Reference to existing safe routes schemes in the preamble (albeit vague). Second screen grab is from current page on their immigration policy - not sure when the safe routes commitment was added but I know it has been discussed regularly throughout their time in govt labour.org.uk/delivering/s...

Yet while this contest generated a lot of excitement for activists in all the parties, the dominant reaction from GM voters was a big yawn - at 25% the turnout was the lowest ever in a GM Mayoral election, and the third lowest for any combined authority mayoral race anywhere

Restore posted their strongest shares in Tameside (home council of their candidate Marlon West), where they got 13.5%, Rochdale (12.5%) and Oldham (12%), all areas where Reform did well in May

The Greens' 12% is well down on their local elections showing too, and well below some of their top performances in Mayoral contests elsewhere, held when their national polling was much weaker than now.

Yet though both insurgents advanced, both will be disappointed by the outcome. Reform topped the poll in May when we aggregate votes across all of GM, with over 30% - this is a big drop back from there and a mediocre performance compared with their Mayoral results last yr

...this is still a big drop in support from the victories Andy Burnham achieved three times. Less than half of those voting backed Labour for the first time ever, and both of Labour's main opponents this time, Reform and the Greens, secured record vote shares

This was a big win for Labour, bigger than the polls suggested - polling had them from 38-41%, they got 47% and nearly won without a run-off. Impressive given their drubbing in local elections in May, when they dropped below 30% and fell behind Reform, but...

Agree with every word of this excellent post but especially this www.speakandregret.michaelinzlicht.com/p/my-p-hacki...

No

OTOH much of it seems to be a Lowe personal vote in his seat - that’s alarming in itself of course but suggests level of support for Restore in the other 10 seats is much lower

Duel for the ages as England’s most prolific test wicket taker bowls to England’s most prolific test batsman.

Brutal conditions for Lanky

This evening’s view

So apparently “anti-establishment” politics now means defending the right of wealthy aristocratic families to make huge undeclared political donations, while “the establishment” is anyone who asks questions about this

Here we go then…

Told you. At least we can all take comfort from the Germans finally learning what it feels like to lose after a team full of stars underperforms, a late goal gets disallowed, and then one of their players balloons a penalty into the stands...

Not the first time free speech advocate Goodwin has issued ludicrous legal threats which then blow up in his face, as @umutozkirimli.bsky.social can attest. The likes total surpassing his Gorton vote did tickle me though : www.instagram.com/p/DZxuEJHjAD...

Most of those who say "X would change their vote" are in fact not going to base their vote on this. That is true in this case too - so we get 53% saying there should be a GE if PM changes per YouGov, but that majority is driven by overwhelming backing from Con & Ref voters

One point I would add to this - the Salisbury Convention makes it easier for the House of Lords to reject Commons legislation if it wasn't in the governing party's manifesto. But the Lords has to want to reject such legislation. Here's the current Lords composition:

One of these things is not like the others…

Just so you can all see what the account in question is after I block. I suppose we shouldn’t expect much by way of sensible analysis from an account whose pinned post is an obsequious panegyric to the Iran regime

This was the opening to the piece as you’ll know and makes clear the magnitude of the win

Well, maybe, but I think the critical point is the status of conventions and whether they are subject to judicial review. This, from institute for govt, on Sewell convenion (much more salient and frequently used) suggests the answer is pretty clear www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/se...

Some additional relevant points...

I also think an under-rated problem is that Burnham will not have a sensible or obvious answer to the question "Why are you doing this now?" and voters will not judge what looks like cynicism or vanity kindly, even if the economic context doesn't lurch badly downwards

Told you.

Behold the by-election catechism: “Only x can win here” “Two horse race” Bar chart (often misleading) - “can’t win here” “Only (our candidate) can beat (candidate you don’t like)” “Vote (our party)” (under breath: don’t waste your time on splitters from (similar party”)

No there will not be an early election. A man with 400 seats will not risk half of them three years early to satisfy columnists’ belief in mandate fairies.