O/T, this poll gives LLG at 54%. Well within the 53-56% general range of the past couple of months. Last poll was LLG 56%, so a 2% slippage. I think Green is massively overrepresented there.
I suspect the monarchy will just fizzle out as the UK does.
Neither the monarchy or the UK will fizzle out
All this thousand year empire talk, where did I hear that before and what happened to the last one?
The monarchy has already lasted 1000 years in England and the UK has been around for centuries too
Longer than that. William the Conqueror (possibly my ggggggg grandad, his concubine maud angelric was my gggggg mother) derived his claim to the throne, in part, from his multiple dynastic relationships with the Anglo Saxon state (including Maud)
The English crown can be plausibly traced back to about the 6th or 7th century AD. The Queen is a provably direct descendant of Alfred the Great
Given the knonw illegitimacy rates in human society, I find that last difficult to believe. Or did they dig up Alfred of Wessex for a DNA sample? Genuinely curious.
The trick is to trace ancestry on the matrilineal line, where it is, to say the least, harder for it all to go radically wrong.
And, BTW, that mother line can be a thing on which much hinges. Where would our beloved queen be without Katherine Swynford, sister in law of Chaucer, or Margaret Beaufort, who may well be the only mother at 13 years old also to found a Cambridge College.
Maternal mtDNA, I presume.
And yet inheritance of crown and estate is through the male line, so it's not enough to be descended from mediaeval king's daughter x through mum or ggggmum. One also has to be descended through the male line to inherit the crown (until the very recent law changes). So ...
Right, of course. Where a matrilineal line (if there is one) would be interesting is that it would establish to a far higher reliability that there was an actual biological descent from character X - eg Alfred the Great if you could show a line, however convoluted from his daughter (suppose he had one) to the queen via mothers only.
Of course Mrs Alfred the Great may not have been reliable in marriage vow terms. The history of their Merovingian and Carolingian royal friends in Frankland at the same time does not encourage much certainty about who any of your relations actually are. Charlemagne himself was quite a lad.
Opposite of Blitzkrieg; A poorly-organized military campaign or war that results in minimal or no gain at extraordinary loss as the prosecuting power; Translates from Russian “Fuck War” or “Fucked War”
I suspect the monarchy will just fizzle out as the UK does.
Neither the monarchy or the UK will fizzle out
@SouthamObserver just WANTS the UK to fizzle out, because Brexit
They see it as a deserved punishment on ordinary Britons, for daring to upset the second home plans of their betters
Ordinary Britons really don't care that much about the UK. It's only the privileged right that get all hot and bothered about it - and that's largely driven by English nationalism. Most ordinary Britons are much more focused on their English, Scottish and Welsh identities. Even in Northern Ireland notions of Britishness are declining. I regret that, but it was happening way before Brexit. As for the monarchy, the Queen is the glue that keeps it all together, not the institution itself. If I think of my kids and their mates, it's something that doesn't even register with them.
Scots still voted to stay in the UK, every other home nation still has a majority of Unionist parties in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland Unionist parties still win more seats than Nationalists.
The monarchy was there for centuries before the Queen and will be there centuries after she dies. She was a reasonably good monarch but the monarchy is far more than her
Neither you nor I know what it's like to have another head of state - one that linked us to a pivotal time in our country's history. I don't think there will be any kind of mass movement to end the monarchy, I just think that there will come a time, relatively soon (but probably after I'm dead) when not enough people will care about keeping it, allowing those who feel strongly about getting rid of it to prevail.
But those who “feel strongly about getting rid of it” are a small rump of miserable incel non binary Remoanering volcano-loving republican Fascisto-socialists, like you - as @HYUFD correctly points out, with his normal forensic accuracy
Persuading the rest of the country to adopt your position will be like persuading Malaga holiday makers to become breatharians
I am sure there are plenty of people that like you voted Leave having spent far too much time consuming Facebook stories put out by Vlad the Mad, so I am sure if Vlad thinks republicanism would cause more division in the UK his bot factories will be pulling up their lists of the highly suggestible. Those that believe in aliens will def be on it, so please please be careful.
I think changing our head of state pretty pointless, but so was Brexit, so it doesn't mean it won't happen.
PB Republicans need to imagine what a UK (except it would then be something else - the UR?) would look like
The crown is woven into every corner of our national life, from the law to parliament to the army and navy to our stamps and money and shared and collective memory
It would be an act of near-impossible vandalism to get rid of all that. A huge emotional and constitutional wrench. And for what? To what end? How would we be better? We’d need some elected figurehead so it would be president fuck knows. Ed sheeran? President Mister Tumble off of CBBC?
It’s just never going to happen. Even if republican sentiment went over 50% people would look at the pointless chaos and say Nah
I would agree, but then I look at the Brexit vote. You can argue about whether being in or out was better and whether having monarchy or republic is better, but either way there's a fair bit of pain changing it. So you'd better be sure that the alternative is better. That was a chunk of my remain vote and would make me hesitant if there was a vote to rejoin in the near future. Yet it happened.
