she would support a move to PR if the Labour Party Conference voted to make it official party policy.
The Tory Party officially remains committed to First Past the Post, arguing it maintains a direct link between voters and their local MP. However, 2024–2025 polling suggests that support for PR among Conservative voters has increased significantly, reaching over 50% in some surveys, including HYUFD.
An open list system combines fairness with democracy better than PR. "Open" means that the voter, not the party, decide who gets the seats that the party wins. The list aspect ensures that the seats won are directly proiportional to the votes obtained. I know from 50 years of doorstep activity that 80% of voters go for the party rather than the individual, but with an open list the voter can choose between voting for an individual or simply for the party.
PR ranked choice (which I think is only seen in Anglo-Saxon countries for some reason) biases the system in favour of centrist parties - "I prefer Labour but I'll put up with the LibDems", etc. That msy be what many people want, but it's not fair. The list system, as practiced in Denmark, Sweden, Germany, etc., allows the voter to choose not just the party but the shade of opinion that they favour within the party, encounraging parties to offer a range of shades. In practice, like all PR systems, it usually leads to coalitions, which means that centrism wins anyway, but as an electoral choice rather than a systemic feature.
The problem is you lose the geographic link which I think is important. If you have an open list system within constituencies of say 4 or 5 seats to keep the geography link, then it is very similar to STV except that you would vote for a party rather than an individual. List systems, even open ones, strengthen the power of parties.
It's a long time since I lived in Denmark, but I think that their system is indeed PR list with geigrophic areas and an option for parties to choose not to bias the results to benefit the top slots. So Copenhagen has N seats, and parties put up N candidates. Say your preferred party gets 20% of the vote - they then get 20% of the seats, but with open list systems the voter chooses which of their N candidates should get the seats, enabling the voter to choose a shade of opinion within the party. Thus it produces a proportional result, but the actual MPs that result are chosen by the voter, not the party.
The difference from STV is that if the party gets 20% of the vote, it gets 20% of the seats, whereas with STV they could end up with zero. That recognises the reality that most voters prefer one party to another, but the voter still chooses which candidates get the seats, and the parties are well-advised to offer a range of choice.
STV is better if one favours the system loading the dice in favour of the least-disliked party, which will tend to be a centrist party - that's arguably why the LibDems have historically liked it. I see the attraction but I think the system itself should be neutral.
FPTP can be a brilliant system, as individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes, and traditionally allows for stable government with two excellent and broadly based parties, both committed to centrist social democracy, to offer visions of an incrementally improving future and to compete on being brilliantly good at running a country and the state funded bits of it especially.
A very simple AV is marginally better because it gives space to newbies to grow up and compete with the big boys because you can vote for them and a traditional party backup if you want.
Like Ratner they have both damaged their reputations and given the appalling state of competence and policy ideas of all parties, new and old, there is no voting system that can both provide a majority supported government. Most people will be voting against a party, not in favour of one.
For any voting system to work you need outstandingly capable parties and candidates. We don't.
STV is proportional, and individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes. It’s as close to the perfect British electoral system as you can get.
The only objection to it for political nerds is that the results take a long time to come out, so it makes election night less exciting.
I would have thought that if you simply add more people to count the votes, then you can get the result almost as quickly as you want. In Ireland the parties have an unofficial system of tallymen, who have a pretty good track record of discerning the result before the official first count is completed.
If you used machine reading of the polling slips and a simple computer program, you could get STV results out faster than the current FPTP manual system.
But you'd lose the drama and speculation of the count.
FPTP can be a brilliant system, as individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes, and traditionally allows for stable government with two excellent and broadly based parties, both committed to centrist social democracy, to offer visions of an incrementally improving future and to compete on being brilliantly good at running a country and the state funded bits of it especially.
A very simple AV is marginally better because it gives space to newbies to grow up and compete with the big boys because you can vote for them and a traditional party backup if you want.
Like Ratner they have both damaged their reputations and given the appalling state of competence and policy ideas of all parties, new and old, there is no voting system that can both provide a majority supported government. Most people will be voting against a party, not in favour of one.
For any voting system to work you need outstandingly capable parties and candidates. We don't.
STV is proportional, and individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes. It’s as close to the perfect British electoral system as you can get.
The only objection to it for political nerds is that the results take a long time to come out, so it makes election night less exciting.
I agree.
I hope most political parties put PR ranked choice (1,2,3) voting (but not a list system please) in their manifestos for the next GE so it can be passed without a referendum or stonewalling by the Lords.
LDs, Greens, Reform, SNP and PC are all in favour of some form of PR. Only the current Labour and Tory leadership are against.
About 66% of Labour members and several major trade unions (including UNISON and Unite) support a move to PR but the current leadership under Keir Starmer has ruled out immediate changes, maintaining that FPTP is the "right system" for providing strong government. Ha. However Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan are strongly in favour of PR so a change in Labour leadership may change Labour's position on PR. Angela Raynor is against PR for General Elections but despite her personal preference, she has previously said that she would support a move to PR if the Labour Party Conference voted to make it official party policy.
The Tory Party officially remains committed to First Past the Post, arguing it maintains a direct link between voters and their local MP. However, 2024–2025 polling suggests that support for PR among Conservative voters has increased significantly, reaching over 50% in some surveys, including HYUFD.
An open list system combines fairness with democracy better than PR. "Open" means that the voter, not the party, decide who gets the seats that the party wins. The list aspect ensures that the seats won are directly proiportional to the votes obtained. I know from 50 years of doorstep activity that 80% of voters go for the party rather than the individual, but with an open list the voter can choose between voting for an individual or simply for the party.
