What would be the implications of following Australia’s long standing policy of requiring everybody to cast a vote at an election( even if it is deliberately spoiled)?
Not favoured by any political party that perceives benefitting in future from the “ first past the post” arrangements. Witness Reform’s volte face since the last General Election.
Whilst the country burns and much of it resembles a patched, barren savannah, why does Andy Burnham seem incapable or unwilling to mention the climate crisis?
I'd be interested in a more general post about climate policy - what is the chance of serious action given the inevitably short term horizons of elected government
Don’t quite understand this question. He’s done more in the last three weeks than Starmer did in three years. Miliband has said it’s central to his role as Foreign Secretary.
much attention is given to the UK's military spending as a % of GDP (which needs to increase). But the UK also remains the 6th biggest global military spender (in US dollar terms) at about £89bn (SIPRI 2025 data). If you could start from scratch how would you apportion that money in light of the UK's current and future defence needs? (to make the answer easier, assume it's £100bn). thanks!
For Sam and Lawrence: what are your thoughts about the Israeli elections later this year and do you think they can change the geo-political dynamic in the region?
For Lawrence: I’d be interested in your views on the US running out of Patriot missiles and the implications for other hot spots round the world. Also, what do you make of the reports of morale collapse on the aircraft carriers?
If Remain had won the EU Referendum by 52%, how different would the UK's politics be? Which is to say, how much of where we are is structural, and how much is chance?
If so a pertinent question for Sam is how a loss of a substantial number of Labour seats and possibly the entire majority could be seen as a "success" for Burnham?
If I were Burnham I'd take a reduction in my majority to say Blair 2005 levels if it got me out of the straight jacket of the 2024 manifesto, meant Farage was closer to 70 by the following election and saw the Tories lose seats vs 2024. He'd be able to put things like social care reform, a change to the voting system and a few other things in front of people. He may decide that 2027 is too early and not worth the risk, but there's a case to be made.
That is if you believe a loss of 100+ MPs and (if not all) of your large majority can be described as a political success and not calamitous Theresa May 2.0.
You can change the leader but when the MPs are clowns and the policies rubbish the fundamentals stay the same. As the Tories found.
Re social care reform, why should I pay huge taxes to fund social care for those who have made no provision? I am currently selling my mother in laws house to fund her care home costs. Why should I pay twice? Will I be compensated?
Re a change to the voting system, sure but will need a referendum. I laugh at when ‘progressives’ fear they will lose or Reform might gain power (unlikely imo) they reach for changing the voting system.
Fundamentally when you call the 2024 manifesto a ‘straitjacket’ you mean taxes. We face many economic problems but lack of taxes isn’t one of them. Perhaps we should focus on getting the stagnant economy growing?
You are quite correct that losing 100 MPs would not be seen as a win in many people's eyes, a May like unforced error would be the conclusion - so there needs to be a bigger prize. Having a majority of the current size is no use if you are hamfisted by what you can do with it.
If a case to reform voting is made in a manifesto and that party is elected, I believe that's enough - we don't need to have a referendum on the subject in my view, others may disagree.
As for the policies on social care or taxation, what they look like isn't going to come from me, the point I'm making is there is a case that a weaker majority is a trade off, a big one and it could be completely disastrous - but I don't think you can rule it out and say there isn't merit to it.
Personally I'd think if the polling and the economy suits it spring 2028 would seem more sensible than holding on.
PS if you believe any party can change the electoral system through a manifesto commitment then any party can do that, win an election on whatever majority (even 1 seat) and then set about reengineering the electoral system to its prejudices and ideology and to suit its electoral purposes.
IMO it’s a far more fundamental change than a manifesto commitment up there with ‘more doctors and nurses’ and ‘growth in every postcode’
There is already precedent for a referendum on PR so to change the voting system in a manifesto isn’t enough. The proposal needs to be carefully laid out and the implications of it electorally broadly agreed so would need a referendum imo. It’s a fundamental constitutional question up there with rejoining the EU.
Spring 28 is likely but whatever the outcome Labour is losing a ton of seats especially when they go with an explicit tax raising manifesto. Difficult to spin as a success.
What chance is there that we will have a coherent policy for universities? At present we have separate and conflicting policies from the Education Dept, the Home Office, the Treasury, the Business/Science Dept and the Work &Pensions (skills) Dept. If skills and research are so important to growth and the regional agenda, fragmented policies will guarantee failure.
I am interested in your view of the "likely*" fiscal options that are open to the new PM/ Chancellor as they aim to be "fundamentally different" but within the main restrictions of the manifesto.