Destroying the monarchy would be an emotional convulsion that would make Brexit look like the great Hertfordshire earthquake of 2013
I can only see it happening if we were horribly conquered in a war or some such utter catastrophe
Hardly.
Brexit fucked the British economy, wrecked travel and stoked culture wars.
Abolishing the monarchy would be a total 'meh' for most people. It would make zero difference to our lives, except lighten the mood.
“Wrecked travel”
Er, OK. I’ve just come directly from the USA to Turkey (with a stopover in Munich). I am now staring at my raki wondering whether to eat more pistachios. I’m sailing to Greece in a day or two. And In about ten days I will smoothly go on from there
For someone who is big on world travel you don’t know much about travel
Brexit made it slightly harder to get into Schengen but that's about it really.
No, it took away the legal right to live, work, study and travel freely at will in around 30 European countries. But, to be fair, most people will just notice the extra queues in airports and seaports.
Strange. I still manage to live, work and travel around the EU quite nicely thankyou. I am too busy for the study bit at the moment. Apart from a couple of extra bits of paper, working inside the EEA is no harder now than it was 5 years ago.
With respect, you’re talking pish. Unless you have an EU passport, your UK passport will get stamped on entry to and exit from the EU. And if you spend more than 90 days in any 180-day period in the EU, you will be liable to sanction. (Of course if you have a visa for a particular EU country, some of the above may apply differently).
I suspect the monarchy will just fizzle out as the UK does.
Neither the monarchy or the UK will fizzle out
@SouthamObserver just WANTS the UK to fizzle out, because Brexit
They see it as a deserved punishment on ordinary Britons, for daring to upset the second home plans of their betters
Ordinary Britons really don't care that much about the UK. It's only the privileged right that get all hot and bothered about it - and that's largely driven by English nationalism. Most ordinary Britons are much more focused on their English, Scottish and Welsh identities. Even in Northern Ireland notions of Britishness are declining. I regret that, but it was happening way before Brexit. As for the monarchy, the Queen is the glue that keeps it all together, not the institution itself. If I think of my kids and their mates, it's something that doesn't even register with them.
Scots still voted to stay in the UK, every other home nation still has a majority of Unionist parties in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland Unionist parties still win more seats than Nationalists.
The monarchy was there for centuries before the Queen and will be there centuries after she dies. She was a reasonably good monarch but the monarchy is far more than her
Neither you nor I know what it's like to have another head of state - one that linked us to a pivotal time in our country's history. I don't think there will be any kind of mass movement to end the monarchy, I just think that there will come a time, relatively soon (but probably after I'm dead) when not enough people will care about keeping it, allowing those who feel strongly about getting rid of it to prevail.
Nope because monarchists like me will fight to keep it.
The only alternative being a non entity ceremonial president nobody has heard of or a grand imperial President Johnson or Blair more likely given our status which will be more than enough to keep it as it is part of our culture
Lol. Yes, but the point is that if "monarchists like (you)" are in the minority then you can fight to keep it all you like but you will fail in that endeavour. In the same way that those of us like me (and you) who voted Remain failed in our endeavour. I am in favour of retaining the monarchy for the same reason I was against Brexit; the division and upheaval ain't worth it except to a few swivel-eyed nutjobs. That doesn't mean it wont happen though, if the swivel-eyed nutjobs convince a gullible nation it is not a waste of time, and perhaps they might be ably assisted by a little manipulation of opinion via social media by a mischievous hostile power.
I may have voted Remain but vote for Brexit to regain sovereignty and control immigration has a rather better ring to it than vote to appease a few left wing inner city Republicans so you remove all the pomp and pageantry and royal weddings and jubilees and back holidays we enjoy for a non entity ceremonial president or an all powerful President Johnson or Blair!
I am not a republican, but if those of you that are die-in-a-ditch monarchists think that is all there is to be said in favour of republicanism then you are doomed.
PB Republicans need to imagine what a UK (except it would then be something else - the UR?) would look like
The crown is woven into every corner of our national life, from the law to parliament to the army and navy to our stamps and money and shared and collective memory
It would be an act of near-impossible vandalism to get rid of all that. A huge emotional and constitutional wrench. And for what? To what end? How would we be better? We’d need some elected figurehead so it would be president fuck knows. Ed sheeran? President Mister Tumble off of CBBC?
It’s just never going to happen. Even if republican sentiment went over 50% people would look at the pointless chaos and say Nah
I would agree, but then I look at the Brexit vote. You can argue about whether being in or out was better and whether having monarchy or republic is better, but either way there's a fair bit of pain changing it. So you'd better be sure that the alternative is better. That was a chunk of my remain vote and would make me hesitant if there was a vote to rejoin in the near future. Yet it happened.
Destroying the monarchy would be an emotional convulsion that would make Brexit look like the great Hertfordshire earthquake of 2013
I can only see it happening if we were horribly conquered in a war or some such utter catastrophe
Hardly.
Brexit fucked the British economy, wrecked travel and stoked culture wars.