PR ranked choice (which I think is only seen in Anglo-Saxon countries for some reason) biases the system in favour of centrist parties - "I prefer Labour but I'll put up with the LibDems", etc. That msy be what many people want, but it's not fair. The list system, as practiced in Denmark, Sweden, Germany, etc., allows the voter to choose not just the party but the shade of opinion that they favour within the party, encounraging parties to offer a range of shades. In practice, like all PR systems, it usually leads to coalitions, which means that centrism wins anyway, but as an electoral choice rather than a systemic feature.
The problem is you lose the geographic link which I think is important. If you have an open list system within constituencies of say 4 or 5 seats to keep the geography link, then it is very similar to STV except that you would vote for a party rather than an individual. List systems, even open ones, strengthen the power of parties.
It's a long time since I lived in Denmark, but I think that their system is indeed PR list with geigrophic areas and an option for parties to choose not to bias the results to benefit the top slots. So Copenhagen has N seats, and parties put up N candidates. Say your preferred party gets 20% of the vote - they then get 20% of the seats, but with open list systems the voter chooses which of their N candidates should get the seats, enabling the voter to choose a shade of opinion within the party. Thus it produces a proportional result, but the actual MPs that result are chosen by the voter, not the party.
The difference from STV is that if the party gets 20% of the vote, it gets 20% of the seats, whereas with STV they could end up with zero. That recognises the reality that most voters prefer one party to another, but the voter still chooses which candidates get the seats, and the parties are well-advised to offer a range of choice.
STV is better if one favours the system loading the dice in favour of the least-disliked party, which will tend to be a centrist party - that's arguably why the LibDems have historically liked it. I see the attraction but I think the system itself should be neutral.
Yet another blunder from Starmer this morning. He's decided to personally intervene in the employment dispute with doctors, and his idea is to threaten the withdrawal of "thousands of extra training posts". Does he not realise that extra doctors hugely benefits patients?
More generally, I am fed up with politicians who cover up their inability to deliver anything by picking a fight. The most egregious example is of course trump, but a portion of most parties seem to be keen on the idea, mostly because it makes them feel powerful. Yes, there is a portion of the population who are dumb enough to fall for this, and automatically pick a side to support in any dispute, but it's incredibly corrosive to society and ultimately it's a con - we need leaders who know how to make our lives better, not promises to make someone else more miserable.
Starmer is right on this, 58% of voters oppose doctors going on strike. He wants more training places too but is prepared to punish doctors if they reject the above current inflation rate pay rise they have been offered
He has the right diagnosis, but along with all captured polys (in his case, by unions), the wrong prescription.
What he should be doing is promising to lower the bar to entering the profession, and, I don't know, suggesting any industrial action results in a year's lost pension contribution.
Speak quietly, and throw around an awful lot of stick.......
Speaking as somebody whose only medical qualification is a paediatric first aid certificate, he really, really shouldn’t.
Unless you mean by that increasing training places so more people who meet the bar can get on them.
I did indeed mean that - there are thousands more people who could be doctors each year, but are blocked because of vested interests of a body who now include whinging strikers.
Really you think there are thousands of people who could be doctors - I think reality is there a thousands of people who think they could be doctors but would discover they couldn't be. My niece is straight A's and incredibly hard working and she is finding her medical degree seriously hard work...
ISTR that some years ago, @Foxy reported that circumstances had forced an entire year's training intake to be of a 'lesser' standard. Lesser being strictly comparative, AIUI. That cohort must be well on through the training system now. It would be interesting to know how they have fared in training, and whether the 'lesser' factor is still apparent.
That was as a result of the A level thing in COVID. Some university classes increased in size by 25%
NHS training places did not increase.
Ah, thank you, was it? I'd have expected that to result in the cohort being above average.
FPTP can be a brilliant system, as individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes, and traditionally allows for stable government with two excellent and broadly based parties, both committed to centrist social democracy, to offer visions of an incrementally improving future and to compete on being brilliantly good at running a country and the state funded bits of it especially.
A very simple AV is marginally better because it gives space to newbies to grow up and compete with the big boys because you can vote for them and a traditional party backup if you want.
Like Ratner they have both damaged their reputations and given the appalling state of competence and policy ideas of all parties, new and old, there is no voting system that can both provide a majority supported government. Most people will be voting against a party, not in favour of one.
For any voting system to work you need outstandingly capable parties and candidates. We don't.
STV is proportional, and individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes. It’s as close to the perfect British electoral system as you can get.
The only objection to it for political nerds is that the results take a long time to come out, so it makes election night less exciting.
I would have thought that if you simply add more people to count the votes, then you can get the result almost as quickly as you want. In Ireland the parties have an unofficial system of tallymen, who have a pretty good track record of discerning the result before the official first count is completed.
If you used machine reading of the polling slips and a simple computer program, you could get STV results out faster than the current FPTP manual system.
But you'd lose the drama and speculation of the count.
The allegations of "mistakes" etc are bad enough with hand counting.
FPTP can be a brilliant system, as individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes, and traditionally allows for stable government with two excellent and broadly based parties, both committed to centrist social democracy, to offer visions of an incrementally improving future and to compete on being brilliantly good at running a country and the state funded bits of it especially.
A very simple AV is marginally better because it gives space to newbies to grow up and compete with the big boys because you can vote for them and a traditional party backup if you want.
Like Ratner they have both damaged their reputations and given the appalling state of competence and policy ideas of all parties, new and old, there is no voting system that can both provide a majority supported government. Most people will be voting against a party, not in favour of one.
For any voting system to work you need outstandingly capable parties and candidates. We don't.
STV is proportional, and individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes. It’s as close to the perfect British electoral system as you can get.
