Skip to content

Electoral reform could be key to winning the Makerfield by-election (and the next general election)

SystemSystem Posts: 13,170
edited May 24 in General
Electoral reform could be key to winning the Makerfield by-election (and the next general election) – politicalbetting.com

Earlier on this month I speculated that the left wing and right wing blocs in this country might end up forming pacts to ensure their side win the next general election, here is the first iteration.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,196
    First!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 56,833
    Second?

    Sorry to miss the last thread but busy in the sun all day..
  • theProletheProle Posts: 1,953
    FPT

    Dopermean said:

    Nigelb said:

    ...

    Nigelb said:

    stodge said:

    kinabalu said:

    We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.

    No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.

    You fuckers aren't going to win.
    But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?

    The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
    No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.

    Not mine.
    Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.

    The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
    From the header,

    The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)

    In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.

    Then the questions become:

    Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?

    If so, what is that threshold?

    If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?

    If so, when?

    If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
    Other questions:

    Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?

    Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?

    How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?

    Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
    there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.

    France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.

    Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
    It has nothing to do with 'ability to invest' - the bat tunnel was a direct result of Natural England enforcing the EU's 2017 Habitats and Species Regulations, which are part of retained EU law.

    If we wish to prevent future bat tunnels, we need to remove the retained law, and remove Natural England's legal right to enforce such laws without reference to Ministers. Doing so would mean we would no longer be aligned with EU species regulations, and make the prospect of rejoining harder and less attractive. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that we should keep the country in a Miss Havisham-like state of being ready to marry the EU in the future, when their laws are serving our needs so poorly.
    Yet these things do not arise anywhere else in the EU.

    There are loads of km of high speed rail built all over Europe without any worries about bat tunnels.

    Why can those other countries manage to build railways, countries with bats, without the need for tunnels ?

    I will give you a clue, it is nothing to do with the EU.
    They don't have so much tunneling through Tory constituencies imposed
    On them, either.
    The bat tunnels are on sections where HS2 is not in a tunnel.

    Neither of which are anything whatsoever to do with the EU, all down to decisions taken by the (Conservative led) HS2 Phase 1 Committee that reviewed the original bill.
    You may want that to be true, and I don't blame you, but it isn't. Natural England has acknowledged advising HS2 that the bat tunnel would comply with the law - the only reason for even considering such a structure.
    But the cost of UK infrastructure has nothing to do with the EU law.

    I will repeat, 27 other EU countries do not have this problem.

    You many want this to be true, but the reality is every other EU country can build infrastructure at a cost much lower than the UK irrespective of EU law.

    The problem is local to the UK and you are chasing a false enemy to blame the EU.

    How is it 'a false enemy' when a £100mn bat tunnel was built specifically to comply with an EU law, and your point (it seems) is just that 'we should just ignore that law then' without saying how that would actually work?
    It doesn't occur to you that the contractor was only too happy to find an excuse to build a £100m bat tunnel, and the client's rep was too naive to object?
    It’s ok. In LuckyGuy’s world the Minister will PM all the projects themselves
    Surely at least part the trick is to heavily align incentives e.g. pay all through the system, down to small site manager level and cost control. Come in substantially under budget, ££ muchly. Spend 5x budget (or whatever HS2 is up to now), and congrats, you're now working for free.

    You'd need to combine that with some fairly independent QC people, on a bonus based on successfully identifying corners being cut.

    The best option of all is the simplest. Act of Parliament approving a route, squashing all planning/environmental stuff, setting agreed compensation ratios for the properties compulsorily purchased etc. Then simply offer a 50 year build and operate licence to the highest bidder - they get to build it at their expense, then get the revenue from it until a specified date. The sooner it's open, the sooner they start earning. The more it costs to build, the less profitable it is for the company in question. If no one bids, then we've successfully answered the question "is it worth building this thing anyway", and we should give the whole idea up.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,566
    Foxy said:

    Second?

    Sorry to miss the last thread but busy in the sun all day..

    Same.

    I am tired and emotional after saying goodbye to Mo Salah and Andy Robertson.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 56,833
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/may/24/farage-mounting-pressure-prove-russian-hack-claim?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    Interesting claim by Farage.

    1) does this signify a movement away from his previous pro-Putin remarks?

    2) it also seems to imply that he had no intention of declaring this £5 million pounds.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,196
    We know the Lib Dems are not going to campaign hard in Makerfield. We know they only crank up the by-election fighting machine in seats where they know they have a chance, and in those cases they do it early and they go all-in.

    I don't know why the Greens are having so much trouble with this. Just because they've now won their first ever by-election, doesn't mean that they now have to fight hard in every by-election going.

    Save the effort for a seat they have a chance in. Meanwhile keep on working the target areas they've already identified for the next GE. Get their by-election candidate to concentrate their campaigning on the single ward in the constituency that is most promising for the Greens at future local elections.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,352
    I would caution that Bartlet and Read are not exactly members of the Polanski neo-Corbyn society.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,618
    Foxy said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/may/24/farage-mounting-pressure-prove-russian-hack-claim?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    Interesting claim by Farage.

    1) does this signify a movement away from his previous pro-Putin remarks?

    2) it also seems to imply that he had no intention of declaring this £5 million pounds.

    The second bit is clearly true.

    The "it was Russia" thing ... smells of BS, but frankly, who cares ?
  • stjohnstjohn Posts: 2,007
    edited May 24
    For all his bombast, Donald Trump is going to go down in history as the person who chose to take the most powerful country in the world into an unnecessary war - and lost. Extraordinary overreach.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,618
    Hamilton appears to have rediscovered his mojo.
    Particularly satisfying that he passed Verstappen on the way.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,566
    Nigelb said:

    Hamilton appears to have rediscovered his mojo.
    Particularly satisfying that he passed Verstappen on the way.

    I know.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,794
    stjohn said:

    For all his bombast, Donald Trump is going to go down in history as the person who chose to take the most powerful country in the world into an unnecessary war - and lost. Extraordinary overreach.

    Americans have lost wars before of course, and a lot more men and materiel in the process.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,794


    Daisy Eastlake
    @daisyeastlake

    🟢 EXCL: Senior Green Party figures have urged Zack Polanski to consider stepping aside for Andy Burnham in the Makerfield by-election if the Greater Manchester mayor commits to introducing proportional representation

    Green councillors, activists and former party leaders have signed a joint statement warning that the party should approach the contest with “trepidation”

    The letter, whose signatories include Jonathan Bartley, who led the party between 2016 and 2018, and Rupert Read, a former Green councillor and author, says that Burnham’s election presents a “unique opportunity” to secure reform

    https://x.com/daisyeastlake/status/2058620897863348478

    Problem is changes tend to happen if you think you will benefit from them, unless a leader is a rare beast driven by principle alone. Andy will presumably think he can restore Labour fortunes under FPTP (Keir did show how effective it could be), so unless he's really committed to an approach that will probably help the Greens at his own expense, I'd be skeptical.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 81,143
    Not sure it's ever going to happen for George Russell tbh
  • stjohnstjohn Posts: 2,007
    kle4 said:

    stjohn said:

    For all his bombast, Donald Trump is going to go down in history as the person who chose to take the most powerful country in the world into an unnecessary war - and lost. Extraordinary overreach.

    Americans have lost wars before of course, and a lot more men and materiel in the process.
    Yes. But this war was never winnable. As his advisors told him.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,566
    edited May 24
    Pulpstar said:

    Not sure it's ever going to happen for George Russell tbh

    He's reminding me of Fernando Alonso in 2007 who just couldn't cope he had a very good rookie teammate challenging him.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,989
    "In place by the election after next", what is this weak lame pathetic pile of meh.

    If you're going to do the thing, do the thing. Don't make a plan to do the thing that will be aborted by the next majority government.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,794
    stjohn said:

    kle4 said:

    stjohn said:

    For all his bombast, Donald Trump is going to go down in history as the person who chose to take the most powerful country in the world into an unnecessary war - and lost. Extraordinary overreach.

    Americans have lost wars before of course, and a lot more men and materiel in the process.
    Yes. But this war was never winnable. As his advisors told him.
    A nation of 90m run by an entrenched regime might not be able to fight back against US military might completely, but his continual pushbacks for negotiations does suggest to me that he has been surprised that such a nation and such a regime has not simply rolled over either.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,794

    "In place by the election after next", what is this weak lame pathetic pile of meh.

