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...
It’s not the problem.
The ex-civil servant is just listing the problems that need to be overcome to do X.
The response of an effective politician is to use political capital to overcome those objections.
It is the same in any large organisation. Change requires power and will.
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
Reform should be encouraging British beach family holidays, not making it cheaper to go abroad....
Faded Seaside Resorts is one of the key Reform demographics. Whether the current residents of Clacton, Skegness etc really want to be overrun by tourists for two months of the year is another question.
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.
Expand the prescribing role of the Pharmacist again - something that is popular with the lurgee-riddled populous.
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.
Interestingly, the US is already moving away from airborne radars. This is causing much anger at Boeing and their friends in Congress.
Looks like the satellite based replacement is ever more likely.
It's years off providing the same capability.
And there is now a debate about retaining airborne radar as the satellite system might be taken out in a major war.
As opposed to AWACS being taken out in what isn't even a war? (It can't be a war, Congress hasn't been asked to approve it...)
The context for the idea of moving to satellites is that Boeing is now talking about three quarters of a billion for the shiniest version of the next gen system - Wedgetail.
For that money you can get a whole mini-satellite constellation that covers the whole planet 24/7
There are strong rumours that Starshield* has test systems up there already. And that the rate of change is monthly, rather than decades
*Starshield as in not just the basic program, but a wider series of programs where various groups in the Pentagon and NSA are deploying sub-constellations. These are multiplying furiously.
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.
Somebody needs to tell the BMA where to go , bunch of grifters, not happy with 30% so far they want same again. Start importing doctors ASAP and get shot of these spoilt brats.
Starmer is losing to his right, but more so his left with the Greens dramatic appearance on the scene with Polanski leadership
I think it is fair to say that Starmer simply does not have the political skills to be a PM, and is terrified of leadership delegating decisions to others ('It hasn't passed my desk') and now telling industry his government cannot do everything, notwithstanding their anti business rhetoric and ham-fisted tax decisions
I just cannot understand how telling resident doctors he will close off 4,000 training places if they do not call off their strike is anyway a positive step
On Iran he is again losing from the right and left and went into this crisis with his polling already on the floor
Overnight a More In Common poll just confirms how cynical the electorate have become of Starmer and his government:
Do you think that the following is true or false ?
Morgan McSweeney faked the theft of his phone in order to hide messages between him and Peter Mandelson
Definitely true 15%
Probably true 59% Total True 74%
Probably false 22%
Definitely false 4% Total False 26%
Even 70% of labour, 74% Lib Dens and 82% Greens thought total true
I would add that it is not discussed much, but the Lib Dems seem marooned and if anything may also have a problem with the Greens
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.
Somebody needs to tell the BMA where to go , bunch of grifters, not happy with 30% so far they want same again. Start importing doctors ASAP and get shot of these spoilt brats.
We don't import doctors anymore because this government don't like foreigners.
They are foolishly reducing immigration to net zero.
I agree with Boris. If we don't have enough workers we can import them from Asia. Sounds good to 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.
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.
Expand the prescribing role of the Pharmacist again - something that is popular with the lurgee-riddled populous.
As a retired pharmacist, and one who was, long years ago, active in professional politics I've got some concerns with this. Effectively it means the same person is making the diagnosis and selecting and supplying the medicine. I've every confidence in most of my younger colleagues, but the important word is most.
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.
Somebody needs to tell the BMA where to go , bunch of grifters, not happy with 30% so far they want same again. Start importing doctors ASAP and get shot of these spoilt brats.
Starmer should be increasing training places. Not reducing them.
No wonder Rubio has degraded the mission objectives to Iran having no navy.
Given that the US is a net oil exporter, what is to stop Trump from simply throttling back the export of oil and petroleum products in order to keep domestic prices down? Lack or wrong sort of refining capacity? Lack of political will or authority?
Italy’s Defence Minister Guido Crosetto has denied permission for US military aircraft to use Naval Air Station Sigonella in Sicily for a stopover en route to the Middle East.
I have no idea if YouGov are about right in their polling. If they are the differences are wafer thin. This is the result on the party question 'thinking about your own constituency' and including the won't vote, refused and DK (which win easily with a combined 28)
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:
Piece of irony trivia - the last airline to fly aircraft with the obsolete P&W TF-33 was Iranian.
The fact that the US flew some out to the gulf when they're having difficulty sustaining flights for homeland defense suggests how useful they are.
The age of the airframes is probably less of a problem than the engines (which is why the even older B52, which rocked the same old turbofan, is currently being re-engined).
No wonder Rubio has degraded the mission objectives to Iran having no navy.
Given that the US is a net oil exporter, what is to stop Trump from simply throttling back the export of oil and petroleum products in order to keep domestic prices down? Lack or wrong sort of refining capacity? Lack of political will or authority?
Wrong sort of refining capacity - as one example the mid west is designed around Canadian oil
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
Reform should be encouraging British beach family holidays, not making it cheaper to go abroad....
Faded Seaside Resorts is one of the key Reform demographics. Whether the current residents of Clacton, Skegness etc really want to be overrun by tourists for two months of the year is another question.
The one thing, if you could go back to the 90s and do university expansion again, many of these places were made for it.
No wonder Rubio has degraded the mission objectives to Iran having no navy.
Given that the US is a net oil exporter, what is to stop Trump from simply throttling back the export of oil and petroleum products in order to keep domestic prices down? Lack or wrong sort of refining capacity? Lack of political will or authority?
No oil producing nation is autarkic in oil products. So they all both import and export.
Israel reintroduces death penalty for terrorists. Death penalty is vile.
It’s much worse.
The death penalty applies to Palestinians but not Jewish Israelis, so if you’re an illegal settler you can kill as many Palestinians as you like and not face the death penalty.
Also the Palestinian faces a mere 90 days from conviction to death sentence being carried out.
As I said last night Israel is no longer a functioning democracy, it is more akin to a Jim Crow Deep South State/Apartheid South Africa.
Israel reintroduces death penalty for terrorists. Death penalty is vile.
Correction. The death penalty exclusively for Palestinian terrorists. If the settlers blow up a mosque full of people on the West Bank that is fine.
Not fine, but life imprisonment.
I imagine Israel is trying to ensure that if they don't kill terrorists in the act of terrorism (which they mostly will endeavour to do), that they won't be around to be traded.
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
Reform should be encouraging British beach family holidays, not making it cheaper to go abroad....
Aren't all the down on their arse, kiss-me-quick hat resorts all Reform strongholds now?
More generally, places that have lost their old purpose and either haven't found a new one or don't like their new purpose. So ex-industrial, ex-resorts, or overrun with commuters.
And before anyone gets triggered, people who have had their lives upened around them are perfectly justifed in feeling fed up with the situation. The UK handled all the changes in the economy from the 80s onwards badly. Partly because of laissez-faire, partly because of a planning system that made it much too hard for people to move to where the new jobs are. It's just that the Reform perscription, hedge fund funded nostalgia for the Good Old Days that weren't that good for a lot of people, certainly won't help and will probably make things worse.