The only objection to it for political nerds is that the results take a long time to come out, so it makes election night less exciting.
I agree.
I hope most political parties put PR ranked choice (1,2,3) voting (but not a list system please) in their manifestos for the next GE so it can be passed without a referendum or stonewalling by the Lords.
LDs, Greens, Reform, SNP and PC are all in favour of some form of PR. Only the current Labour and Tory leadership are against.
About 66% of Labour members and several major trade unions (including UNISON and Unite) support a move to PR but the current leadership under Keir Starmer has ruled out immediate changes, maintaining that FPTP is the "right system" for providing strong government. Ha. However Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan are strongly in favour of PR so a change in Labour leadership may change Labour's position on PR. Angela Raynor is against PR for General Elections but despite her personal preference, she has previously said that she would support a move to PR if the Labour Party Conference voted to make it official party policy.
The Tory Party officially remains committed to First Past the Post, arguing it maintains a direct link between voters and their local MP. However, 2024–2025 polling suggests that support for PR among Conservative voters has increased significantly, reaching over 50% in some surveys, including HYUFD.
An open list system combines fairness with democracy better than PR. "Open" means that the voter, not the party, decide who gets the seats that the party wins. The list aspect ensures that the seats won are directly proiportional to the votes obtained. I know from 50 years of doorstep activity that 80% of voters go for the party rather than the individual, but with an open list the voter can choose between voting for an individual or simply for the party.
PR ranked choice (which I think is only seen in Anglo-Saxon countries for some reason) biases the system in favour of centrist parties - "I prefer Labour but I'll put up with the LibDems", etc. That msy be what many people want, but it's not fair. The list system, as practiced in Denmark, Sweden, Germany, etc., allows the voter to choose not just the party but the shade of opinion that they favour within the party, encounraging parties to offer a range of shades. In practice, like all PR systems, it usually leads to coalitions, which means that centrism wins anyway, but as an electoral choice rather than a systemic feature.
The problem is you lose the geographic link which I think is important. If you have an open list system within constituencies of say 4 or 5 seats to keep the geography link, then it is very similar to STV except that you would vote for a party rather than an individual. List systems, even open ones, strengthen the power of parties.
It's a long time since I lived in Denmark, but I think that their system is indeed PR list with geigrophic areas and an option for parties to choose not to bias the results to benefit the top slots. So Copenhagen has N seats, and parties put up N candidates. Say your preferred party gets 20% of the vote - they then get 20% of the seats, but with open list systems the voter chooses which of their N candidates should get the seats, enabling the voter to choose a shade of opinion within the party. Thus it produces a proportional result, but the actual MPs that result are chosen by the voter, not the party.
The difference from STV is that if the party gets 20% of the vote, it gets 20% of the seats, whereas with STV they could end up with zero. That recognises the reality that most voters prefer one party to another, but the voter still chooses which candidates get the seats, and the parties are well-advised to offer a range of choice.
STV is better if one favours the system loading the dice in favour of the least-disliked party, which will tend to be a centrist party - that's arguably why the LibDems have historically liked it. I see the attraction but I think the system itself should be neutral.
I think you are misunderstanding how STV works.
For example, in a 4-member STV constituency the quota is 20%+1 of the vote, so a candidate that receives 20%+1 of the vote is elected on the first count.
FPTP can be a brilliant system, as individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes, and traditionally allows for stable government with two excellent and broadly based parties, both committed to centrist social democracy, to offer visions of an incrementally improving future and to compete on being brilliantly good at running a country and the state funded bits of it especially.
A very simple AV is marginally better because it gives space to newbies to grow up and compete with the big boys because you can vote for them and a traditional party backup if you want.
Like Ratner they have both damaged their reputations and given the appalling state of competence and policy ideas of all parties, new and old, there is no voting system that can both provide a majority supported government. Most people will be voting against a party, not in favour of one.
For any voting system to work you need outstandingly capable parties and candidates. We don't.
STV is proportional, and individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes. It’s as close to the perfect British electoral system as you can get.
The only objection to it for political nerds is that the results take a long time to come out, so it makes election night less exciting.
I would have thought that if you simply add more people to count the votes, then you can get the result almost as quickly as you want. In Ireland the parties have an unofficial system of tallymen, who have a pretty good track record of discerning the result before the official first count is completed.
If you used machine reading of the polling slips and a simple computer program, you could get STV results out faster than the current FPTP manual system.
But you'd lose the drama and speculation of the count.
The allegations of "mistakes" etc are bad enough with hand counting.
I stick to my oft-stated position on voting systems; that we need to have a system that identifies everybody's second favourite even if they're no-one's first choice. Stupid to appoint someone with a lukewarm vote when 100% of the voters are actually fairly keen on one other person.
Yet another blunder from Starmer this morning. He's decided to personally intervene in the employment dispute with doctors, and his idea is to threaten the withdrawal of "thousands of extra training posts". Does he not realise that extra doctors hugely benefits patients?
More generally, I am fed up with politicians who cover up their inability to deliver anything by picking a fight. The most egregious example is of course trump, but a portion of most parties seem to be keen on the idea, mostly because it makes them feel powerful. Yes, there is a portion of the population who are dumb enough to fall for this, and automatically pick a side to support in any dispute, but it's incredibly corrosive to society and ultimately it's a con - we need leaders who know how to make our lives better, not promises to make someone else more miserable.
Whatever the merits of your post, I am not sure the public are foursquare behind the Resident Doctors and their pay demands this time around under current economic circumstances.
Their beef is with Long- Osborne rather than short Starmer.
Let's take that as an assumption - and I agree it's likely a good one - Starmer has an open goal here. And yet he can't seem to help muffing it by threatening something that would hurt patients over the longer term. It's kind of incredible that someone so bad at politics became PM.
