holly

Labour seem to have developed a strategy of getting ‘negged’ by Reform voters; shifting their policies in ever more socially conservative directions to attract such voters and somehow repelling them, and yet still, maybe, maybe this time will be the one. 6/n

Yes competence and integrity and they've made rods for their own backs with both of those!

If youre being generous to them you could say that the lesson they drew from the Corbyn years is to challenge the right will always be sailing against the wind. And now they move wherever the wind blows..

I think a lack of a strategic vision / narrative. Or perhaps they had one with a 2010 redux "all the moneys gone ect", but thats floundering.

But overall their whole project was defined by not challenging the right but rather presenting themselves as competent.

I think all this shows you - now being proven every day - is that the liberalism is all a very thin veneer and that any bit of it can be revoked on a whim, the second it’s convenient to do so.

Where did you read that?

Is EU caselaw still relevant for the UK?

The revenge of the left A Corbyn-Sultana party, perhaps in alliance with the Greens, will shatter this government.

I’d add: the *whole point* of McSweeney’s long project since its secret 2018 media launch was: it was smart and good to break the long left-liberal coalition, and instead build a crushing, dominant electoral bloc of the Labour right unifying liberals, Reasonable Tories and retired racist cranks.

Stuck in a vortex of radicalisation as the UK increasingly charts towards a fascistic police state. If you're a British liberal looking anxiously across the water at Trump's US - please remember where you live as well and remember that Starmer is currently driving this far right radicalisation

"Old party loyalties may be falling away, but they are not being replaced by anything new."

Ignores the context of a system that actively impedes smaller parties aswell as the real success of those parties despite that fact.

The argument, as I understand it, is that comp voting increases participation, and therefore party responsiveness to a broader range of voters, thereby improving legitimacy. But increasing participation within constituencies doesn't address the distortions created by the constituencies themselves.

Likewise, as I said, PR maybe necessary but not sufficient, so seeing it being challenged in other contexts doesn't necessarily invalidate that point. Also lowering barriers to smaller parties isn't the same as *no* barriers. But I'll defer to you on European voting systems.

Thank you for your thoughtful explanation. A few points: re entrepreneurs, it's worth acknowledging that Farage's various vehicles have had profound influence on UK politics (sans accountability) despite FPTP.

Important that you noted intersectional disparities in voting engagement but question why legally mandating voting should be prioritised over increasing access. For example a bank holiday specifically for voting day.

You also mention low turn-out but ofcourse relevant context that the 2024 election was a two horse race between two parties that were ideologically quite close. Possible confusion of symptom/ cause where with PR turnout could've been higher.

I feel the realignment is occurring along a number of axes which can never be expressed in the binary system produced by FPTP.

Surely if voters want to vote Green at this election and Reform at the next, that is legitimate and those (increasly few) voting Labour or Tory don't deserve preference because their families have done so for generations.

Can we not be witnessing a realignment to a variety of parties, why should that be dismissed as "dealignment"? You mention that parties may lack "lasting loyalties" but why is that the most important metric we should use to judge them?

Over all I agree with your basic thesis that PR alone is not sufficient to address the problem, though I would contend it is necessary.

Likewise while compulsory voting may have some benefit it, in isolation, especially without PR, would exacerbate existing problems.

Wouldn't their review process be liable to be discovered from an FOI request?

Tweet from The Muslim Vote in the UK, reading: BREAKING: An Islamophobe will be defining Islamophobia for Britain. Trevor Phillips was suspended from Labour for anti-Islam comments. Now Keir Starmer has put him IN CHARGE of defining Islamophobia. But it's the government response to the MCB that will horrify you: 🧵 Accompanied by pictures of Trevor Philips and Keir Starmer making the same faces they’ll be making when Labour get crushed in 2029

If this goes anything like their defining of anti-semitism it’s gonna be illegal to criticise Saudi Arabia but absolutely fine to be openly islamophobic

Does nobody have any self-respect, never mind basic decency, is the point that I am driving at here. Is there really nothing left except craven suckups?

Capitalism really is the biggest load of old bollocks imaginable.

For my entire life I've been told that the state can't provide things; that the private sector does it better. And that whole time, public services have declined and the chasm between the ultra-rich and regular people has widened, and I've been told the only remedy is to cut deeper into the bone.

The destruction of Palestine is breaking the world | Moustafa Bayoumi The rules of the institutions that define our lives bend like reeds when it comes to Israel – so much that the whole global order is on the verge of collapse

“Any political system that prioritizes punishing those who protest genocide rather than stopping the killing has clearly exhausted itself.”

Important summation of the unraveled state of both global and domestic “liberal” orders, by Moustafa Bayoumi

Interesting. Seems hard to reconcile charges having both terrorism offences and "low level" though. Very much having your cake and eating it!

I think so! The exceptions are if there's a fear of jury tampering from intimidation ect.

Just wandering, if it were a jury, would they even be able to convict

Ahead of the expected proscription of Palestine Action - the first time a protest group has been legally redefined as terrorist - I went through the Hansard of the 2000 Act they're being banned under. Turns out MPs were assured the law wouldn't be applied this way. Thread 🧵🔽

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production...All that is solid melts into air