Simon Parker

My whole point is that policy doesn't matter. The Greens win on lefty vibe-ishness and that's Kryptonite for the McSweeney hippie punching strategy.

Labour people don't know how to engage with the Greens at all. 'But NATO...' doesn't work because Polanski is never going to be in a position to take us out. 'They're just middle class hippies' would be fine if it didn't involve Labour dissing its own core vote.

Ok I'm going to take the plunge and say that you're misinterpreting the Greens. No they aren't the Lib Dems, because the Lib Dems are still doing what they did in the 2000s. The Greens are more like Reform, and that makes them a much bigger challenge IMHO.

I basically agree, but note that £94,000 is a lot of money to most people.

And I can see why it happens. You're the goddamn business secretary and you get paid less than the financial services goons who are lobbying you. It's very human to be pissed off about that. But you chose public service, you've done very well indeed and you need to be content with that.

I'm ok with the idea we should pay MPs more. It might tempt a slightly wider range of people. I think the problem is when MPs and ministers start to benchmark themselves against captains of industry. Politics should offer a comfortable living, but not a luxurious one IMHO.

Just heard Rory Stewart suggesting we should raise MP salaries so they're less tempted to chase weird rich dudes for money. And here's my thing: people like Mandelson aren't grubbing about for an extra £50k a year.

Andy Burnham presumably spending this week just watching telly with a massive bucket of popcorn.

Yes we could read 'cheaper but worse' as 'better than what most people could afford before'.

We live as we dream, alone.

The point Portes lands very well is that slightly lower inequality and very low growth don't solve much. I think this is symptomatic of a progressive politics that fails to situate its social goals within a wider account of political economy, cultural and institutional frameworks.

So much of progressive politics has degenerated into 'after the revolution we will spend more on nice things'. I mean yes, that would be good, but first you need political economy, institutions, governance. We lack any serious account of the society that could produce such spending.

Jesus wasn't white, so if Charles Murray does the churches I'm sure Christopher Nolan will be happy to change his casting decisions.

I'm now fantasising about Spanish hotel rooms coming with a whole leg of jamon. Add a six pack of San Miguel and I see no reason to ever leave that room.

Anthony you live in Belgium and have the delights of the continent stretched out before you. I refuse to believe you pine for a complimentary Gail's sourdough at Soho Farmhouse.

I met Goodwin at a party once and can confirm he is really very dull.

There is altogether too much weird foreign money in UK politics.

I suspect we could identify lingering culture, economic and institutional legacies from past experiences of non-conformism going back to the civil war.

Among the many things I'll get round to researching one day is the way faith traditions have historically shaped/been shaped by geography and local economies. For instance, how significant is the prevalence of Methodism in the South West, or Quakers in York?

All roads lead back to local government with this.

It takes a huge amount of supply to move the dial dramatically, in part because supply doesn't set the price on its own. Demand is heavily shaped by ability to borrow, which means incomes and interest rates matter.

The housing market is a heavily regulated oligarchy which lacks competition. It would be better if barriers to entry were dropped, and land is part of that (but not all of it).

Yep. Very clear the pace of housebuilding is set by margins. Introducing more competition would help, and freeing up a lot of land might do that, but there's no reason to think the private sector can meet social need for the people who will never be able to afford market rates.

People like @centreforcities.bsky.social argue that the only reason we needed council housing was the awfulness of the TCPA. Perhaps so. But we have *never* built more homes than when the councils were put in charge.

Exactly this. We've memory-holed how important local government was up to the 80s. It housed nearly half the population! It flooded Welsh Valleys! Permanent secretaries were summoned to meet chief executives at Claridges!

Alison Luchs, who has worked at the National Gallery of Art for 47 years, agreed to learn Gen Z slang and make videos because she wanted to raise interest in the museum’s art.

She never expected to slay. https://wapo.st/45BXc3S

TL;DR the old continue to inflict their politics on the young.

Well it was certainly designed to force politicians to set clear, easily measurable goals for services that could then be contractually managed. Asking commissioners to manage by KPI over a four year deal is certainly less flexible. I'm not sure if it's inherently less democratic?

Last night we also trailed the idea of Policy Camp, a possible unconference for people who want to make policymaking in govt even better policycamp.org.uk

We'd love you to help shape it, so we've set up a survey:
- Microsoft Form bit.ly/MSPolicyCamp
- Google Form bit.ly/GPolicyCamp

Keeping the human in the (Waves) loop: Reflections from our digital democracy trial Demos is Britain’s leading cross-party think-tank. We produce original research, publish innovative thinkers and host thought-provoking events.

🗣️ WAVES UPDATE | Reflections from our digital democracy trial

🖊️ Lead Researcher, @hanakappy.bsky.social reflects on progress from stage two of our trial in Camden, and crucially, on how you keep the human at the heart of tech-facilitated public deliberation.

demos.co.uk/blogs/keepin...