Abolishing the monarchy would be a total 'meh' for most people. It would make zero difference to our lives, except lighten the mood.
“Wrecked travel”
Er, OK. I’ve just come directly from the USA to Turkey (with a stopover in Munich). I am now staring at my raki wondering whether to eat more pistachios. I’m sailing to Greece in a day or two. And In about ten days I will smoothly go on from there
For someone who is big on world travel you don’t know much about travel
Brexit made it slightly harder to get into Schengen but that's about it really.
No, it took away the legal right to live, work, study and travel freely at will in around 30 European countries. But, to be fair, most people will just notice the extra queues in airports and seaports.
Strange. I still manage to live, work and travel around the EU quite nicely thankyou. I am too busy for the study bit at the moment. Apart from a couple of extra bits of paper, working inside the EEA is no harder now than it was 5 years ago.
With respect, you’re talking pish. Unless you have an EU passport, your UK passport will get stamped on entry to and exit from the EU. And if you spend more than 90 days in any 180-day period in the EU, you will be liable to sanction. (Of course if you have a visa for a particular EU country, some of the above may apply differently).
You're replying to a comment from someone who spends a large amount of time living, working and travelling in the EU saying that what he says about living, working and travelling in the EU is "pish"?
OK, we shall obviously defer to your greater knowledge.
I suspect the monarchy will just fizzle out as the UK does.
Neither the monarchy or the UK will fizzle out
All this thousand year empire talk, where did I hear that before and what happened to the last one?
The monarchy has already lasted 1000 years in England and the UK has been around for centuries too
Longer than that. William the Conqueror (possibly my ggggggg grandad, his concubine maud angelric was my gggggg mother) derived his claim to the throne, in part, from his multiple dynastic relationships with the Anglo Saxon state (including Maud)
The English crown can be plausibly traced back to about the 6th or 7th century AD. The Queen is a provably direct descendant of Alfred the Great
Given the knonw illegitimacy rates in human society, I find that last difficult to believe. Or did they dig up Alfred of Wessex for a DNA sample? Genuinely curious.
Queen Victoria’s descendants carry the haemophilia gene. Her supposed parents and ancestors did not. So, either there was a mutation before Victoria’s conception or Victoria’s dad isn’t her dad. The former is very rare. The latter was speculated about at the time.
That may break the chain of genetic descent (not that I see anything wrong with hereditary positions passing to, say, adopted children personally).
IIRC the chance of inheriting a preexisting allele is much greater than having it arise by mutation. QED.
But at the time, 1820sd etc, the law was quite clear on bastardry, etc. So that's the divine right and the chain of inheritance broken, and we end up with a rather odd reality TV crew.
Some Family Historians welcomed the introduction of genetic testing and linking.
Others found much of their paperwork no longer relevant. There were some arguments!
The thought of giving over my DNA to a multinational company brings me out ijn a cold sweat. Not to mention the thought of relatives I didn't know I had.
And? He could be removed the coterie of wastrels can't.
I'm so glad you have that much faith in the quality of our politicians that you think having more of them is a good idea.
Some of our politicians are brilliant. I've got a lot of time Hunt, Starmer, Sturgeon, Davis. Just because we get twats like Boris, Corbyn, Salmond, Patel, doesn't mean they're all bad.
Oh fer fucks sake. Starmer. Not even starmer’s mum would call Starmer “a brilliant politician”
Salmond on the other hand WAS quite brilliant. Nearly single handedly broke up one of the grandest old nations in the world, pretty much by sheer force of personality
He is now a corpulent sleaze bag but all political careers end thusly
Previous post highlights why UK is so F***ed up, not one of the supposed good ones has ever done anything other than line their own pockets , lie , cheat or be incompetent.
Yes. A pretty desperate list
Vanishingly few politicians are “brilliant”. In the last 40 years of British political life I’d suggest salmond and thatcher. With the possibility of early Blair. That’s it
Hate to say it, but when you start to look back wistfully on how things were better back in the day, it's a sign
Yes , 70's were happy days , 8 pints for a pound, pay rises every month, sunny uplands indeed.
Get real, when I started pub drinking in 1972 (about) 8 pints cost as much as £1.12p. Which then was nearly half a crown more than a pound. Big money. Happy days.
You must have been a city boy, I was out in the country in the wilds of Ayrshire.
I suspect the monarchy will just fizzle out as the UK does.
Neither the monarchy or the UK will fizzle out
All this thousand year empire talk, where did I hear that before and what happened to the last one?
The monarchy has already lasted 1000 years in England and the UK has been around for centuries too
Longer than that. William the Conqueror (possibly my ggggggg grandad, his concubine maud angelric was my gggggg mother) derived his claim to the throne, in part, from his multiple dynastic relationships with the Anglo Saxon state (including Maud)
The English crown can be plausibly traced back to about the 6th or 7th century AD. The Queen is a provably direct descendant of Alfred the Great
Given the knonw illegitimacy rates in human society, I find that last difficult to believe. Or did they dig up Alfred of Wessex for a DNA sample? Genuinely curious.