You evidently weren't around when Liz Truss set the bar at an all-time high in the Bad At Politics event for PMs.
Liz Truss at her worst did not poll as badly as Starmer.
Starmer's gone as low as -57 favourable but is now at -46, while Labour is still at 19% but is only 9 points behind the first placed party.
There is something puzzling in the data for me.
Labour’s poll ratings are undoubtedly terrible but Reform has never got close to Labour’s best polling during the 2019-2024 period.
To me it suggests Reform is not very popular and isn’t really in a good place to win a majority. It’s why I think Labour should change leaders in 2028.
I don’t think it’s that much of a puzzle, Reform and the Cons are splitting the right wing vote; if the Cons gave up, as Reform had 2019-2024, Reform would be polling a lot higher. Labour had the left wing/anti govt vote to themselves pretty much
Labours best polling in that period didn’t really stand up to scrutiny, they never got the votes, even in By Elections, that indicated 45-50% at a GE, and in the end they didn’t get that many votes for a party that won an outright majority, fewer than the previous two losing efforts in fact
FPTP can be a brilliant system, as individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes, and traditionally allows for stable government with two excellent and broadly based parties, both committed to centrist social democracy, to offer visions of an incrementally improving future and to compete on being brilliantly good at running a country and the state funded bits of it especially.
A very simple AV is marginally better because it gives space to newbies to grow up and compete with the big boys because you can vote for them and a traditional party backup if you want.
Like Ratner they have both damaged their reputations and given the appalling state of competence and policy ideas of all parties, new and old, there is no voting system that can both provide a majority supported government. Most people will be voting against a party, not in favour of one.
For any voting system to work you need outstandingly capable parties and candidates. We don't.
STV is proportional, and individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes. It’s as close to the perfect British electoral system as you can get.
The only objection to it for political nerds is that the results take a long time to come out, so it makes election night less exciting.
I agree.
I hope most political parties put PR ranked choice (1,2,3) voting (but not a list system please) in their manifestos for the next GE so it can be passed without a referendum or stonewalling by the Lords.
LDs, Greens, Reform, SNP and PC are all in favour of some form of PR. Only the current Labour and Tory leadership are against.
About 66% of Labour members and several major trade unions (including UNISON and Unite) support a move to PR but the current leadership under Keir Starmer has ruled out immediate changes, maintaining that FPTP is the "right system" for providing strong government. Ha. However Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan are strongly in favour of PR so a change in Labour leadership may change Labour's position on PR. Angela Raynor is against PR for General Elections but despite her personal preference, she has previously said that she would support a move to PR if the Labour Party Conference voted to make it official party policy.
The Tory Party officially remains committed to First Past the Post, arguing it maintains a direct link between voters and their local MP. However, 2024–2025 polling suggests that support for PR among Conservative voters has increased significantly, reaching over 50% in some surveys, including HYUFD.
An open list system combines fairness with democracy better than PR. "Open" means that the voter, not the party, decide who gets the seats that the party wins. The list aspect ensures that the seats won are directly proiportional to the votes obtained. I know from 50 years of doorstep activity that 80% of voters go for the party rather than the individual, but with an open list the voter can choose between voting for an individual or simply for the party.
PR ranked choice (which I think is only seen in Anglo-Saxon countries for some reason) biases the system in favour of centrist parties - "I prefer Labour but I'll put up with the LibDems", etc. That msy be what many people want, but it's not fair. The list system, as practiced in Denmark, Sweden, Germany, etc., allows the voter to choose not just the party but the shade of opinion that they favour within the party, encounraging parties to offer a range of shades. In practice, like all PR systems, it usually leads to coalitions, which means that centrism wins anyway, but as an electoral choice rather than a systemic feature.
The problem is you lose the geographic link which I think is important. If you have an open list system within constituencies of say 4 or 5 seats to keep the geography link, then it is very similar to STV except that you would vote for a party rather than an individual. List systems, even open ones, strengthen the power of parties.
It's a long time since I lived in Denmark, but I think that their system is indeed PR list with geigrophic areas and an option for parties to choose not to bias the results to benefit the top slots. So Copenhagen has N seats, and parties put up N candidates. Say your preferred party gets 20% of the vote - they then get 20% of the seats, but with open list systems the voter chooses which of their N candidates should get the seats, enabling the voter to choose a shade of opinion within the party. Thus it produces a proportional result, but the actual MPs that result are chosen by the voter, not the party.
The difference from STV is that if the party gets 20% of the vote, it gets 20% of the seats, whereas with STV they could end up with zero. That recognises the reality that most voters prefer one party to another, but the voter still chooses which candidates get the seats, and the parties are well-advised to offer a range of choice.
STV is better if one favours the system loading the dice in favour of the least-disliked party, which will tend to be a centrist party - that's arguably why the LibDems have historically liked it. I see the attraction but I think the system itself should be neutral.
Your local open list system could work well. I'd like to see it in practice. I'll research Copenhagen.
I don't think Lib Dems favour STV because it favours centrist parties!
Here in Richmond on Thames, the LDs have 49/54 seats with 5 Greens in opposition. No Tories or Labour Councillors at all. After the locals in May, the LDs may well have 54/54 seats here as we've ditched our deal with the Greens which gave them a clear run at some seats. FPTP is clearly a ridiculous system that massively favours the LDs here. But LDs still favour a proportional system (STV) which would substantially reduce their seats locally and be about neutral nationally.
It's not all about party advantage. It's a matter of fairer and more effective governance. And helping restoring the public's trust in the electoral system and politics in general.
