Snap General Election called

[Puja]

I suspect by being vague Starmer will allow himself some room to manoeuvre especially if he gets a decent majority. Promising to spend money though will ultimately result in the media messaging that Labour is back to tax and spend, which could be ruinous.

I suspect that many in the UK aren’t adverse to paying a little more tax, but as Theresa May noticed when you campaign on that issue it tends to hurt you quite a lot.

Opinion polls since the u-turn are showing a reduced Labour lead, from 21-22 points to 17-18 points (with a couple going as low as 11-12 points). I think it's a horrendous mistake by Starmer - if he'd stuck to his guns, then he could claim investing in Britain's future (and hope is something that oppositions should be trying to kindle), and the Tories can't make their usual hay on "You can't trust Labour with the economy," because everyone remembers Liz Truss and is aware of the number of knives currently lined up at Sunak's back. However, "You can't trust Labour," appears to be sticking quite well, not least because it seems to be true.

Puja

It was stupid of Labour to put a price tag on their green policy. Better to have had an aspiration rather than settle on a firm number so far out which could be affected by events.

I mean, if they hadn't, the Conservatives would've made one for them. I still remember the last election where it was "Corbyn plans to tax you an extra £1.2 trillion to fund his spending plans" just repeated over and over and over again until it was taken as fact, when that figure was drawn from taking random policies that anyone, even a random Labour councillor, had said might be nice and pricing them up all as "Corbyn's spending splurge".

Back at the time, Starmer's £28bn sounded authoritative and full of leadership - "We have costed up what is needed to fix this problem and we are prepared to do something about it." Gods only know how Starmer has been persuaded that people will like him better by letting the Conservatives hound him into giving up on it.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Opinion polls since the u-turn are showing a reduced Labour lead, from 21-22 points to 17-18 points (with a couple going as low as 11-12 points). I think it's a horrendous mistake by Starmer - if he'd stuck to his guns, then he could claim investing in Britain's future (and hope is something that oppositions should be trying to kindle), and the Tories can't make their usual hay on "You can't trust Labour with the economy," because everyone remembers Liz Truss and is aware of the number of knives currently lined up at Sunak's back. However, "You can't trust Labour," appears to be sticking quite well, not least because it seems to be true.

Puja

It was stupid of Labour to put a price tag on their green policy. Better to have had an aspiration rather than settle on a firm number so far out which could be affected by events.

I mean, if they hadn't, the Conservatives would've made one for them. I still remember the last election where it was "Corbyn plans to tax you an extra £1.2 trillion to fund his spending plans" just repeated over and over and over again until it was taken as fact, when that figure was drawn from taking random policies that anyone, even a random Labour councillor, had said might be nice and pricing them up all as "Corbyn's spending splurge".

Back at the time, it sounded authoritative and full of leadership - "We have costed up what is needed to fix this problem and we are prepared to do something about it." Gods only know how Starmer has been persuaded that people will like him better by letting the Conservatives hound him into giving up on it.

Puja

I'd be surprised if anyone was that bothered with a mere 28BN, after what the Tories wasted on covid contracts and test and trace. Anyway, part of the point of this is that it's an economic stimulus, it would have driven growth, it would have more than paid for itself over time. That's the point to make.

[Which Tyler]

I'd be surprised if anyone was that bothered with a mere 28BN, after what the Tories wasted on covid contracts and test and trace.

Have you met the British Press?

[Sandydragon]

So any freedom of movement Labour had is vanishing by the day now we are in recession. I suspect Starmer is more likely to raise taxes to protect public services than look to make efficiencies, or even to make big cuts to lower taxes. But saying that will be an open goal. Might as well protect his lead until he has to make policy announcements and demonstrate that they can be paid for.

[Sandydragon]

It was stupid of Labour to put a price tag on their green policy. Better to have had an aspiration rather than settle on a firm number so far out which could be affected by events.