No wonder Rubio has degraded the mission objectives to Iran having no navy.
Given that the US is a net oil exporter, what is to stop Trump from simply throttling back the export of oil and petroleum products in order to keep domestic prices down? Lack or wrong sort of refining capacity? Lack of political will or authority?
Wrong sort of refining capacity - as one example the mid west is designed around Canadian oil
I'd have thought, perhaps naively, that the US would be big enough for it to be worthwhile having the capacity to refine most of its domestic crude output. I see that it makes sense economically for different countries to specialise in the refining of particular flavours of oil, but you'd think that national security might have played more of a role.
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
Reform should be encouraging British beach family holidays, not making it cheaper to go abroad....
Aren't all the down on their arse, kiss-me-quick hat resorts all Reform strongholds now?
More generally, places that have lost their old purpose and either haven't found a new one or don't like their new purpose. So ex-industrial, ex-resorts, or overrun with commuters.
And before anyone gets triggered, people who have had their lives upened around them are perfectly justifed in feeling fed up with the situation. The UK handled all the changes in the economy from the 80s onwards badly. Partly because of laissez-faire, partly because of a planning system that made it much too hard for people to move to where the new jobs are. It's just that the Reform perscription, hedge fund funded nostalgia for the Good Old Days that weren't that good for a lot of people, certainly won't help and will probably make things worse.
In addition, the *local* opposition to change is often massive.
I’ve previously mentioned the reception someone got, trying to setup a factory in an ex-industrial area.
In the end, they went to Malaysia. Because Malaysia were keen to have the factory and acted on their enthusiasm.
Starmer is losing to his right, but more so his left with the Greens dramatic appearance on the scene with Polanski leadership
I think it is fair to say that Starmer simply does not have the political skills to be a PM, and is terrified of leadership delegating decisions to others ('It hasn't passed my desk') and now telling industry his government cannot do everything, notwithstanding their anti business rhetoric and ham-fisted tax decisions
I just cannot understand how telling resident doctors he will close off 4,000 training places if they do not call off their strike is anyway a positive step
On Iran he is again losing from the right and left and went into this crisis with his polling already on the floor
Overnight a More In Common poll just confirms how cynical the electorate have become of Starmer and his government:
Do you think that the following is true or false ?
Morgan McSweeney faked the theft of his phone in order to hide messages between him and Peter Mandelson
Definitely true 15%
Probably true 59% Total True 74%
Probably false 22%
Definitely false 4% Total False 26%
Even 70% of labour, 74% Lib Dens and 82% Greens thought total true
I would add that it is not discussed much, but the Lib Dems seem marooned and if anything may also have a problem with the Greens
Isn't that a push poll question?
I could care less about McSweeney and Mandelson. One is an overpromoted idiot and other might just be Satan.
Israel reintroduces death penalty for terrorists. Death penalty is vile.
Correction. The death penalty exclusively for Palestinian terrorists. If the settlers blow up a mosque full of people on the West Bank that is fine.
Not fine, but life imprisonment.
I imagine Israel is trying to ensure that if they don't kill terrorists in the act of terrorism (which they mostly will endeavour to do), that they won't be around to be traded.
I am not sure you have answered the apartheid element to this dilemma.
Starmer is losing to his right, but more so his left with the Greens dramatic appearance on the scene with Polanski leadership
I think it is fair to say that Starmer simply does not have the political skills to be a PM, and is terrified of leadership delegating decisions to others ('It hasn't passed my desk') and now telling industry his government cannot do everything, notwithstanding their anti business rhetoric and ham-fisted tax decisions
I just cannot understand how telling resident doctors he will close off 4,000 training places if they do not call off their strike is anyway a positive step
On Iran he is again losing from the right and left and went into this crisis with his polling already on the floor
Overnight a More In Common poll just confirms how cynical the electorate have become of Starmer and his government:
Do you think that the following is true or false ?
Morgan McSweeney faked the theft of his phone in order to hide messages between him and Peter Mandelson
Definitely true 15%
Probably true 59% Total True 74%
Probably false 22%
Definitely false 4% Total False 26%
Even 70% of labour, 74% Lib Dens and 82% Greens thought total true
I would add that it is not discussed much, but the Lib Dems seem marooned and if anything may also have a problem with the Greens
No wonder Rubio has degraded the mission objectives to Iran having no navy.
Given that the US is a net oil exporter, what is to stop Trump from simply throttling back the export of oil and petroleum products in order to keep domestic prices down? Lack or wrong sort of refining capacity? Lack of political will or authority?
Wrong sort of refining capacity - as one example the mid west is designed around Canadian oil
I'd have thought, perhaps naively, that the US would be big enough for it to be worthwhile having the capacity to refine most of its domestic crude output. I see that it makes sense economically for different countries to specialise in the refining of particular flavours of oil, but you'd think that national security might have played more of a role.
New refineries to a lot longer to construct than does fracking a new well. It's not made economic sense before, but that could change if disruption persists.
Similarly Trudeau nixed Canadian plans for new LNG export facilities. That now looks a big mistake, but would take years to correct.
The best university in the world is getting better.
Cambridge receives biggest university donation in history
Hedge fund manager gives institution £190m to create new school of government
The University of Cambridge has received a record-breaking £190m donation from a British philanthropist.
Chris Rokos, a 55-year-old billionaire investment fund manager who is one of Britain’s richest men, is making a £130m up-front donation to the university with a promise of a further £60m to come. It is believed to be the biggest single donation to a British university in modern times.
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.
Interestingly, the US is already moving away from airborne radars. This is causing much anger at Boeing and their friends in Congress.
Looks like the satellite based replacement is ever more likely.
It's years off providing the same capability.
And there is now a debate about retaining airborne radar as the satellite system might be taken out in a major war.
As opposed to AWACS being taken out in what isn't even a war? (It can't be a war, Congress hasn't been asked to approve it...)
The context for the idea of moving to satellites is that Boeing is now talking about three quarters of a billion for the shiniest version of the next gen system - Wedgetail.
Wedgetail is last gen which is why the USAF want to skip it. Congress is forcing them to acquire two using the MESA radars that Badly Ben couldn't get out of buying when the tories cut the RAF E-7 buy from 5 to 3.
Australia have already started the project to replace theirs (AIR7002).
The best university in the world is getting better.
Cambridge receives biggest university donation in history
Hedge fund manager gives institution £190m to create new school of government
The University of Cambridge has received a record-breaking £190m donation from a British philanthropist.
Chris Rokos, a 55-year-old billionaire investment fund manager who is one of Britain’s richest men, is making a £130m up-front donation to the university with a promise of a further £60m to come. It is believed to be the biggest single donation to a British university in modern times.