There is a lot that Labour *should* be doing this term. Changing the vote system could be one of them. Rejoining EFTA should be another.
But Starmer prefers to coast without realising that the world has changed dramatically these last four-five years and whatever rules or norms that passed for true just ten years ago don't apply anymore.
Starmer's entire Premiership is going to be dominated by responding generally badly to crazy things Donald Trump has done, which was easily anticipated once it became clear Trump was going to run again. Despite this obvious calamity heading our way the UK government has done little to prepare, and even now seems to be lacking any urgency to prepare for plausible near term problems like a Russian attack in the Baltic, the US abruptly leaving NATO, China attacking Taiwan, and the US doing all kinds of mad things vis-à-vis Canada, Greenland, Mexico etc.
Maybe I'm wrong and there's a huge amount going on quietly, but I see no sign of it, we have a very slow-witted government in a time when we perhaps need leadership and action more than any time since WWII.
Was looking at some commentary on the recent Reform poll decline and there is some suggestion the biggest loss is amongst 2024 non voters (whats the point? Is back). These were the voters turning out that propelled them to 30% plus NEV in 2025. Without some of them and on a declining vote share trend then i think we might be 'underconsidering' a bIg undershoot versus expectations. Especially in London - they are already falling apart in Croydon with mass resignations etc
FPTP can be a brilliant system, as individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes, and traditionally allows for stable government with two excellent and broadly based parties, both committed to centrist social democracy, to offer visions of an incrementally improving future and to compete on being brilliantly good at running a country and the state funded bits of it especially.
A very simple AV is marginally better because it gives space to newbies to grow up and compete with the big boys because you can vote for them and a traditional party backup if you want.
Like Ratner they have both damaged their reputations and given the appalling state of competence and policy ideas of all parties, new and old, there is no voting system that can both provide a majority supported government. Most people will be voting against a party, not in favour of one.
For any voting system to work you need outstandingly capable parties and candidates. We don't.
STV is proportional, and individuals have to win seats rather than machines winning votes. It’s as close to the perfect British electoral system as you can get.
The only objection to it for political nerds is that the results take a long time to come out, so it makes election night less exciting.
Not sure. The Electoral reform Society says this of STV:
Rather than one person representing everyone in a small area, bigger areas elect a small group of representatives, such as 4 or 5. These representatives reflect the diversity of opinions in the area.
Which is a big move away from the single individual representing all the people of a single seat, which is one of FPTP's merits.
A single individual representing all the people of a single seat, even if that individual was opposed by 70% of voters in that seat, is one of FPTP's disadvantages. The other is that, if you support a particular Party, you have only the one choice - the one that the Party machine has nominated. With STV you can choose between candidates of the same party.
You can choose between candidates of the same party under STV only if the party stands more candidates than it wins seats.
Often that doesn't happen, and so the voters are denied such a choice.
It just goes to show that there's no perfect electoral system, and people will game any system you create.
You rank your choice between the candidates of the party you support. You have an important choice between candidates that you don't get under FPTV.
There are no easy replacements for the airborne warning and control system aircraft.
There are plenty of E-3s in the boneyard at DM but none of them have been through the 40/45 update so it would take 1-2 years to regenerate one from there. I suspect they just won't bother and keep the fleet at 15 unless they lose any more!
There is a lot that Labour *should* be doing this term. Changing the vote system could be one of them. Rejoining EFTA should be another.
But Starmer prefers to coast without realising that the world has changed dramatically these last four-five years and whatever rules or norms that passed for true just ten years ago don't apply anymore.
Starmer's entire Premiership is going to be dominated by responding generally badly to crazy things Donald Trump has done, which was easily anticipated once it became clear Trump was going to run again. Despite this obvious calamity heading our way the UK government has done little to prepare, and even now seems to be lacking any urgency to prepare for plausible near term problems like a Russian attack in the Baltic, the US abruptly leaving NATO, China attacking Taiwan, and the US doing all kinds of mad things vis-à-vis Canada, Greenland, Mexico etc.
Maybe I'm wrong and there's a huge amount going on quietly, but I see no sign of it, we have a very slow-witted government in a time when we perhaps need leadership and action more than any time since WWII.
Love to know how you would do things better because the last thing you want to do is get on Trump’s radar. He would probably invade Northern Ireland on behalf of Ireland given suitable prompting
I incline to the Lib Dems because they favour STV. I don't prefer STV because, perhaps, it would help the Lib Dems, but because, when I looked at all the systems, STV is the one that, as a voter, works best for me.
Yet another blunder from Starmer this morning. He's decided to personally intervene in the employment dispute with doctors, and his idea is to threaten the withdrawal of "thousands of extra training posts". Does he not realise that extra doctors hugely benefits patients?
More generally, I am fed up with politicians who cover up their inability to deliver anything by picking a fight. The most egregious example is of course trump, but a portion of most parties seem to be keen on the idea, mostly because it makes them feel powerful. Yes, there is a portion of the population who are dumb enough to fall for this, and automatically pick a side to support in any dispute, but it's incredibly corrosive to society and ultimately it's a con - we need leaders who know how to make our lives better, not promises to make someone else more miserable.
Starmer is right on this, 58% of voters oppose doctors going on strike. He wants more training places too but is prepared to punish doctors if they reject the above current inflation rate pay rise they have been offered
It’s a ludicrous position. Reducing training posts is simple self harm. He’s right to resist the wage increases but utterly wrong to retaliate in this way.
Was looking at some commentary on the recent Reform poll decline and there is some suggestion the biggest loss is amongst 2024 non voters (whats the point? Is back). These were the voters turning out that propelled them to 30% plus NEV in 2025. Without some of them and on a declining vote share trend then i think we might be 'underconsidering' a bIg undershoot versus expectations. Especially in London - they are already falling apart in Croydon with mass resignations etc
Just over a week until nominations close. It's going to be interesting to see which parties manage to stand where.
