budbucks

If Vladimir Putin changed the voting system days before an election to stop his opponents winning, every British journalist would call it what it is: rigging the rules. Tonight, Labour rammed through a last‑minute switch in the Lords so that if Andy Burnham wins Makerfield and quits as Greater Manchester Mayor, his replacement won’t be chosen on a simple first‑past‑the‑post ballot, but on the supplementary vote system instead. Why now? Because Labour knows the race to replace Burnham would be a straight two‑horse fight with Reform UK – and under FPTP, the candidate with the most votes wins, no second chances, no back‑room redistributions, no “stop Reform” stitch‑ups. Under SV, Labour gets a second bite of the cherry: if their candidate can limp into the top two, they can hoover up second preferences from every other party and magic a “majority” on the second count, even if Reform tops the poll on first preferences. This isn’t “modernising democracy”. It’s the governing party using its Commons majority and the unelected Lords to hurriedly doctor the rules of one specific contest because it’s terrified the voters might choose someone else. When the establishment preached to the world about “rules‑based order”, they forgot to mention one thing: in Britain, the rules are “based” on whether Labour thinks it might lose.

264

13K

802

396K

budbucks retweeted

Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧

@JChimirie66677

4 days ago

When You Can't Beat Reform, Change The Rules. Labour Just Did. There is a line in a democracy that, once crossed, changes everything. When those in power begin adjusting the rules of the game to determine its outcome, the game is no longer democracy. It is managed succession. That line was crossed again on Tuesday night. Two days before the Makerfield by-election, Labour rushed a change to the mayoral voting system through the House of Lords. Regional mayors will now be elected using the supplementary vote system rather than first past the post. The change applies immediately. It will govern whoever replaces Andy Burnham as Mayor of Greater Manchester if he wins on Thursday and stands down. The government's defence is that it is simply restoring the system used before Boris Johnson changed it in 2021. That argument requires the public to believe that a change Labour could have introduced at any point in two years of government became urgent on Tuesday evening, forty eight hours before the vote that triggers the election it is designed to affect. Lord Hayward, a Conservative peer and experienced pollster, was precise in the Lords. There is no other justification for the haste, he said, other than that it solves the Labour Party's problems and prevents Reform winning a mayoralty. Not clumsy. Not rushed. Designed. The mechanics explain why. Under first past the post, Reform could win the Greater Manchester mayoralty on a plurality of votes in a fragmented field, precisely as it won all eight council wards in May's local elections with around fifty percent of the vote. Under the supplementary vote system, voters express a first and second preference. Lib Dem and Green voters, given a second preference, will direct those votes to Labour overwhelmingly. The change does not affect Thursday's by-election. It affects the mayoral contest that follows it, constructing an anti-Reform coalition from the second preferences of smaller parties that Reform itself cannot access. Lord Jackson identified the wider implication. This is potentially a strategy for a progressive alliance being rolled out ahead of a general election, he said, with the aim of locking out the Conservatives and Reform from power. Burnham's allies have already confirmed he would scrap first past the post nationally in favour of proportional representation. The supplementary vote is the local pilot for a national project. Pool second preferences, lock out the right, govern indefinitely on a minority of first preference votes. This is not the first time. Earlier this year Labour delayed local elections after the Electoral Commission stated explicitly that the justification was not legitimate, that extending mandates damages public confidence and creates a conflict of interest by allowing those in power to decide how long they may remain there without consent. The Commission's objection was noted and ignored. Reform demolished Labour anyway. Now the same instinct has been applied to a different mechanism. Not cancellation this time. Electoral system change, deployed with surgical precision forty eight hours before the vote that triggers the election it is designed to affect. Governments confident in their mandate do not need to change the rules two days before the ballot. They face the electorate and take their chances. The timing of Tuesday night's Lords motion is not a coincidence. It is a confession. The voters of Makerfield vote on Thursday. The question of who governs Greater Manchester after that, and under what rules, was settled in the Lords on Tuesday. Nobody voted for that. "Burnham's allies have already confirmed he would scrap first past the post nationally in favour of proportional representation."

JChimirie66677's tweet photo. When You Can't Beat Reform, Change The Rules. Labour Just Did.

There is a line in a democracy that, once crossed, changes everything. When those in power begin adjusting the rules of the game to determine its outcome, the game is no longer democracy. It is managed succession. That line was crossed again on Tuesday night.

Two days before the Makerfield by-election, Labour rushed a change to the mayoral voting system through the House of Lords. Regional mayors will now be elected using the supplementary vote system rather than first past the post. The change applies immediately. It will govern whoever replaces Andy Burnham as Mayor of Greater Manchester if he wins on Thursday and stands down.

The government's defence is that it is simply restoring the system used before Boris Johnson changed it in 2021. That argument requires the public to believe that a change Labour could have introduced at any point in two years of government became urgent on Tuesday evening, forty eight hours before the vote that triggers the election it is designed to affect.

Lord Hayward, a Conservative peer and experienced pollster, was precise in the Lords. There is no other justification for the haste, he said, other than that it solves the Labour Party's problems and prevents Reform winning a mayoralty. Not clumsy. Not rushed. Designed.

The mechanics explain why. Under first past the post, Reform could win the Greater Manchester mayoralty on a plurality of votes in a fragmented field, precisely as it won all eight council wards in May's local elections with around fifty percent of the vote. Under the supplementary vote system, voters express a first and second preference. Lib Dem and Green voters, given a second preference, will direct those votes to Labour overwhelmingly. The change does not affect Thursday's by-election. It affects the mayoral contest that follows it, constructing an anti-Reform coalition from the second preferences of smaller parties that Reform itself cannot access.