Queen Victoria’s descendants carry the haemophilia gene. Her supposed parents and ancestors did not. So, either there was a mutation before Victoria’s conception or Victoria’s dad isn’t her dad. The former is very rare. The latter was speculated about at the time.
That may break the chain of genetic descent (not that I see anything wrong with hereditary positions passing to, say, adopted children personally).
IIRC the chance of inheriting a preexisting allele is much greater than having it arise by mutation. QED.
But at the time, 1820sd etc, the law was quite clear on bastardry, etc. So that's the divine right and the chain of inheritance broken, and we end up with a rather odd reality TV crew.
Some Family Historians welcomed the introduction of genetic testing and linking.
Others found much of their paperwork no longer relevant. There were some arguments!
The thought of giving over my DNA to a multinational company brings me out ijn a cold sweat. Not to mention the thought of relatives I didn't know I had.
It is quite strange people get really funny about NHS sharing any sort of info like that to say Deep Minds to improve healthcare, but with pay their own money to give it to a company just so they can find out if they are 1/1028 native American....
Bit like "Alexa....tell me all about the government spying on its own citizens"....
I approve. A simple system that delivers proportionality (when each constituency has enough seats).
Way, way better than STV.
A the danger of starting down a rabbit hole, I wholly disagree. D'Hondt gives far too much power to parties, and too little to voters. Simplicity isn't itself a virtue.
If simplicity is a virtue, stick with FPTP...
Fairness is also a virtue. Switch to d'Hondt.
Simplicity and fairness.
Define "fairness", taking into account Arrow's theorem.
Fairness:
20% of the votes gets you 20% of the seats.
Resulting, in nearly all cases, in a government that 0% has voted for.
Surely resulting in nearly all cases in a government that 50%+ have voted for?
(maybe under 50% depending on thresholds for representation at all, but higher % than most FPTP governments - the 2010 coalition was one of the few that >50% voted for)
See my comment two before yours for why this is a logical fallacy. Zero people voted for the 2010 coalition.
And yet the vast majority of those who voted for the two parties involved were quite happy about it at the time. Your point is a real world fallacy.
That's the same fallacy as HYUFD saying "a majority of Tory voters agree with extreme position here so therefore that's fine".
A majority of those who voted for a party is not all of those who voted for the party and would not generally be enough to win an election.
If we guess that 60% of 2010 Lib Dems and 60% of 2010 Tories (a strong majority of both) were quite happy about it then that's just under 36% of the vote not a majority of it.
Unless a coalition is agreed before the election (like Australia's "Coalition") adding up its votes afterwards is a fallacy.
Did I suggest you should ? Just pointing out that Applicant's 'zero' comment was nonsense.
Its not nonsense. Zero people voted for the 2010 coalition, that is a fact, since the 2010 coalition were not on the ballot paper.
Does that mean that people weren't happy with it? No, of course not. Just the same as if someone votes for an election loser but likes what the government does and decides to vote for them next time as a convert might be happy with the government, even if they didn't vote for them.
Opposite of Blitzkrieg; A poorly-organized military campaign or war that results in minimal or no gain at extraordinary loss as the prosecuting power; Translates from Russian “Fuck War” or “Fucked War”
Just read the messages the Guardian claim to have showing work carried on until 1AM.
They look pretty convincing to me, I am sure they will be leaking soon.
Via your good self, Horse?
Hey! Hope you are keeping well.
I can ask my family friend but I don’t think they’ll be willing to share the documents themselves. If they even have them, I haven’t asked.
What I will say is that Starmer would not have made this decision without having evidence prior (and that was already turned over to the Police), without being very confident.
I probably shouldn’t say too much more - will keep you in the loop
Ah, was just joking really but I thought you meant you had the messages in your possession.
Good, thank you for asking. Bit of a spat with my wife last night (which was not fully resolved by this morning) over how to handle a tricky situation with a toddler and some other stresses in our lives - both tired and grumpy, but resolved it now. 19 mile cycle in to work (further than usual due to cycle path closure and temporary address during building work) gave some much needed perspective. Gorgeous morning with the wind assisting me too, suspect the return leg will be more of a challenge!
Hope you are well, too. How was the cricket?
Cricket was good - we lost but we were playing in the dark by the end which was very unfair but the Umpire was useless. Faced 11 got 8 not out, so pretty average performance.
I know you were joking but I do have a source (ish) inside Starmer's circle, I'm not sure I'll get anything out of them particularly fast but for example yesterday I knew a bit before everyone else that he was going to make that statement at 4. I posted it for the benefit of people betting, I think some people got on.
Horse, be honest, you are among friends. You're Keir Starmer aren't you?
I suspect the monarchy will just fizzle out as the UK does.
Neither the monarchy or the UK will fizzle out
All this thousand year empire talk, where did I hear that before and what happened to the last one?