There is a lot that Labour *should* be doing this term. Changing the vote system could be one of them. Rejoining EFTA should be another.
But Starmer prefers to coast without realising that the world has changed dramatically these last four-five years and whatever rules or norms that passed for true just ten years ago don't apply anymore.
Starmer's entire Premiership is going to be dominated by responding generally badly to crazy things Donald Trump has done, which was easily anticipated once it became clear Trump was going to run again. Despite this obvious calamity heading our way the UK government has done little to prepare, and even now seems to be lacking any urgency to prepare for plausible near term problems like a Russian attack in the Baltic, the US abruptly leaving NATO, China attacking Taiwan, and the US doing all kinds of mad things vis-à-vis Canada, Greenland, Mexico etc.
Maybe I'm wrong and there's a huge amount going on quietly, but I see no sign of it, we have a very slow-witted government in a time when we perhaps need leadership and action more than any time since WWII.
Yes - I think we should remember this is an extraordinary challenge for a PM, we have for ~80 years always been able to view the most powerful country in the world as our ally. We can't any more.
But it's frustrating that so often Starmer seems to make unpopular decisions which are also the wrong policy choice.
Was looking at some commentary on the recent Reform poll decline and there is some suggestion the biggest loss is amongst 2024 non voters (whats the point? Is back). These were the voters turning out that propelled them to 30% plus NEV in 2025. Without some of them and on a declining vote share trend then i think we might be 'underconsidering' a bIg undershoot versus expectations. Especially in London - they are already falling apart in Croydon with mass resignations etc
Just over a week until nominations close. It's going to be interesting to see which parties manage to stand where.
Yeah, that might have a profound effect. With the choatic polling there could be some really interesting pick ups where other parties fail to fill the candidacies
Yet another blunder from Starmer this morning. He's decided to personally intervene in the employment dispute with doctors, and his idea is to threaten the withdrawal of "thousands of extra training posts". Does he not realise that extra doctors hugely benefits patients?
More generally, I am fed up with politicians who cover up their inability to deliver anything by picking a fight. The most egregious example is of course trump, but a portion of most parties seem to be keen on the idea, mostly because it makes them feel powerful. Yes, there is a portion of the population who are dumb enough to fall for this, and automatically pick a side to support in any dispute, but it's incredibly corrosive to society and ultimately it's a con - we need leaders who know how to make our lives better, not promises to make someone else more miserable.
Starmer is right on this, 58% of voters oppose doctors going on strike. He wants more training places too but is prepared to punish doctors if they reject the above current inflation rate pay rise they have been offered
It’s a ludicrous position. Reducing training posts is simple self harm. He’s right to resist the wage increases but utterly wrong to retaliate in this way.
Yep - as I said earlier it's simply not the threat SKS thinks it is, for many of those striking raising the drawbridge so others don't follow them is ideal for their future career path.
There is a lot that Labour *should* be doing this term. Changing the vote system could be one of them. Rejoining EFTA should be another.
But Starmer prefers to coast without realising that the world has changed dramatically these last four-five years and whatever rules or norms that passed for true just ten years ago don't apply anymore.
Starmer's entire Premiership is going to be dominated by responding generally badly to crazy things Donald Trump has done, which was easily anticipated once it became clear Trump was going to run again. Despite this obvious calamity heading our way the UK government has done little to prepare, and even now seems to be lacking any urgency to prepare for plausible near term problems like a Russian attack in the Baltic, the US abruptly leaving NATO, China attacking Taiwan, and the US doing all kinds of mad things vis-à-vis Canada, Greenland, Mexico etc.
Maybe I'm wrong and there's a huge amount going on quietly, but I see no sign of it, we have a very slow-witted government in a time when we perhaps need leadership and action more than any time since WWII.
I believe we have an agreement with Norway to establish better monitoring/defence of the North Sea particularly regarding Russian subs and the risk to underwater comms lines.
Member of the Daniels crime family in the dock in Glasgow HC yesterday:” hey, Mr Finlay, what’s the difference between Glasgae and Africa? You canna shoot Lyons in Africa.”
The Iranian strike on Saudi Arabia’s Prince Sultan Airbase which destroyed a US E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft also damaged another of the $300 million planes, NPR is now reporting.
There are no easy replacements for the airborne warning and control system aircraft.
There is a lot that Labour *should* be doing this term. Changing the vote system could be one of them. Rejoining EFTA should be another.
But Starmer prefers to coast without realising that the world has changed dramatically these last four-five years and whatever rules or norms that passed for true just ten years ago don't apply anymore.
Starmer's entire Premiership is going to be dominated by responding generally badly to crazy things Donald Trump has done, which was easily anticipated once it became clear Trump was going to run again. Despite this obvious calamity heading our way the UK government has done little to prepare, and even now seems to be lacking any urgency to prepare for plausible near term problems like a Russian attack in the Baltic, the US abruptly leaving NATO, China attacking Taiwan, and the US doing all kinds of mad things vis-à-vis Canada, Greenland, Mexico etc.
Maybe I'm wrong and there's a huge amount going on quietly, but I see no sign of it, we have a very slow-witted government in a time when we perhaps need leadership and action more than any time since WWII.
The other day, I asked an ex-Cabinet Office chap I know about the U.K. partnering up with South Korea to buy into their successful and cheap ICBM program - with a view to developing our own SLBM.
He knitted me a whole raft of reasons why not - defence industrial policy, upsetting the French, upsetting the Germans (Ariane), the Americans, BAe (low cost is anathema) …
You could just see the stack of paper saying “No, Prime Minister” growing.