I mean, if they hadn't, the Conservatives would've made one for them. I still remember the last election where it was "Corbyn plans to tax you an extra £1.2 trillion to fund his spending plans" just repeated over and over and over again until it was taken as fact, when that figure was drawn from taking random policies that anyone, even a random Labour councillor, had said might be nice and pricing them up all as "Corbyn's spending splurge".

Back at the time, it sounded authoritative and full of leadership - "We have costed up what is needed to fix this problem and we are prepared to do something about it." Gods only know how Starmer has been persuaded that people will like him better by letting the Conservatives hound him into giving up on it.

Puja

I'd be surprised if anyone was that bothered with a mere 28BN, after what the Tories wasted on covid contracts and test and trace. Anyway, part of the point of this is that it's an economic stimulus, it would have driven growth, it would have more than paid for itself over time. That's the point to make.

Totally agree. Better IMO to have made a policy statement about using a Green Deal to drive growth and the numbers out of it.

[Sandydragon]

Arguments over Gaza, antisemitism and £28bn don’t seem to have blunted the labour by-election machine. Two more huge wins, aided by some local distaste for Peter Bone in one. Projections for a 100 seat majority for Labour at the next election, although I’d expect a few stay away Conservative voters to return to the fold prior to that.

The main question now is how long will Sunak hold on hoping for something decisive? With us now officially in recession, it’s gonna take something huge to turn fortunes around now.

[Which Tyler]

I see that JRM(?) has said the low turnout (low but not abnormally so) is what caused the swing - which seems... optimistic, given the labour scandals in the lead-up to polling; and the fact that if both had had the 40% turnout threshold, and had every single one of those extra voters voted tory, they'd still have lost both seats.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I see that JRM(?) has said the low turnout (low but not abnormally so) is what caused the swing - which seems... optimistic, given the labour scandals in the lead-up to polling; and the fact that if both had had the 40% turnout threshold, and had every single one of those extra voters voted tory, they'd still have lost both seats.

The general election won't be so bad for the Tories - higher turnout and a lot of those Reform UK votes will return to them. They'll still lose though.

[Sandydragon]

I see that JRM(?) has said the low turnout (low but not abnormally so) is what caused the swing - which seems... optimistic, given the labour scandals in the lead-up to polling; and the fact that if both had had the 40% turnout threshold, and had every single one of those extra voters voted tory, they'd still have lost both seats.

The narrative is that all the Tory voters either voted for Reform or stayed at home. If Sunak just cuts taxes, doubles down on the culture wars and ejects anyone who can't prove they have 15 generations of British heritage then the elections in the bag.

[Puja]

Ready4Rish! has denied that there's going to be a snap general election (taking us right back to 204 pages ago), but he might want to consider it because their position is getting worse by the day - not because of anything Labour are doing, but because Reform is starting to get into the public consciousness as a reasonable electoral option. FPtP is hostile to new parties because any vote outside of the favourites for a seat is a "wasted vote", but the snowball has started rolling and the more little Englanders who discover their mates are thinking about voting Reform, the more likely it is that they'll vote as well. Is it worth gambling on hoping for "better economic conditions" at the end of the summer?

There have been a poll or two in the last couple of days that see Reform at 14%. That could deliver such an electoral blow to the Conservatives that Ed Davey becomes the Leader of the Opposition, which would be highly amusing, not to mention the delight I'd see in Sunak, Badenoch, Hunt, Gove, Zahawi, Braverman, Mordaunt all lose their seats. Liz Truss would survive though, somehow.

Would also demonstrate how utterly clownshoes our electoral system is. I don't like Reform in the slightest, but there's no denying that it would be grotesquely unfair if they got 14% of the vote and 0 MPs, compared to Lib Dems getting 49 on 9%, and Green getting 2 from 7%, while Labour's 44% of the vote got them 80% of the MPs. That's not to mention the Tories getting more than double the Lib Dem's vote share to get fewer MPs.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Ready4Rish! has denied that there's going to be a snap general election (taking us right back to 204 pages ago), but he might want to consider it because their position is getting worse by the day - not because of anything Labour are doing, but because Reform is starting to get into the public consciousness as a reasonable electoral option. FPtP is hostile to new parties because any vote outside of the favourites for a seat is a "wasted vote", but the snowball has started rolling and the more little Englanders who discover their mates are thinking about voting Reform, the more likely it is that they'll vote as well. Is it worth gambling on hoping for "better economic conditions" at the end of the summer?

