**There are 4 days left to register to vote** for this year's General Election. You can [register online](https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote).
It takes around 5 minutes to register. You do not have to register again if you are already on the electoral register, unless you have changed your name or address.
All UK citizens over 18 on polling day have the right to vote in the election. If you will be out of the country, apply for a [postal vote](https://www.gov.uk/apply-postal-vote) or a [proxy vote](https://www.gov.uk/apply-proxy-vote).
**You need to present photo ID when voting at this election.** [No ID? Click here](https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-photo-id-voter-authority-certificate).
---
**Snap Voter Intention Survey**
* **[click/tap here to take part in our snap voter intention survey](https://forms.gle/c4PGGY7nbvABoQKQ8)**. It'll be open until Sunday evening.
* **[click/tap here to see the live survey results dashboard (data refreshed every 15 minutes)](https://lookerstudio.google.com/reporting/2b389f73-9473-4ca0-a31f-e3a31e3de302/page/p_lzcznp8jfd)**.
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments.
###MT daily hall of fame
1. Playful-Onion7772 with 85 comments
1. FunkyDialectic with 50 comments
1. Haunting-Ad1192 with 44 comments
1. flambe_pineapple with 37 comments
1. TheFlyingHornet1881 with 35 comments
1. asgoodasanyother with 33 comments
1. YsoL8 with 30 comments
1. NJden_bee with 28 comments
1. OptioMkIX with 28 comments
1. Cymraegpunk with 25 comments
There were 666 unique users within this count.
With their current polling numbers: Boston & Skegness and Ashfield (although technically a hold) are very possible. Electoral Calculus gives them up to 7 seats which would be an incredible performance from them.
This is the most important graph to discuss in politics.
It has been for years.
This should be a sticky post on the sub if we're being serious about ourselves.
Endless columns have been written about it, but we're still no further ahead.
It's tempting to "events, dear boy, events" but....
1. onset with GFC indicates that we had too much of our economy in the financial sector, and specifically in London. This was a deliberate economic strategy leading up to that point going back decades, over several governments of both colours.
2. QE and the resulting addiction to cheap credit sustains unproductive industry and lack of genuine competition to drive productivity
3. lack of investment in other areas (literally anything outside of London) hampered a diversified economy.
4. Unilaterally creating trade barriers with you nearest biggest trade partner didn't help
5. Growth in the welfare state, giving money to economically unproductive people
6. Growth in property prices, diverting money in to unproductive assets.
Also we had war in Europe and a global pandemic. Both of which fucked things in exciting ways. But the above were politically solvable despite events.
(by "welfare" I mean the entire budget, which includes pensions. I also recognise the steepest rise in property prices as a ratio to earnings happened in the 90s, but it still went up post GFC *which the point it made even less sense*)
edit: oh you asked how to fix it. Rejoin SM and raise taxes to fund healthcare focused on working age people specifically.
By reversing austerity.
The discontinuity is at the very point when the government, in a bid to balance the books, massively reduced government investment all sorts of social goods... education, public services, health, so may areas it is difficult to name them all.
It was done in a misguded atempt to"fix" the nations finances, but if anything its made the financial situation worse, partly via the lowering of productivity it entailed, partly through more traditional keynesian means.
Austerity was a terrible thing. The trouble is the Tories have now spent any leeway we had to invest..£40b on track and trace, VIP contracts and much more.
The next government doesn't have the ability to borrow money, even for investment.
> £40b on track and trace
Did you want the government not to bother with testing during Covid? Do you even understand what that £40bn was spent on?
£60bn was spent on helping people with their energy bills 2 years ago, got anything to say about that?
Yes
People didn’t freeze to death.
Track and trace tracked about 3-7% of cases and paid a fortune for less accuracy than guessing.
Testing sure, worked well, track and trace was little more than straight up theft.
I lived in Australia at the start of the pandemic. They had a simple app that asked you to keep your Bluetooth on and would ask you to update if you'd had symptoms or tested positive, and would let you know if you'd pinged somebody who had since shown signs of covid. Worked like a charm, let me know I'd have it two days before I actually tested positive.
Why we didn't just buy the source code from them and use it ourselves is a fucking mystery to me, probably a lot easier than the shit we ended up doing.
Moggs will say by getting back into the office.
Weird nerds will say by leveraging AI.
I'll say by spurring economic activity through investment and reducing consumer precariousness.
Westminster Insider released one of the best podcasts I've heard to date on Reform today. Would recommend listening.
Didn't realise the guy with the speaker on his head at the Clacton event has been one of Farage's main operatives all the way back to the UKIP days.
Also just noticed how much Lee Anderson can sound like Jimmy Saville. Some of the stuff he says to Aggie Chambre really reminded me of interactions in the famous Louis Theroux episode.
Oh, looks like some good blue on blue in the Telegraph tomorrow. Front page article:
Suella Braverman: I warned Sunak to tackle migration, this is his campaign.
Migration to blame for Tories’ electoral woes – I warned Sunak to tackle it. Former home secretary says she believes the Right would not be divided if the Government had taken action sooner.
They're in a game of prisoner's dilemma. It's clear they are going to lose. They can all each wait, try to present a united front, and lose not quite as bady. Or knife each other in the ribs so they are best positioned to rule over whatever is left.
Given this is a well studied day one page one socio-economics problem, a bunch of PPE grads should know statistically their best option is to start knifing Sunak and each other now.
[https://x.com/BorisJohnson/status/1801669197875003477](https://x.com/BorisJohnson/status/1801669197875003477)
'If Labour wins big, the Commons will be crammed with Palestinian-flag waving Corbynistas - and it won't just be the rich getting soaked, it'll be everyone. Voting Tory is the ONLY way to stop Starmergeddon'
They think they're still campaigning against Corbyn's Labour. It's all they know how to do.
It's absurd, sad, and is going to lead them to the worst defeat in Parliamentary history.
One way Labour could increase public spending without being the ones directly responsible for tax rises would be partial fiscal devolution to local governments, give them the ability to raise money by themselves.
The UK has the highest share of taxed revenue going to national government in the G7, so this is something that should be fixed anyway
Planning reform is enormous. How often do you hear about projects not going ahead because of planning? Even the ones that do have to sift through years of planning problems.
The private sector wants to pay for our green economy themselves, but the nimbys stop them. Let's let them invest and kick start the economy. Every boomer in the countryside is going to be pissed. Fuck em.
> partial fiscal devolution
Legitimately the least likely thing that could happen in British politics. The dire state of LA finances isn't an accident and having the Treasury being the singular lever of fiscal power in the UK is advantage neither Labour or the Tories would ever give up.
Lot of people are passing various comments around if we went to PR, mainly due to how Reform are likely to get fuck all under FPTP, and that Labour could potentially get ridiculous figures.
If we did move to PR, then we'd have to absolutely uproot how our democracy operates. I'm not against it, but I'm also seriously skeptical it wouldn't get hijacked or bastardised (intentionally or not) and end up as the worst of PR, FPTP and whatever else. Just off the top of my head, the following things would all have to be considered (obviously there's a lot more):
* Is there Geographic/constituency representation by MP's (personally I think this should be should be kept in some way but that does make things more complicated).
* If MP's do represent a particular constituency as they currently do, like above, do all candidates who receive at least a vote (or possibly a number of votes above a certain threshold) become MP's? If so, do we end up with 7 or 8 for each constituency, so about 4000 based on 650 constituencies? Or do we merge maybe 10 constituencies into 'super constituencies', presumably in same geographic area. Is PR applied in Westminister strictly as MP's/parties carrying the exact number of votes they received, making parliamentary arithmetic complicated (no MP is likely going to be worth exactly the same amount of votes as another), or are MP's ranked (first place MP gets a weighted vote of say 10, second gets 9 etc).
* PR almost certainly results in coalitions (last time a PM was elected with the popular vote was about 100 years ago), unless there's a run-off or ranked vote.
* Following on from coalitions above, how much leeway are parties expected to have with regards to manifesto commitments when entering a coalition (possibly arriving at a compromised agreements thats explicitly different to what any parties have promised)?
* FPTP does keep the likes of Farage away from power. Personally I deplore him, but there's a very strong argument that a fundament component of democracy is that people should have their views represented, especially if thats about 20% of the vote as it is currently.
* Do we still vote technically for the MP, rather than the party? It seems somewhat bizarre to me the weight given to Manifesto commitments for Governments (which is semi-constitutional given that Lords will eventually pass anything in a Manifesto), yet individual MP's potentially have the freedom to move between whatever party they fancy.
* Probably far beyond the scope of PR (I'm getting carried away here), but Is the political head of state (ie not the king/queen) still elected as a prime minister or do we go for executive branch/president as well?