Karoline Leavitt: "Some of the previous leaders are now no longer on planet Earth because they lied to the United States and they strung us along in negotiations, and that was unacceptable to the president, which is why many of the previous leaders were killed" https://x.com/atrupar/status/2038672001959592147
The first job of a Commons electoral system is to choose identifiable local representatives, rooted in actual places, who can collectively sustain or dismiss a government. On that test FPTP still has considerable strengths, whatever its defects.
Its great virtue is clarity. A constituency has one MP. Everyone knows who that is. That person is answerable to the whole seat, not to a list manager or party machine. If they are good, they can build a real representative relationship with the constituency. If they are useless, the electorate know exactly who to remove.
Much of the case for PR starts by treating a General Election as if it ought to be a single national plebiscite whose sole legitimate output is a proportional reflection of aggregate opinion. But that is not what our system was designed to do. A UK General Election is better understood as a series of local contests, fought in places with their own histories and interests, against a national backdrop. The national result is an accumulation of constituency choices, not the other way round.
Critics of FPTP often fault it for failing to perform a task it was never intended to perform.
PR advocates will say that this is precisely the problem: Parliament should mirror the national distribution of opinion more faithfully. But in doing so they tend to invert the relationship between representative and represented. The constituency becomes secondary and the party primary. In list systems especially, the route to office runs more through party favour than local endorsement. Even in multi-member variants, accountability becomes blurred. Who exactly is “your” representative?
None of this is to pretend FPTP is perfect. It plainly is not. It can produce disproportional outcomes, exaggerate swings, leave many votes without effective parliamentary weight, and create safe seats where the real contest is selection not election. Those are real criticisms.
But every electoral system has trade-offs. If your priority is that Parliament should reflect national vote shares as closely as possible, then PR will naturally appeal. If your priority is clear local representation, direct accountability, constitutional simplicity and the formation of workable governments, then FPTP remains highly defensible.
So I remain unpersuaded by PR, not because I fail to grasp the arithmetic, but because I think its advocates too often solve the wrong problem. They ask, “How do we make the Commons look more like the national vote totals?” I ask, “How do we ensure that each place has a clearly identifiable representative, answerable to it, within a system capable of producing a functioning government?”
To my mind, that is the more fundamental question, and it is one to which FPTP still gives the better answer.
The best university in the world is getting better.
Cambridge receives biggest university donation in history
Hedge fund manager gives institution £190m to create new school of government
The University of Cambridge has received a record-breaking £190m donation from a British philanthropist.
Chris Rokos, a 55-year-old billionaire investment fund manager who is one of Britain’s richest men, is making a £130m up-front donation to the university with a promise of a further £60m to come. It is believed to be the biggest single donation to a British university in modern times.
The best university in the world is getting better.
Cambridge receives biggest university donation in history
Hedge fund manager gives institution £190m to create new school of government
The University of Cambridge has received a record-breaking £190m donation from a British philanthropist.
Chris Rokos, a 55-year-old billionaire investment fund manager who is one of Britain’s richest men, is making a £130m up-front donation to the university with a promise of a further £60m to come. It is believed to be the biggest single donation to a British university in modern times.
Karoline Leavitt: "Some of the previous leaders are now no longer on planet Earth because they lied to the United States and they strung us along in negotiations, and that was unacceptable to the president, which is why many of the previous leaders were killed" https://x.com/atrupar/status/2038672001959592147
Donald Trump, meanwhile, is no longer associated with Planet Earth because of dementia, which means he lies to the USA and strings people along in negotiations.
The best university in the world is getting better.
Cambridge receives biggest university donation in history
Hedge fund manager gives institution £190m to create new school of government
The University of Cambridge has received a record-breaking £190m donation from a British philanthropist.
Chris Rokos, a 55-year-old billionaire investment fund manager who is one of Britain’s richest men, is making a £130m up-front donation to the university with a promise of a further £60m to come. It is believed to be the biggest single donation to a British university in modern times.
The best university in the world is getting better.
Cambridge receives biggest university donation in history
Hedge fund manager gives institution £190m to create new school of government
The University of Cambridge has received a record-breaking £190m donation from a British philanthropist.
Chris Rokos, a 55-year-old billionaire investment fund manager who is one of Britain’s richest men, is making a £130m up-front donation to the university with a promise of a further £60m to come. It is believed to be the biggest single donation to a British university in modern times.
Thanks for the header - I've heard a very little bit of chatter about this late last year, but it may be too late timewise.
In other news, at least one Council has formally told Raise the Colours to cease and desist from abusing their lamp posts like incontinent labradors:
Oxfordshire County Council has today issued a formal legal notice to Raise the Colours in response to their continued placing of flags across Oxfordshire.
This notice requires an individual or organisation to stop a specified activity. The council has taken this action following the repeated installation of flags on or near highways without consent.
If the group does not comply with the letter, the council will consider all available options to include, but not limited to, civil and criminal proceedings against the organisation and individuals affiliated with it to prevent further unauthorised action.
Councillor Liz Leffman, Leader of Oxfordshire County Council, said: “The scale and persistence of this activity is affecting communities across Oxfordshire.
“We are proud of our diverse communities in Oxfordshire and of being the first county council to be awarded Local Authority of Sanctuary status. We proudly fly the Union Jack and St George’s flags, which are visible symbols of democracy and unity.
“However, the widespread installation of flags by Raise the Colours is not a sign of patriotism. It is an act of intimidation and division that is having a real and damaging impact on our communities.. https://news.oxfordshire.gov.uk/unauthorised-flags/
The first job of a Commons electoral system is to choose identifiable local representatives, rooted in actual places, who can collectively sustain or dismiss a government. On that test FPTP still has considerable strengths, whatever its defects.
Its great virtue is clarity. A constituency has one MP. Everyone knows who that is. That person is answerable to the whole seat, not to a list manager or party machine. If they are good, they can build a real representative relationship with the constituency. If they are useless, the electorate know exactly who to remove.
Much of the case for PR starts by treating a General Election as if it ought to be a single national plebiscite whose sole legitimate output is a proportional reflection of aggregate opinion. But that is not what our system was designed to do. A UK General Election is better understood as a series of local contests, fought in places with their own histories and interests, against a national backdrop. The national result is an accumulation of constituency choices, not the other way round.
Critics of FPTP often fault it for failing to perform a task it was never intended to perform.
PR advocates will say that this is precisely the problem: Parliament should mirror the national distribution of opinion more faithfully. But in doing so they tend to invert the relationship between representative and represented. The constituency becomes secondary and the party primary. In list systems especially, the route to office runs more through party favour than local endorsement. Even in multi-member variants, accountability becomes blurred. Who exactly is “your” representative?
None of this is to pretend FPTP is perfect. It plainly is not. It can produce disproportional outcomes, exaggerate swings, leave many votes without effective parliamentary weight, and create safe seats where the real contest is selection not election. Those are real criticisms.