*I think, despite the "noise" on social media a wealth tax is unlikely, but "taxes on wealth" are possible - eg CGT/ pensions
On schools - I broadly agree with what Sam has written about the curriculum etc, and having experienced the 11+ and seen what it did to people who didn't "pass" it, I'm very opposed to selective education. But I am concerned that education policy is mainly/wholly designed by people who got on well at school. Schools still fail a lot of people, for different reasons, and I wonder what else we could do to change this.
Reform’s leader in Wales was jailed for taking bribes from Moscow, but it hasn’t really ‘cut through’ beyond the political bubble. How bad would links to Russia have to be, and proven to be, before they impacted on Reform?
Given that both Reform and the Conservatives have taken an openly anti Net Zero policy, could the Labour government gain by raising the salience of climate change in their policy agenda, particularly given the obvious impacts of climate change all around which are going to start to bite financially (food prices, stressed water supplies, urgent need to repair/upgrade infrastructure)? What are the political risks of doing so? Would it help extend clear blue water between Labour and the right wing parties? Or is it actually a toxic issue (or at least perceived as such)?
Lawrence, you’ve made a persuasive case against the “cliff-edge” view of Russia: the pressures can accumulate and matter without producing an immediate crisis. But what would actually make Putin change course?
What, in practice, would you look for as evidence that his view of the war was beginning to change? Would it take a battlefield shock he could no longer explain away, or could the accumulating economic and political pressures eventually be enough?
In a post-AI, globally unstable (tariffs, energy, climate) world, what industries have room for employment growth, and is there much the UK and other western governments can do to promote them? Andy Burnham would like the UK's answer to be getting more out of the regions, but is this really viable?
In a hypothetical world where Reform fully implodes over the next year, do you think there's enough right wing populism to make Restore a viable "real" party (winning multiple seats in a GE) or does Reform occupy the current sweet spot on the right in a way that would be hard to replicate? (To put it another way, if Reform vanishes but the Conservatives and Restore stay where they are in terms of political positions, how do you think the Reform vote would split?)
What would be the implications of following Australia’s long standing policy of requiring everybody to cast a vote at an election( even if it is deliberately spoiled)?
To piggyback on this, what would be the implications of introducing ranked choice voting?
Yes - I’m very interested in this - it seemed to work very well for local elections (‘seem’ possibly carrying a lot of weight)
Not favoured by any political party that perceives benefitting in future from the “ first past the post” arrangements. Witness Reform’s volte face since the last General Election.
Indeed - and you can be sure they would all kick against it. But is it worth it to democracy to fight for it?
Whilst the country burns and much of it resembles a patched, barren savannah, why does Andy Burnham seem incapable or unwilling to mention the climate crisis?
What will it take, politically, for the PM to address the nation, now, on the climate emergency?
I'd be interested in a more general post about climate policy - what is the chance of serious action given the inevitably short term horizons of elected government
Don’t quite understand this question. He’s done more in the last three weeks than Starmer did in three years. Miliband has said it’s central to his role as Foreign Secretary.
For Lawrence:
much attention is given to the UK's military spending as a % of GDP (which needs to increase). But the UK also remains the 6th biggest global military spender (in US dollar terms) at about £89bn (SIPRI 2025 data). If you could start from scratch how would you apportion that money in light of the UK's current and future defence needs? (to make the answer easier, assume it's £100bn). thanks!
*Spending* lots of money is easy - the big defence manufacturers will happily take it off you.
How do we get *value*? Not a dig at procurement per se, more about the process of settting the requirements.
For Sam and Lawrence: what are your thoughts about the Israeli elections later this year and do you think they can change the geo-political dynamic in the region?
For Lawrence: I’d be interested in your views on the US running out of Patriot missiles and the implications for other hot spots round the world. Also, what do you make of the reports of morale collapse on the aircraft carriers?
If Remain had won the EU Referendum by 52%, how different would the UK's politics be? Which is to say, how much of where we are is structural, and how much is chance?
Do you think Burnham will go for an early election given the poor performance of Reform and the Tories currently?
If so a pertinent question for Sam is how a loss of a substantial number of Labour seats and possibly the entire majority could be seen as a "success" for Burnham?
If I were Burnham I'd take a reduction in my majority to say Blair 2005 levels if it got me out of the straight jacket of the 2024 manifesto, meant Farage was closer to 70 by the following election and saw the Tories lose seats vs 2024. He'd be able to put things like social care reform, a change to the voting system and a few other things in front of people. He may decide that 2027 is too early and not worth the risk, but there's a case to be made.
That is if you believe a loss of 100+ MPs and (if not all) of your large majority can be described as a political success and not calamitous Theresa May 2.0.