    If you're going to do the thing, do the thing. Don't make a plan to do the thing that will be aborted by the next majority government.

    It's presumably a way to sell it to current MPs, many of whom won't be there for that one.

    Though IIRC Greece has(had?) a system wherein changes to the electoral arrangements took effect at the elections beyond the next. Not sure if that had a timeframe on it, as they went through a period of rapid elections.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 50,683

    Foxy said:

    Second?

    Sorry to miss the last thread but busy in the sun all day..

    Same.

    I am tired and emotional after saying goodbye to Mo Salah and Andy Robertson.
    Moving, wasn't it. So was the Pep farewell. There are sports I prefer to football but there's no doubting its primacy. I don't think anything else, in sport or otherwise, has such a strong emotional connection with so many people in so many places.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,352
    kle4 said:


    Daisy Eastlake
    @daisyeastlake

    🟢 EXCL: Senior Green Party figures have urged Zack Polanski to consider stepping aside for Andy Burnham in the Makerfield by-election if the Greater Manchester mayor commits to introducing proportional representation

    Green councillors, activists and former party leaders have signed a joint statement warning that the party should approach the contest with “trepidation”

    The letter, whose signatories include Jonathan Bartley, who led the party between 2016 and 2018, and Rupert Read, a former Green councillor and author, says that Burnham’s election presents a “unique opportunity” to secure reform

    https://x.com/daisyeastlake/status/2058620897863348478

    Problem is changes tend to happen if you think you will benefit from them, unless a leader is a rare beast driven by principle alone. Andy will presumably think he can restore Labour fortunes under FPTP (Keir did show how effective it could be), so unless he's really committed to an approach that will probably help the Greens at his own expense, I'd be skeptical.
    It would need to be a promise of a referundum put in next Lab manifesto and a policy of campaigning for 'yes'.

    But yes to what? Burnham has actually said he favours AMS rather than actual PR (eg STV etc) iirc.

    The only time in recent years that Labour got serious on this was the Jenkins report which came up with AMS+ iirc???

    I have a copy gathering dust on the shelf of Vague Promises.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,196

    "In place by the election after next", what is this weak lame pathetic pile of meh.

    If you're going to do the thing, do the thing. Don't make a plan to do the thing that will be aborted by the next majority government.

    I don't think it would be possible for Burnham to introduce a different electoral system for the next general election, even if he wanted to.

    Because it wasn't a Labour manifesto commitment it will be easy for the Lords to block and delay. And then, because the process will only have been started two years into the Parliament, it doesn't take much delay to then mean a new system will be hard practically to introduce, in terms of defining new constituency boundaries, etc, even if it is statute by the next GE.

    The Greens are unusual in that they often let reality intrude on their political demands, rather than asking Burnham for something he can't deliver they will ask him for something he won't deliver. Much more practical.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,989
    kle4 said:

    "In place by the election after next", what is this weak lame pathetic pile of meh.

    If you're going to do the thing, do the thing. Don't make a plan to do the thing that will be aborted by the next majority government.

    It's presumably a way to sell it to current MPs, many of whom won't be there for that one.

    Though IIRC Greece has(had?) a system wherein changes to the electoral arrangements took effect at the elections beyond the next. Not sure if that had a timeframe on it, as they went through a period of rapid elections.
    I mean I hate to be defeatist but most of them aren't going to be there after the next election in any case.

    I do get the argument for doing this well in advance in that in theory it means the people making the decisions won't know how it will affect them personally, so they'll have to think about what is the best system. But this only works if you have a way to actually hold the next FPTP government to the decision. This isn't possible in the (unreformed) British system because it has pretty much no meaningful checks and balances except norms and propriety. If Farage gets a majority off 25% of the vote I don't think it's rational to expect him to respect norms and propriety.
  • stjohnstjohn Posts: 2,007
    kle4 said:

    stjohn said:

    kle4 said:

    stjohn said:

    For all his bombast, Donald Trump is going to go down in history as the person who chose to take the most powerful country in the world into an unnecessary war - and lost. Extraordinary overreach.

    Americans have lost wars before of course, and a lot more men and materiel in the process.
    Yes. But this war was never winnable. As his advisors told him.
    A nation of 90m run by an entrenched regime might not be able to fight back against US military might completely, but his continual pushbacks for negotiations does suggest to me that he has been surprised that such a nation and such a regime has not simply rolled over either.
    His aims (although these change all the time) were

    Regime change
    Stop Iran’s nuclear weapon potential
    Stop Iran’s support of proxies who fight Israel
    Destroy all of Iran’s ballistic missiles
    (Not close Strait of Hormuz)

    Score at the moment

    US 0 Iran 5
  • stjohnstjohn Posts: 2,007
    kle4 said:

    stjohn said:

    kle4 said:

    stjohn said:

    For all his bombast, Donald Trump is going to go down in history as the person who chose to take the most powerful country in the world into an unnecessary war - and lost. Extraordinary overreach.

    Americans have lost wars before of course, and a lot more men and materiel in the process.
    Yes. But this war was never winnable. As his advisors told him.
    A nation of 90m run by an entrenched regime might not be able to fight back against US military might completely, but his continual pushbacks for negotiations does suggest to me that he has been surprised that such a nation and such a regime has not simply rolled over either.
    His aims (although these change all the time) were

    Regime change
    Stop Iran’s nuclear weapon potential
    Stop Iran’s support of proxies who fight Israel
    Destroy all of Iran’s ballistic missiles
    (Not close Strait of Hormuz)

    Score at the moment

    US 0 Iran 5
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 4,847

    "In place by the election after next", what is this weak lame pathetic pile of meh.

    If you're going to do the thing, do the thing. Don't make a plan to do the thing that will be aborted by the next majority government.

    I don't think it would be possible for Burnham to introduce a different electoral system for the next general election, even if he wanted to.

    Because it wasn't a Labour manifesto commitment it will be easy for the Lords to block and delay. And then, because the process will only have been started two years into the Parliament, it doesn't take much delay to then mean a new system will be hard practically to introduce, in terms of defining new constituency boundaries, etc, even if it is statute by the next GE.

    The Greens are unusual in that they often let reality intrude on their political demands, rather than asking Burnham for something he can't deliver they will ask him for something he won't deliver. Much more practical.
    To be fair to them they appear to have considered that as they're not asking for it for the next election, but the one after that.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,618

    Pulpstar said:

    Not sure it's ever going to happen for George Russell tbh

    He's reminding me of Fernando Alonso in 2007 who just couldn't cope he had a very good rookie teammate challenging him.
    Can't really judge him for his motor going pop.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 4,847
    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Not sure it's ever going to happen for George Russell tbh

    He's reminding me of Fernando Alonso in 2007 who just couldn't cope he had a very good rookie teammate challenging him.
    Can't really judge him for his motor going pop.
    Was a shame as it was shaping up to be a Bahrain 2014 type duel.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,196
    There is good news coming from Russia - fuel shortages are starting to happen not far from Moscow in the Tver region. Seems like the Ukrainian campaign against oil infrastructure in the vicinity of Moscow is starting to have noticeable consequences.

    And at the same time, Ukraine targeted the oil export terminal in Novorossiysk, very soon after Reuters reported it had been fully repaired. This shows that Ukraine is not being pressured to hold off on targeting Russia's oil export infrastructure (or, at least, it feels able to resist any such pressure).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,794
    stjohn said:

    kle4 said:

    stjohn said:

    kle4 said:

    stjohn said:

    For all his bombast, Donald Trump is going to go down in history as the person who chose to take the most powerful country in the world into an unnecessary war - and lost. Extraordinary overreach.

    Americans have lost wars before of course, and a lot more men and materiel in the process.
    Yes. But this war was never winnable. As his advisors told him.
    A nation of 90m run by an entrenched regime might not be able to fight back against US military might completely, but his continual pushbacks for negotiations does suggest to me that he has been surprised that such a nation and such a regime has not simply rolled over either.
    His aims (although these change all the time) were

    Regime change
    Stop Iran’s nuclear weapon potential
    Stop Iran’s support of proxies who fight Israel
    Destroy all of Iran’s ballistic missiles
    (Not close Strait of Hormuz)

    Score at the moment

    US 0 Iran 5
    Many of the proxies are quite a bit diminished from what Iran would like, but then that had pretty much happened anyway before this war, even if they never disappear completely.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,618

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Not sure it's ever going to happen for George Russell tbh

    He's reminding me of Fernando Alonso in 2007 who just couldn't cope he had a very good rookie teammate challenging him.
    Can't really judge him for his motor going pop.
    Was a shame as it was shaping up to be a Bahrain 2014 type duel.
    Russell taking the win might have been a psychological turning point.
    Instead the pressure ramps up another notch.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 40,149
    "Starmer 'appalled' by case of boys spared jail after raping teenage girls"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c332ljdkd81o
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,989

    "In place by the election after next", what is this weak lame pathetic pile of meh.