But every electoral system has trade-offs. If your priority is that Parliament should reflect national vote shares as closely as possible, then PR will naturally appeal. If your priority is clear local representation, direct accountability, constitutional simplicity and the formation of workable governments, then FPTP remains highly defensible.
So I remain unpersuaded by PR, not because I fail to grasp the arithmetic, but because I think its advocates too often solve the wrong problem. They ask, “How do we make the Commons look more like the national vote totals?” I ask, “How do we ensure that each place has a clearly identifiable representative, answerable to it, within a system capable of producing a functioning government?”
To my mind, that is the more fundamental question, and it is one to which FPTP still gives the better answer.
It would a better answer were it not for the current importance of political parties. As has been pointed out several times, especially since WWII the candidates have been chosen by the various parties and often have little or no connection with the constituency they seek to represent.
Thankyou for your kind words on Spidey my 100 million year old spider
In answer to your question about how much and where, you should expect to pay three figures for a good example of an insect caught in fossilised amber. But £1k is ridiculous
Mine cost £200 which feels like a good deal, given how spectacularly weird Spidey is. And how very visibly a spider
Source is important. There are fakes. Go to a reputable dealer in fossils. Don’t buy off a random on the net
As for the provenance, Burmese amber is recognised as maybe the best as it is full of insects and weirdness, and dates back to the dinosaurs, and is much older than Baltic amber (which is just 40 million years not 100 million)
The best university in the world is getting better.
Cambridge receives biggest university donation in history
Hedge fund manager gives institution £190m to create new school of government
The University of Cambridge has received a record-breaking £190m donation from a British philanthropist.
Chris Rokos, a 55-year-old billionaire investment fund manager who is one of Britain’s richest men, is making a £130m up-front donation to the university with a promise of a further £60m to come. It is believed to be the biggest single donation to a British university in modern times.
The first job of a Commons electoral system is to choose identifiable local representatives, rooted in actual places, who can collectively sustain or dismiss a government. On that test FPTP still has considerable strengths, whatever its defects.
Its great virtue is clarity. A constituency has one MP. Everyone knows who that is. That person is answerable to the whole seat, not to a list manager or party machine. If they are good, they can build a real representative relationship with the constituency. If they are useless, the electorate know exactly who to remove.
Much of the case for PR starts by treating a General Election as if it ought to be a single national plebiscite whose sole legitimate output is a proportional reflection of aggregate opinion. But that is not what our system was designed to do. A UK General Election is better understood as a series of local contests, fought in places with their own histories and interests, against a national backdrop. The national result is an accumulation of constituency choices, not the other way round.
Critics of FPTP often fault it for failing to perform a task it was never intended to perform.
PR advocates will say that this is precisely the problem: Parliament should mirror the national distribution of opinion more faithfully. But in doing so they tend to invert the relationship between representative and represented. The constituency becomes secondary and the party primary. In list systems especially, the route to office runs more through party favour than local endorsement. Even in multi-member variants, accountability becomes blurred. Who exactly is “your” representative?
None of this is to pretend FPTP is perfect. It plainly is not. It can produce disproportional outcomes, exaggerate swings, leave many votes without effective parliamentary weight, and create safe seats where the real contest is selection not election. Those are real criticisms.
But every electoral system has trade-offs. If your priority is that Parliament should reflect national vote shares as closely as possible, then PR will naturally appeal. If your priority is clear local representation, direct accountability, constitutional simplicity and the formation of workable governments, then FPTP remains highly defensible.
So I remain unpersuaded by PR, not because I fail to grasp the arithmetic, but because I think its advocates too often solve the wrong problem. They ask, “How do we make the Commons look more like the national vote totals?” I ask, “How do we ensure that each place has a clearly identifiable representative, answerable to it, within a system capable of producing a functioning government?”
To my mind, that is the more fundamental question, and it is one to which FPTP still gives the better answer.
It would a better answer were it not for the current importance of political parties. As has been pointed out several times, especially since WWII the candidates have been chosen by the various parties and often have little or no connection with the constituency they seek to represent.
I think that’s fair up to a point, but it cuts against PR as much as FPTP.
Yes, parties now choose candidates and some have little prior link to the seat. But that does not abolish the MP-constituency link, it just means parties mediate entry into it.
Under FPTP there is still one clearly identifiable member for one place, answerable to that electorate and removable by it. My problem with PR is that if parties are already too powerful, many PR systems strengthen them further, not less, by making lists, rankings or multi-member vagueness more central.
If the complaint is that parties have become too important, I struggle to see why the cure should be electoral systems that often make them more important still.
The first job of a Commons electoral system is to choose identifiable local representatives, rooted in actual places, who can collectively sustain or dismiss a government. On that test FPTP still has considerable strengths, whatever its defects.
Its great virtue is clarity. A constituency has one MP. Everyone knows who that is. That person is answerable to the whole seat, not to a list manager or party machine. If they are good, they can build a real representative relationship with the constituency. If they are useless, the electorate know exactly who to remove.
Much of the case for PR starts by treating a General Election as if it ought to be a single national plebiscite whose sole legitimate output is a proportional reflection of aggregate opinion. But that is not what our system was designed to do. A UK General Election is better understood as a series of local contests, fought in places with their own histories and interests, against a national backdrop. The national result is an accumulation of constituency choices, not the other way round.
Critics of FPTP often fault it for failing to perform a task it was never intended to perform.
PR advocates will say that this is precisely the problem: Parliament should mirror the national distribution of opinion more faithfully. But in doing so they tend to invert the relationship between representative and represented. The constituency becomes secondary and the party primary. In list systems especially, the route to office runs more through party favour than local endorsement. Even in multi-member variants, accountability becomes blurred. Who exactly is “your” representative?
None of this is to pretend FPTP is perfect. It plainly is not. It can produce disproportional outcomes, exaggerate swings, leave many votes without effective parliamentary weight, and create safe seats where the real contest is selection not election. Those are real criticisms.
But every electoral system has trade-offs. If your priority is that Parliament should reflect national vote shares as closely as possible, then PR will naturally appeal. If your priority is clear local representation, direct accountability, constitutional simplicity and the formation of workable governments, then FPTP remains highly defensible.
So I remain unpersuaded by PR, not because I fail to grasp the arithmetic, but because I think its advocates too often solve the wrong problem. They ask, “How do we make the Commons look more like the national vote totals?” I ask, “How do we ensure that each place has a clearly identifiable representative, answerable to it, within a system capable of producing a functioning government?”
To my mind, that is the more fundamental question, and it is one to which FPTP still gives the better answer.
The last decade or so isn't very strong evidence for that view.
The first job of a Commons electoral system is to choose identifiable local representatives, rooted in actual places, who can collectively sustain or dismiss a government. On that test FPTP still has considerable strengths, whatever its defects.
