I deeply dislike how the entirely correct notion that drug use should be approached as a public health problem has been coupled with, in parts of the left, to the absurd idea that it’s something we should all be fine with.

The use of ‘countless numbers’ rather than an actual number says a lot.

Yeah as much as I think these are all worthy additions, they’re something you do when public finances aren’t … this.

100%. So much time and money is spent on issues that national govt shouldn’t be dealing with. Stronger regional govt and elected regional legislators would also be a step towards getting the unmanageable volume of casework for MPs under control.

‘We’re the friendly neighbourhood guys who support good things (public sector improvements) and oppose bad things (taxes)’ is not a political strategy that survives first contact with power.

I do think the discourse about a potential Lab-LD coalition is understating how fearful the latter will be of coalition round two. Especially when Davey’s strategy is fairly explicitly inoffensive opposition to whatever govt is in power without any acknowledgement of policy trade offs.

Residual anti-system voters who haven’t moved to radical right still picking them to signal opposition to big parties?

The flipside risk for the Greens is finishing third but taking enough votes off Labour for Reform to win, giving Labour endless ammo for the ‘vote Green get Reform’ comms strategy.

I don’t disagree and I really like Rayner, but a lot of the discussion about her within Labour doesn’t reckon with how badly the tax thing landed more widely.

My hot take is that in some ways this is a good outcome for Burnham, or at least a worse outcome for his opponents than they’ve let themselves believe.

Long may the weird little anachronisms like this continue.