    If you're going to do the thing, do the thing. Don't make a plan to do the thing that will be aborted by the next majority government.

    I don't think it would be possible for Burnham to introduce a different electoral system for the next general election, even if he wanted to.

    Because it wasn't a Labour manifesto commitment it will be easy for the Lords to block and delay. And then, because the process will only have been started two years into the Parliament, it doesn't take much delay to then mean a new system will be hard practically to introduce, in terms of defining new constituency boundaries, etc, even if it is statute by the next GE.

    The Greens are unusual in that they often let reality intrude on their political demands, rather than asking Burnham for something he can't deliver they will ask him for something he won't deliver. Much more practical.
    Would the Lords want to block and delay? Surely they can see the problem with FPTP with 5 and-then-some effective parties, you don't have to be Albert Einstein to get why this is a bad idea.

    Once you pick a system (doing this consists of saying "we want the constituency link so it'll be AMS like Scotland") and schedule a referendum you can go right ahead and get to work on the boundaries. If the voters say no then you can just not use the boundaries they were halfway through designing.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,339
    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/may/24/farage-mounting-pressure-prove-russian-hack-claim?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    Interesting claim by Farage.

    1) does this signify a movement away from his previous pro-Putin remarks?

    2) it also seems to imply that he had no intention of declaring this £5 million pounds.

    The second bit is clearly true.

    The "it was Russia" thing ... smells of BS, but frankly, who cares ?
    There was a hack from somewhere. Why not Russia? It admits the £5M though.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,196

    "In place by the election after next", what is this weak lame pathetic pile of meh.

    If you're going to do the thing, do the thing. Don't make a plan to do the thing that will be aborted by the next majority government.

    I don't think it would be possible for Burnham to introduce a different electoral system for the next general election, even if he wanted to.

    Because it wasn't a Labour manifesto commitment it will be easy for the Lords to block and delay. And then, because the process will only have been started two years into the Parliament, it doesn't take much delay to then mean a new system will be hard practically to introduce, in terms of defining new constituency boundaries, etc, even if it is statute by the next GE.

    The Greens are unusual in that they often let reality intrude on their political demands, rather than asking Burnham for something he can't deliver they will ask him for something he won't deliver. Much more practical.
    Would the Lords want to block and delay? Surely they can see the problem with FPTP with 5 and-then-some effective parties, you don't have to be Albert Einstein to get why this is a bad idea.

    Once you pick a system (doing this consists of saying "we want the constituency link so it'll be AMS like Scotland") and schedule a referendum you can go right ahead and get to work on the boundaries. If the voters say no then you can just not use the boundaries they were halfway through designing.
    Both Tories and Labour know that they can only win a majority alone with FPTP. Sure, Reform and the Greens are making that look a bit shaky now, but my guess is that their Lords will believe their parties are better served by FPTP.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,339
    Andy_JS said:

    "Starmer 'appalled' by case of boys spared jail after raping teenage girls"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c332ljdkd81o

    Starmer was happy for teenagers to be locked up for nicking bottles of water not too many years ago so it is no great surprise that he has leapt on this bandwagon.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,518
    Andy_JS said:

    "Starmer 'appalled' by case of boys spared jail after raping teenage girls"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c332ljdkd81o

    No papers have passed his desk, and he will take full responsibility. By firing another subordinate.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 6,053

    There is good news coming from Russia - fuel shortages are starting to happen not far from Moscow in the Tver region. Seems like the Ukrainian campaign against oil infrastructure in the vicinity of Moscow is starting to have noticeable consequences.

    And at the same time, Ukraine targeted the oil export terminal in Novorossiysk, very soon after Reuters reported it had been fully repaired. This shows that Ukraine is not being pressured to hold off on targeting Russia's oil export infrastructure (or, at least, it feels able to resist any such pressure).

    I sometimes wonder how long the rope is that reaches from the top of a presidential Kremlin tower, to almost the ground. Much though I dislike such thoughts - I also dislike the idea of young men being fed into a grinder and turned to jam for the sake of a presidential paranoid whim.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,339

    "In place by the election after next", what is this weak lame pathetic pile of meh.

    If you're going to do the thing, do the thing. Don't make a plan to do the thing that will be aborted by the next majority government.

    I don't think it would be possible for Burnham to introduce a different electoral system for the next general election, even if he wanted to.

    Because it wasn't a Labour manifesto commitment it will be easy for the Lords to block and delay. And then, because the process will only have been started two years into the Parliament, it doesn't take much delay to then mean a new system will be hard practically to introduce, in terms of defining new constituency boundaries, etc, even if it is statute by the next GE.

    The Greens are unusual in that they often let reality intrude on their political demands, rather than asking Burnham for something he can't deliver they will ask him for something he won't deliver. Much more practical.
    Would the Lords want to block and delay? Surely they can see the problem with FPTP with 5 and-then-some effective parties, you don't have to be Albert Einstein to get why this is a bad idea.

    Once you pick a system (doing this consists of saying "we want the constituency link so it'll be AMS like Scotland") and schedule a referendum you can go right ahead and get to work on the boundaries. If the voters say no then you can just not use the boundaries they were halfway through designing.
    The Lords as champions of democracy? It has a certain appeal for lovers of irony. Trouble is neither the Scottish nor Welsh PR-ish systems have produced clear results either, and we can look at Israel to see that small extremist parties have disproportionate control by being coalition partners of last resort.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,989

    Sure, Reform and the Greens are making that look a bit shaky now

    Incredible understatement.

    But maybe you're right, if you designed an organization with the goal of maximizing normalcy bias it would look something like the House of Lords.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 10,789

    Andy_JS said:

    "Starmer 'appalled' by case of boys spared jail after raping teenage girls"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c332ljdkd81o

    Starmer was happy for teenagers to be locked up for nicking bottles of water not too many years ago so it is no great surprise that he has leapt on this bandwagon.
    I would suggest this is a rather more serious matter.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,196
    ohnotnow said:

    There is good news coming from Russia - fuel shortages are starting to happen not far from Moscow in the Tver region. Seems like the Ukrainian campaign against oil infrastructure in the vicinity of Moscow is starting to have noticeable consequences.

    And at the same time, Ukraine targeted the oil export terminal in Novorossiysk, very soon after Reuters reported it had been fully repaired. This shows that Ukraine is not being pressured to hold off on targeting Russia's oil export infrastructure (or, at least, it feels able to resist any such pressure).

    I sometimes wonder how long the rope is that reaches from the top of a presidential Kremlin tower, to almost the ground. Much though I dislike such thoughts - I also dislike the idea of young men being fed into a grinder and turned to jam for the sake of a presidential paranoid whim.
    By all accounts Putin is paranoid enough to make sure that there's no rope within several miles of him, and that only trusted associates have control of the keys to the window locks, and that there are people to watch the trusted associates to make sure that they can be trusted.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,339

    Andy_JS said:

    "Starmer 'appalled' by case of boys spared jail after raping teenage girls"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c332ljdkd81o

    Starmer was happy for teenagers to be locked up for nicking bottles of water not too many years ago so it is no great surprise that he has leapt on this bandwagon.
    I would suggest this is a rather more serious matter.
    That is kind of the point.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 9,228
    stjohn said:

    kle4 said:

    stjohn said:

    For all his bombast, Donald Trump is going to go down in history as the person who chose to take the most powerful country in the world into an unnecessary war - and lost. Extraordinary overreach.

    Americans have lost wars before of course, and a lot more men and materiel in the process.
    Yes. But this war was never winnable. As his advisors told him.
    One wonders what his advisors have told him about Cuba...
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 9,354
    theProle said:

    FPT

    Dopermean said:

    Nigelb said:

    ...

    Nigelb said:

    stodge said:

    kinabalu said:

    We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.

    No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.

    You fuckers aren't going to win.
    But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?

    The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
    No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.