Lord Jackson identified the wider implication. This is potentially a strategy for a progressive alliance being rolled out ahead of a general election, he said, with the aim of locking out the Conservatives and Reform from power. Burnham's allies have already confirmed he would scrap first past the post nationally in favour of proportional representation. The supplementary vote is the local pilot for a national project. Pool second preferences, lock out the right, govern indefinitely on a minority of first preference votes.

This is not the first time. Earlier this year Labour delayed local elections after the Electoral Commission stated explicitly that the justification was not legitimate, that extending mandates damages public confidence and creates a conflict of interest by allowing those in power to decide how long they may remain there without consent. The Commission's objection was noted and ignored. Reform demolished Labour anyway.

Now the same instinct has been applied to a different mechanism. Not cancellation this time. Electoral system change, deployed with surgical precision forty eight hours before the vote that triggers the election it is designed to affect.

Governments confident in their mandate do not need to change the rules two days before the ballot. They face the electorate and take their chances. The timing of Tuesday night's Lords motion is not a coincidence. It is a confession.

The voters of Makerfield vote on Thursday. The question of who governs Greater Manchester after that, and under what rules, was settled in the Lords on Tuesday. Nobody voted for that.

"Burnham's allies have already confirmed he would scrap first past the post nationally in favour of proportional representation."

319

385

119K

budbucks retweeted

The Farmer's Dog

@FamersDog

4 days ago

New advert! That’s awesome !! 🍺

452

167

43K

budbucks @budbucks

4 days ago

@terrychristian 🙄

134

budbucks @budbucks

4 days ago

@AllisonPearson I think you may be in the minority

273

budbucks @budbucks

4 days ago

@cristo_radio @ITV This does nothing for women’s sports

budbucks @budbucks

4 days ago

@NadineDorries @igeldard Far-right, you sound like Starmer 🤔

budbucks @budbucks

5 days ago

@FraserNelson Have you got a graph to show how many have been deported or are we still paying for them in HMOs

budbucks retweeted

Zia Yusuf

@ZiaYusufUK

5 days ago

The CEO of the open borders ‘charity’ posing with the illegal migrants the BBC let her plant on Question Time. All of them were chosen to ask a question! The BBC is a disgraceful propaganda channel!

ZiaYusufUK's tweet photo. The CEO of the open borders ‘charity’ posing with the illegal migrants the BBC let her plant on Question Time.

All of them were chosen to ask a question!

The BBC is a disgraceful propaganda channel! https://t.co/WoHDY659Zr

756

23K

449

491K

budbucks retweeted

Zia Yusuf

@ZiaYusufUK

5 days ago

🚨The BBC caught red handed. Remember the Question Time episode where illegal migrants were planted in the audience to lecture me and the country on our border policy? We now have *confirmation* the BBC PLANTED there and they were COACHED on what to say by a charity pushing for open borders. The CEO of this 'charity', Jenni Regan, was also in the audience and chosen to ask a question. Note, when I formally complained to the BBC about this and explicitly asked them if the audience members were coached, the BBC refused to answer. Now we know why. One of these men who broke into the country began reading a statement warning against Britain leaving the ECHR, even featuring the Northern Ireland protocol! One of them specifically attacked me and my family. Because they had been coached to do so. The BBC is morally bankrupt. To deliberately plant men who broke into Britain illegally in the audience, allow them to be told what to say and let them launch into attacks on Reform and lecture the British people is disgusting behaviour. To conceal it is even more outrageous. They should apologise immediately.

ZiaYusufUK's tweet photo. 🚨The BBC caught red handed.

Remember the Question Time episode where illegal migrants were planted in the audience to lecture me and the country on our border policy?

We now have *confirmation* the BBC PLANTED there and they were COACHED on what to say by a charity pushing for open borders.

The CEO of this 'charity', Jenni Regan, was also in the audience and chosen to ask a question.

Note, when I formally complained to the BBC about this and explicitly asked them if the audience members were coached, the BBC refused to answer.

Now we know why.

One of these men who broke into the country began reading a statement warning against Britain leaving the ECHR, even featuring the Northern Ireland protocol!

One of them specifically attacked me and my family.

Because they had been coached to do so.

The BBC is morally bankrupt.

To deliberately plant men who broke into Britain illegally in the audience, allow them to be told what to say and let them launch into attacks on Reform and lecture the British people is disgusting behaviour.

To conceal it is even more outrageous.

They should apologise immediately.

775

21K

851

416K

budbucks retweeted

PotatoRustler

@PotatoRustler

6 days ago

🚨 For anyone tracking the under-16 social media bans in Canada and the UK, you might have noticed the government suddenly walking back some specific wording. They backed off forcing you to upload credit cards or facial scans because of the public backlash, and now they’re pushing a "backend token system". It sounds less intrusive on the surface, but here is the truth about what that actually means, because most people are being completely misled by that marketing: A cryptographic token isn't a magic, anonymous poker chip. To work, a token has to be anchored to something verified. That means your physical device, your phone carrier contract, or your real identity is permanently tethered to that token. Every single time your phone throws that token to let you log into an app, it logs exactly who you are, where you are, and what you're doing. It isn't a privacy shield to protect kids. It's a digital passport that tracks an adult's every move across the internet.

114

12K

359K