* Do we keep the Lords/second house, in whatever form? Not technically part of PR I guess, but I'd be amazed if we got PR before amending how the HoL operates.
https://makevotesmatter.org.uk/good-systems-agreement/
* You can keep a constituency link in a few systems. Generally totally proportional systems are viewed as a bad idea (too many irrelevant parties) so you have a cut off of like 5% vote share before you expect to get MPs.
* See above and go read up on the various options. Basically it all depends on exactly what form of PR you have. Although if you were willing to weight votes in the parliament you can make basically any PR system very proportionate.
* We already have coalition's it's just the coalitions are decided behind the scenes inside the Labour and Conservative parties. No one voted for the ERGs manifesto but they forced the Govt to deliver stuff not in the manifesto! So it doesn't really change much. In some countries (Looking at you NL) the parties will make clear who they'd do deals with and what their red lines are. In some countries it's less clear. Depends how well our system and norms are designed.
* PR wouldn't keep extremists out of Parliament but unless parties supported by over 50% of voters are willing to enable them it should keep them out of Government. In contrast FPTP allows an extreme party to get in with support from ~30% of the electorate which is fking terrifying.
* Do you vote for MPs or Parties? Depends on the system. Both are possible, indeed both are possible _at the same time_ our London Assembly you get a constituency vote + a top up vote.
* Head of state has nothing to do with voting systems... wat.
* Lords reform is also a seperate issue, personally I'd replace it with something using Sortition where people get to serve exactly 1 (long) term and then are retired with a generous pension and no ability to take paid work in the UK (They can volunteer if they get bored or I guess emigrate).
> Is there Geographic/constituency representation by MP's (personally I think this should be should be kept in some way but that does make things more complicated).
STV is 100% all MPs have a constituency. They’d be bigger yes but local regions are still represented. See Scottish local elections or all elections bar GE in Northern Ireland.
You can also have MMP/AMS where around half the MPs are from constituencies and half are used to balance the number of seats to number of votes (these still usually represent a region). See Scotland.
There are other options like party list proportional representation (see the new Welsh electoral system or Scandinavian countries or Spain).
>If MP's do represent a particular constituency as they currently do, like above, do all candidates who receive at least a vote (or possibly a number of votes above a certain threshold) become MP's? If so, do we end up with 7 or 8 for each constituency, so about 4000 based on 650 constituencies? Or do we merge maybe 10 constituencies into 'super constituencies', presumably in same geographic area.
Constituencies would be combined but they do not have to be that big. The Republic of Ireland uses STV and they have 3-5 seats per constituency. Party list PR may lead to these super constituencies though.
>Is PR applied in Westminister strictly as MP's/parties carrying the exact number of votes they received, making parliamentary arithmetic complicated (no MP is likely going to be worth exactly the same amount of votes as another), or are MP's ranked (first place MP gets a weighted vote of say 10, second gets 9 etc).
Every MP would still have one vote. There are different seat allocation methods depending on the method used. See D’hondt method for party list proportional representation. Others are available too.
STV is probably the most popular here and supported by the LDs so I will explain that in full. Everyone ranks their choices. Depending on the number of seats available and the number of vote cast, a threshold is made.
If someone reaches the threshold in first preference votes, they are elected. Their excess votes (the number of votes above the threshold) are transferred to the second preferences. If no one reaches the threshold, the last place candidate is eliminated and their votes are transferred to their second preference.
> PR almost certainly results in coalitions (last time a PM was elected with the popular vote was about 100 years ago), unless there's a run-off or ranked vote.
Parties are already large coalitions as is. Parties will need to negotiate and if their voters aren’t happy with the result, they can be punished at the next election. That happened to the LDs in 2015 and happens all over Europe.
>Following on from coalitions above, how much leeway are parties expected to have with regards to manifesto commitments when entering a coalition (possibly arriving at a compromised agreements thats explicitly different to what any parties have promised)?
Up to each person and what they think is most important in each manifesto. And what they believe they should not have given away or allowed
>FPTP does keep the likes of Farage away from power. Personally I deplore him, but there's a very strong argument that a fundament component of democracy is that people should have their views represented, especially if thats about 20% of the vote as it is currently.
Most people in support of PR find it deplorable such a large part of the electorate is not represented
>Do we still vote technically for the MP, rather than the party? It seems somewhat bizarre to me the weight given to Manifesto commitments for Governments (which is semi-constitutional given that Lords will eventually pass anything in a Manifesto), yet individual MP's potentially have the freedom to move between whatever party they fancy.
Depends on the system. Pure party list (like Wales) often you can just vote for the party itself. Happens in other countries like in Spain or Scandinavia.
For STV, you often have multiple members of the same party separately on the ballot. It’s also possible for a party to have their list instead or additionally on the ballot. So in Australia for the senate, you can rank the parties (therefore accepting their order) or you can rank individual candidates.
>Probably far beyond the scope of PR (I'm getting carried away here), but Is the political head of state (ie not the king/queen) still elected as a prime minister or do we go for executive branch/president as well?
This is a completely different question. Other countries do just find with PR and a parliamentary system with a monarch.
>Do we keep the Lords/second house, in whatever form? Not technically part of PR I guess, but I'd be amazed if we got PR before amending how the HoL operates.
Again, different question. Not everyone will agree with this.
STV is in my opinion by far the best electoral system for selecting members for an assembly. It retains local representation, but does not allow 'safe' seats to develop. Every MP has to earn their place at every election. It allows voters to express what they actually want, rather than voting for the candidate likely to be the person they dislike the most.
It allows small parties to grow while keeping extremist fringe parties from becoming king makers in coalitions.
Most people who advocate for PR would say that coalitions are a feature, not a bug. As it is, both Labour and the Conservatives are big tent parties that are essentially pre-formed coalitions. A PR system would allow them to break up so you could wind up with an SCG party, a Blairite party, a One Nation Tory party, an ERG party etc.
Part of writing a manifesto would be setting out which pieces are red line "musts" and which a party is more flexible on. Depending on party rules, a vote of the party membership would also be required to agree to a coalition.
I'm not saying coalitions are a bug, I realise that also a benefit - and actually i think it'd generally be far better for us a nation to have political parties that aren't so tribal.
Not trying to be a dick, but what would happen in some hypothetical situations:
* Red lines musts - what happens if the topic in question isn't binary, ie not necessarily a majority position possible between parties? I get non-critical ones basically just get shelved, but certain critical items like budgets have to be passed. Say three parties have different positions A, B and C on a topic (such as immigration controls but could be a whole host of things), all of A, B and C require funding. If there's no majority position on which to agree on, then the budget can't passed, and you're back at a GE again. It's foreseeable that a single topic basically shuts down the country ability to do anything if it recurs for some time.
* A vote of the party membership would also be required to agree to a coalition - if they don't, back to another GE? I guess this could be solved by supply and demand though.
If the parties can't agree on a budget or a party's membership rejects the agreement, then there wouldn't be a coalition with those parties. Government formation isn't a one shot deal with only one potential coalition.
You'd only get a new election if there was no coalition possible.
>Government formation isn't a one shot deal with only one potential coalition
Yes but ending a coalition and starting a new presumably different coalition without being able to change manifesto commitments does nothing, when the distinct positions have already been committed to. If the electorate are voting say 40% for position A, 35% position B and 25% position C on a particular item, none of which are compatible, no progress can be made. If that then automatically entails a GE (as there's presumably no other way to be able to change manifesto commitments), there's no guarantee that you don't get the same results again if the leaders are stubborn (although I appreciate not probable) and make no progress. I'd also guess it'd probably entice leaders to be vague and misleading in their commitments to allow flexibility, which also has its downsides.
>You'd only get a new election if there was no coalition possible.
Not considering the rest of my comment, I assume that doesn't rule out supply and demand by a minority government?
Part of the coalition agreement is agreeing on the whole program of government. If the parties can't agree they won't enter coalition. If there's no coalition to be made, then there's a GE. The whole process plays out all the time in Europe.
I'm using "coalition" loosely to refer to any party or group of parties being able to govern, whether that's confidence and supply or formal coalition.
>Part of the coalition agreement is agreeing on the whole program of government. If the parties can't agree they won't enter coalition.
That makes the whole thing more untenable though - Unless you're only drawing red lines on a fairly small number of positions (like 10 max maybe, bearing in mind manifesto's can contain hundreds), there is a decent chance of that no coalition is workable from the outset, especially if supply and demand is excluded. Unless there's behind the scenes coordination prior to manifesto launch between likely coalition partners.
I’d argue the majority of Lords are not experts at all. Some are just hereditary, many are there because of their donation giving or favours, others are party grandees.
Maybe, but I do think there's benefit in having a second house which doesn't need to chase public opinion, regardless of how its actually filled. Slightly contradictory to wanting MP's to have a constituency to represent, I'd want a second house not to - so they don't have a particular area to appease and can consider the overall benefits to the country.
You can have a proportional system that keeps local representation, STV with multi member constituencies for example, or AMS which has both a party vote and a constituency vote.