You can change the leader but when the MPs are clowns and the policies rubbish the fundamentals stay the same. As the Tories found.
Re social care reform, why should I pay huge taxes to fund social care for those who have made no provision? I am currently selling my mother in laws house to fund her care home costs. Why should I pay twice? Will I be compensated?
Re a change to the voting system, sure but will need a referendum. I laugh at when ‘progressives’ fear they will lose or Reform might gain power (unlikely imo) they reach for changing the voting system.
Fundamentally when you call the 2024 manifesto a ‘straitjacket’ you mean taxes. We face many economic problems but lack of taxes isn’t one of them. Perhaps we should focus on getting the stagnant economy growing?
You are quite correct that losing 100 MPs would not be seen as a win in many people's eyes, a May like unforced error would be the conclusion - so there needs to be a bigger prize. Having a majority of the current size is no use if you are hamfisted by what you can do with it.
If a case to reform voting is made in a manifesto and that party is elected, I believe that's enough - we don't need to have a referendum on the subject in my view, others may disagree.
As for the policies on social care or taxation, what they look like isn't going to come from me, the point I'm making is there is a case that a weaker majority is a trade off, a big one and it could be completely disastrous - but I don't think you can rule it out and say there isn't merit to it.
Personally I'd think if the polling and the economy suits it spring 2028 would seem more sensible than holding on.
PS if you believe any party can change the electoral system through a manifesto commitment then any party can do that, win an election on whatever majority (even 1 seat) and then set about reengineering the electoral system to its prejudices and ideology and to suit its electoral purposes.
IMO it’s a far more fundamental change than a manifesto commitment up there with ‘more doctors and nurses’ and ‘growth in every postcode’
There is already precedent for a referendum on PR so to change the voting system in a manifesto isn’t enough. The proposal needs to be carefully laid out and the implications of it electorally broadly agreed so would need a referendum imo. It’s a fundamental constitutional question up there with rejoining the EU.
Spring 28 is likely but whatever the outcome Labour is losing a ton of seats especially when they go with an explicit tax raising manifesto. Difficult to spin as a success.
For Sam: I remain interested in your views on what’s going on with the civil service! The performance of senior figures seems not up to scratch.
What chance is there that we will have a coherent policy for universities? At present we have separate and conflicting policies from the Education Dept, the Home Office, the Treasury, the Business/Science Dept and the Work &Pensions (skills) Dept. If skills and research are so important to growth and the regional agenda, fragmented policies will guarantee failure.
Obligatory "and colleges".
I am interested in your view of the "likely*" fiscal options that are open to the new PM/ Chancellor as they aim to be "fundamentally different" but within the main restrictions of the manifesto.
*I think, despite the "noise" on social media a wealth tax is unlikely, but "taxes on wealth" are possible - eg CGT/ pensions
On schools - I broadly agree with what Sam has written about the curriculum etc, and having experienced the 11+ and seen what it did to people who didn't "pass" it, I'm very opposed to selective education. But I am concerned that education policy is mainly/wholly designed by people who got on well at school. Schools still fail a lot of people, for different reasons, and I wonder what else we could do to change this.
Reform’s leader in Wales was jailed for taking bribes from Moscow, but it hasn’t really ‘cut through’ beyond the political bubble. How bad would links to Russia have to be, and proven to be, before they impacted on Reform?
Given that both Reform and the Conservatives have taken an openly anti Net Zero policy, could the Labour government gain by raising the salience of climate change in their policy agenda, particularly given the obvious impacts of climate change all around which are going to start to bite financially (food prices, stressed water supplies, urgent need to repair/upgrade infrastructure)? What are the political risks of doing so? Would it help extend clear blue water between Labour and the right wing parties? Or is it actually a toxic issue (or at least perceived as such)?
Lawrence, you’ve made a persuasive case against the “cliff-edge” view of Russia: the pressures can accumulate and matter without producing an immediate crisis. But what would actually make Putin change course?
What, in practice, would you look for as evidence that his view of the war was beginning to change? Would it take a battlefield shock he could no longer explain away, or could the accumulating economic and political pressures eventually be enough?
In a post-AI, globally unstable (tariffs, energy, climate) world, what industries have room for employment growth, and is there much the UK and other western governments can do to promote them? Andy Burnham would like the UK's answer to be getting more out of the regions, but is this really viable?
In a hypothetical world where Reform fully implodes over the next year, do you think there's enough right wing populism to make Restore a viable "real" party (winning multiple seats in a GE) or does Reform occupy the current sweet spot on the right in a way that would be hard to replicate? (To put it another way, if Reform vanishes but the Conservatives and Restore stay where they are in terms of political positions, how do you think the Reform vote would split?)