Its great virtue is clarity. A constituency has one MP. Everyone knows who that is. That person is answerable to the whole seat, not to a list manager or party machine. If they are good, they can build a real representative relationship with the constituency. If they are useless, the electorate know exactly who to remove.
Much of the case for PR starts by treating a General Election as if it ought to be a single national plebiscite whose sole legitimate output is a proportional reflection of aggregate opinion. But that is not what our system was designed to do. A UK General Election is better understood as a series of local contests, fought in places with their own histories and interests, against a national backdrop. The national result is an accumulation of constituency choices, not the other way round.
Critics of FPTP often fault it for failing to perform a task it was never intended to perform.
PR advocates will say that this is precisely the problem: Parliament should mirror the national distribution of opinion more faithfully. But in doing so they tend to invert the relationship between representative and represented. The constituency becomes secondary and the party primary. In list systems especially, the route to office runs more through party favour than local endorsement. Even in multi-member variants, accountability becomes blurred. Who exactly is “your” representative?
None of this is to pretend FPTP is perfect. It plainly is not. It can produce disproportional outcomes, exaggerate swings, leave many votes without effective parliamentary weight, and create safe seats where the real contest is selection not election. Those are real criticisms.
But every electoral system has trade-offs. If your priority is that Parliament should reflect national vote shares as closely as possible, then PR will naturally appeal. If your priority is clear local representation, direct accountability, constitutional simplicity and the formation of workable governments, then FPTP remains highly defensible.
So I remain unpersuaded by PR, not because I fail to grasp the arithmetic, but because I think its advocates too often solve the wrong problem. They ask, “How do we make the Commons look more like the national vote totals?” I ask, “How do we ensure that each place has a clearly identifiable representative, answerable to it, within a system capable of producing a functioning government?”
To my mind, that is the more fundamental question, and it is one to which FPTP still gives the better answer.
The last decade or so isn't very strong evidence for that view.
Bad drivers are not, by themselves, proof the road layout is wrong.
The last decade is certainly not a ringing endorsement of the quality of governments produced under FPTP. But it does not follow that the underlying virtues of the system, clear local representation, direct electoral accountability, and the possibility of decisive government, have ceased to exist.
What it may show is that those virtues are no guarantee of wisdom, competence or seriousness. No electoral system can provide that. A more proportional Commons may mirror the electorate more faithfully, but it does not magically produce better politicians, clearer accountability, or stronger administration.
If anything, I would say the chaos of the last decade illustrates the limits of constitutional mechanics. A poor political class can make a mess under any system. My objection to PR is not that it would instantly ruin everything, but that it solves a different problem from the one people imagine. It may improve proportionality, but I remain unconvinced that it improves responsibility, clarity or governability.
The first job of a Commons electoral system is to choose identifiable local representatives, rooted in actual places, who can collectively sustain or dismiss a government. On that test FPTP still has considerable strengths, whatever its defects.
Its great virtue is clarity. A constituency has one MP. Everyone knows who that is. That person is answerable to the whole seat, not to a list manager or party machine. If they are good, they can build a real representative relationship with the constituency. If they are useless, the electorate know exactly who to remove.
Much of the case for PR starts by treating a General Election as if it ought to be a single national plebiscite whose sole legitimate output is a proportional reflection of aggregate opinion. But that is not what our system was designed to do. A UK General Election is better understood as a series of local contests, fought in places with their own histories and interests, against a national backdrop. The national result is an accumulation of constituency choices, not the other way round.
Critics of FPTP often fault it for failing to perform a task it was never intended to perform.
PR advocates will say that this is precisely the problem: Parliament should mirror the national distribution of opinion more faithfully. But in doing so they tend to invert the relationship between representative and represented. The constituency becomes secondary and the party primary. In list systems especially, the route to office runs more through party favour than local endorsement. Even in multi-member variants, accountability becomes blurred. Who exactly is “your” representative?
None of this is to pretend FPTP is perfect. It plainly is not. It can produce disproportional outcomes, exaggerate swings, leave many votes without effective parliamentary weight, and create safe seats where the real contest is selection not election. Those are real criticisms.
But every electoral system has trade-offs. If your priority is that Parliament should reflect national vote shares as closely as possible, then PR will naturally appeal. If your priority is clear local representation, direct accountability, constitutional simplicity and the formation of workable governments, then FPTP remains highly defensible.
So I remain unpersuaded by PR, not because I fail to grasp the arithmetic, but because I think its advocates too often solve the wrong problem. They ask, “How do we make the Commons look more like the national vote totals?” I ask, “How do we ensure that each place has a clearly identifiable representative, answerable to it, within a system capable of producing a functioning government?”
To my mind, that is the more fundamental question, and it is one to which FPTP still gives the better answer.
It would a better answer were it not for the current importance of political parties. As has been pointed out several times, especially since WWII the candidates have been chosen by the various parties and often have little or no connection with the constituency they seek to represent.
I think that’s fair up to a point, but it cuts against PR as much as FPTP.
Yes, parties now choose candidates and some have little prior link to the seat. But that does not abolish the MP-constituency link, it just means parties mediate entry into it.
Under FPTP there is still one clearly identifiable member for one place, answerable to that electorate and removable by it. My problem with PR is that if parties are already too powerful, many PR systems strengthen them further, not less, by making lists, rankings or multi-member vagueness more central.
If the complaint is that parties have become too important, I struggle to see why the cure should be electoral systems that often make them more important still.
Constituencies need not, generally, be so big that a constituent cannot find a sympathetic member. Under FPTP one can be stuck.
The Ayrshire hotelier is up and ranting about the UK.
Why is he up? Has somebody provided a 13 year old girl for him again?
All of those countries that can’t get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you: Number 1, buy from the U.S., we have plenty, and Number 2, build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT. You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil! President DJT
The Country of France wouldn’t let planes headed to Israel, loaded up with military supplies, fly over French territory. France has been VERY UNHELPFUL with respect to the “Butcher of Iran,” who has been successfully eliminated! The U.S.A. will REMEMBER!!! President DJT
The Ayrshire hotelier is up and ranting about the UK.
Why is he up? Has somebody provided a 13 year old girl for him again?
All of those countries that can’t get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you: Number 1, buy from the U.S., we have plenty, and Number 2, build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT. You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil! President DJT
If it's there for the taking, why has he withdrawn the US Navy? Why isn't he stealing it himself?
(Also, is he right about the US supplies? @rcs1000 's post suggest not, but I'm not an expert.)
The best university in the world is getting better.
Cambridge receives biggest university donation in history
Hedge fund manager gives institution £190m to create new school of government
The University of Cambridge has received a record-breaking £190m donation from a British philanthropist.
Chris Rokos, a 55-year-old billionaire investment fund manager who is one of Britain’s richest men, is making a £130m up-front donation to the university with a promise of a further £60m to come. It is believed to be the biggest single donation to a British university in modern times.