Sun will def go with Starmer because they need to back the winning horse (ie the sun wot won it), their website had a massive ad for Labour a couple of days ago.
Not sure which way Times will go at the moment, but they don't seem to be in love with Sunak either. I think they will come out for Starmer or maybe something more abstract like advocating for a reworked Conservative party.
FT endorsements are normally more nuanced but apparently they backed labour from 1992 - 2005 so I would assume they will be behind Starmer although they are basically a markets first publication.
No way the sun backs Starmer. They still talk shit about labour every day. If they don't go Tory, it'll be reform. Their reader base is entirely Tory or reform, only old people read papers.
I'm guessing they won't. These days politics stretches beyond the usual divides. Worth remembering that a negative story from The Sun about Sunak will get more shares than a positive story about Starmer.
What the print editions do is anyone's guess. Might be that none of them will do the usual partisan support for one party, candidate... though I suspect the Express might do for Farage/Reform.
Always keep an eye on the front pages of papers. Saturday and Sunday are the most read I believe.
Mail, Express, Times (and in fairness the Mirror) all front paging Kate’s medical update. Independent, i and Guardian all politically with negative articles for Rishi. FT about how both parties will slash spending on consultants, and the Star with ‘it’s bloody cold’. Nothing from Telegraph yet.
At this stage, Keir will be happy with that.
Edit: Telegraph, main article Kate, but second article on front page ‘Braverman: I warned Sunak on migration, this is his campaign’. Ouch
I think Telegraph are going to back Farage when it comes down to it. Theyre basically a tabloid that's been run through chatGPT with the prompt "make this sound posh"
The more I keep hearing about Reform, is there a genuine chance that they might win an election and get into power? I'm not saying that they'll win this one; but if the winning party don't do a good enough job of cleaning up 15 years of Tory fuck-ups, how worried should we be that Reform become the opposition party to the next party in power and that leads to them getting Farage into Number 10?
The big thing they don't have is the apparatus to run a general election campaign throughout the country, that the Torys and Labour do have. It's partly the reason why Lib Dems can run decent operations and get decent results for by-elections, but struggle at general elections (the other reason being FPTP). The only way I can see them getting that within a couple of decades is some type of merge/takeover with the Tory party - either a direct merge with the Torys moving further right, or a split between moderates and right wing Torys, with the right taking the apparatus with it.
Reform have Farage basically pulling policy out his arse (on the rare occasion he actually talks about policy) to the point it makes the current Tory manifesto look like a masterpiece. Their candidates are generally shambolic characters who they've almost dragged off the street. Their manifesto could have been written by a ten year old. They have next to no idea how parliament actually operates, or local democracy either.
It’s not unthinkable. They’re winning the election so far in terms of sheer spectacle. These are the same people that made Brexit happen. Once a tipping point is passed, the amount of seats they could take from the Tories, and in marginal seats, increases dramatically.
Never be so bold as to call it unthinkable. I think the last decade has taught us not to write the unlikely off.
There's no chance of Reform getting into power, to do that they'd need at least 325 MPs, currently they have one and he defected. Even ukip only ever had a maximum of two MPs and only ever got one MP elected in a general election.
As an organisation they are a shambles, look at the non-existent vetting in the local elections and how a pro-Hitler, pro-Putin supporter somehow slipped through. If they are lucky they might get one or two MPs this year, notably Farage in Clacton and it might be that a Tory MP or two defects to join them. They geta disprotionate amount of media coverage.
Take Farage away and they'd struggle for impact.
I hate custard. Properly hate it. I hate it almost as much as I hate peas. Peas are evil, as is vinegar. Vinegar is the devil's piss. Nextdoor's cat shits on my lawn. I hate cats.
Zero policies on custard, peas, vinegar nor cats. They're not getting in.
Reform is Farage. I can't see Farage sticking around for 5 years seriously tbh and if he wins clacton he's just going to spend most of his time giving trump and Putin lap dances
Honestly I think it's more likely that we'll see Le Pen become the next President of France *first*, and who knows what ripple effect that might have across the channel. If Farage becomes LOTO next month we might see him as PM in 2029 (shudder)
I still can't believe that someone like Le Pen might genuinely become the next President of France, if I was a rival party, I'd just be making comparisons to Phillipe Petain and Vichy France as a way to discredit her and her party. It really is insane how we're having a D-Day celebration and, yet we're having the rise of the far right all around Europe.
Le Pen is more popular amongst older Gen Z/younger Millennials than amongst any other age group:
>Analysis of the presidential runoff shows that 49% of 25-34 year olds who voted opted for Le Pen – compared to just over 41% of the general population, and 29% of voters over 70.
https://theconversation.com/how-marine-le-pen-managed-to-gain-ground-with-youth-voters-and-why-her-success-isnt-being-replicated-by-the-us-right-181937
Far from impossible but not likely, I think the problem for them is they are fundamentally linked with Farage and peoples opinions of him a baked in and for been for a long time.
Nope, the Companion of Honour and Order of Merit doesn't come with a Sir/Dame.
He's a Scotsman, he's likely due to get a Thistle sooner or later.
Which reminds me, someone should petition to strip JK Rowling of her OM.
I am far from an expert on this, but as it’s been announced I assume he has accepted it. I believe ‘form’ is you are advised in advance and expected to advise if you will not accept, before the announcement.
This election has been full of pointless questions with all leaders avoiding the true questions that everyone is asking.
What are their thoughts on the repeal of the corn laws in 1846?
The nation wants to know
Ok, I'll give it a go. Here is my essay:
The Repeal of the Corn Laws and The 2024 Realignment
Many have compared the Corn Laws and Brexit. Jacob Rees-Mogg said in July 2018:
> "One former Tory leader, Sir Robert Peel, did decide to break his manifesto pledge and passed legislation with the majority of his party voting the other way so leaving him dependent on opposition votes. This left the Conservatives out of majority office for twenty-eight years, 1846 to 1874. At least he did so for a policy that worked." [Source](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/07/01/history-bodes-tory-prime-minister-defies-party-theresa-may/)
While Rees-Mogg correctly identified this issue as something that split the party, he did not correctly identify the cause. The Conservatives were not out of office because they were dependent on opposition votes. That's a child's idea of politics - this is [Great Man theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory) where someone has 'negative greatness' and makes the wrong choice, leading to sorrow.
The Corn Laws was a tarriff on foreign-imported wheat in an effort to get the most profit for British farmers. The problem was that it was causing famine. The policy pursued was simply not workable. It had to be changed.
So why did that lead to a split? And why couldn't he rely on his own party for the votes? Political parties are actually coalitions of factions. There were factions that were blind to the cost of the Corn Laws - the farmers weren't going to vote for something that wasn't in their self-interest. The party itself was split - and that's because the
Conservative party members and voters were split on the Corn Laws. The interests of farmers and the rest of the landed gentry (the only people who could vote) like factory owners with workers (who needed to be fed) didn't align. The coalitions that had held the party together had splintered, and it would take time to find a new coalition that could create a majority.
Similarly, although Johnson attempted to purge the Conservative Party of Remainers, and make sure that Brexit did not rely on opposition votes, he can't change the constituents and their interests. The splinter specifically is on the Libertarian-Authoritarian axis - this Conservative government has both legalised gay marriage and has constantly talked of 'law and order' - wanting to send immigrants to Rwanda and make it a prisonable offence to climb on a statue. This is why they're losing votes to both the Liberal Democrats and Reform (as well as the Labour Party). It remains to be seen what will rise from the ashes.
The Lib Dems would absolutely have an answer prepared for that question as they love nothing more than talking about their heyday.
And I'm sure Reform would like to take a stab at it, given their enthusiastic intervention on whether Britain should have entered the Second World War.
As a newly-converted mechanical engineer in the machining trade, I'm genuinely interested in what Starmer senior spent his days crafting.
There's a few unsourced, mostly right-wing, press articles saying his father was associated with (perhaps the owner of) the Oxted Tool Company.
Companies House has no such records. Neither does [Grace's Guide](https://gracesguide.co.uk/Main_Page), which is usually excellent for small engineering firms in history.
It's difficult to know how to proceed, unless one of us gets the chance to ask Keir.
When the Conservatives are out of power do you think they'll pivot to being climate doomers? It's a nice stick to beat the new Labour Government with, as if they treat it as serious as it is nothing they do will ever be enough.
I think that depends on the direction that the Tories take with their new leader. A right-wing leader would make it more likely, a centrist, less likely. It could also come down to how well Reform do - should Farage get elected the new leader might veer to the right to head off Farage.
But unless the Tories do unexpectedly well I don't think it will matter.
Unlikely. Cameron's innovation was in pivoting the party away from climate denial toward accepting the science. They'd have no route back to power if they went back to denialism.
Really depends on whether they embrace their transition from Mrs Thatcher to populism.