The monarchy has already lasted 1000 years in England and the UK has been around for centuries too
Longer than that. William the Conqueror (possibly my ggggggg grandad, his concubine maud angelric was my gggggg mother) derived his claim to the throne, in part, from his multiple dynastic relationships with the Anglo Saxon state (including Maud)
The English crown can be plausibly traced back to about the 6th or 7th century AD. The Queen is a provably direct descendant of Alfred the Great
Given the knonw illegitimacy rates in human society, I find that last difficult to believe. Or did they dig up Alfred of Wessex for a DNA sample? Genuinely curious.
Queen Victoria’s descendants carry the haemophilia gene. Her supposed parents and ancestors did not. So, either there was a mutation before Victoria’s conception or Victoria’s dad isn’t her dad. The former is very rare. The latter was speculated about at the time.
That may break the chain of genetic descent (not that I see anything wrong with hereditary positions passing to, say, adopted children personally).
IIRC the chance of inheriting a preexisting allele is much greater than having it arise by mutation. QED.
But at the time, 1820sd etc, the law was quite clear on bastardry, etc. So that's the divine right and the chain of inheritance broken, and we end up with a rather odd reality TV crew.
Some Family Historians welcomed the introduction of genetic testing and linking.
Others found much of their paperwork no longer relevant. There were some arguments!
The thought of giving over my DNA to a multinational company brings me out ijn a cold sweat. Not to mention the thought of relatives I didn't know I had.
I think I understand, but don't know of anyone who has problems as a result of a 'commercial' DNA test.
I just got a weird urgent smile from the obviously-gay husband in a holidaying “Hetero” couple here by the swimming pool in Kusadasi
What is the etiquette here? I’m flattered by it, at my advanced age, I’m also slightly drunk on raki.
Here’s a picture of my nuts
weird urgent smile?
Perhaps he wants to go to the loo.
NO
I know a weird urgent smile when I see it. He was way past me and heading into the hotel and LOOKED BACK AT ME WITH FURTIVE YET EARNEST DESIRE
The wife was oblivious
Maybe he knows of my dildo-work? It does happen. Not often, tho
Perhaps a more likely possibility is that had temporary myopia from the bright sunlight. Alternatively it might be that he realised that you are a quivering wreck of a homophobe and was winding you up.
I could never play "village / friendly" cricket. The thought of having totally useless / biased umpires drawn from the opposition, would drive me to drink.
And? He could be removed the coterie of wastrels can't.
I'm so glad you have that much faith in the quality of our politicians that you think having more of them is a good idea.
Some of our politicians are brilliant. I've got a lot of time Hunt, Starmer, Sturgeon, Davis. Just because we get twats like Boris, Corbyn, Salmond, Patel, doesn't mean they're all bad.
Oh fer fucks sake. Starmer. Not even starmer’s mum would call Starmer “a brilliant politician”
Salmond on the other hand WAS quite brilliant. Nearly single handedly broke up one of the grandest old nations in the world, pretty much by sheer force of personality
He is now a corpulent sleaze bag but all political careers end thusly
Previous post highlights why UK is so F***ed up, not one of the supposed good ones has ever done anything other than line their own pockets , lie , cheat or be incompetent.
Yes. A pretty desperate list
Vanishingly few politicians are “brilliant”. In the last 40 years of British political life I’d suggest salmond and thatcher. With the possibility of early Blair. That’s it
Hate to say it, but when you start to look back wistfully on how things were better back in the day, it's a sign
Yes , 70's were happy days , 8 pints for a pound, pay rises every month, sunny uplands indeed.
Get real, when I started pub drinking in 1972 (about) 8 pints cost as much as £1.12p. Which then was nearly half a crown more than a pound. Big money. Happy days.
You must have been a city boy, I was out in the country in the wilds of Ayrshire.
I've remarked before that I recall paying 1/- ..... 5p .... a pint in a Sunderland pub in 1959.
@business Chinese President Xi Jinping and his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron agreed on the urgent need for a ceasefire in Ukraine, according to a statement from the Elysee palace
Rest of South Con 41% Lab 29% LD 14% Grn 9% Ref 5%
Midlands and Wales Con 42% Lab 38% LD 8% Grn 5% PC 3% Ref 2%
North Lab 45% Con 31% Grn 9% LD 6% Ref 4%
Scotland SNP 51% Con 18% Lab 16% LD 8% Grn 6%
(YouGov/The Times; Sample Size: 1707; Fieldwork: 5-6 May 2022)
There seems to be a bit of a caesura in the SLab and Anas will save the Union clamour since their 'historic' damp squib in the locals. Of course sooner or later it'll start again..
SLab winning 10 seats in Scotland is quite possible, even likely. I think SLab was ahead of the SNPin 1st prefs in East Lothian, Lanark and Hamilton East and some of the Glasgow seats plus only narrowly behind in Kircaldy&Cowdenbeath, West Dunbartonshire and Inverclyde.
The Scottish local elections were in line with what I expected voteshare wise for SNP and Labour (I predicted SNP 35% Lab 23%) although the SNP profited a lot more than I expected in seats from the Tory collapse.
Also lib dems will be very happy and more confident about holding their 4 seats now with boundary changes even Caithness.
The Tories did terribly although are still likely to hold Banff and Buchan and the 3 south of Scotland seats.