Changing things is difficult and requires decisiveness.
The Iranian strike on Saudi Arabia’s Prince Sultan Airbase which destroyed a US E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft also damaged another of the $300 million planes, NPR is now reporting.
There are no easy replacements for the airborne warning and control system aircraft.
The Iranian strike on Saudi Arabia’s Prince Sultan Airbase which destroyed a US E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft also damaged another of the $300 million planes, NPR is now reporting.
There are no easy replacements for the airborne warning and control system aircraft.
There is a lot that Labour *should* be doing this term. Changing the vote system could be one of them. Rejoining EFTA should be another.
But Starmer prefers to coast without realising that the world has changed dramatically these last four-five years and whatever rules or norms that passed for true just ten years ago don't apply anymore.
Starmer's entire Premiership is going to be dominated by responding generally badly to crazy things Donald Trump has done, which was easily anticipated once it became clear Trump was going to run again. Despite this obvious calamity heading our way the UK government has done little to prepare, and even now seems to be lacking any urgency to prepare for plausible near term problems like a Russian attack in the Baltic, the US abruptly leaving NATO, China attacking Taiwan, and the US doing all kinds of mad things vis-à-vis Canada, Greenland, Mexico etc.
Maybe I'm wrong and there's a huge amount going on quietly, but I see no sign of it, we have a very slow-witted government in a time when we perhaps need leadership and action more than any time since WWII.
The other day, I asked an ex-Cabinet Office chap I know about the U.K. partnering up with South Korea to buy into their successful and cheap ICBM program - with a view to developing our own SLBM.
He knitted me a whole raft of reasons why not - defence industrial policy, upsetting the French, upsetting the Germans (Ariane), the Americans, BAe (low cost is anathema) …
You could just see the stack of paper saying “No, Prime Minister” growing.
Changing things is difficult and requires decisiveness.
We need to change this to a civl service culture of write me a memo with all reasons why SHOULD I do this. If you don't come up with enough reasons - here is your gong-free P45...
Yet another blunder from Starmer this morning. He's decided to personally intervene in the employment dispute with doctors, and his idea is to threaten the withdrawal of "thousands of extra training posts". Does he not realise that extra doctors hugely benefits patients?
More generally, I am fed up with politicians who cover up their inability to deliver anything by picking a fight. The most egregious example is of course trump, but a portion of most parties seem to be keen on the idea, mostly because it makes them feel powerful. Yes, there is a portion of the population who are dumb enough to fall for this, and automatically pick a side to support in any dispute, but it's incredibly corrosive to society and ultimately it's a con - we need leaders who know how to make our lives better, not promises to make someone else more miserable.
Starmer is right on this, 58% of voters oppose doctors going on strike. He wants more training places too but is prepared to punish doctors if they reject the above current inflation rate pay rise they have been offered
It’s a ludicrous position. Reducing training posts is simple self harm. He’s right to resist the wage increases but utterly wrong to retaliate in this way.
I think I've said before, but I think if you want to hit Doctors where it hurts you need to start by expanding nurse practitioners and physician associates, and allowing them to take on more responsibilities.
It's politically risky, because the BMA will say it's putting patient safety at risk (and they would probably have a point) and it would likely reduce patient access to Doctors (very unpopular).
It would, however, make the BMA squeal and, ultimately, blink if they thought the Government was serious about building up alternative medical professionals.
Comments
The other is that, if you support a particular Party, you have only the one choice - the one that the Party machine has nominated. With STV you can choose between candidates of the same party.
I'd start with some sort of PR for local elections - it's absurd to see Councils as one party states on relatively low vote shares certainly compared to the vote shares governing parties get in actual one party states.
Examples like Newham, Richmond and doubtless some Conservative run authorities show how too many voices are cut out of the decision making process under FPTP. In my Borough, Newham, Labour won all 60 seats three times running - 2010, 2014 and 2018 - and yes they got 60% or more of the vote but that meant the 40% who didn't vote Labour were completely unrepresented.
Instead of an opposition of perhaps 20-25 Councillors with different voices to put forward different viewpoints and hold the ruling group to account, Labour held every seat. We deride one party states in authoritarian countries - why should we allow them in a plural democracy?
Let's have some form of proportional voting at local elections to ensure all voices in a community (or as many as possible) are represented on the local council and even if one side gets more than 50% and has a majority, they can be held to account by an active opposition.
1) have your protest vote
2) these are the top two candidates, and Dave won more votes based on combined first and second preferences than John so Dave wins with 48% of the total vote.
Now the downside of the system is that it gives none Reform voters 2 chances of picking the candidate most likely to beat the Reform candidate who got 35% of first round votes but the upside is that 13% more voters got their choice of candidate elected..
Remember also that you are dealing with Betfair who tend to make the rules up as they go along.
And of course the prospect of vote rigging is not negligible.
If you have an open list system within constituencies of say 4 or 5 seats to keep the geography link, then it is very similar to STV except that you would vote for a party rather than an individual.
List systems, even open ones, strengthen the power of parties.
(Edit - this is tongue in cheek before anyone retreats to their safe spot)
Labour now third behind the Tories and Greens as well as Reform a dreadful result for Starmer with Yougov
Medical schools are pitching for 15000 places a year as a steady-state target. Whether that many of our brilliant young people are brilliant in that way and to that degree, I'm not sure. Part of the answer may well lie in working out what non-doctor medical roles look like.
But a lot of our doctor shortage is due to choices made decades ago, which are being solved at the standard rate of one year per year.
All with gnats bollocks for 2nd,3rd,4th,fractions of margin of error.