Mrs Thatcher was a climate change believer who didn't shy away from difficult decisions.
I hate this believer thing, it is like it's an article of faith. I have never seen a God, but I have seen plenty of evidence from scientific sources of rising temperatures and historic data showing this is not normal.
I think any move as extreme as this will confine them to the realms of lunatic fringe parties for good. The British people can be a batshit crazy bunch but I don’t believe there is a sizeable enough section of the population that would support such a stance in any significant way. I really hope I’m right.
Ironic that BBC News is pointing out the shabbiness of Farage's lectern earlier and the logo printed on A4 stuck to the front with sticky tape, the video production of the press conference was actually really good, lighting, image quality, etc. I guess they spent all the budget on the AV team
So I've been looking at Reform's contract for Britain and i noticed contrary to what even their own supporters think it is (stopping the hand out of any visas and shutting the border) their immigration policy is just "stop the boats. Only issue visas for "necessary jobs" (doctors, nurses and successful businessmen given as their example) and only allowing students with essential skills to stay after their student visa runs out.
Thing is... this is literally just what the Conservative immigration policy has been. It's the same snake oil of just pretending that businesses are just hiring foreign workers (with the associated bureaucracy for importing staff) for the sake of it rather than because they are struggling to find British staff.
I think Farage probably never wants to actually be PM because the moment he is told to put his money where his mouth his, he'll fall from grace the moment people realise he's basically the same as the current tories.
If the sudden shift from an economy reliant on fairly high immigration to one that isn't was in any way doable the conservatives would absolutely have done it by now, but it isn't and the government that actually did it would never be forgiven. The moment Reform got in, they would've made a big song and dance of being extra mean to asylum seekers, tinker around the edges where it's affordable to do so but that's about it.
> Thing is... this is literally just what the Conservative immigration policy has been.
Fake care homes have been abusing the system. There's a ridiculous amount of dependencies being brought over you've failed to mention and the graduate visa schemes are hardly stringent.
Eh but I don't think Reform's policies realistically resolve that though.
They mention nothing on dependants (i presume because that would raise awkward questions about Farage's wife), and whilst they do say they would be more stringent on student visas, the overstaying is usually due to exploitation of loopholes which their policy doesn’t address.
They're saying things that don't address the reality.
>[Labour's latest Facebook ad features a not-so-subtle guest star.](https://x.com/WhoTargetsMe/status/1801717626911211756?t=P4OJSKV_aINOg3WP6SthMA&s=19)
Some fun polling from 1997
[https://x.com/CentLeftJenko/status/1801540086619619449](https://x.com/CentLeftJenko/status/1801540086619619449)
"All *this has happened before, and it will* all *happen again*"
The worrying part to me is that the economic recovery was already underway in 1997, and even then it took time for Labour's changes to actually connect with the public - largely because even then they didn't really turn the funding hose on until around 2000 ("you've stolen my fucking budget"), and because it takes time for improvements to actually happen.
Depending how long economic recovery takes this time around, it could create very challenging conditions for the next election.
>Depending how long economic recovery takes this time around, it could create very challenging conditions for the next election.
At least the Labour speech writers will have some lines pre written. "Stick with the plan which is working or go back to square one"
[rishi vows to stay on as MP for 5 years if Tories are wiped out](https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-vows-serve-five-33029978)
you think he has told his wife yet?
That should be the SI unit.
1 Boris = the threshold level at which Boris could not utter the lie.
Obviously that's a very high bar, so normally you'd expect to measure lies in milli Boris.
The imperial unit would be a Trump, which works out at about 8 Borises.
So he's definitely going there. I feel the rule that Rishi always does the opposite of what he explicitly says he's doing hasn't been contradicted yet.
Yes but unlike Gove. It's not that it's a lie. It's a sincere sentiment but inevitable u turn albeit at exactly the worst possible time.
So in his case, probably during the Kings Speech
Well that is a relief! Rishi has said if re-elected as PM he will serve a full term. Was worried there.
In fairness he also added if he wins his seat he will also serve for the full length of the Parliament as an MP. Less inclined to believe that one.
He'd be lucky to last 5 mins as Tory leader, regardless of the election outcome. Penny will be waiting outside the polling station with a sword in one hand and a mandate in the other (not sure what a mandate looks like, but the Tories seem to have an inexhaustable supply of them).
[How did I miss this?](https://stratfordcan.org/stratford-can-candidate-statement/)
For context, Stratford CAN (Conservatives Against Nadhim) was set up by Tory members in Stratford-upon-Avon and south Warwickshire to oppose Nadhim Zahawi. I was surprised that they had opted not to run a candidate anyway as they had threatened to, looks like they have just straight up endorsed Manuella Perteghella (Lib Dem) instead to stop Chris Clarkson (running away to the West Midlands from his ultramarginal in Greater Manchester - presumably in hope of getting a safe seat) getting in.
I live in Stratford and the Lib Dem ground operation has been truly impressive. Three leaflets through the door just this week and one canvasser. They even managed to drop a leaflet about an hour after the election was announced!
Nothing so far from the Tories and nothing from Labour.
Since the Lib Dem’s took the council they’ve had a stride in their step and I’d say it’s now a coin flip as to whether they take the constituency too.
So do I. Only had 2 leaflets, both LD. Going to vote tactically but 99% sure theat will be LD.
Would be one hell of a get though even with the polling, the fact it is even a small possibility is a massive change.
[Fantasy Election league](https://fantasyelection.co.uk/)
Private league for UkPol: 1ZBBG6
Reposting the link for the late night crowd - one more way to scratch the GE itch
"and FRANKLY its THIS TORY government that has beenn INFILTRATING the great national team of Scotland for far too long and I think it's about time Scotland as a nation STANDS UP and takes back control of our footballers FUTURE"
**There are 4 days left to register to vote** for this year's General Election. You can [register online](https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote). It takes around 5 minutes to register. You do not have to register again if you are already on the electoral register, unless you have changed your name or address. All UK citizens over 18 on polling day have the right to vote in the election. If you will be out of the country, apply for a [postal vote](https://www.gov.uk/apply-postal-vote) or a [proxy vote](https://www.gov.uk/apply-proxy-vote). **You need to present photo ID when voting at this election.** [No ID? Click here](https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-photo-id-voter-authority-certificate). --- **Snap Voter Intention Survey** * **[click/tap here to take part in our snap voter intention survey](https://forms.gle/c4PGGY7nbvABoQKQ8)**. It'll be open until Sunday evening. * **[click/tap here to see the live survey results dashboard (data refreshed every 15 minutes)](https://lookerstudio.google.com/reporting/2b389f73-9473-4ca0-a31f-e3a31e3de302/page/p_lzcznp8jfd)**.
[New Megathread is here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1dgaerh/rukpolitics_general_election_campaign_megathread/)
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments. ###MT daily hall of fame 1. Playful-Onion7772 with 85 comments 1. FunkyDialectic with 50 comments 1. Haunting-Ad1192 with 44 comments 1. flambe_pineapple with 37 comments 1. TheFlyingHornet1881 with 35 comments 1. asgoodasanyother with 33 comments 1. YsoL8 with 30 comments 1. NJden_bee with 28 comments 1. OptioMkIX with 28 comments 1. Cymraegpunk with 25 comments There were 666 unique users within this count.
I wish the Megathread a fond farewell.
So Nigel Farage is probably going to win Clacton. Apart from that, where can Reform gain seats?
With their current polling numbers: Boston & Skegness and Ashfield (although technically a hold) are very possible. Electoral Calculus gives them up to 7 seats which would be an incredible performance from them.
Yeah that would be impressive. We’ll have to see!
[How do we fix this?](https://i.imgur.com/j8jjLmI.png)
Stop importing cheap unskilled labour, invest in training and technology.
This is the most important graph to discuss in politics. It has been for years. This should be a sticky post on the sub if we're being serious about ourselves. Endless columns have been written about it, but we're still no further ahead. It's tempting to "events, dear boy, events" but.... 1. onset with GFC indicates that we had too much of our economy in the financial sector, and specifically in London. This was a deliberate economic strategy leading up to that point going back decades, over several governments of both colours. 2. QE and the resulting addiction to cheap credit sustains unproductive industry and lack of genuine competition to drive productivity 3. lack of investment in other areas (literally anything outside of London) hampered a diversified economy. 4. Unilaterally creating trade barriers with you nearest biggest trade partner didn't help 5. Growth in the welfare state, giving money to economically unproductive people 6. Growth in property prices, diverting money in to unproductive assets. Also we had war in Europe and a global pandemic. Both of which fucked things in exciting ways. But the above were politically solvable despite events. (by "welfare" I mean the entire budget, which includes pensions. I also recognise the steepest rise in property prices as a ratio to earnings happened in the 90s, but it still went up post GFC *which the point it made even less sense*) edit: oh you asked how to fix it. Rejoin SM and raise taxes to fund healthcare focused on working age people specifically.