The Ayrshire hotelier is up and ranting about the UK.
Why is he up? Has somebody provided a 13 year old girl for him again?
All of those countries that can’t get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you: Number 1, buy from the U.S., we have plenty, and Number 2, build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT. You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil! President DJT
Desperation setting in as the clock to the midterms slowly tic tocs and gas is over $4
The Ayrshire hotelier is up and ranting about the UK.
Why is he up? Has somebody provided a 13 year old girl for him again?
All of those countries that can’t get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you: Number 1, buy from the U.S., we have plenty, and Number 2, build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT. You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil! President DJT
LOL. No-one's been able to tell him that the hard part hasn't started. He did the easy bit of starting a war.
The first job of a Commons electoral system is to choose identifiable local representatives, rooted in actual places, who can collectively sustain or dismiss a government. On that test FPTP still has considerable strengths, whatever its defects.
Its great virtue is clarity. A constituency has one MP. Everyone knows who that is. That person is answerable to the whole seat, not to a list manager or party machine. If they are good, they can build a real representative relationship with the constituency. If they are useless, the electorate know exactly who to remove.
Much of the case for PR starts by treating a General Election as if it ought to be a single national plebiscite whose sole legitimate output is a proportional reflection of aggregate opinion. But that is not what our system was designed to do. A UK General Election is better understood as a series of local contests, fought in places with their own histories and interests, against a national backdrop. The national result is an accumulation of constituency choices, not the other way round.
Critics of FPTP often fault it for failing to perform a task it was never intended to perform.
PR advocates will say that this is precisely the problem: Parliament should mirror the national distribution of opinion more faithfully. But in doing so they tend to invert the relationship between representative and represented. The constituency becomes secondary and the party primary. In list systems especially, the route to office runs more through party favour than local endorsement. Even in multi-member variants, accountability becomes blurred. Who exactly is “your” representative?
None of this is to pretend FPTP is perfect. It plainly is not. It can produce disproportional outcomes, exaggerate swings, leave many votes without effective parliamentary weight, and create safe seats where the real contest is selection not election. Those are real criticisms.
But every electoral system has trade-offs. If your priority is that Parliament should reflect national vote shares as closely as possible, then PR will naturally appeal. If your priority is clear local representation, direct accountability, constitutional simplicity and the formation of workable governments, then FPTP remains highly defensible.
So I remain unpersuaded by PR, not because I fail to grasp the arithmetic, but because I think its advocates too often solve the wrong problem. They ask, “How do we make the Commons look more like the national vote totals?” I ask, “How do we ensure that each place has a clearly identifiable representative, answerable to it, within a system capable of producing a functioning government?”
To my mind, that is the more fundamental question, and it is one to which FPTP still gives the better answer.
It would a better answer were it not for the current importance of political parties. As has been pointed out several times, especially since WWII the candidates have been chosen by the various parties and often have little or no connection with the constituency they seek to represent.
I think that’s fair up to a point, but it cuts against PR as much as FPTP.
Yes, parties now choose candidates and some have little prior link to the seat. But that does not abolish the MP-constituency link, it just means parties mediate entry into it.
Under FPTP there is still one clearly identifiable member for one place, answerable to that electorate and removable by it. My problem with PR is that if parties are already too powerful, many PR systems strengthen them further, not less, by making lists, rankings or multi-member vagueness more central.
If the complaint is that parties have become too important, I struggle to see why the cure should be electoral systems that often make them more important still.
Constituencies need not, generally, be so big that a constituent cannot find a sympathetic member. Under FPTP one can be stuck.
Yes, and that is exactly the vice of it. It turns representation into shopping.
The Ayrshire hotelier is up and ranting about the UK.
Why is he up? Has somebody provided a 13 year old girl for him again?
All of those countries that can’t get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you: Number 1, buy from the U.S., we have plenty, and Number 2, build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT. You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil! President DJT
The first job of a Commons electoral system is to choose identifiable local representatives, rooted in actual places, who can collectively sustain or dismiss a government. On that test FPTP still has considerable strengths, whatever its defects.
Its great virtue is clarity. A constituency has one MP. Everyone knows who that is. That person is answerable to the whole seat, not to a list manager or party machine. If they are good, they can build a real representative relationship with the constituency. If they are useless, the electorate know exactly who to remove.
Much of the case for PR starts by treating a General Election as if it ought to be a single national plebiscite whose sole legitimate output is a proportional reflection of aggregate opinion. But that is not what our system was designed to do. A UK General Election is better understood as a series of local contests, fought in places with their own histories and interests, against a national backdrop. The national result is an accumulation of constituency choices, not the other way round.
Critics of FPTP often fault it for failing to perform a task it was never intended to perform.
PR advocates will say that this is precisely the problem: Parliament should mirror the national distribution of opinion more faithfully. But in doing so they tend to invert the relationship between representative and represented. The constituency becomes secondary and the party primary. In list systems especially, the route to office runs more through party favour than local endorsement. Even in multi-member variants, accountability becomes blurred. Who exactly is “your” representative?
None of this is to pretend FPTP is perfect. It plainly is not. It can produce disproportional outcomes, exaggerate swings, leave many votes without effective parliamentary weight, and create safe seats where the real contest is selection not election. Those are real criticisms.
But every electoral system has trade-offs. If your priority is that Parliament should reflect national vote shares as closely as possible, then PR will naturally appeal. If your priority is clear local representation, direct accountability, constitutional simplicity and the formation of workable governments, then FPTP remains highly defensible.
So I remain unpersuaded by PR, not because I fail to grasp the arithmetic, but because I think its advocates too often solve the wrong problem. They ask, “How do we make the Commons look more like the national vote totals?” I ask, “How do we ensure that each place has a clearly identifiable representative, answerable to it, within a system capable of producing a functioning government?”
To my mind, that is the more fundamental question, and it is one to which FPTP still gives the better answer.
Agree. What question you want to answer and what problem you want to resolve governs the rest. Trollope's political novels - the Palliser sequence of six - give a bit of a picture of a very imperfect system but one in which government was less in charge of parliament and parliament mattered quite a lot. factions were quote fluid.
The Ayrshire hotelier is up and ranting about the UK.
Why is he up? Has somebody provided a 13 year old girl for him again?
All of those countries that can’t get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you: Number 1, buy from the U.S., we have plenty, and Number 2, build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT. You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil! President DJT
LOL. No-one's been able to tell him that the hard part hasn't started. He did the easy bit of starting a war.
I know Trump’s social media rants shouldn’t bother me, but they’re really infuriating. Doubly so because I know no amount of explanation of the actual facts to him will make the blindest bit of difference.
The first job of a Commons electoral system is to choose identifiable local representatives, rooted in actual places, who can collectively sustain or dismiss a government. On that test FPTP still has considerable strengths, whatever its defects.