    Not mine.
    Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.

    The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
    From the header,

    The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)

    In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.

    Then the questions become:

    Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?

    If so, what is that threshold?

    If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?

    If so, when?

    If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
    Other questions:

    Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?

    Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?

    How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?

    Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
    there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.

    France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.

    Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
    It has nothing to do with 'ability to invest' - the bat tunnel was a direct result of Natural England enforcing the EU's 2017 Habitats and Species Regulations, which are part of retained EU law.

    If we wish to prevent future bat tunnels, we need to remove the retained law, and remove Natural England's legal right to enforce such laws without reference to Ministers. Doing so would mean we would no longer be aligned with EU species regulations, and make the prospect of rejoining harder and less attractive. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that we should keep the country in a Miss Havisham-like state of being ready to marry the EU in the future, when their laws are serving our needs so poorly.
    Yet these things do not arise anywhere else in the EU.

    There are loads of km of high speed rail built all over Europe without any worries about bat tunnels.

    Why can those other countries manage to build railways, countries with bats, without the need for tunnels ?

    I will give you a clue, it is nothing to do with the EU.
    They don't have so much tunneling through Tory constituencies imposed
    On them, either.
    The bat tunnels are on sections where HS2 is not in a tunnel.

    Neither of which are anything whatsoever to do with the EU, all down to decisions taken by the (Conservative led) HS2 Phase 1 Committee that reviewed the original bill.
    You may want that to be true, and I don't blame you, but it isn't. Natural England has acknowledged advising HS2 that the bat tunnel would comply with the law - the only reason for even considering such a structure.
    But the cost of UK infrastructure has nothing to do with the EU law.

    I will repeat, 27 other EU countries do not have this problem.

    You many want this to be true, but the reality is every other EU country can build infrastructure at a cost much lower than the UK irrespective of EU law.

    The problem is local to the UK and you are chasing a false enemy to blame the EU.

    How is it 'a false enemy' when a £100mn bat tunnel was built specifically to comply with an EU law, and your point (it seems) is just that 'we should just ignore that law then' without saying how that would actually work?
    It doesn't occur to you that the contractor was only too happy to find an excuse to build a £100m bat tunnel, and the client's rep was too naive to object?
    It’s ok. In LuckyGuy’s world the Minister will PM all the projects themselves
    Surely at least part the trick is to heavily align incentives e.g. pay all through the system, down to small site manager level and cost control. Come in substantially under budget, ££ muchly. Spend 5x budget (or whatever HS2 is up to now), and congrats, you're now working for free.

    You'd need to combine that with some fairly independent QC people, on a bonus based on successfully identifying corners being cut.

    The best option of all is the simplest. Act of Parliament approving a route, squashing all planning/environmental stuff, setting agreed compensation ratios for the properties compulsorily purchased etc. Then simply offer a 50 year build and operate licence to the highest bidder - they get to build it at their expense, then get the revenue from it until a specified date. The sooner it's open, the sooner they start earning. The more it costs to build, the less profitable it is for the company in question. If no one bids, then we've successfully answered the question "is it worth building this thing anyway", and we should give the whole idea up.
    I think HS2 was modelled as beneficial based on wider benefits, not just train tickets sold on HS2 line. Those wider benefits wouldn't be easy to capture.

    Separately, its not always a good idea to put all the risk on private sector partner, especially if its risk outside their control. Because they will have to charge you a huge amount to cover that risk.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,196
    carnforth said:

    stjohn said:

    kle4 said:

    stjohn said:

    For all his bombast, Donald Trump is going to go down in history as the person who chose to take the most powerful country in the world into an unnecessary war - and lost. Extraordinary overreach.

    Americans have lost wars before of course, and a lot more men and materiel in the process.
    Yes. But this war was never winnable. As his advisors told him.
    One wonders what his advisors have told him about Cuba...
    It sounds as though Rubio is trying to convince Trump it would be a lot more like Venezuela and less like Iran.

    I expect that we will find out, because I expect them to try.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,518

    ohnotnow said:

    There is good news coming from Russia - fuel shortages are starting to happen not far from Moscow in the Tver region. Seems like the Ukrainian campaign against oil infrastructure in the vicinity of Moscow is starting to have noticeable consequences.

    And at the same time, Ukraine targeted the oil export terminal in Novorossiysk, very soon after Reuters reported it had been fully repaired. This shows that Ukraine is not being pressured to hold off on targeting Russia's oil export infrastructure (or, at least, it feels able to resist any such pressure).

    I sometimes wonder how long the rope is that reaches from the top of a presidential Kremlin tower, to almost the ground. Much though I dislike such thoughts - I also dislike the idea of young men being fed into a grinder and turned to jam for the sake of a presidential paranoid whim.
    By all accounts Putin is paranoid enough to make sure that there's no rope within several miles of him, and that only trusted associates have control of the keys to the window locks, and that there are people to watch the trusted associates to make sure that they can be trusted.
    In Russia, you don't fall out of window. Window falls around you.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,379

    There is good news coming from Russia - fuel shortages are starting to happen not far from Moscow in the Tver region. Seems like the Ukrainian campaign against oil infrastructure in the vicinity of Moscow is starting to have noticeable consequences.

    And at the same time, Ukraine targeted the oil export terminal in Novorossiysk, very soon after Reuters reported it had been fully repaired. This shows that Ukraine is not being pressured to hold off on targeting Russia's oil export infrastructure (or, at least, it feels able to resist any such pressure).

    There is no petrol or diesel to be had in Crimea.

    Next: water.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,858
    Given the Green candidate previously selected has already dropped out then there may be some logic in their not picking another candidate and to help Burnham beat Reform. I don't see how PR suddenly comes into the argument though, even if Burnham wins the by election he is not guaranteed to become PM and nor is PR likely before the next GE either
  • theProletheProle Posts: 1,953
    edited May 25
    rkrkrk said:

    theProle said:

    FPT

    Dopermean said:

    Nigelb said:

    ...

    Nigelb said:

    stodge said:

    kinabalu said:

    We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.

    No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.

    You fuckers aren't going to win.
    But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?

    The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
    No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.

    Not mine.
    Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.

    The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
    From the header,

    The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)

    In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.

    Then the questions become:

    Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?

    If so, what is that threshold?

    If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?

    If so, when?

    If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
    Other questions:

    Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?

    Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?

    How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?

    Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
    there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.

    France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.

    Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
    It has nothing to do with 'ability to invest' - the bat tunnel was a direct result of Natural England enforcing the EU's 2017 Habitats and Species Regulations, which are part of retained EU law.

    If we wish to prevent future bat tunnels, we need to remove the retained law, and remove Natural England's legal right to enforce such laws without reference to Ministers. Doing so would mean we would no longer be aligned with EU species regulations, and make the prospect of rejoining harder and less attractive. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that we should keep the country in a Miss Havisham-like state of being ready to marry the EU in the future, when their laws are serving our needs so poorly.
    Yet these things do not arise anywhere else in the EU.

    There are loads of km of high speed rail built all over Europe without any worries about bat tunnels.

    Why can those other countries manage to build railways, countries with bats, without the need for tunnels ?

    I will give you a clue, it is nothing to do with the EU.
    They don't have so much tunneling through Tory constituencies imposed
    On them, either.
    The bat tunnels are on sections where HS2 is not in a tunnel.

    Neither of which are anything whatsoever to do with the EU, all down to decisions taken by the (Conservative led) HS2 Phase 1 Committee that reviewed the original bill.
    You may want that to be true, and I don't blame you, but it isn't. Natural England has acknowledged advising HS2 that the bat tunnel would comply with the law - the only reason for even considering such a structure.
    But the cost of UK infrastructure has nothing to do with the EU law.

    I will repeat, 27 other EU countries do not have this problem.

    You many want this to be true, but the reality is every other EU country can build infrastructure at a cost much lower than the UK irrespective of EU law.

    The problem is local to the UK and you are chasing a false enemy to blame the EU.

    How is it 'a false enemy' when a £100mn bat tunnel was built specifically to comply with an EU law, and your point (it seems) is just that 'we should just ignore that law then' without saying how that would actually work?
    It doesn't occur to you that the contractor was only too happy to find an excuse to build a £100m bat tunnel, and the client's rep was too naive to object?
    It’s ok. In LuckyGuy’s world the Minister will PM all the projects themselves
    Surely at least part the trick is to heavily align incentives e.g. pay all through the system, down to small site manager level and cost control. Come in substantially under budget, ££ muchly. Spend 5x budget (or whatever HS2 is up to now), and congrats, you're now working for free.