The Tories did poorly but it was still their best locals apart from 2017 where they went on to win 13 seats at the GE. The overall vote was 22 Lab 20 Con first preference to nearest % (21.8 and 19.7 i think), not much change from Holyrood. They should easily hold West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine and the locals support that although I haven't looked at the new layout of the seats. Moray is gone as a seat and they aren't winning back Angus, southern Perthshire looks fightable, but probably a step too far unless the SNP fall back. Renfrewshire is trending away but the 3 Ayrshire seats I think will be interesting especially with the ferry issue and I expect the Tories to take Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock if they poll over 20% nationally. Ayrshire Central could be a 3 way fight depending on the nature of where labour recovers from. Labour I think at the moment get 3 to 10 seats but there's a tipping point if they trend beyond 26 or 27% to many more, but the realignment from the early 2010s to now mean Tories through the middle, SNP remakes of safer Tory border seats and other errata are possible. Tories hold Dumfries on all but the darkest night, mundell as ever will be interesting and Berwickshire.... it's sll down to where those local indies go
And? He could be removed the coterie of wastrels can't.
I'm so glad you have that much faith in the quality of our politicians that you think having more of them is a good idea.
Some of our politicians are brilliant. I've got a lot of time Hunt, Starmer, Sturgeon, Davis. Just because we get twats like Boris, Corbyn, Salmond, Patel, doesn't mean they're all bad.
Oh fer fucks sake. Starmer. Not even starmer’s mum would call Starmer “a brilliant politician”
Salmond on the other hand WAS quite brilliant. Nearly single handedly broke up one of the grandest old nations in the world, pretty much by sheer force of personality
He is now a corpulent sleaze bag but all political careers end thusly
Previous post highlights why UK is so F***ed up, not one of the supposed good ones has ever done anything other than line their own pockets , lie , cheat or be incompetent.
Yes. A pretty desperate list
Vanishingly few politicians are “brilliant”. In the last 40 years of British political life I’d suggest salmond and thatcher. With the possibility of early Blair. That’s it
Hate to say it, but when you start to look back wistfully on how things were better back in the day, it's a sign
Yes , 70's were happy days , 8 pints for a pound, pay rises every month, sunny uplands indeed.
Get real, when I started pub drinking in 1972 (about) 8 pints cost as much as £1.12p. Which then was nearly half a crown more than a pound. Big money. Happy days.
You must have been a city boy, I was out in the country in the wilds of Ayrshire.
I've remarked before that I recall paying 1/- ..... 5p .... a pint in a Sunderland pub in 1959.
1/10d for pint of light was my best , was a boy then . Got my history teacher chucked out of the pub for complaining we were under 16.
@business Chinese President Xi Jinping and his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron agreed on the urgent need for a ceasefire in Ukraine, according to a statement from the Elysee palace
There's a simple way to get a ceasefire in Ukraine - Russia pulls out its forces back to its own territory.
I fully expect when Russia realises they're going to struggle to hold on any longer to the territory they've temporarily occupied he'll call for a "ceasefire" and Putin's useful idiots will be screaming that Ukraine should put down arms for a ceasefire too.
I suspect the monarchy will just fizzle out as the UK does.
Neither the monarchy or the UK will fizzle out
All this thousand year empire talk, where did I hear that before and what happened to the last one?
The monarchy has already lasted 1000 years in England and the UK has been around for centuries too
Longer than that. William the Conqueror (possibly my ggggggg grandad, his concubine maud angelric was my gggggg mother) derived his claim to the throne, in part, from his multiple dynastic relationships with the Anglo Saxon state (including Maud)
The English crown can be plausibly traced back to about the 6th or 7th century AD. The Queen is a provably direct descendant of Alfred the Great
Given the knonw illegitimacy rates in human society, I find that last difficult to believe. Or did they dig up Alfred of Wessex for a DNA sample? Genuinely curious.
Queen Victoria’s descendants carry the haemophilia gene. Her supposed parents and ancestors did not. So, either there was a mutation before Victoria’s conception or Victoria’s dad isn’t her dad. The former is very rare. The latter was speculated about at the time.
That may break the chain of genetic descent (not that I see anything wrong with hereditary positions passing to, say, adopted children personally).
IIRC the chance of inheriting a preexisting allele is much greater than having it arise by mutation. QED.
But at the time, 1820sd etc, the law was quite clear on bastardry, etc. So that's the divine right and the chain of inheritance broken, and we end up with a rather odd reality TV crew.
Some Family Historians welcomed the introduction of genetic testing and linking.
Others found much of their paperwork no longer relevant. There were some arguments!
The thought of giving over my DNA to a multinational company brings me out ijn a cold sweat. Not to mention the thought of relatives I didn't know I had.
I think I understand, but don't know of anyone who has problems as a result of a 'commercial' DNA test.
I approve. A simple system that delivers proportionality (when each constituency has enough seats).
Way, way better than STV.
A the danger of starting down a rabbit hole, I wholly disagree. D'Hondt gives far too much power to parties, and too little to voters. Simplicity isn't itself a virtue.