Its great virtue is clarity. A constituency has one MP. Everyone knows who that is. That person is answerable to the whole seat, not to a list manager or party machine. If they are good, they can build a real representative relationship with the constituency. If they are useless, the electorate know exactly who to remove.
Much of the case for PR starts by treating a General Election as if it ought to be a single national plebiscite whose sole legitimate output is a proportional reflection of aggregate opinion. But that is not what our system was designed to do. A UK General Election is better understood as a series of local contests, fought in places with their own histories and interests, against a national backdrop. The national result is an accumulation of constituency choices, not the other way round.
Critics of FPTP often fault it for failing to perform a task it was never intended to perform.
PR advocates will say that this is precisely the problem: Parliament should mirror the national distribution of opinion more faithfully. But in doing so they tend to invert the relationship between representative and represented. The constituency becomes secondary and the party primary. In list systems especially, the route to office runs more through party favour than local endorsement. Even in multi-member variants, accountability becomes blurred. Who exactly is “your” representative?
None of this is to pretend FPTP is perfect. It plainly is not. It can produce disproportional outcomes, exaggerate swings, leave many votes without effective parliamentary weight, and create safe seats where the real contest is selection not election. Those are real criticisms.
But every electoral system has trade-offs. If your priority is that Parliament should reflect national vote shares as closely as possible, then PR will naturally appeal. If your priority is clear local representation, direct accountability, constitutional simplicity and the formation of workable governments, then FPTP remains highly defensible.
So I remain unpersuaded by PR, not because I fail to grasp the arithmetic, but because I think its advocates too often solve the wrong problem. They ask, “How do we make the Commons look more like the national vote totals?” I ask, “How do we ensure that each place has a clearly identifiable representative, answerable to it, within a system capable of producing a functioning government?”
To my mind, that is the more fundamental question, and it is one to which FPTP still gives the better answer.
Agree. What question you want to answer and what problem you want to resolve governs the rest. Trollope's political novels - the Palliser sequence of six - give a bit of a picture of a very imperfect system but one in which government was less in charge of parliament and parliament mattered quite a lot. factions were quote fluid.
I'd be more open to changing my view if PR advocates could stop pretending it's axiomatic, and actually make arguments.
The Ayrshire hotelier is up and ranting about the UK.
Why is he up? Has somebody provided a 13 year old girl for him again?
All of those countries that can’t get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you: Number 1, buy from the U.S., we have plenty, and Number 2, build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT. You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil! President DJT
Desperation setting in as the clock to the midterms slowly tic tocs and gas is over $4
.... one consequence of which is that his net approval as President is now on a steep downward trajectory and currently at a record low of -17% (Nate Silver's aggregate of all polls.) Expect it to be even lower this time next week as there's typically a week's or so delay between fieldwork and publication.
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.
Ah, slight misunderstanding there then. I was thinking of the 2/3 benchmark, which is virtually unobtainable this November. Pologies.
“All of those countries that can’t get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you…”
The Ayrshire hotelier is up and ranting about the UK.
Why is he up? Has somebody provided a 13 year old girl for him again?
All of those countries that can’t get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you: Number 1, buy from the U.S., we have plenty, and Number 2, build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT. You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil! President DJT
Desperation setting in as the clock to the midterms slowly tic tocs and gas is over $4
Comments
What about the pensioners?!
The ex-civil servant is just listing the problems that need to be overcome to do X.
The response of an effective politician is to use political capital to overcome those objections.
It is the same in any large organisation. Change requires power and will.
New JL Partners polling featured in the @Independent
A more adversarial approach from Keir Starmer to dealing with Trump improves the PM’s approval rating by 26 points
-14 albeit it’s a push poll
For that money you can get a whole mini-satellite constellation that covers the whole planet 24/7
There are strong rumours that Starshield* has test systems up there already. And that the rate of change is monthly, rather than decades
*Starshield as in not just the basic program, but a wider series of programs where various groups in the Pentagon and NSA are deploying sub-constellations. These are multiplying furiously.
He was still firing off letters to all and sundry about it four years later.
Fucking idiot.
On the plus side he lost his house when the company folded about a decade after I left.
Starmer is losing to his right, but more so his left with the Greens dramatic appearance on the scene with Polanski leadership
I think it is fair to say that Starmer simply does not have the political skills to be a PM, and is terrified of leadership delegating decisions to others ('It hasn't passed my desk') and now telling industry his government cannot do everything, notwithstanding their anti business rhetoric and ham-fisted tax decisions
I just cannot understand how telling resident doctors he will close off 4,000 training places if they do not call off their strike is anyway a positive step
On Iran he is again losing from the right and left and went into this crisis with his polling already on the floor
Overnight a More In Common poll just confirms how cynical the electorate have become of Starmer and his government:
Do you think that the following is true or false ?
Morgan McSweeney faked the theft of his phone in order to hide messages between him and Peter Mandelson
Definitely true 15%
Probably true 59% Total True 74%
Probably false 22%
Definitely false 4% Total False 26%
Even 70% of labour, 74% Lib Dens and 82% Greens thought total true
I would add that it is not discussed much, but the Lib Dems seem marooned and if anything may also have a problem with the Greens
They are foolishly reducing immigration to net zero.
I agree with Boris. If we don't have enough workers we can import them from Asia. Sounds good to me.
I've every confidence in most of my younger colleagues, but the important word is most.
Italy’s Defence Minister Guido Crosetto has denied permission for US military aircraft to use Naval Air Station Sigonella in Sicily for a stopover en route to the Middle East.
Reform 17
Green 15
Tory 14
Labour 13.
https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/VotingIntention_MRP_Results_260330_w.pdf
The fact that the US flew some out to the gulf when they're having difficulty sustaining flights for homeland defense suggests how useful they are.
The age of the airframes is probably less of a problem than the engines (which is why the even older B52, which rocked the same old turbofan, is currently being re-engined).
Israel’s defenders here have a tough sell on this
Especially seeing the far right lawmakers raising champagne glasses and wearing brooches depicting a noose.
The death penalty applies to Palestinians but not Jewish Israelis, so if you’re an illegal settler you can kill as many Palestinians as you like and not face the death penalty.
Also the Palestinian faces a mere 90 days from conviction to death sentence being carried out.
As I said last night Israel is no longer a functioning democracy, it is more akin to a Jim Crow Deep South State/Apartheid South Africa.
I imagine Israel is trying to ensure that if they don't kill terrorists in the act of terrorism (which they mostly will endeavour to do), that they won't be around to be traded.
And before anyone gets triggered, people who have had their lives upened around them are perfectly justifed in feeling fed up with the situation. The UK handled all the changes in the economy from the 80s onwards badly. Partly because of laissez-faire, partly because of a planning system that made it much too hard for people to move to where the new jobs are. It's just that the Reform perscription, hedge fund funded nostalgia for the Good Old Days that weren't that good for a lot of people, certainly won't help and will probably make things worse.
