If you like spreadsheets, we got spreadsheets, if you like a "what's new" button, we got that to. www.theyworkforyou.com/interests/

Obviously it'd be great if that encouraged some agreement on a code of practice (here's something drawn from the NZ example), but it would in itself be an improvement in public understanding of the lack of regulation research.alexparsons.co.uk/free-and-fai...

So my modest proposal is that in the picture should at least be made clear: bsky.app/profile/alex...

And a problem here is it's not well known that the rules are weaker here - very low awareness that the ASA has this exception alexparsons.co.uk/blog/posts/f...

In NZ, the ASA does do this - reading the rules a bit more generously for democratic reasons, but also committing to fast turn around research.alexparsons.co.uk/free-and-fai...

They got out of the game in 1996 in the absence of cross-party buy-in to the rules (although periodically say they think it would good if a code of practice emerged) research.alexparsons.co.uk/free-and-fai...

Related plug for my "all election materials must have 'not regulated by the ASA" campaign bsky.app/profile/alex...

No, that was on personal character (and of the candidate) research.alexparsons.co.uk/free-and-fai...

Learning from a seminar we hed on different approaches to video (be the influencer, influence the influencer), some thinking on influencing AI summaries, and alternative approaches like good ol' email research.mysociety.org/html/shiftin...

It's so strange given a) the strong structural incentives (they can fire you!) and b) the recent evidence of A.

For speed and deliberation, I think you could also convene a representative sample of members rather than a full vote.

But also want the stages to be constructive. I'd have either the MP or member stage using approval voting - working out how many candidates pass a "50% would be happy with them as leader" test, which informs the next round.

Two points in this really: MPs can have private interests in the result that are always entirely aligned with the public interest (which leads to bandwagoning). Good to have someone involved who don't have a chance of better jobs from making the right choice.

This is one of the reasons I've got so suspicious of these arguments - once you get going, it's just a few steps to "democracy just doesn't work".

Bit of an aside, but the increased amount of PLP organising has been a noticeable attitude shift from the "actually, MPs aren't responsible for anything" we saw before. It's a tricky job with fundamental limitations! But also, trying helps.