If simplicity is a virtue, stick with FPTP...
Fairness is also a virtue. Switch to d'Hondt.
Simplicity and fairness.
Define "fairness", taking into account Arrow's theorem.
Fairness:
20% of the votes gets you 20% of the seats.
Resulting, in nearly all cases, in a government that 0% has voted for.
Surely resulting in nearly all cases in a government that 50%+ have voted for?
(maybe under 50% depending on thresholds for representation at all, but higher % than most FPTP governments - the 2010 coalition was one of the few that >50% voted for)
See my comment two before yours for why this is a logical fallacy. Zero people voted for the 2010 coalition.
And yet the vast majority of those who voted for the two parties involved were quite happy about it at the time. Your point is a real world fallacy.
That's the same fallacy as HYUFD saying "a majority of Tory voters agree with extreme position here so therefore that's fine".
A majority of those who voted for a party is not all of those who voted for the party and would not generally be enough to win an election.
If we guess that 60% of 2010 Lib Dems and 60% of 2010 Tories (a strong majority of both) were quite happy about it then that's just under 36% of the vote not a majority of it.
Unless a coalition is agreed before the election (like Australia's "Coalition") adding up its votes afterwards is a fallacy.
Did I suggest you should ? Just pointing out that Applicant's 'zero' comment was nonsense.
Its not nonsense. Zero people voted for the 2010 coalition, that is a fact, since the 2010 coalition were not on the ballot paper.
Does that mean that people weren't happy with it? No, of course not. Just the same as if someone votes for an election loser but likes what the government does and decides to vote for them next time as a convert might be happy with the government, even if they didn't vote for them.
If I had been able to vote "coalition" I would have done. I voted Conservative and they ended up with a majority and the rest, as they say, is lunacy.
I could never play "village / friendly" cricket. The thought of having totally useless / biased umpires drawn from the opposition, would drive me to drink.
TBF at my level (3rd team in Wilts Div 7) we usually are umpired by our own players, so the wanker giving you out LBW is just trying to get an earlier bat himself...
I could never play "village / friendly" cricket. The thought of having totally useless / biased umpires drawn from the opposition, would drive me to drink.
TBF at my level (3rd team in Wilts Div 7) we usually are umpired by our own players, so the wanker giving you out LBW is just trying to get an earlier bat himself...
And? He could be removed the coterie of wastrels can't.
I'm so glad you have that much faith in the quality of our politicians that you think having more of them is a good idea.
Some of our politicians are brilliant. I've got a lot of time Hunt, Starmer, Sturgeon, Davis. Just because we get twats like Boris, Corbyn, Salmond, Patel, doesn't mean they're all bad.
Oh fer fucks sake. Starmer. Not even starmer’s mum would call Starmer “a brilliant politician”
Salmond on the other hand WAS quite brilliant. Nearly single handedly broke up one of the grandest old nations in the world, pretty much by sheer force of personality
He is now a corpulent sleaze bag but all political careers end thusly
Previous post highlights why UK is so F***ed up, not one of the supposed good ones has ever done anything other than line their own pockets , lie , cheat or be incompetent.
Yes. A pretty desperate list
Vanishingly few politicians are “brilliant”. In the last 40 years of British political life I’d suggest salmond and thatcher. With the possibility of early Blair. That’s it
Hate to say it, but when you start to look back wistfully on how things were better back in the day, it's a sign
Yes , 70's were happy days , 8 pints for a pound, pay rises every month, sunny uplands indeed.
Get real, when I started pub drinking in 1972 (about) 8 pints cost as much as £1.12p. Which then was nearly half a crown more than a pound. Big money. Happy days.
You must have been a city boy, I was out in the country in the wilds of Ayrshire.
I've remarked before that I recall paying 1/- ..... 5p .... a pint in a Sunderland pub in 1959.
1/10d for pint of light was my best , was a boy then . Got my history teacher chucked out of the pub for complaining we were under 16.
50p a pint of Real Ale in 1979 is my only claim really.
I approve. A simple system that delivers proportionality (when each constituency has enough seats).
Way, way better than STV.
A the danger of starting down a rabbit hole, I wholly disagree. D'Hondt gives far too much power to parties, and too little to voters. Simplicity isn't itself a virtue.
If simplicity is a virtue, stick with FPTP...
Fairness is also a virtue. Switch to d'Hondt.
Simplicity and fairness.
Define "fairness", taking into account Arrow's theorem.
Fairness:
20% of the votes gets you 20% of the seats.
Resulting, in nearly all cases, in a government that 0% has voted for.
Surely resulting in nearly all cases in a government that 50%+ have voted for?
(maybe under 50% depending on thresholds for representation at all, but higher % than most FPTP governments - the 2010 coalition was one of the few that >50% voted for)
See my comment two before yours for why this is a logical fallacy. Zero people voted for the 2010 coalition.
And yet the vast majority of those who voted for the two parties involved were quite happy about it at the time. Your point is a real world fallacy.