    You'd need to combine that with some fairly independent QC people, on a bonus based on successfully identifying corners being cut.

    The best option of all is the simplest. Act of Parliament approving a route, squashing all planning/environmental stuff, setting agreed compensation ratios for the properties compulsorily purchased etc. Then simply offer a 50 year build and operate licence to the highest bidder - they get to build it at their expense, then get the revenue from it until a specified date. The sooner it's open, the sooner they start earning. The more it costs to build, the less profitable it is for the company in question. If no one bids, then we've successfully answered the question "is it worth building this thing anyway", and we should give the whole idea up.
    I think HS2 was modelled as beneficial based on wider benefits, not just train tickets sold on HS2 line. Those wider benefits wouldn't be easy to capture.

    Separately, its not always a good idea to put all the risk on private sector partner, especially if its risk outside their control. Because they will have to charge you a huge amount to cover that risk.
    I think you may have missed part 1 of my cunning plan. Ram an act of parliament through that grants planning permission, lets you off all the environmental nonsense, and caps compulsory purchase compensation (say 200% of book value).

    That disposes of most of the risk at a single stroke, the only remaining risks are ones the contractor should be able to control (eg having good enough engineers not to gold plate everything, not getting ripped off on cost plus subcontracts, etc).

    I take your point about the wider benefits (although it's unclear to me that making Birmingham into a London suburb is actually a real benefit to either London or Birmingham), but if it's not paid for itself in ticket revenue alone in 50 years time, it wasn't worth doing, wider benefits or not.
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 2,190

    Pulpstar said:

    Not sure it's ever going to happen for George Russell tbh

    He's reminding me of Fernando Alonso in 2007 who just couldn't cope he had a very good rookie teammate challenging him.
    Journeyman George has mugged a living at Mercedes for too long.

    He's not one of the best 10 drivers on the grid on pace and ability.
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 2,190

    Andy_JS said:

    "Starmer 'appalled' by case of boys spared jail after raping teenage girls"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c332ljdkd81o

    No papers have passed his desk, and he will take full responsibility. By firing another subordinate.
    The Case was concluded on Thursday you muppet
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 15,630
    I like the 'bat tunnel'. It says something positive about us as a society that we place value on preserving wildlife.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 47,892
    I hear Russian fighters have repeated and aggressively intercepted a British spy plane going innocently about its business in the Black Sea. What bastards, call the ICC!
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 20,946

    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/may/24/farage-mounting-pressure-prove-russian-hack-claim?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    Interesting claim by Farage.

    1) does this signify a movement away from his previous pro-Putin remarks?

    2) it also seems to imply that he had no intention of declaring this £5 million pounds.

    The second bit is clearly true.

    The "it was Russia" thing ... smells of BS, but frankly, who cares ?
    There was a hack from somewhere. Why not Russia? It admits the £5M though.
    Why does there have to have been a hack? More likely that someone just blabbed to the Guardian.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,856
    Dura_Ace said:

    I like the 'bat tunnel'. It says something positive about us as a society that we place value on preserving wildlife.

    Got to wonder how bats survived the building of the railways in the 19th century.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 20,946

    "In place by the election after next", what is this weak lame pathetic pile of meh.

    If you're going to do the thing, do the thing. Don't make a plan to do the thing that will be aborted by the next majority government.

    I don't think it would be possible for Burnham to introduce a different electoral system for the next general election, even if he wanted to.

    Because it wasn't a Labour manifesto commitment it will be easy for the Lords to block and delay. And then, because the process will only have been started two years into the Parliament, it doesn't take much delay to then mean a new system will be hard practically to introduce, in terms of defining new constituency boundaries, etc, even if it is statute by the next GE.

    The Greens are unusual in that they often let reality intrude on their political demands, rather than asking Burnham for something he can't deliver they will ask him for something he won't deliver. Much more practical.
    Would the Lords want to block and delay? Surely they can see the problem with FPTP with 5 and-then-some effective parties, you don't have to be Albert Einstein to get why this is a bad idea.

    Once you pick a system (doing this consists of saying "we want the constituency link so it'll be AMS like Scotland") and schedule a referendum you can go right ahead and get to work on the boundaries. If the voters say no then you can just not use the boundaries they were halfway through designing.
    The Lords as champions of democracy? It has a certain appeal for lovers of irony. Trouble is neither the Scottish nor Welsh PR-ish systems have produced clear results either, and we can look at Israel to see that small extremist parties have disproportionate control by being coalition partners of last resort.
    Multiparty politics means no-one is going to get a clear result, so do you want an unclear result that is proportional or an unclear result that isn’t?

    (Israeli politics would be worse under FPTP. There are lots of different voting blocs.)
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 20,946

    carnforth said:

    stjohn said:

    kle4 said:

    stjohn said:

    For all his bombast, Donald Trump is going to go down in history as the person who chose to take the most powerful country in the world into an unnecessary war - and lost. Extraordinary overreach.

    Americans have lost wars before of course, and a lot more men and materiel in the process.
    Yes. But this war was never winnable. As his advisors told him.
    One wonders what his advisors have told him about Cuba...
    It sounds as though Rubio is trying to convince Trump it would be a lot more like Venezuela and less like Iran.

    I expect that we will find out, because I expect them to try.
    The problem in Iran is that Trump thinks he won in Venezuela, whereas the same regime is still in charge.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,928
    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: well, my bet was comically, awfully wrong. And the other guy I was thinking of backing was Hamilton, who had a great race. Hard to be mad, though, given how entertaining Canada was.

    Some terrible luck out there, though. Russell, Norris, Lindblad.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 66,576
    The Greens are touchingly naive.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,424

    We know the Lib Dems are not going to campaign hard in Makerfield. We know they only crank up the by-election fighting machine in seats where they know they have a chance, and in those cases they do it early and they go all-in.

    I don't know why the Greens are having so much trouble with this. Just because they've now won their first ever by-election, doesn't mean that they now have to fight hard in every by-election going.

    Save the effort for a seat they have a chance in. Meanwhile keep on working the target areas they've already identified for the next GE. Get their by-election candidate to concentrate their campaigning on the single ward in the constituency that is most promising for the Greens at future local elections.

    LibDem by-election campaigners are an experienced lot, and used to both picking their battles and taking some direction from the centre. The Greens have a shedload of recently-joined super-enthusiastic youngsters, eager to repeat the triumph in G&D, and if they don’t withdraw it will be hard to stop them wanting to campaign hard.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,424
    edited May 25
    stjohn said:

    For all his bombast, Donald Trump is going to go down in history as the person who chose to take the most powerful country in the world into an unnecessary war - and lost. Extraordinary overreach.

    ‘Another of the people who have’, surely?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,488
    tlg86 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I like the 'bat tunnel'. It says something positive about us as a society that we place value on preserving wildlife.

    Got to wonder how bats survived the building of the railways in the 19th century.
    Tbf, quite a lot of them didn't.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,424

    "In place by the election after next", what is this weak lame pathetic pile of meh.

    If you're going to do the thing, do the thing. Don't make a plan to do the thing that will be aborted by the next majority government.

    Putting it in the manifesto and then delivering it after avoids another dreaded referendum. But there’s nothing to stop Burnham committing to align local government to the same STV system already used in Scotland, sooner, which could be done very quickly.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,488

    carnforth said:

    stjohn said:

    kle4 said:

    stjohn said:

    For all his bombast, Donald Trump is going to go down in history as the person who chose to take the most powerful country in the world into an unnecessary war - and lost. Extraordinary overreach.

    Americans have lost wars before of course, and a lot more men and materiel in the process.
    Yes. But this war was never winnable. As his advisors told him.
    One wonders what his advisors have told him about Cuba...
    It sounds as though Rubio is trying to convince Trump it would be a lot more like Venezuela and less like Iran.

    I expect that we will find out, because I expect them to try.
    Rubio would probably be right. Cuba is a lot smaller than Iran, a lot closer to US bases, and has no ability to block a critical economic route. It is also out of fuel and the population are about ripe for rebellion not having been brutally massacred for rebelling while Trump did SFA.

    Its army and air force are also in pretty poor shape and may well mutiny in the event of an invasion.