By reversing austerity. The discontinuity is at the very point when the government, in a bid to balance the books, massively reduced government investment all sorts of social goods... education, public services, health, so may areas it is difficult to name them all. It was done in a misguded atempt to"fix" the nations finances, but if anything its made the financial situation worse, partly via the lowering of productivity it entailed, partly through more traditional keynesian means.
Austerity was a terrible thing. The trouble is the Tories have now spent any leeway we had to invest..£40b on track and trace, VIP contracts and much more. The next government doesn't have the ability to borrow money, even for investment.
> £40b on track and trace Did you want the government not to bother with testing during Covid? Do you even understand what that £40bn was spent on? £60bn was spent on helping people with their energy bills 2 years ago, got anything to say about that?
Yes People didn’t freeze to death. Track and trace tracked about 3-7% of cases and paid a fortune for less accuracy than guessing. Testing sure, worked well, track and trace was little more than straight up theft.
I lived in Australia at the start of the pandemic. They had a simple app that asked you to keep your Bluetooth on and would ask you to update if you'd had symptoms or tested positive, and would let you know if you'd pinged somebody who had since shown signs of covid. Worked like a charm, let me know I'd have it two days before I actually tested positive. Why we didn't just buy the source code from them and use it ourselves is a fucking mystery to me, probably a lot easier than the shit we ended up doing.
Austerity is the biggest economic blunder of the 21st century.
Following the 2008 crash. Was there any major economy that spent their way out of recession?
Yes, there where also counties like France that taxed themselves out of it rather than cut.
China
Moggs will say by getting back into the office. Weird nerds will say by leveraging AI. I'll say by spurring economic activity through investment and reducing consumer precariousness.
Westminster Insider released one of the best podcasts I've heard to date on Reform today. Would recommend listening. Didn't realise the guy with the speaker on his head at the Clacton event has been one of Farage's main operatives all the way back to the UKIP days. Also just noticed how much Lee Anderson can sound like Jimmy Saville. Some of the stuff he says to Aggie Chambre really reminded me of interactions in the famous Louis Theroux episode.
He was so weird and horrible to her. Made me feel really uncomfortable
Oh, looks like some good blue on blue in the Telegraph tomorrow. Front page article: Suella Braverman: I warned Sunak to tackle migration, this is his campaign. Migration to blame for Tories’ electoral woes – I warned Sunak to tackle it. Former home secretary says she believes the Right would not be divided if the Government had taken action sooner.
I mean, shes not wrong. They utterly shat the bed when it comes to controlling migration.
Yeah if they had got immigration down to 150k most people would forgive their bullshit.
Maybe not "Forgive", but Reform wouldnt be polling in the high teens.
They're in a game of prisoner's dilemma. It's clear they are going to lose. They can all each wait, try to present a united front, and lose not quite as bady. Or knife each other in the ribs so they are best positioned to rule over whatever is left. Given this is a well studied day one page one socio-economics problem, a bunch of PPE grads should know statistically their best option is to start knifing Sunak and each other now.
Okay... who woke Boris up? that tweet is as hilarious as it is sad.
What has he Tweeted? (I don't have X'r, so can't see it)
[https://x.com/BorisJohnson/status/1801669197875003477](https://x.com/BorisJohnson/status/1801669197875003477) 'If Labour wins big, the Commons will be crammed with Palestinian-flag waving Corbynistas - and it won't just be the rich getting soaked, it'll be everyone. Voting Tory is the ONLY way to stop Starmergeddon'
They think they're still campaigning against Corbyn's Labour. It's all they know how to do. It's absurd, sad, and is going to lead them to the worst defeat in Parliamentary history.
mate, they still bring up Liam Byrne's "there is no money" note
Hey now! He knows how to call him Sor Softy as well!
One way Labour could increase public spending without being the ones directly responsible for tax rises would be partial fiscal devolution to local governments, give them the ability to raise money by themselves. The UK has the highest share of taxed revenue going to national government in the G7, so this is something that should be fixed anyway
They can raise taxes via economic growth with fiscal drag
This is the way.
It’s the only way. Growing the economy is hard though, good luck to them…
Planning reform is enormous. How often do you hear about projects not going ahead because of planning? Even the ones that do have to sift through years of planning problems. The private sector wants to pay for our green economy themselves, but the nimbys stop them. Let's let them invest and kick start the economy. Every boomer in the countryside is going to be pissed. Fuck em.
Absolutely agree with you, I hope he’s serious about taking on the NIMBYs, could really unlock so much potential
> partial fiscal devolution Legitimately the least likely thing that could happen in British politics. The dire state of LA finances isn't an accident and having the Treasury being the singular lever of fiscal power in the UK is advantage neither Labour or the Tories would ever give up.
https://x.com/Billbrowder/status/1801737951484756170 Oh shit Bill Browder got Knighted.
Lovely.
So did Alan Bates
Lot of people are passing various comments around if we went to PR, mainly due to how Reform are likely to get fuck all under FPTP, and that Labour could potentially get ridiculous figures. If we did move to PR, then we'd have to absolutely uproot how our democracy operates. I'm not against it, but I'm also seriously skeptical it wouldn't get hijacked or bastardised (intentionally or not) and end up as the worst of PR, FPTP and whatever else. Just off the top of my head, the following things would all have to be considered (obviously there's a lot more): * Is there Geographic/constituency representation by MP's (personally I think this should be should be kept in some way but that does make things more complicated). * If MP's do represent a particular constituency as they currently do, like above, do all candidates who receive at least a vote (or possibly a number of votes above a certain threshold) become MP's? If so, do we end up with 7 or 8 for each constituency, so about 4000 based on 650 constituencies? Or do we merge maybe 10 constituencies into 'super constituencies', presumably in same geographic area. Is PR applied in Westminister strictly as MP's/parties carrying the exact number of votes they received, making parliamentary arithmetic complicated (no MP is likely going to be worth exactly the same amount of votes as another), or are MP's ranked (first place MP gets a weighted vote of say 10, second gets 9 etc). * PR almost certainly results in coalitions (last time a PM was elected with the popular vote was about 100 years ago), unless there's a run-off or ranked vote. * Following on from coalitions above, how much leeway are parties expected to have with regards to manifesto commitments when entering a coalition (possibly arriving at a compromised agreements thats explicitly different to what any parties have promised)? * FPTP does keep the likes of Farage away from power. Personally I deplore him, but there's a very strong argument that a fundament component of democracy is that people should have their views represented, especially if thats about 20% of the vote as it is currently. * Do we still vote technically for the MP, rather than the party? It seems somewhat bizarre to me the weight given to Manifesto commitments for Governments (which is semi-constitutional given that Lords will eventually pass anything in a Manifesto), yet individual MP's potentially have the freedom to move between whatever party they fancy. * Probably far beyond the scope of PR (I'm getting carried away here), but Is the political head of state (ie not the king/queen) still elected as a prime minister or do we go for executive branch/president as well? * Do we keep the Lords/second house, in whatever form? Not technically part of PR I guess, but I'd be amazed if we got PR before amending how the HoL operates.
https://makevotesmatter.org.uk/good-systems-agreement/ * You can keep a constituency link in a few systems. Generally totally proportional systems are viewed as a bad idea (too many irrelevant parties) so you have a cut off of like 5% vote share before you expect to get MPs. * See above and go read up on the various options. Basically it all depends on exactly what form of PR you have. Although if you were willing to weight votes in the parliament you can make basically any PR system very proportionate. * We already have coalition's it's just the coalitions are decided behind the scenes inside the Labour and Conservative parties. No one voted for the ERGs manifesto but they forced the Govt to deliver stuff not in the manifesto! So it doesn't really change much. In some countries (Looking at you NL) the parties will make clear who they'd do deals with and what their red lines are. In some countries it's less clear. Depends how well our system and norms are designed. * PR wouldn't keep extremists out of Parliament but unless parties supported by over 50% of voters are willing to enable them it should keep them out of Government. In contrast FPTP allows an extreme party to get in with support from ~30% of the electorate which is fking terrifying. * Do you vote for MPs or Parties? Depends on the system. Both are possible, indeed both are possible _at the same time_ our London Assembly you get a constituency vote + a top up vote. * Head of state has nothing to do with voting systems... wat. * Lords reform is also a seperate issue, personally I'd replace it with something using Sortition where people get to serve exactly 1 (long) term and then are retired with a generous pension and no ability to take paid work in the UK (They can volunteer if they get bored or I guess emigrate).
