Oh, no, we don't want you, keep your mess to yourself instead of making it EU's

This wouldn't start a civil war. Many of the Brexit voters are already dead and most of the rest are retired.

Yea no will never happen.

Only way into the EU is way you described. Full on Schengen, EUR, no more special UK exceptions etc. Will never fly.

Repeal Town and Country Planning Act 1947

Most of the real power is in the budget, which is technically a bill, but I would 100% go for "change the voting system". Almost anything except D'Hondt is better than FPTP; for simplicity, we could just copy the Scottish Parliament's use of AMS.

I would also insert a trapdoor that future changes to the voting system would require the approval of >50% of eligible voters, including non-voters. Yes, I know Parliament cannot bind its successors and all that, but at least I can make it look bad to change it again.

Does this solve any of the immediate problems? No. Does it solve the dysfunctionality since 2008? I think so, especially given that polling these days looks like five parties getting 20% of the vote each. Labour themselves came to power on 38% of the vote.

Disagree. Every one of the issues you mentioned is a direct result of labour/tory uniparty ideology. Netzero, endless migrants, insane taxation and so on.

There shouldn't be any temporary pain from bringing energy costs down or letting the economy grow (on a per-capita basis I suppose, politicians do tend to try and cheat with migration). It would be good for everyone, or at worst neutral with wildly rare exceptions who are worse off. Which does make it a bit of a mystery why the UK and a number of other Western polities put up such a determined struggle against the two.

People are desperate for change! It's just that due to a misinformation fuelled online (and traditional media!) environment, nobody can agree what that is.

There is one thing that might be in his power: to stop censoring and arresting people protesting against genocide.

Edit: lol thanks HN for the usual downvote! :) I love this place!

Well Starmer had a massive majority and could have got whatever was needed passed to sort out public finances, but his MPs rebelled (or he chickened out).

And were being dealt with quite well by Starmer, but that wasn't good enough somehow

Just a symptom of late Capitalism. They are all like this one but with different flavor.

People forget that the government is still mostly the civil service. The thin veneer of politicians over the top doesn't change the operating constraints of the UK unless you can spend a long time on the matter and reshape things slowly. Which was what was happening until this mess.

Now it's start again...

Police has no choice but to arrest people who commit a serious criminal offence on purpose. It would undermine the rule of law not to arrest them.

This is orthogonal with how police should tackle the violence you mention.

Edit in response to @pjc50's replay below:

The signs are a serious criminal offence. Supporting a proscribed terror organisation is a serious criminal offence according to the law and arrest is unavoidable.

"not dreaming or having internal thoughts."

Internal thoughts or internal voice?

Regardless of the rights and wrong policy wise: Starmer was not a people person. I was as big a remainer as you'd ever find, and even I have to admit Boris Johnson could work people. Starmer was so inept in his day to day handling of his fellow humans it's surreal.

My personal favourite (and not the only example, but my own final straw) was his response when a large chunk of his traditional electorate voted for a female Plumber 'who wanted to make work pay for working people' and build 'healthier communities' is worth watching as an example of how to make more people jump ship.

For better or worse I signed up for the Green Party on the spot when I read that.

He was possibly a good backroom manager and well intentioned, but for leadership... no.

> I thought parliamentary elections in UK worked like in most of Europe: you vote for a party, not a candidate.

They are. It's a parliamentary system, not a presidential system. Nobody votes directly for who will become PM, who is ultimately selected by the monarch as the person who can best command a majority of the House of Commons – normally the leader of the biggest party, of course, but not necessarily. Perpetuating this view is frustrating because it's not what the system is designed for, and I feel a common misconception among voters that they are "electing the PM".

With the increasing breaking of two-party politics, it would not surprise me if we see this precedent of the monarch choosing a PM who can command a majority tested in close outcomes in future GEs where no party gains an overall majority. I'll be particularly interested to see how the press describes such an outcome, if it occurs, especially if the result is that the party with the most votes doesn't go on to join such a coalition.

Nevertheless, it frustrates me when these changes are described as "undemocratic", as that's a common talking point perpetuated by a poor understanding of the constitutional basis of UK elections. If there is a desire that the PM should be directly elected, that would mean a substantial rewiring of the UK constitution more broadly.

I agree with you generally but the RAF are part of the state and not meaningfully "capital". If you attack the military then yes obviously you are going to get the book thrown at you. That does _not_ justify going after the people with signs.

Are middle-aged women too much of a protected class to be held responsible for their actions?

If I went to practically anywhere in the world and started publicly expressing support for groups which are actively attacking military facilities and key infrastructure, I'd be arrested.