But Starmer prefers to coast without realising that the world has changed dramatically these last four-five years and whatever rules or norms that passed for true just ten years ago don't apply anymore.
https://amcunningham72.substack.com/p/unhelpful-the-professional-body-that?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=6f6pv&triedRedirect=true
Chatting to Mandelson and Palantir lobbyists about how to get NHS trusts to sign up to Palantir tech, awarded without competition, and which apparently trusts dont want to use.
Streeting should not be responsible for this contract - clear COI.
(These terms may be swapped depending on personal taste.)
NHS training places did not increase.
I do think we need more thought about how we elect to the Commons.
One aspect I've not seen mentioned with reference to Local Government Re-organisation - in Surrey, as you know, the County, District and Borough Councils are being abolished to be replaced by two Unitaries. One of the "losers" from this will be locally based residents and independents who can win at the smaller District/Borough level but can't win against the main parties in larger Divisions outside their main area.
There's an active group of Residents in Hinchley Wood who always won the Hinchley Wood Ward on Elmbridge Council but they never competed for the County Division which is Claygate, Hinchley Wood & Oxshott as Claygate and Oxshott are outside their pirview. The new Unitary will elect two Councillors from the County Division and as a result the voice of the Hinchley Wood Residents is likely to be silenced at that tier of the council.
There's a part of me that believes in plural democracy and thinks this is just plain wrong.
Theyre hovering a bit between 'lack of coverage dip/blip' and 'problem territory' as it stands
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/13th-awacs-aircraft-retires-divestments/
I would point out though that the sign being in English wouldn't be much use to the Welsh.
Clearly if the union rejects the deal - then they dont get to keep the bits they like and still negotiate on the bits they don't like. The whole thing fails.
Then some bright spark at No. 10 decided to use this reality to threaten BMA, but obviously everyone actually wants those training places - we need them!
However, on topic the Irish seem to manage the ink between individual constituency nd parliamentarian well enough, given the number of independents elected.
The difference from STV is that if the party gets 20% of the vote, it gets 20% of the seats, whereas with STV they could end up with zero. That recognises the reality that most voters prefer one party to another, but the voter still chooses which candidates get the seats, and the parties are well-advised to offer a range of choice.
STV is better if one favours the system loading the dice in favour of the least-disliked party, which will tend to be a centrist party - that's arguably why the LibDems have historically liked it. I see the attraction but I think the system itself should be neutral.
The scene where Starmer insists on the corrrct process being followed is niche
Often that doesn't happen, and so the voters are denied such a choice.
It just goes to show that there's no perfect electoral system, and people will game any system you create.
Alas for the virility of half an hour ago
But you'd lose the drama and speculation of the count.
What a w*****!
Don't let a computer anywhere near our elections.
The betting markets aren't a perfect guide to the real probability.
Labours best polling in that period didn’t really stand up to scrutiny, they never got the votes, even in By Elections, that indicated 45-50% at a GE, and in the end they didn’t get that many votes for a party that won an outright majority, fewer than the previous two losing efforts in fact
I don't think Lib Dems favour STV because it favours centrist parties!
Here in Richmond on Thames, the LDs have 49/54 seats with 5 Greens in opposition. No Tories or Labour Councillors at all. After the locals in May, the LDs may well have 54/54 seats here as we've ditched our deal with the Greens which gave them a clear run at some seats. FPTP is clearly a ridiculous system that massively favours the LDs here.
But LDs still favour a proportional system (STV) which would substantially reduce their seats locally and be about neutral nationally.
It's not all about party advantage.
It's a matter of fairer and more effective governance.
And helping restoring the public's trust in the electoral system and politics in general.
Politics is so unpredicatble
Maybe I'm wrong and there's a huge amount going on quietly, but I see no sign of it, we have a very slow-witted government in a time when we perhaps need leadership and action more than any time since WWII.
These were the voters turning out that propelled them to 30% plus NEV in 2025.
Without some of them and on a declining vote share trend then i think we might be 'underconsidering' a bIg undershoot versus expectations. Especially in London - they are already falling apart in Croydon with mass resignations etc
But it's frustrating that so often Starmer seems to make unpopular decisions which are also the wrong policy choice.
@JavierBlas
CHART OF THE DAY: The US gasoline national average retail price has risen above $4 per gallon for the first time since 2022, per the
@AAA_Travel
.
It's the kind of price level that typically has triggered political alarms inside the White House (and Congress).
https://x.com/JavierBlas/status/2038885355420569630
====
No wonder Rubio has degraded the mission objectives to Iran having no navy.
I agree we should be doing more, though.
You must summon your inner warrior spirit. Glorious victory is only two weeks away!!!
https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/news/uk-energy-leaders-back-continued-north-sea-gas-production/
You canna shoot Lyons in Africa.”
(Lyons are the other major crime family)
Robert Jenrick announces Reform UK would scrap Air Passenger Duty for short haul family flights
"This will apply to any holiday that is being booked for an adult travelling with those under 18"
Meh
Putin remains literally the only leader on the planet that Trump has not at some time insulted in some way.
He knitted me a whole raft of reasons why not - defence industrial policy, upsetting the French, upsetting the Germans (Ariane), the Americans, BAe (low cost is anathema) …
You could just see the stack of paper saying “No, Prime Minister” growing.
Changing things is difficult and requires decisiveness.
And there is now a debate about retaining airborne radar as the satellite system might be taken out in a major war.
It's politically risky, because the BMA will say it's putting patient safety at risk (and they would probably have a point) and it would likely reduce patient access to Doctors (very unpopular).
It would, however, make the BMA squeal and, ultimately, blink if they thought the Government was serious about building up alternative medical professionals.