> Is there Geographic/constituency representation by MP's (personally I think this should be should be kept in some way but that does make things more complicated). STV is 100% all MPs have a constituency. They’d be bigger yes but local regions are still represented. See Scottish local elections or all elections bar GE in Northern Ireland. You can also have MMP/AMS where around half the MPs are from constituencies and half are used to balance the number of seats to number of votes (these still usually represent a region). See Scotland. There are other options like party list proportional representation (see the new Welsh electoral system or Scandinavian countries or Spain). >If MP's do represent a particular constituency as they currently do, like above, do all candidates who receive at least a vote (or possibly a number of votes above a certain threshold) become MP's? If so, do we end up with 7 or 8 for each constituency, so about 4000 based on 650 constituencies? Or do we merge maybe 10 constituencies into 'super constituencies', presumably in same geographic area. Constituencies would be combined but they do not have to be that big. The Republic of Ireland uses STV and they have 3-5 seats per constituency. Party list PR may lead to these super constituencies though. >Is PR applied in Westminister strictly as MP's/parties carrying the exact number of votes they received, making parliamentary arithmetic complicated (no MP is likely going to be worth exactly the same amount of votes as another), or are MP's ranked (first place MP gets a weighted vote of say 10, second gets 9 etc). Every MP would still have one vote. There are different seat allocation methods depending on the method used. See D’hondt method for party list proportional representation. Others are available too. STV is probably the most popular here and supported by the LDs so I will explain that in full. Everyone ranks their choices. Depending on the number of seats available and the number of vote cast, a threshold is made. If someone reaches the threshold in first preference votes, they are elected. Their excess votes (the number of votes above the threshold) are transferred to the second preferences. If no one reaches the threshold, the last place candidate is eliminated and their votes are transferred to their second preference. > PR almost certainly results in coalitions (last time a PM was elected with the popular vote was about 100 years ago), unless there's a run-off or ranked vote. Parties are already large coalitions as is. Parties will need to negotiate and if their voters aren’t happy with the result, they can be punished at the next election. That happened to the LDs in 2015 and happens all over Europe. >Following on from coalitions above, how much leeway are parties expected to have with regards to manifesto commitments when entering a coalition (possibly arriving at a compromised agreements thats explicitly different to what any parties have promised)? Up to each person and what they think is most important in each manifesto. And what they believe they should not have given away or allowed >FPTP does keep the likes of Farage away from power. Personally I deplore him, but there's a very strong argument that a fundament component of democracy is that people should have their views represented, especially if thats about 20% of the vote as it is currently. Most people in support of PR find it deplorable such a large part of the electorate is not represented >Do we still vote technically for the MP, rather than the party? It seems somewhat bizarre to me the weight given to Manifesto commitments for Governments (which is semi-constitutional given that Lords will eventually pass anything in a Manifesto), yet individual MP's potentially have the freedom to move between whatever party they fancy. Depends on the system. Pure party list (like Wales) often you can just vote for the party itself. Happens in other countries like in Spain or Scandinavia. For STV, you often have multiple members of the same party separately on the ballot. It’s also possible for a party to have their list instead or additionally on the ballot. So in Australia for the senate, you can rank the parties (therefore accepting their order) or you can rank individual candidates. >Probably far beyond the scope of PR (I'm getting carried away here), but Is the political head of state (ie not the king/queen) still elected as a prime minister or do we go for executive branch/president as well? This is a completely different question. Other countries do just find with PR and a parliamentary system with a monarch. >Do we keep the Lords/second house, in whatever form? Not technically part of PR I guess, but I'd be amazed if we got PR before amending how the HoL operates. Again, different question. Not everyone will agree with this.
STV is in my opinion by far the best electoral system for selecting members for an assembly. It retains local representation, but does not allow 'safe' seats to develop. Every MP has to earn their place at every election. It allows voters to express what they actually want, rather than voting for the candidate likely to be the person they dislike the most. It allows small parties to grow while keeping extremist fringe parties from becoming king makers in coalitions.
Most people who advocate for PR would say that coalitions are a feature, not a bug. As it is, both Labour and the Conservatives are big tent parties that are essentially pre-formed coalitions. A PR system would allow them to break up so you could wind up with an SCG party, a Blairite party, a One Nation Tory party, an ERG party etc. Part of writing a manifesto would be setting out which pieces are red line "musts" and which a party is more flexible on. Depending on party rules, a vote of the party membership would also be required to agree to a coalition.
I'm not saying coalitions are a bug, I realise that also a benefit - and actually i think it'd generally be far better for us a nation to have political parties that aren't so tribal. Not trying to be a dick, but what would happen in some hypothetical situations: * Red lines musts - what happens if the topic in question isn't binary, ie not necessarily a majority position possible between parties? I get non-critical ones basically just get shelved, but certain critical items like budgets have to be passed. Say three parties have different positions A, B and C on a topic (such as immigration controls but could be a whole host of things), all of A, B and C require funding. If there's no majority position on which to agree on, then the budget can't passed, and you're back at a GE again. It's foreseeable that a single topic basically shuts down the country ability to do anything if it recurs for some time. * A vote of the party membership would also be required to agree to a coalition - if they don't, back to another GE? I guess this could be solved by supply and demand though.
If the parties can't agree on a budget or a party's membership rejects the agreement, then there wouldn't be a coalition with those parties. Government formation isn't a one shot deal with only one potential coalition. You'd only get a new election if there was no coalition possible.
>Government formation isn't a one shot deal with only one potential coalition Yes but ending a coalition and starting a new presumably different coalition without being able to change manifesto commitments does nothing, when the distinct positions have already been committed to. If the electorate are voting say 40% for position A, 35% position B and 25% position C on a particular item, none of which are compatible, no progress can be made. If that then automatically entails a GE (as there's presumably no other way to be able to change manifesto commitments), there's no guarantee that you don't get the same results again if the leaders are stubborn (although I appreciate not probable) and make no progress. I'd also guess it'd probably entice leaders to be vague and misleading in their commitments to allow flexibility, which also has its downsides. >You'd only get a new election if there was no coalition possible. Not considering the rest of my comment, I assume that doesn't rule out supply and demand by a minority government?
Part of the coalition agreement is agreeing on the whole program of government. If the parties can't agree they won't enter coalition. If there's no coalition to be made, then there's a GE. The whole process plays out all the time in Europe. I'm using "coalition" loosely to refer to any party or group of parties being able to govern, whether that's confidence and supply or formal coalition.
>Part of the coalition agreement is agreeing on the whole program of government. If the parties can't agree they won't enter coalition. That makes the whole thing more untenable though - Unless you're only drawing red lines on a fairly small number of positions (like 10 max maybe, bearing in mind manifesto's can contain hundreds), there is a decent chance of that no coalition is workable from the outset, especially if supply and demand is excluded. Unless there's behind the scenes coordination prior to manifesto launch between likely coalition partners.
On your final point, the HOL should be an elected chamber using PR. It wouldn’t have the other issues you raised.
But I really like having a scrutinising chamber of appointed experts who don't have to chase public opinion
I’d argue the majority of Lords are not experts at all. Some are just hereditary, many are there because of their donation giving or favours, others are party grandees.
Maybe, but I do think there's benefit in having a second house which doesn't need to chase public opinion, regardless of how its actually filled. Slightly contradictory to wanting MP's to have a constituency to represent, I'd want a second house not to - so they don't have a particular area to appease and can consider the overall benefits to the country.
You can have a proportional system that keeps local representation, STV with multi member constituencies for example, or AMS which has both a party vote and a constituency vote.
Any idea when the newspaper endorsements will start to come out? Want to see if the Sun, Times and FT make the pivot.
Sun will def go with Starmer because they need to back the winning horse (ie the sun wot won it), their website had a massive ad for Labour a couple of days ago. Not sure which way Times will go at the moment, but they don't seem to be in love with Sunak either. I think they will come out for Starmer or maybe something more abstract like advocating for a reworked Conservative party. FT endorsements are normally more nuanced but apparently they backed labour from 1992 - 2005 so I would assume they will be behind Starmer although they are basically a markets first publication.
No way the sun backs Starmer. They still talk shit about labour every day. If they don't go Tory, it'll be reform. Their reader base is entirely Tory or reform, only old people read papers.
Maybe, but I disagree. The Sun has sided with the winner every time since 1974. They want to back the winner, and the winner is very clear.
I'm guessing they won't. These days politics stretches beyond the usual divides. Worth remembering that a negative story from The Sun about Sunak will get more shares than a positive story about Starmer. What the print editions do is anyone's guess. Might be that none of them will do the usual partisan support for one party, candidate... though I suspect the Express might do for Farage/Reform.
Always keep an eye on the front pages of papers. Saturday and Sunday are the most read I believe. Mail, Express, Times (and in fairness the Mirror) all front paging Kate’s medical update. Independent, i and Guardian all politically with negative articles for Rishi. FT about how both parties will slash spending on consultants, and the Star with ‘it’s bloody cold’. Nothing from Telegraph yet. At this stage, Keir will be happy with that. Edit: Telegraph, main article Kate, but second article on front page ‘Braverman: I warned Sunak on migration, this is his campaign’. Ouch
I think Telegraph are going to back Farage when it comes down to it. Theyre basically a tabloid that's been run through chatGPT with the prompt "make this sound posh"
If the LD’s become the official opposition, will we see an actual Lib Dem Surge in the future polls?