There have been a poll or two in the last couple of days that see Reform at 14%. That could deliver such an electoral blow to the Conservatives that Ed Davey becomes the Leader of the Opposition, which would be highly amusing, not to mention the delight I'd see in Sunak, Badenoch, Hunt, Gove, Zahawi, Braverman, Mordaunt all lose their seats. Liz Truss would survive though, somehow.

Would also demonstrate how utterly clownshoes our electoral system is. I don't like Reform in the slightest, but there's no denying that it would be grotesquely unfair if they got 14% of the vote and 0 MPs, compared to Lib Dems getting 49 on 9%, and Green getting 2 from 7%, while Labour's 44% of the vote got them 80% of the MPs. That's not to mention the Tories getting more than double the Lib Dem's vote share to get fewer MPs.

Puja

The only argument in the Conservative party at the moment against an early election is that it's another 6 months or so of paychecks they can collect before the inevitable. I'm not suggesting that is a good thing for the country, but we are expecting the turkeys to vote for Christmas.

I was never a fan of PR, but after the last few years, including the coalition government, I think it has some real promise. The fairness bit is important but also it would force parties to cooperate as it would be less likely that one would have a majority on its own (not impossible but less likely). Both Labour and the Conservatives would lose their fringe MPs and could be more focused on what they actually represent rather than trying to appease everyone constantly. It is unfair that Reform/UKIP havent had the seats to reflect their polling (from an academic perspective - personally I couldnt give a toss about how badly they fare). The only down side is that it does open the door to the total crazies on either fringe, but equally the breakaway group during the brexit dramas might have had a better chance of being recognised as an electoral possibility than they were.

[Which Tyler]

Absolutely - even people I disagree with deserve a say in the running of the country.
Added to which, compromise is almost always preferable to conflict.
If someone's got a good idea, then it's a good idea, whoever came up with it, and shouldn't be seen as "proposing policy for your opponents to steal and get credit for".
Depending on the type of PR, it also makes huge strides to combat the old "wasted vote" of someone living in a true-colour location.

ETA: The above was in response to Puja (though obviously, tending to agree with Sandy on a lot of it), damned "someone else has posted" message!

[Puja]

The only down side is that it does open the door to the total crazies on either fringe, but equally the breakaway group during the brexit dramas might have had a better chance of being recognised as an electoral possibility than they were.

I think there's a reasonable chance that it might tone down the crazies somewhat. Right now, the Tories have an 80 78 64 52 seat majority, which was voted for by a lot of very sensible voters, but has been controlled by the bat-shit loony fringe for a chunk of the last 5 years, because that was who had wrested control of the party. Same with the fringe leading us from "Of course we're not going to leave the single market" to "Brexit means Brexit".

The "Big Tents" thing that we have going on right now means that anyone can claim that the will of the people was X and that they have an electoral mandate for it, despite that never really having been on the ballot paper.

I don't think I'd go full PR - I'd be in favour of the Kiwi MMP system, as that seems to strike a good balance between having a local MP while still driving a broadly proportionate result.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

This week in tory
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1767 ... 68170.html

[Sandydragon]

The only down side is that it does open the door to the total crazies on either fringe, but equally the breakaway group during the brexit dramas might have had a better chance of being recognised as an electoral possibility than they were.

I think there's a reasonable chance that it might tone down the crazies somewhat. Right now, the Tories have an 80 78 64 52 seat majority, which was voted for by a lot of very sensible voters, but has been controlled by the bat-shit loony fringe for a chunk of the last 5 years, because that was who had wrested control of the party. Same with the fringe leading us from "Of course we're not going to leave the single market" to "Brexit means Brexit".