    Whether that makes it a good idea is a very different question but it's very unlikely that the regime couldn't be toppled if the Yanks go for it.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,856
    ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I like the 'bat tunnel'. It says something positive about us as a society that we place value on preserving wildlife.

    Got to wonder how bats survived the building of the railways in the 19th century.
    Tbf, quite a lot of them didn't.
    In all seriousness, is that documented? Is that species rather than numbers?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,424

    "In place by the election after next", what is this weak lame pathetic pile of meh.

    If you're going to do the thing, do the thing. Don't make a plan to do the thing that will be aborted by the next majority government.

    I don't think it would be possible for Burnham to introduce a different electoral system for the next general election, even if he wanted to.

    Because it wasn't a Labour manifesto commitment it will be easy for the Lords to block and delay. And then, because the process will only have been started two years into the Parliament, it doesn't take much delay to then mean a new system will be hard practically to introduce, in terms of defining new constituency boundaries, etc, even if it is statute by the next GE.

    The Greens are unusual in that they often let reality intrude on their political demands, rather than asking Burnham for something he can't deliver they will ask him for something he won't deliver. Much more practical.
    Would the Lords want to block and delay? Surely they can see the problem with FPTP with 5 and-then-some effective parties, you don't have to be Albert Einstein to get why this is a bad idea.

    Once you pick a system (doing this consists of saying "we want the constituency link so it'll be AMS like Scotland") and schedule a referendum you can go right ahead and get to work on the boundaries. If the voters say no then you can just not use the boundaries they were halfway through designing.
    The Lords as champions of democracy? It has a certain appeal for lovers of irony. Trouble is neither the Scottish nor Welsh PR-ish systems have produced clear results either, and we can look at Israel to see that small extremist parties have disproportionate control by being coalition partners of last resort.
    No-one is proposing the Israeli system for the UK. And a nation’s politics will emerge somehow through whatever system they have, if heavily distorted in our case; there are plenty of countries with PR that have been much more stable politically than Israel or, indeed, the UK.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 47,892
    edited May 25
    IanB2 said:

    "In place by the election after next", what is this weak lame pathetic pile of meh.

    If you're going to do the thing, do the thing. Don't make a plan to do the thing that will be aborted by the next majority government.

    Putting it in the manifesto and then delivering it after avoids another dreaded referendum. But there’s nothing to stop Burnham committing to align local government to the same STV system already used in Scotland, sooner, which could be done very quickly.
    Burnham (assuming he threads the needle to pm) making a clear commitment to electoral reform then actually following through on it would be a clear break with the modus operandi of Starmerism.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,488
    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I like the 'bat tunnel'. It says something positive about us as a society that we place value on preserving wildlife.

    Got to wonder how bats survived the building of the railways in the 19th century.
    Tbf, quite a lot of them didn't.
    In all seriousness, is that documented? Is that species rather than numbers?
    There are lots of studies about various reasons for bat population declines, but I don't know of one specifically linked to railways. Apparently the decline began as early as the Tudor period as shipbuilding and agriculture boomed leading to major forest clearances, and that will of course have continued with the Industrial Revolution and the building of the railways. Also pollution and timber treatment are not good for them. But yes, numbers have gone down dramatically as well as several species being wiped out.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 12,878

    IanB2 said:

    "In place by the election after next", what is this weak lame pathetic pile of meh.

    If you're going to do the thing, do the thing. Don't make a plan to do the thing that will be aborted by the next majority government.

    Putting it in the manifesto and then delivering it after avoids another dreaded referendum. But there’s nothing to stop Burnham committing to align local government to the same STV system already used in Scotland, sooner, which could be done very quickly.
    Burnham (assuming he threads the needle to pm) making a clear commitment to electoral reform then actually following through on it would be a clear break with the modus operandi of Starmerism.
    He's going to get a shock when he meets with the civil service armed with his policies on the back of an envelope.

    (Hard to see how any of his plans can be based on anything much given he's presumably not had much contact with the levers of power)
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,791
    HYUFD said:

    Given the Green candidate previously selected has already dropped out then there may be some logic in their not picking another candidate and to help Burnham beat Reform. I don't see how PR suddenly comes into the argument though, even if Burnham wins the by election he is not guaranteed to become PM and nor is PR likely before the next GE either

    To be seen as a national party they have to field a candidate. They should follow the lead of others in this situation: put up a paper candidate, soft-pedal the campaigning and after the result claim that the constituency was not fertile ground for them.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 9,354
    theProle said:

    rkrkrk said:

    theProle said:

    FPT

    Dopermean said:

    Nigelb said:

    ...

    Nigelb said:

    stodge said:

    kinabalu said:

    We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.

    No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.

    You fuckers aren't going to win.
    But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?

    The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
    No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.

    Not mine.
    Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.

    The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
    From the header,

    The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)

    In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.

    Then the questions become:

    Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?

    If so, what is that threshold?

    If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?

    If so, when?

    If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
    Other questions:

    Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?

    Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?

    How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?

    Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
    there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.

    France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.

    Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
    It has nothing to do with 'ability to invest' - the bat tunnel was a direct result of Natural England enforcing the EU's 2017 Habitats and Species Regulations, which are part of retained EU law.

    If we wish to prevent future bat tunnels, we need to remove the retained law, and remove Natural England's legal right to enforce such laws without reference to Ministers. Doing so would mean we would no longer be aligned with EU species regulations, and make the prospect of rejoining harder and less attractive. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that we should keep the country in a Miss Havisham-like state of being ready to marry the EU in the future, when their laws are serving our needs so poorly.
    Yet these things do not arise anywhere else in the EU.

    There are loads of km of high speed rail built all over Europe without any worries about bat tunnels.

    Why can those other countries manage to build railways, countries with bats, without the need for tunnels ?

    I will give you a clue, it is nothing to do with the EU.
    They don't have so much tunneling through Tory constituencies imposed
    On them, either.
    The bat tunnels are on sections where HS2 is not in a tunnel.

    Neither of which are anything whatsoever to do with the EU, all down to decisions taken by the (Conservative led) HS2 Phase 1 Committee that reviewed the original bill.
    You may want that to be true, and I don't blame you, but it isn't. Natural England has acknowledged advising HS2 that the bat tunnel would comply with the law - the only reason for even considering such a structure.
    But the cost of UK infrastructure has nothing to do with the EU law.

    I will repeat, 27 other EU countries do not have this problem.

    You many want this to be true, but the reality is every other EU country can build infrastructure at a cost much lower than the UK irrespective of EU law.

    The problem is local to the UK and you are chasing a false enemy to blame the EU.

    How is it 'a false enemy' when a £100mn bat tunnel was built specifically to comply with an EU law, and your point (it seems) is just that 'we should just ignore that law then' without saying how that would actually work?
    It doesn't occur to you that the contractor was only too happy to find an excuse to build a £100m bat tunnel, and the client's rep was too naive to object?
    It’s ok. In LuckyGuy’s world the Minister will PM all the projects themselves
    Surely at least part the trick is to heavily align incentives e.g. pay all through the system, down to small site manager level and cost control. Come in substantially under budget, ££ muchly. Spend 5x budget (or whatever HS2 is up to now), and congrats, you're now working for free.

    You'd need to combine that with some fairly independent QC people, on a bonus based on successfully identifying corners being cut.

    The best option of all is the simplest. Act of Parliament approving a route, squashing all planning/environmental stuff, setting agreed compensation ratios for the properties compulsorily purchased etc. Then simply offer a 50 year build and operate licence to the highest bidder - they get to build it at their expense, then get the revenue from it until a specified date. The sooner it's open, the sooner they start earning. The more it costs to build, the less profitable it is for the company in question. If no one bids, then we've successfully answered the question "is it worth building this thing anyway", and we should give the whole idea up.
    I think HS2 was modelled as beneficial based on wider benefits, not just train tickets sold on HS2 line. Those wider benefits wouldn't be easy to capture.

    Separately, its not always a good idea to put all the risk on private sector partner, especially if its risk outside their control. Because they will have to charge you a huge amount to cover that risk.
    I think you may have missed part 1 of my cunning plan. Ram an act of parliament through that grants planning permission, lets you off all the environmental nonsense, and caps compulsory purchase compensation (say 200% of book value).

    That disposes of most of the risk at a single stroke, the only remaining risks are ones the contractor should be able to control (eg having good enough engineers not to gold plate everything, not getting ripped off on cost plus subcontracts, etc).

