Mailwatch(ed) Forum

There seems to have been a shift from the polls will narrow to, well Labour will win but there is no money and everything is crap so who cares.

Ignoring the fact that once you become the government you shape the narrative.

From the to-be-expected planted question from a toadying backbencher at PMQs today about "Bankrupt Labour Birmingham", it's clear that the Tories are clutching at this story like a drowning man clutching at a lifebelt. They clearly see it as their chance to pin the old charge that Labour is dangerously irresponsible with taxpayers' cash on Labour again as the election draws ever closer. But he'll have a job making it stick to Starmer's Labour Party. This aspect of the breaking Birmingham Council story also serves to illustrate precisely why Starmer has been so ultra -cautious thus far about fiscal responsibility and spending commitments, for which he has been so excoriated by the placard-waving simpletons of the Corbynist tendency. Birmingham is not the first, nor will it be the last local authority, Labour or Tory, to be forced into this position.. Central (Tory)government has cut Birmingham's settlement grant by about three quarters over the last 13 years, so the Tories carry a large portion of the blame for the crisis in local government funding.

They might claw back some opinion poll support on the back of this, but it'll be a flash in the pan.

"Bankrupt Northamptonshire" doesn't have the old alliteration going for it.

‘Bankrupt councils’ is a legal fiction anyway. Is Birmingham going to be sold to Richard Branson in a fire sale auction? Councils have a legal responsibility to run a balanced budget within the confines of a budget determined by central government grant levels.

Still, you can see the narrative taking shape. Expect Sunak to be waving Liam's fucking note around very soon, and right up to the election.

Problem is there is so many on their own watch

I've friends in this CLP (that's where I heard the story first), so I'll try to keep an eye on this:

Bolton North East: Labour suspends leadership team in key seat

Oh no Labour are being taken in by YIMBYS

https://labourlist.org/2023/09/labour-m ... ng-system/

Labour should not be taken in by YIMBYism
My concern is that Labour’s policy is leaning towards the emerging sub-culture of ‘YIMBY’ism, a loose alliance of neoliberal thinktanks, very online and angry men, and younger people in professional jobs frozen out of homeownership. They put forward a simple proposition – building more homes will reduce price and de-regulating planning will mean more homes.

The problem with this view is that, it is not clear that simply adding more housing units will seriously address the profound crisis of affordability (it is just one part of what needs to be done), and further the de-regulatory zeal completely ignores the role of planning in creating places that people actually want to live in and which are more equitable than what the ‘market’ would determine left to its own devices.

Always good to see "market" in inverted commas, apparently contrasted with "places that people actually want to live". What does that mean? I used to live in Tower Hamlets. I'd recommend it as a place to live. The problem is precisely that lots of people want to live there. So on that basis, it's probably better to build a load more flats there.

Nobody's suggesting abolishing planning or anything. They're just saying lots of stuff that's blocked would be better going ahead, and that would benefit the economy and reduce prices. That's not the same thing as saying everywhere would be affordable or whatever, it's saying things would be better. There'd still be a role for the state in supplying social housing- we could at least some of that with the extra growth.

I don't find YIMBYS particularly "angry" online either.

It's something I've noticed in America where those on the left will say to YIMBYs if you want to build more housing then you're in favour of gentrfication and wanted to wipe out poor people.

Luckily restricting development never leads to gentrification.

Proposed changes set out in the Senedd reform bill include increasing the number of members from 60 to 96 and ministers from 12 to 17, plus scrapping the first-past-the-post element of the voting system.

Set-up costs are estimated at about £8m and additional running costs for the expanded parliament are expected to be up to about £18m a year,

What is this, some sort of "bring Sunak back from the dead" campaign? Hard to think of something that's less of a priority for voters than this. That's 3 MSs for every constituency that has only one MP. And by closed lists too- open lists give you the chance to reject mediocrities who've hacked their way to the top of your preferred party's list, without having to vote for another party.

One of the good things about PR is that you don't have to win to get representation. If I'm a Tory voter in most of South Wales, I might reasonably think that a Tory MS might understand my concerns better and choose to approach them. Under the regional system, I get one already. I don't need to have one in my actual constituency.

This looks very Northern Irish- have shedloads of politicians to keep everyone busy. Wales doesn't, as far as I know, have the same problem as NI with "community activists".