The "Big Tents" thing that we have going on right now means that anyone can claim that the will of the people was X and that they have an electoral mandate for it, despite that never really having been on the ballot paper.

I don't think I'd go full PR - I'd be in favour of the Kiwi MMP system, as that seems to strike a good balance between having a local MP while still driving a broadly proportionate result.

Puja

I'm not familiar with the Kiwi method, but I do agree that some local accountability is important, especially as local democracy is on its arse totally, and often the only recourse is to go to your MP (who tend to ignore most petitioners unless they are party donors).

[Puja]

The only down side is that it does open the door to the total crazies on either fringe, but equally the breakaway group during the brexit dramas might have had a better chance of being recognised as an electoral possibility than they were.

I think there's a reasonable chance that it might tone down the crazies somewhat. Right now, the Tories have an 80 78 64 52 seat majority, which was voted for by a lot of very sensible voters, but has been controlled by the bat-shit loony fringe for a chunk of the last 5 years, because that was who had wrested control of the party. Same with the fringe leading us from "Of course we're not going to leave the single market" to "Brexit means Brexit".

The "Big Tents" thing that we have going on right now means that anyone can claim that the will of the people was X and that they have an electoral mandate for it, despite that never really having been on the ballot paper.

I don't think I'd go full PR - I'd be in favour of the Kiwi MMP system, as that seems to strike a good balance between having a local MP while still driving a broadly proportionate result.

Puja

I'm not familiar with the Kiwi method, but I do agree that some local accountability is important, especially as local democracy is on its arse totally, and often the only recourse is to go to your MP (who tend to ignore most petitioners unless they are party donors).

I was just reminded of the importance of having a local MP recently by a friend of mine who lives in Nottingham and had to go to Nadia Whittome about a repair on a lift in the housing they're living in (they are disabled and live on the fourth floor, so it was kinda important) - 6 months of trying with the building management sorted in 48 hours by her getting involved. I've always been impressed with her as an MP from the outside.

The Kiwi method is really cool*. You have X seats for an area, of which half are constituency MPs that are elected with FPtP as per normal. The other half are then filled up from the lists that the parties provide, in order to make the whole number of X seats proportionate.

So say you have 20% Con, 45% Lab, 12% Lib Dem, 14% Reform, 9% Green in the South West and let's fictionally say that there's 100 MPs allocated to that area. So 50 of them are FPtP, which might mean 33 Labour MPs, 12 Lib Dem, 4 Cons, 1 Green. The other 50 would then be handed out so that we get the 20/44/9/14/7 split, so that's 16 Cons, 12 Lab, 0 Lib Dem, 14 Reform, 8 Green.

Puja


*Okay, so I'm a nerd, but it's still clever.

[Sandydragon]

Whilst not diminishing the impact of the local MP there, the local council should be sorting that out, and be able to manage queries and requests. Sadly they rarely can in my experience.

[Puja]

Whilst not diminishing the impact of the local MP there, the local council should be sorting that out, and be able to manage queries and requests. Sadly they rarely can in my experience.

I think the key issue is that it was Nottingham and the council there have been driven bust.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Whilst not diminishing the impact of the local MP there, the local council should be sorting that out, and be able to manage queries and requests. Sadly they rarely can in my experience.

I think the key issue is that it was Nottingham and the council there have been driven bust.

Puja

Not exactly a unique situation at the moment, and even where councils are technically solvent, their lack of authority is very self-evident.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I think there's a reasonable chance that it might tone down the crazies somewhat. Right now, the Tories have an 80 78 64 52 seat majority, which was voted for by a lot of very sensible voters, but has been controlled by the bat-shit loony fringe for a chunk of the last 5 years, because that was who had wrested control of the party. Same with the fringe leading us from "Of course we're not going to leave the single market" to "Brexit means Brexit".

The "Big Tents" thing that we have going on right now means that anyone can claim that the will of the people was X and that they have an electoral mandate for it, despite that never really having been on the ballot paper.