    I take your point about the wider benefits (although it's unclear to me that making Birmingham into a London suburb is actually a real benefit to either London or Birmingham), but if it's not paid for itself in ticket revenue alone in 50 years time, it wasn't worth doing, wider benefits or not.
    Existing railways require subsidy, I dont think a new line + £10s of billions of capital cost is going to pay for itself.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,444
    IanB2 said:

    "In place by the election after next", what is this weak lame pathetic pile of meh.

    If you're going to do the thing, do the thing. Don't make a plan to do the thing that will be aborted by the next majority government.

    Putting it in the manifesto and then delivering it after avoids another dreaded referendum. But there’s nothing to stop Burnham committing to align local government to the same STV system already used in Scotland, sooner, which could be done very quickly.
    That would be a good approach. In use elsewhere in UK, gives people a chance to use it themselves, and then go for it in GEs.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 66,576
    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I like the 'bat tunnel'. It says something positive about us as a society that we place value on preserving wildlife.

    Got to wonder how bats survived the building of the railways in the 19th century.
    Tbf, quite a lot of them didn't.
    In all seriousness, is that documented? Is that species rather than numbers?
    It's probably nonsense. The average running speed of steam trains was about 50mph (at best) not 200mph+ so no bats were splattered and the population was less than half what it is today.

    The main ones who suffered in the 19th Century were the poor in major cities whose homes were demolished by the tens of thousands to make room for the new railways to reach city centres.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 47,892
    Well, I never expected Carol Vorderman’s arsehole to be a topic on the Today programme, but we are where we are.
    Many marmalade-infused toast crumbs expelled across the nation I imagine.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,488
    rkrkrk said:

    theProle said:

    rkrkrk said:

    theProle said:

    FPT

    Dopermean said:

    Nigelb said:

    ...

    Nigelb said:

    stodge said:

    kinabalu said:

    We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.

    No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.

    You fuckers aren't going to win.
    But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?

    The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
    No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.

    Not mine.
    Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.

    The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
    From the header,

    The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)

    In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.

    Then the questions become:

    Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?

    If so, what is that threshold?

    If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?

    If so, when?

    If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
    Other questions:

    Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?

    Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?

    How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?

    Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
    there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.

    France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.

    Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
    It has nothing to do with 'ability to invest' - the bat tunnel was a direct result of Natural England enforcing the EU's 2017 Habitats and Species Regulations, which are part of retained EU law.

    If we wish to prevent future bat tunnels, we need to remove the retained law, and remove Natural England's legal right to enforce such laws without reference to Ministers. Doing so would mean we would no longer be aligned with EU species regulations, and make the prospect of rejoining harder and less attractive. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that we should keep the country in a Miss Havisham-like state of being ready to marry the EU in the future, when their laws are serving our needs so poorly.
    Yet these things do not arise anywhere else in the EU.

    There are loads of km of high speed rail built all over Europe without any worries about bat tunnels.

    Why can those other countries manage to build railways, countries with bats, without the need for tunnels ?

    I will give you a clue, it is nothing to do with the EU.
    They don't have so much tunneling through Tory constituencies imposed
    On them, either.
    The bat tunnels are on sections where HS2 is not in a tunnel.

    Neither of which are anything whatsoever to do with the EU, all down to decisions taken by the (Conservative led) HS2 Phase 1 Committee that reviewed the original bill.
    You may want that to be true, and I don't blame you, but it isn't. Natural England has acknowledged advising HS2 that the bat tunnel would comply with the law - the only reason for even considering such a structure.
    But the cost of UK infrastructure has nothing to do with the EU law.

    I will repeat, 27 other EU countries do not have this problem.

    You many want this to be true, but the reality is every other EU country can build infrastructure at a cost much lower than the UK irrespective of EU law.

    The problem is local to the UK and you are chasing a false enemy to blame the EU.

    How is it 'a false enemy' when a £100mn bat tunnel was built specifically to comply with an EU law, and your point (it seems) is just that 'we should just ignore that law then' without saying how that would actually work?
    It doesn't occur to you that the contractor was only too happy to find an excuse to build a £100m bat tunnel, and the client's rep was too naive to object?
    It’s ok. In LuckyGuy’s world the Minister will PM all the projects themselves
    Surely at least part the trick is to heavily align incentives e.g. pay all through the system, down to small site manager level and cost control. Come in substantially under budget, ££ muchly. Spend 5x budget (or whatever HS2 is up to now), and congrats, you're now working for free.

    You'd need to combine that with some fairly independent QC people, on a bonus based on successfully identifying corners being cut.

    The best option of all is the simplest. Act of Parliament approving a route, squashing all planning/environmental stuff, setting agreed compensation ratios for the properties compulsorily purchased etc. Then simply offer a 50 year build and operate licence to the highest bidder - they get to build it at their expense, then get the revenue from it until a specified date. The sooner it's open, the sooner they start earning. The more it costs to build, the less profitable it is for the company in question. If no one bids, then we've successfully answered the question "is it worth building this thing anyway", and we should give the whole idea up.
    I think HS2 was modelled as beneficial based on wider benefits, not just train tickets sold on HS2 line. Those wider benefits wouldn't be easy to capture.

    Separately, its not always a good idea to put all the risk on private sector partner, especially if its risk outside their control. Because they will have to charge you a huge amount to cover that risk.
    I think you may have missed part 1 of my cunning plan. Ram an act of parliament through that grants planning permission, lets you off all the environmental nonsense, and caps compulsory purchase compensation (say 200% of book value).

    That disposes of most of the risk at a single stroke, the only remaining risks are ones the contractor should be able to control (eg having good enough engineers not to gold plate everything, not getting ripped off on cost plus subcontracts, etc).

    I take your point about the wider benefits (although it's unclear to me that making Birmingham into a London suburb is actually a real benefit to either London or Birmingham), but if it's not paid for itself in ticket revenue alone in 50 years time, it wasn't worth doing, wider benefits or not.
    Existing railways require subsidy, I dont think a new line + £10s of billions of capital cost is going to pay for itself.
    *some* existing railways require subsidy. Particularly those which are used only at peak times (London/Cardiff commuter lines) or certain times of the year (the Highland lines).

    A line carrying 28 trains every hour with 1000 passengers on each day in day out would not.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 66,576

    IanB2 said:

    "In place by the election after next", what is this weak lame pathetic pile of meh.

    If you're going to do the thing, do the thing. Don't make a plan to do the thing that will be aborted by the next majority government.

    Putting it in the manifesto and then delivering it after avoids another dreaded referendum. But there’s nothing to stop Burnham committing to align local government to the same STV system already used in Scotland, sooner, which could be done very quickly.
    Burnham (assuming he threads the needle to pm) making a clear commitment to electoral reform then actually following through on it would be a clear break with the modus operandi of Starmerism.
    Why would he do that when he can win a solid majority under FPTP?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 66,576

    There is good news coming from Russia - fuel shortages are starting to happen not far from Moscow in the Tver region. Seems like the Ukrainian campaign against oil infrastructure in the vicinity of Moscow is starting to have noticeable consequences.

    And at the same time, Ukraine targeted the oil export terminal in Novorossiysk, very soon after Reuters reported it had been fully repaired. This shows that Ukraine is not being pressured to hold off on targeting Russia's oil export infrastructure (or, at least, it feels able to resist any such pressure).

    There is no petrol or diesel to be had in Crimea.

    Next: water.
    Next: Russians.
    Putin has his supporters, of course he does, but many ordinary Russians are as much a victim of this as anyone else.

    The whole thing is a total tragedy, and waste of human life.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 15,648

    IanB2 said:

    "In place by the election after next", what is this weak lame pathetic pile of meh.

    If you're going to do the thing, do the thing. Don't make a plan to do the thing that will be aborted by the next majority government.

    Putting it in the manifesto and then delivering it after avoids another dreaded referendum. But there’s nothing to stop Burnham committing to align local government to the same STV system already used in Scotland, sooner, which could be done very quickly.
    Burnham (assuming he threads the needle to pm) making a clear commitment to electoral reform then actually following through on it would be a clear break with the modus operandi of Starmerism.
    Why would he do that when he can win a solid majority under FPTP?
    Because he thinks it would be good for the country?