I think there's a strong case for a referendum on making such big changes to the legislature. And I hate referendums.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 2:40 pm

Proposed changes set out in the Senedd reform bill include increasing the number of members from 60 to 96 and ministers from 12 to 17, plus scrapping the first-past-the-post element of the voting system.

Set-up costs are estimated at about £8m and additional running costs for the expanded parliament are expected to be up to about £18m a year,

What is this, some sort of "bring Sunak back from the dead" campaign? Hard to think of something that's less of a priority for voters than this. That's 3 MSs for every constituency that has only one MP. And by closed lists too- open lists give you the chance to reject mediocrities who've hacked their way to the top of your preferred party's list, without having to vote for another party.

One of the good things about PR is that you don't have to win to get representation. If I'm a Tory voter in most of South Wales, I might reasonably think that a Tory MS might understand my concerns better and choose to approach them. Under the regional system, I get one already. I don't need to have one in my actual constituency.

This looks very Northern Irish- have shedloads of politicians to keep everyone busy. Wales doesn't, as far as I know, have the same problem as NI with "community activists".

That's what struck me. Stormont arguably has too many MLAs that could barely function as a councillor and the number of them could be cut to around 60 on their own without Wales trying to play catchup. There's currently five MLAs to one MP per constituency in NI.

Quality, not quantity.

Yep.

It won't be quite that bad with Wales, but 3 a constituency is too many. One of the bad things about PR is that people can get elected with very small numbers of votes and build a national profile on the back off pissing everybody about.

Exhibit A

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Anning

]Anning was sharply criticised for his comments following the Christchurch mosque shootings, which occurred in New Zealand on 15 March 2019, during which 51 Muslim worshippers were killed. He claimed that immigration of "Muslim fanatics" led to the attacks, and that "while Muslims may have been victims today, usually they are the perpetrators". Anning also stated that the massacre "highlights...the growing fear within our community...of the increasing Muslim presence."

19 people put Mr Anning as their first choice in the whole of Queensland, though in fairness his party did pretty well.

How many votes is somebody going to need to come 6th in Neath Port Talbot? Turnouts in Welsh Assembly elections aren't exactly stratospheric anyway. Are they trying to bring forth a bunch of Welsh Fraser Annings?

Respect John for resigning over Iraq, but this doesn't impress me.

The Cabinet Office already has responsibility for pulling policy together. Calling that "England" is just going to be a rod for your own back every time something in England goes wrong. And of course, Westminster policy, even in devolved areas, doesn't just affect England.

Yeah that Wales idea is shit.

The Senedd has a scrutiny deficit. Even though it's responsibilities and remit have increased, its membership has not. This means that practically every Labour AS is in government, and thus the committee system is barely functional and ruling party rebellions on major issues are impossible.
Expansion of the Senedd was in the last Labour manifesto, and was widely consulted upon and subject to a huge independent report by an Expert Panel during the previous Senedd https://senedd.wales/how-we-work/our-ro ... al-reform/
I know some of you think we're just a glorified county and our Parliament a glorified parish council, but this is our business. Leave it to us.

Edited to add: Closed lists are a mistake, though.

I don't think ithat though. I regularly corresponded with my MS, Jeremy Miles (Lab, Neath) and thought he was very good. It never occcurred to me once that I needed two more MS's attached to the Neath seat. What happens in England looms much larger in Wales than in Northern Ireland and Scotland, I can't at all see how having 3 times as many representatives per constituency as Westminster is anything but a massive target for the Tories, especially when you account for turnout. 9,000 more voted in 2019 (Westminster) than 2021 (Assembly).


I've never noticed much of a problem with the performance of the Government to suggest that it's not getting enough scrutiny. The Welsh Government itself, if I've read it correctly, has 14 members, plus a couple of party whips, leaves a fair bit of room for backbenchers already. You don't get backbench rebellions, but hasn't that been more down to the arithmetic being tight in the recent past, with Labour minority governments (or a Lab Coalition with Kirsty WIlliams)? You're not going to get rebellions in that situation because every vote is vital. Don't see how you would if it were the same but with 96 MSs, not 64,

And as I say, I think a big space is being create here for chimps who'll chuck shit around. UKIP were bad enough for that, but they had a strong incentive to moderate themselves, at least until Brexit was in the bag. And anyway, lots of UKIP were basically the Tories but answering every question with "If we controlled our own laws..."- ie boring but not that different to what we've seen before.

Things can get much much worse than that.