I don't think I'd go full PR - I'd be in favour of the Kiwi MMP system, as that seems to strike a good balance between having a local MP while still driving a broadly proportionate result.

Puja

I'm not familiar with the Kiwi method, but I do agree that some local accountability is important, especially as local democracy is on its arse totally, and often the only recourse is to go to your MP (who tend to ignore most petitioners unless they are party donors).

I was just reminded of the importance of having a local MP recently by a friend of mine who lives in Nottingham and had to go to Nadia Whittome about a repair on a lift in the housing they're living in (they are disabled and live on the fourth floor, so it was kinda important) - 6 months of trying with the building management sorted in 48 hours by her getting involved. I've always been impressed with her as an MP from the outside.

The Kiwi method is really cool*. You have X seats for an area, of which half are constituency MPs that are elected with FPtP as per normal. The other half are then filled up from the lists that the parties provide, in order to make the whole number of X seats proportionate.

So say you have 20% Con, 45% Lab, 12% Lib Dem, 14% Reform, 9% Green in the South West and let's fictionally say that there's 100 MPs allocated to that area. So 50 of them are FPtP, which might mean 33 Labour MPs, 12 Lib Dem, 4 Cons, 1 Green. The other 50 would then be handed out so that we get the 20/44/9/14/7 split, so that's 16 Cons, 12 Lab, 0 Lib Dem, 14 Reform, 8 Green.

Puja


*Okay, so I'm a nerd, but it's still clever.

Agreed, the Kiwi system is about the best currently in operation (to the best of my knowledge). NB it is a form of PR.

My preferred system (not in operation anywhere) would be the Kiwi system except that the 'top-up' MPs are chosen from the party's losing candidates in other seats, and selected in descending order of vote share in their constituencies. That way, you get a reasonable amount of legitimacy for all the MPs and you avoid unpalatable Mandelson types, or mates of the party leaders getting put at the top of the list.

[Which Tyler]

The Kiwi method is really cool*. You have X seats for an area, of which half are constituency MPs that are elected with FPtP as per normal. The other half are then filled up from the lists that the parties provide, in order to make the whole number of X seats proportionate.

So say you have 20% Con, 45% Lab, 12% Lib Dem, 14% Reform, 9% Green in the South West and let's fictionally say that there's 100 MPs allocated to that area. So 50 of them are FPtP, which might mean 33 Labour MPs, 12 Lib Dem, 4 Cons, 1 Green. The other 50 would then be handed out so that we get the 20/44/9/14/7 split, so that's 16 Cons, 12 Lab, 0 Lib Dem, 14 Reform, 8 Green.

Agreed, the Kiwi system is about the best currently in operation (to the best of my knowledge). NB it is a form of PR.

My preferred system (not in operation anywhere) would be the Kiwi system except that the 'top-up' MPs are chosen from the party's losing candidates in other seats, and selected in descending order of vote share in their constituencies. That way, you get a reasonable amount of legitimacy for all the MPs and you avoid unpalatable Mandelson types, or mates of the party leaders getting put at the top of the list.

Gotta say - that sounds like an excellent proposal.

[Sandydragon]

The Kiwi method is really cool*. You have X seats for an area, of which half are constituency MPs that are elected with FPtP as per normal. The other half are then filled up from the lists that the parties provide, in order to make the whole number of X seats proportionate.

So say you have 20% Con, 45% Lab, 12% Lib Dem, 14% Reform, 9% Green in the South West and let's fictionally say that there's 100 MPs allocated to that area. So 50 of them are FPtP, which might mean 33 Labour MPs, 12 Lib Dem, 4 Cons, 1 Green. The other 50 would then be handed out so that we get the 20/44/9/14/7 split, so that's 16 Cons, 12 Lab, 0 Lib Dem, 14 Reform, 8 Green.

Agreed, the Kiwi system is about the best currently in operation (to the best of my knowledge). NB it is a form of PR.