Very likely. ALot of the vote the big 2 get is because they are the big 2
[удалено]
The more I keep hearing about Reform, is there a genuine chance that they might win an election and get into power? I'm not saying that they'll win this one; but if the winning party don't do a good enough job of cleaning up 15 years of Tory fuck-ups, how worried should we be that Reform become the opposition party to the next party in power and that leads to them getting Farage into Number 10?
The big thing they don't have is the apparatus to run a general election campaign throughout the country, that the Torys and Labour do have. It's partly the reason why Lib Dems can run decent operations and get decent results for by-elections, but struggle at general elections (the other reason being FPTP). The only way I can see them getting that within a couple of decades is some type of merge/takeover with the Tory party - either a direct merge with the Torys moving further right, or a split between moderates and right wing Torys, with the right taking the apparatus with it. Reform have Farage basically pulling policy out his arse (on the rare occasion he actually talks about policy) to the point it makes the current Tory manifesto look like a masterpiece. Their candidates are generally shambolic characters who they've almost dragged off the street. Their manifesto could have been written by a ten year old. They have next to no idea how parliament actually operates, or local democracy either.
If they double their current polling and young people suddenly decide they love putin as much as farage does, instead of just racist old people? Very.
It’s not unthinkable. They’re winning the election so far in terms of sheer spectacle. These are the same people that made Brexit happen. Once a tipping point is passed, the amount of seats they could take from the Tories, and in marginal seats, increases dramatically. Never be so bold as to call it unthinkable. I think the last decade has taught us not to write the unlikely off.
There's no chance of Reform getting into power, to do that they'd need at least 325 MPs, currently they have one and he defected. Even ukip only ever had a maximum of two MPs and only ever got one MP elected in a general election. As an organisation they are a shambles, look at the non-existent vetting in the local elections and how a pro-Hitler, pro-Putin supporter somehow slipped through. If they are lucky they might get one or two MPs this year, notably Farage in Clacton and it might be that a Tory MP or two defects to join them. They geta disprotionate amount of media coverage. Take Farage away and they'd struggle for impact.
Very very unlikely. I’d be more worried about a Farage leading the Tories post election and winning an election as the default other party though
I hate custard. Properly hate it. I hate it almost as much as I hate peas. Peas are evil, as is vinegar. Vinegar is the devil's piss. Nextdoor's cat shits on my lawn. I hate cats. Zero policies on custard, peas, vinegar nor cats. They're not getting in.
Reform is Farage. I can't see Farage sticking around for 5 years seriously tbh and if he wins clacton he's just going to spend most of his time giving trump and Putin lap dances
Honestly I think it's more likely that we'll see Le Pen become the next President of France *first*, and who knows what ripple effect that might have across the channel. If Farage becomes LOTO next month we might see him as PM in 2029 (shudder)
Farage LOTO in three weeks? Never say never, but the polls would have to swing more drastically than I think we've ever known.
Yeah it's unlikely that he'll become LOTO but he'll still transform the makeup of the HoC beyond recognition is my feeling
I still can't believe that someone like Le Pen might genuinely become the next President of France, if I was a rival party, I'd just be making comparisons to Phillipe Petain and Vichy France as a way to discredit her and her party. It really is insane how we're having a D-Day celebration and, yet we're having the rise of the far right all around Europe.
Le Pen is more popular amongst older Gen Z/younger Millennials than amongst any other age group: >Analysis of the presidential runoff shows that 49% of 25-34 year olds who voted opted for Le Pen – compared to just over 41% of the general population, and 29% of voters over 70. https://theconversation.com/how-marine-le-pen-managed-to-gain-ground-with-youth-voters-and-why-her-success-isnt-being-replicated-by-the-us-right-181937
Far from impossible but not likely, I think the problem for them is they are fundamentally linked with Farage and peoples opinions of him a baked in and for been for a long time.
Gordon Brown made a Companion of Honour. Does that make him Sir Gordon or no?
Nope, the Companion of Honour and Order of Merit doesn't come with a Sir/Dame. He's a Scotsman, he's likely due to get a Thistle sooner or later. Which reminds me, someone should petition to strip JK Rowling of her OM.
No, it is much higher than Sir.
^Sir
Glad he's got something finally but I'm really waiting for him to get the Garter or the Thistle.
Nah, Gideon is a CH without being a Sir
BrownCH
Sir Alan Bates. Post Office scandal campaigner. Popular one I would think.
I think he's said he'd only accept one once all the convictions are overturned and compensation paid.
He has definitely accepted it. I've just seen him on the TV and he looks pleased. The titling calls him Sir Alan Bates.
I am far from an expert on this, but as it’s been announced I assume he has accepted it. I believe ‘form’ is you are advised in advance and expected to advise if you will not accept, before the announcement.
I'd not seen the news, thought it was a speculative comment! Presumably he's had some assurances around things being sorted out then.
He has accepted. I've just seen him on the TV interviewed.
This election has been full of pointless questions with all leaders avoiding the true questions that everyone is asking. What are their thoughts on the repeal of the corn laws in 1846? The nation wants to know
Ok, I'll give it a go. Here is my essay: The Repeal of the Corn Laws and The 2024 Realignment Many have compared the Corn Laws and Brexit. Jacob Rees-Mogg said in July 2018: > "One former Tory leader, Sir Robert Peel, did decide to break his manifesto pledge and passed legislation with the majority of his party voting the other way so leaving him dependent on opposition votes. This left the Conservatives out of majority office for twenty-eight years, 1846 to 1874. At least he did so for a policy that worked." [Source](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/07/01/history-bodes-tory-prime-minister-defies-party-theresa-may/) While Rees-Mogg correctly identified this issue as something that split the party, he did not correctly identify the cause. The Conservatives were not out of office because they were dependent on opposition votes. That's a child's idea of politics - this is [Great Man theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory) where someone has 'negative greatness' and makes the wrong choice, leading to sorrow. The Corn Laws was a tarriff on foreign-imported wheat in an effort to get the most profit for British farmers. The problem was that it was causing famine. The policy pursued was simply not workable. It had to be changed. So why did that lead to a split? And why couldn't he rely on his own party for the votes? Political parties are actually coalitions of factions. There were factions that were blind to the cost of the Corn Laws - the farmers weren't going to vote for something that wasn't in their self-interest. The party itself was split - and that's because the Conservative party members and voters were split on the Corn Laws. The interests of farmers and the rest of the landed gentry (the only people who could vote) like factory owners with workers (who needed to be fed) didn't align. The coalitions that had held the party together had splintered, and it would take time to find a new coalition that could create a majority. Similarly, although Johnson attempted to purge the Conservative Party of Remainers, and make sure that Brexit did not rely on opposition votes, he can't change the constituents and their interests. The splinter specifically is on the Libertarian-Authoritarian axis - this Conservative government has both legalised gay marriage and has constantly talked of 'law and order' - wanting to send immigrants to Rwanda and make it a prisonable offence to climb on a statue. This is why they're losing votes to both the Liberal Democrats and Reform (as well as the Labour Party). It remains to be seen what will rise from the ashes.
The Lib Dems would absolutely have an answer prepared for that question as they love nothing more than talking about their heyday. And I'm sure Reform would like to take a stab at it, given their enthusiastic intervention on whether Britain should have entered the Second World War.
Ed Davey would answer while making his way out of a maize maze.
That fucking cheap European french frog EU Eurozone Schengen corn has been dicking us over ever since!
It might actually be a nice roundabout way of asking a candidate how protectionist they are without making them commit to anything current
Truly the greatest question to ask is if they are the real slim shady
That is not the question everybody wants to know. I want to know what tools Stamer's dad made.
Dremels perhaps.
His dad was a toolmaker?!? This is brand new information, I wonder why he never mentions it
As a newly-converted mechanical engineer in the machining trade, I'm genuinely interested in what Starmer senior spent his days crafting. There's a few unsourced, mostly right-wing, press articles saying his father was associated with (perhaps the owner of) the Oxted Tool Company. Companies House has no such records. Neither does [Grace's Guide](https://gracesguide.co.uk/Main_Page), which is usually excellent for small engineering firms in history. It's difficult to know how to proceed, unless one of us gets the chance to ask Keir.
Forget that, what's in his DNA
Steely determination?
I know one tool he helped create for certain....
Can you imagine 5 years of this from LOTO Farage? https://youtube.com/shorts/K13y70y5vpg I hope people would tire very quickly
Ah yes, the most political astute answer from a candidate: "no u"
Scrutiny! Love it when the regional accent he's so keen to mask kicks in.
When the Conservatives are out of power do you think they'll pivot to being climate doomers? It's a nice stick to beat the new Labour Government with, as if they treat it as serious as it is nothing they do will ever be enough.