    Last PM to have a clear opportunity to reform the electoral system was Blair. It doesn't seem to have interested him.
  • I may be misremembering but didn’t the 2010 Labour manifesto have electoral reform in it and weren’t Labour already legislating for it before the election started?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,488

    I may be misremembering but didn’t the 2010 Labour manifesto have electoral reform in it and weren’t Labour already legislating for it before the election started?

    Yes, because they knew they were going to lose massively and wanted a bone to dangle in front of the Liberal Democrats.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,488

    IanB2 said:

    "In place by the election after next", what is this weak lame pathetic pile of meh.

    If you're going to do the thing, do the thing. Don't make a plan to do the thing that will be aborted by the next majority government.

    Putting it in the manifesto and then delivering it after avoids another dreaded referendum. But there’s nothing to stop Burnham committing to align local government to the same STV system already used in Scotland, sooner, which could be done very quickly.
    Burnham (assuming he threads the needle to pm) making a clear commitment to electoral reform then actually following through on it would be a clear break with the modus operandi of Starmerism.
    Why would he do that when he can win a solid majority under FPTP?
    I feel embarrassed even typing it, but from principle?
    Your regular reminder that not one reform to our constitutional arrangements has ever been carried out for any reason other than to gain political advantage. The Equal Franchise Act of 1928 comes closest and it wasn't that close.
  • ydoethur said:

    I may be misremembering but didn’t the 2010 Labour manifesto have electoral reform in it and weren’t Labour already legislating for it before the election started?

    Yes, because they knew they were going to lose massively and wanted a bone to dangle in front of the Liberal Democrats.
    But so there is precedent? Why can’t Burnham just legislate?

    Okay he might lose the election after but if the voting system has already changed, how is there ever going to be a majority to remove it?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 13,612
    This is why a dog is a man's best friend:

    If you lock your wife and your dog in the boot of your car and come back 2 hours later to release them only your dog will be pleased to see you.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,928

    ydoethur said:

    I may be misremembering but didn’t the 2010 Labour manifesto have electoral reform in it and weren’t Labour already legislating for it before the election started?

    Yes, because they knew they were going to lose massively and wanted a bone to dangle in front of the Liberal Democrats.
    But so there is precedent? Why can’t Burnham just legislate?

    Okay he might lose the election after but if the voting system has already changed, how is there ever going to be a majority to remove it?
    You really want to try and normalise a political party altering the electoral system for partisan advantage with neither an election nor referendum result providing a popular mandate?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,339

    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/may/24/farage-mounting-pressure-prove-russian-hack-claim?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    Interesting claim by Farage.

    1) does this signify a movement away from his previous pro-Putin remarks?

    2) it also seems to imply that he had no intention of declaring this £5 million pounds.

    The second bit is clearly true.

    The "it was Russia" thing ... smells of BS, but frankly, who cares ?
    There was a hack from somewhere. Why not Russia? It admits the £5M though.
    Why does there have to have been a hack? More likely that someone just blabbed to the Guardian.
    A hack or a leak. Potato tomato. Unless you think it was either Harborne or Farage himself who phoned the papers. That's the point. Whether it was Russians, Iranians or Restore is a mere detail.
  • BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 7,126
    edited May 25

    ydoethur said:

    I may be misremembering but didn’t the 2010 Labour manifesto have electoral reform in it and weren’t Labour already legislating for it before the election started?

    Yes, because they knew they were going to lose massively and wanted a bone to dangle in front of the Liberal Democrats.
    But so there is precedent? Why can’t Burnham just legislate?

    Okay he might lose the election after but if the voting system has already changed, how is there ever going to be a majority to remove it?
    You really want to try and normalise a political party altering the electoral system for partisan advantage with neither an election nor referendum result providing a popular mandate?
    I’m not saying I agree with it, I’m just arguing the mechanics.

    Also I am so glad you finally learned what the quote button is.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,601

    I may be misremembering but didn’t the 2010 Labour manifesto have electoral reform in it and weren’t Labour already legislating for it before the election started?

    It had a pledge to have an AV referendum (which of course actually happened, and was rejected with most senior Labour figures backing the "no" campaign).
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,339

    I may be misremembering but didn’t the 2010 Labour manifesto have electoral reform in it and weren’t Labour already legislating for it before the election started?

    Yes, AV, an elected House of Lords and votes at 16 – all subject to referenda iirc.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,488

    ydoethur said:

    I may be misremembering but didn’t the 2010 Labour manifesto have electoral reform in it and weren’t Labour already legislating for it before the election started?

    Yes, because they knew they were going to lose massively and wanted a bone to dangle in front of the Liberal Democrats.
    But so there is precedent? Why can’t Burnham just legislate?

    Okay he might lose the election after but if the voting system has already changed, how is there ever going to be a majority to remove it?
    You really want to try and normalise a political party altering the electoral system for partisan advantage with neither an election nor referendum result providing a popular mandate?
    To be fair, that is normal. That's how 1867 happened. Or 1884. Or 1918. Or 1948. Or 1969. Or, more recently, the changes in Wales.

    And it is legal as Parliament is sovereign.

    Whether it is a good idea is an altogether different question, but it would hardly be an aberration.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,488
    kjh said:

    This is why a dog is a man's best friend:

    If you lock your wife and your dog in the boot of your car and come back 2 hours later to release them only your dog will be pleased to see you.

    Er - excuse me?
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,601

    ydoethur said:

    I may be misremembering but didn’t the 2010 Labour manifesto have electoral reform in it and weren’t Labour already legislating for it before the election started?

    Yes, because they knew they were going to lose massively and wanted a bone to dangle in front of the Liberal Democrats.
    But so there is precedent? Why can’t Burnham just legislate?

    Okay he might lose the election after but if the voting system has already changed, how is there ever going to be a majority to remove it?
    You really want to try and normalise a political party altering the electoral system for partisan advantage with neither an election nor referendum result providing a popular mandate?
    Johnson did it over ditching SV for directly elected mayors - that wasn't in the manifesto or subject to a referendum.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 13,612
    ydoethur said:

    kjh said:

    This is why a dog is a man's best friend:

    If you lock your wife and your dog in the boot of your car and come back 2 hours later to release them only your dog will be pleased to see you.

    Er - excuse me?
    Made me laugh. Wouldn't recommend trying it.
  • ydoethur said:

    I may be misremembering but didn’t the 2010 Labour manifesto have electoral reform in it and weren’t Labour already legislating for it before the election started?

    Yes, because they knew they were going to lose massively and wanted a bone to dangle in front of the Liberal Democrats.
    But so there is precedent? Why can’t Burnham just legislate?

    Okay he might lose the election after but if the voting system has already changed, how is there ever going to be a majority to remove it?
    You really want to try and normalise a political party altering the electoral system for partisan advantage with neither an election nor referendum result providing a popular mandate?
    Johnson did it over ditching SV for directly elected mayors - that wasn't in the manifesto or subject to a referendum.
    Still don’t know why he did that.

    They also introduced voter ID, was that in the 2019 manifesto?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,339

    ydoethur said:

    I may be misremembering but didn’t the 2010 Labour manifesto have electoral reform in it and weren’t Labour already legislating for it before the election started?

    Yes, because they knew they were going to lose massively and wanted a bone to dangle in front of the Liberal Democrats.
    But so there is precedent? Why can’t Burnham just legislate?

    Okay he might lose the election after but if the voting system has already changed, how is there ever going to be a majority to remove it?
    You really want to try and normalise a political party altering the electoral system for partisan advantage with neither an election nor referendum result providing a popular mandate?
    Johnson did it over ditching SV for directly elected mayors - that wasn't in the manifesto or subject to a referendum.
    Still don’t know why he did that.

    They also introduced voter ID, was that in the 2019 manifesto?
    Yes. Voter ID was in the Tories' 2019 manifesto.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 22,098

    HYUFD said:

    Given the Green candidate previously selected has already dropped out then there may be some logic in their not picking another candidate and to help Burnham beat Reform. I don't see how PR suddenly comes into the argument though, even if Burnham wins the by election he is not guaranteed to become PM and nor is PR likely before the next GE either

    To be seen as a national party they have to field a candidate. They should follow the lead of others in this situation: put up a paper candidate, soft-pedal the campaigning and after the result claim that the constituency was not fertile ground for them.
    I think there's a strong case for not putting up a candidate and then claiming a share of a resulting win. Clearly better than putting up a candidate and getting 2-3%, and maybe giving Reform the win and preventing getting a PM in favour of PR.
Sign In or Register to comment.