My preferred system (not in operation anywhere) would be the Kiwi system except that the 'top-up' MPs are chosen from the party's losing candidates in other seats, and selected in descending order of vote share in their constituencies. That way, you get a reasonable amount of legitimacy for all the MPs and you avoid unpalatable Mandelson types, or mates of the party leaders getting put at the top of the list.

Gotta say - that sounds like an excellent proposal.

I like that. My big issue with a list is that it will inevitably be full of party people who would be unwelcome to many voters. If we went this this idea then the top up candidates would have been selected to contest a seat in the area and should be more interested in representing that area. It would reduce the chance of 2 types of MP, those with local responsibilities and those who can just swan about and be lazy. This way those who didnt have a direct seat could have some regional attachment and thus responsibility for helping with the constituents.

Thats 2 days on the trot we have all agreed on politics. I sense the internet might break

[Son of Mathonwy]

Agreed, the Kiwi system is about the best currently in operation (to the best of my knowledge). NB it is a form of PR.

My preferred system (not in operation anywhere) would be the Kiwi system except that the 'top-up' MPs are chosen from the party's losing candidates in other seats, and selected in descending order of vote share in their constituencies. That way, you get a reasonable amount of legitimacy for all the MPs and you avoid unpalatable Mandelson types, or mates of the party leaders getting put at the top of the list.

Gotta say - that sounds like an excellent proposal.

I like that. My big issue with a list is that it will inevitably be full of party people who would be unwelcome to many voters. If we went this this idea then the top up candidates would have been selected to contest a seat in the area and should be more interested in representing that area. It would reduce the chance of 2 types of MP, those with local responsibilities and those who can just swan about and be lazy. This way those who didnt have a direct seat could have some regional attachment and thus responsibility for helping with the constituents.

Thats 2 days on the trot we have all agreed on politics. I sense the internet might break

It gets a little messy if we give local responsibilities to the top-up MPs.
As it stands, if we did that, the system would give us some seats with a single MP and some with two (or more) MPs. On the face of it that would mean some constituencies being overrepresented, which is not ideal.

Alternatively a slightly different version of the system would have a fixed number of MPs so all of the party's MPs are chosen in descending order of vote share in their constituencies. However to get the proportional result some parties would not get all their winning candidates into parliament (ie their relatively less popular winning candidates) (eg the SNP) whereas some would get their most popular losing candidates elected (eg LibDems, Greens, Reform). So it might be messy and no doubt some people would claim it was 'not fair'. And a number of the candidates would represent a constituency they didn't stand in, which is far from ideal.

Or we just accept that some MPs have local responsibilities, and some don't. Maybe we find a way to allocate other kinds of parliamentary work to the top-up MPs so they are kept busy (or don't pay them so much?). This might be the safest way to go.

But whichever version is used it's vastly better that FPTP.

[Which Tyler]

It gets a little messy if we give local responsibilities to the top-up MPs.

Define "local"
We're already split between national, regional, county, town and parish councils.
From the above example, half the MP would be constituency (more-or-less town council level) whilst the other half would be regional. Without giving it a huge amount of thought, they could easily have regional-level local responsibility - or stand in at the more local level for any MP appointed to cabinet who may (should) not have time to do too much on the local level at the same time (and other issues with cabinet ministers acting on behalf of random constituent #7)

Admission of bias for all to see:
I've long advocated strong, devolved parliaments at the regional level, more or less equivalent in authority to the Scottish Parliament, with a central government to determine national policy and limits on the regional governments, made up with nominations from the regional parliaments. I know it's a whole new(ish) level of bureaucracy, but mostly (far from entirely) as a redistribution.

[Which Tyler]

May election as good as confirmed.
Laurence Robertson (my absentee MP) has started advertising on social media and even done a radio interview - unheard of outside of election season.

About the only thing he's got to boast about is a desire to prevent smuggling in of poor breed-stock puppys and kittens, but that's what he's running with.
Even then, I suspect it's because "smuggling living beings in from the continent = bad", as his voting record on animal welfare is pretty poor IIRC.

Given that, of course, it's always worth reminding people that actions speak louder than words - you can look up your own MP's record here: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/