I’ve previously mentioned the reception someone got, trying to setup a factory in an ex-industrial area.
In the end, they went to Malaysia. Because Malaysia were keen to have the factory and acted on their enthusiasm.
I could care less about McSweeney and Mandelson. One is an overpromoted idiot and other might just be Satan.
It's not made economic sense before, but that could change if disruption persists.
Similarly Trudeau nixed Canadian plans for new LNG export facilities. That now looks a big mistake, but would take years to correct.
Chris Rokos billionaire graduate of Oxford is giving £190m to Cambridge university
https://www.thetimes.com/article/b7960773-b75b-45a8-b1ad-0283698b477c?shareToken=2c7ee51a3387343b2606b851ae7645a8
Cambridge receives biggest university donation in history
Hedge fund manager gives institution £190m to create new school of government
The University of Cambridge has received a record-breaking £190m donation from a British philanthropist.
Chris Rokos, a 55-year-old billionaire investment fund manager who is one of Britain’s richest men, is making a £130m up-front donation to the university with a promise of a further £60m to come. It is believed to be the biggest single donation to a British university in modern times.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/31/cambridge-chris-rokos-biggest-university-donation/
Australia have already started the project to replace theirs (AIR7002).
https://x.com/atrupar/status/2038672001959592147
The first job of a Commons electoral system is to choose identifiable local representatives, rooted in actual places, who can collectively sustain or dismiss a government. On that test FPTP still has considerable strengths, whatever its defects.
Its great virtue is clarity. A constituency has one MP. Everyone knows who that is. That person is answerable to the whole seat, not to a list manager or party machine. If they are good, they can build a real representative relationship with the constituency. If they are useless, the electorate know exactly who to remove.
Much of the case for PR starts by treating a General Election as if it ought to be a single national plebiscite whose sole legitimate output is a proportional reflection of aggregate opinion. But that is not what our system was designed to do. A UK General Election is better understood as a series of local contests, fought in places with their own histories and interests, against a national backdrop. The national result is an accumulation of constituency choices, not the other way round.
Critics of FPTP often fault it for failing to perform a task it was never intended to perform.
PR advocates will say that this is precisely the problem: Parliament should mirror the national distribution of opinion more faithfully. But in doing so they tend to invert the relationship between representative and represented. The constituency becomes secondary and the party primary. In list systems especially, the route to office runs more through party favour than local endorsement. Even in multi-member variants, accountability becomes blurred. Who exactly is “your” representative?
None of this is to pretend FPTP is perfect. It plainly is not. It can produce disproportional outcomes, exaggerate swings, leave many votes without effective parliamentary weight, and create safe seats where the real contest is selection not election. Those are real criticisms.
But every electoral system has trade-offs. If your priority is that Parliament should reflect national vote shares as closely as possible, then PR will naturally appeal. If your priority is clear local representation, direct accountability, constitutional simplicity and the formation of workable governments, then FPTP remains highly defensible.
So I remain unpersuaded by PR, not because I fail to grasp the arithmetic, but because I think its advocates too often solve the wrong problem. They ask, “How do we make the Commons look more like the national vote totals?” I ask, “How do we ensure that each place has a clearly identifiable representative, answerable to it, within a system capable of producing a functioning government?”
To my mind, that is the more fundamental question, and it is one to which FPTP still gives the better answer.
In other news, at least one Council has formally told Raise the Colours to cease and desist from abusing their lamp posts like incontinent labradors:
Oxfordshire County Council has today issued a formal legal notice to Raise the Colours in response to their continued placing of flags across Oxfordshire.
This notice requires an individual or organisation to stop a specified activity. The council has taken this action following the repeated installation of flags on or near highways without consent.
If the group does not comply with the letter, the council will consider all available options to include, but not limited to, civil and criminal proceedings against the organisation and individuals affiliated with it to prevent further unauthorised action.
Councillor Liz Leffman, Leader of Oxfordshire County Council, said: “The scale and persistence of this activity is affecting communities across Oxfordshire.
“We are proud of our diverse communities in Oxfordshire and of being the first county council to be awarded Local Authority of Sanctuary status. We proudly fly the Union Jack and St George’s flags, which are visible symbols of democracy and unity.
“However, the widespread installation of flags by Raise the Colours is not a sign of patriotism. It is an act of intimidation and division that is having a real and damaging impact on our communities..
https://news.oxfordshire.gov.uk/unauthorised-flags/
Thankyou for your kind words on Spidey my 100 million year old spider
In answer to your question about how much and where, you should expect to pay three figures for a good example of an insect caught in fossilised amber. But £1k is ridiculous
Mine cost £200 which feels like a good deal, given how spectacularly weird Spidey is. And how very visibly a spider
Source is important. There are fakes. Go to a reputable dealer in fossils. Don’t buy off a random on the net
As for the provenance, Burmese amber is recognised as maybe the best as it is full of insects and weirdness, and dates back to the dinosaurs, and is much older than Baltic amber (which is just 40 million years not 100 million)
Good luck!
Which does not quite land imo.
Yes, parties now choose candidates and some have little prior link to the seat. But that does not abolish the MP-constituency link, it just means parties mediate entry into it.
Under FPTP there is still one clearly identifiable member for one place, answerable to that electorate and removable by it. My problem with PR is that if parties are already too powerful, many PR systems strengthen them further, not less, by making lists, rankings or multi-member vagueness more central.
If the complaint is that parties have become too important, I struggle to see why the cure should be electoral systems that often make them more important still.
The last decade is certainly not a ringing endorsement of the quality of governments produced under FPTP. But it does not follow that the underlying virtues of the system, clear local representation, direct electoral accountability, and the possibility of decisive government, have ceased to exist.
What it may show is that those virtues are no guarantee of wisdom, competence or seriousness. No electoral system can provide that. A more proportional Commons may mirror the electorate more faithfully, but it does not magically produce better politicians, clearer accountability, or stronger administration.
If anything, I would say the chaos of the last decade illustrates the limits of constitutional mechanics. A poor political class can make a mess under any system. My objection to PR is not that it would instantly ruin everything, but that it solves a different problem from the one people imagine. It may improve proportionality, but I remain unconvinced that it improves responsibility, clarity or governability.
The Country of France wouldn’t let planes headed to Israel, loaded up with military supplies, fly over French territory. France has been VERY UNHELPFUL with respect to the “Butcher of Iran,” who has been successfully eliminated! The U.S.A. will REMEMBER!!! President DJT
Unfortunately he’ll be unable to vote in person as he will be travelling around Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan at the time of the locals.
(Also, is he right about the US supplies? @rcs1000 's post suggest not, but I'm not an expert.)
Terrorism is also vile.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/12/08/the-tory-scorpion-and-kemi-the-frog/
The other is President.
https://x.com/whitehouse/status/2038939688946311321
“All of those countries that can’t get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you…”