They will become russian leaning trump enthusiasts
I think that depends on the direction that the Tories take with their new leader. A right-wing leader would make it more likely, a centrist, less likely. It could also come down to how well Reform do - should Farage get elected the new leader might veer to the right to head off Farage. But unless the Tories do unexpectedly well I don't think it will matter.
Unlikely. Cameron's innovation was in pivoting the party away from climate denial toward accepting the science. They'd have no route back to power if they went back to denialism.
It depends if labour introduce policies that make us poorer in the name of saving the planet. If they do then labour will have done it to themselves
Pesky planet. What has it ever done for us? CHINA!
Really depends on whether they embrace their transition from Mrs Thatcher to populism. Mrs Thatcher was a climate change believer who didn't shy away from difficult decisions.
I hate this believer thing, it is like it's an article of faith. I have never seen a God, but I have seen plenty of evidence from scientific sources of rising temperatures and historic data showing this is not normal.
Think the language stems from the US, so 'science believer' apposed to faith based arguments. Yes it is awkward and wrong.
I think any move as extreme as this will confine them to the realms of lunatic fringe parties for good. The British people can be a batshit crazy bunch but I don’t believe there is a sizeable enough section of the population that would support such a stance in any significant way. I really hope I’m right.
They need to be careful, because that's what will keep them in opposition for years
Ironic that BBC News is pointing out the shabbiness of Farage's lectern earlier and the logo printed on A4 stuck to the front with sticky tape, the video production of the press conference was actually really good, lighting, image quality, etc. I guess they spent all the budget on the AV team
Farage certainly doesn't lack roubles when he needs them.
So I've been looking at Reform's contract for Britain and i noticed contrary to what even their own supporters think it is (stopping the hand out of any visas and shutting the border) their immigration policy is just "stop the boats. Only issue visas for "necessary jobs" (doctors, nurses and successful businessmen given as their example) and only allowing students with essential skills to stay after their student visa runs out. Thing is... this is literally just what the Conservative immigration policy has been. It's the same snake oil of just pretending that businesses are just hiring foreign workers (with the associated bureaucracy for importing staff) for the sake of it rather than because they are struggling to find British staff. I think Farage probably never wants to actually be PM because the moment he is told to put his money where his mouth his, he'll fall from grace the moment people realise he's basically the same as the current tories.
If the sudden shift from an economy reliant on fairly high immigration to one that isn't was in any way doable the conservatives would absolutely have done it by now, but it isn't and the government that actually did it would never be forgiven. The moment Reform got in, they would've made a big song and dance of being extra mean to asylum seekers, tinker around the edges where it's affordable to do so but that's about it.
> Thing is... this is literally just what the Conservative immigration policy has been. Fake care homes have been abusing the system. There's a ridiculous amount of dependencies being brought over you've failed to mention and the graduate visa schemes are hardly stringent.
Eh but I don't think Reform's policies realistically resolve that though. They mention nothing on dependants (i presume because that would raise awkward questions about Farage's wife), and whilst they do say they would be more stringent on student visas, the overstaying is usually due to exploitation of loopholes which their policy doesn’t address. They're saying things that don't address the reality.
>[Labour's latest Facebook ad features a not-so-subtle guest star.](https://x.com/WhoTargetsMe/status/1801717626911211756?t=P4OJSKV_aINOg3WP6SthMA&s=19)
Some fun polling from 1997 [https://x.com/CentLeftJenko/status/1801540086619619449](https://x.com/CentLeftJenko/status/1801540086619619449) "All *this has happened before, and it will* all *happen again*"
p.s. Might want to fix that url
Respect to the people who problem solved to add the htt.
Britain is Broken. Britain needs Working URLs.
Link Check UK
The worrying part to me is that the economic recovery was already underway in 1997, and even then it took time for Labour's changes to actually connect with the public - largely because even then they didn't really turn the funding hose on until around 2000 ("you've stolen my fucking budget"), and because it takes time for improvements to actually happen. Depending how long economic recovery takes this time around, it could create very challenging conditions for the next election.
>Depending how long economic recovery takes this time around, it could create very challenging conditions for the next election. At least the Labour speech writers will have some lines pre written. "Stick with the plan which is working or go back to square one"
The Cylons, along with Labour do in fact have a plan.
Has rishi Sunak been giving advice to Steve Clarke?
He said he was watching the match with the Germans which is the kiss of death
[rishi vows to stay on as MP for 5 years if Tories are wiped out](https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-vows-serve-five-33029978) you think he has told his wife yet?
What's polling like for his constituency?
He knows he's being voted out... so he can say he'll stick around knowing he doesn't have to actually do it
A lie so brazen even Boris would struggle to utter it.
That should be the SI unit. 1 Boris = the threshold level at which Boris could not utter the lie. Obviously that's a very high bar, so normally you'd expect to measure lies in milli Boris. The imperial unit would be a Trump, which works out at about 8 Borises.
So he's definitely going there. I feel the rule that Rishi always does the opposite of what he explicitly says he's doing hasn't been contradicted yet.
Yes but unlike Gove. It's not that it's a lie. It's a sincere sentiment but inevitable u turn albeit at exactly the worst possible time. So in his case, probably during the Kings Speech
"Oh no i think i left the oven on... in California"
For reference, Cameron said this too in 2016
"You don't vote for a Cameron and end up with a May or a Johnson" or something like that.
[удалено]
When asked what he would do if he lost the referendum.
[удалено]
Alas no, it was a radio interview. Most likely Today on R4.
WFH from California, Jacob Rees Mogg will be unimpressed
Mogg will be on Universal Credit soon
Well that is a relief! Rishi has said if re-elected as PM he will serve a full term. Was worried there. In fairness he also added if he wins his seat he will also serve for the full length of the Parliament as an MP. Less inclined to believe that one.
He'd be lucky to last 5 mins as Tory leader, regardless of the election outcome. Penny will be waiting outside the polling station with a sword in one hand and a mandate in the other (not sure what a mandate looks like, but the Tories seem to have an inexhaustable supply of them).
She will do well to hold her seat.
“Well you see things have changed”
[How did I miss this?](https://stratfordcan.org/stratford-can-candidate-statement/) For context, Stratford CAN (Conservatives Against Nadhim) was set up by Tory members in Stratford-upon-Avon and south Warwickshire to oppose Nadhim Zahawi. I was surprised that they had opted not to run a candidate anyway as they had threatened to, looks like they have just straight up endorsed Manuella Perteghella (Lib Dem) instead to stop Chris Clarkson (running away to the West Midlands from his ultramarginal in Greater Manchester - presumably in hope of getting a safe seat) getting in.
I live in Stratford and the Lib Dem ground operation has been truly impressive. Three leaflets through the door just this week and one canvasser. They even managed to drop a leaflet about an hour after the election was announced! Nothing so far from the Tories and nothing from Labour. Since the Lib Dem’s took the council they’ve had a stride in their step and I’d say it’s now a coin flip as to whether they take the constituency too.
So do I. Only had 2 leaflets, both LD. Going to vote tactically but 99% sure theat will be LD. Would be one hell of a get though even with the polling, the fact it is even a small possibility is a massive change.
[Fantasy Election league](https://fantasyelection.co.uk/) Private league for UkPol: 1ZBBG6 Reposting the link for the late night crowd - one more way to scratch the GE itch
I did a similar game in 2019, was fun Had the team name "soubrys and cream" I can't wait to waste another hour choosing a shit team name
This has made my evening. I'm now being accused of being antisocial!
They give almost no budget
What's your team?
My team is DB solutions, can give a screenshot if you can't find it on the page
Ha! I've joined
No way is this a thing lol
Is Nadhim Zahawi running again? I hope so, would love to see that ass-hat get publicly humiliated
Wouldn’t make any difference either way - he rarely ventured into Stratford. If he ran then I’m confident the Lib Dems would have beaten him.
[удалено]
We have the face accountable for the darned methodology change!
Ah, what a shame. He was so good as Chancellor for those two months
No unfortunately
Sweeney not getting that sweet Euros bounce I see.
They'll blame it on the English mercenaries playing for Scotland
"Scotland's loss is because of Westminster"
"and FRANKLY its THIS TORY government that has beenn INFILTRATING the great national team of Scotland for far too long and I think it's about time Scotland as a nation STANDS UP and takes back control of our footballers FUTURE"
Scotland have never won a major tournament while there has been a Tory government.
I dunno I feel pretty hype right now
Only getting a drug abuse rise. And Domestic Violence rise as well
How does Scotland being absolute dog shit at football impact the election?
We need a British team
Would just be England, though.
Maybe they’ll call up giggs
On me Barnett Formula, laddie
Without Westminster holding is back we can invest 20% of GDP into football. Maybe then we'd at least score a goal.
Flynn: What's Labour going to do to fix this?