That's the same fallacy as HYUFD saying "a majority of Tory voters agree with extreme position here so therefore that's fine".
A majority of those who voted for a party is not all of those who voted for the party and would not generally be enough to win an election.
If we guess that 60% of 2010 Lib Dems and 60% of 2010 Tories (a strong majority of both) were quite happy about it then that's just under 36% of the vote not a majority of it.
Unless a coalition is agreed before the election (like Australia's "Coalition") adding up its votes afterwards is a fallacy.
Did I suggest you should ? Just pointing out that Applicant's 'zero' comment was nonsense.
Its not nonsense. Zero people voted for the 2010 coalition, that is a fact, since the 2010 coalition were not on the ballot paper.
Does that mean that people weren't happy with it? No, of course not. Just the same as if someone votes for an election loser but likes what the government does and decides to vote for them next time as a convert might be happy with the government, even if they didn't vote for them.
If I had been able to vote "coalition" I would have done. I voted Conservative and they ended up with a majority and the rest, as they say, is lunacy.
Indeed, I would have voted for it too, had it been an option and I knew then what I know now. I voted for Conservative too and while I was upset at the time we didn't get a majority, it was still a good government.
But that doesn't mean adding up the two parties votes mean they all voted for the Coalition. Many voters were upset about the Coalition.
All governments end up being coalitions of interests - the only difference is if you find out about the coalition before you vote (big tent politics) or afterwards (coalition haggling).
Both Johnson and Starmer looking incredibly relaxed and cheery in their side-by-side photo for the opening of parliament, like a sunny day at the start of the summer term, ready to sit out on the grass, shirtsleeves, with friends.
Perhaps Starmer knows he'll soon be in the clear, and Johnson also knows he's in the clear from any significant leadership challenges for a good while.
I suspect the monarchy will just fizzle out as the UK does.
Neither the monarchy or the UK will fizzle out
@SouthamObserver just WANTS the UK to fizzle out, because Brexit
They see it as a deserved punishment on ordinary Britons, for daring to upset the second home plans of their betters
Ordinary Britons really don't care that much about the UK. It's only the privileged right that get all hot and bothered about it - and that's largely driven by English nationalism. Most ordinary Britons are much more focused on their English, Scottish and Welsh identities. Even in Northern Ireland notions of Britishness are declining. I regret that, but it was happening way before Brexit. As for the monarchy, the Queen is the glue that keeps it all together, not the institution itself. If I think of my kids and their mates, it's something that doesn't even register with them.
Scots still voted to stay in the UK, every other home nation still has a majority of Unionist parties in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland Unionist parties still win more seats than Nationalists.
The monarchy was there for centuries before the Queen and will be there centuries after she dies. She was a reasonably good monarch but the monarchy is far more than her
Neither you nor I know what it's like to have another head of state - one that linked us to a pivotal time in our country's history. I don't think there will be any kind of mass movement to end the monarchy, I just think that there will come a time, relatively soon (but probably after I'm dead) when not enough people will care about keeping it, allowing those who feel strongly about getting rid of it to prevail.
But those who “feel strongly about getting rid of it” are a small rump of miserable incel non binary Remoanering volcano-loving republican Fascisto-socialists, like you - as @HYUFD correctly points out, with his normal forensic accuracy
Persuading the rest of the country to adopt your position will be like persuading Malaga holiday makers to become breatharians
I don't feel strongly about it. That's kind of the point. As time goes by, fewer and fewer people will.
I approve. A simple system that delivers proportionality (when each constituency has enough seats).
Way, way better than STV.
A the danger of starting down a rabbit hole, I wholly disagree. D'Hondt gives far too much power to parties, and too little to voters. Simplicity isn't itself a virtue.
If simplicity is a virtue, stick with FPTP...
Fairness is also a virtue. Switch to d'Hondt.
Simplicity and fairness.
Define "fairness", taking into account Arrow's theorem.
Fairness:
20% of the votes gets you 20% of the seats.
Resulting, in nearly all cases, in a government that 0% has voted for.
Surely resulting in nearly all cases in a government that 50%+ have voted for?
(maybe under 50% depending on thresholds for representation at all, but higher % than most FPTP governments - the 2010 coalition was one of the few that >50% voted for)
See my comment two before yours for why this is a logical fallacy. Zero people voted for the 2010 coalition.
And yet the vast majority of those who voted for the two parties involved were quite happy about it at the time. Your point is a real world fallacy.
That's the same fallacy as HYUFD saying "a majority of Tory voters agree with extreme position here so therefore that's fine".
A majority of those who voted for a party is not all of those who voted for the party and would not generally be enough to win an election.
If we guess that 60% of 2010 Lib Dems and 60% of 2010 Tories (a strong majority of both) were quite happy about it then that's just under 36% of the vote not a majority of it.
Unless a coalition is agreed before the election (like Australia's "Coalition") adding up its votes afterwards is a fallacy.
Did I suggest you should ? Just pointing out that Applicant's 'zero' comment was nonsense.
Its not nonsense. Zero people voted for the 2010 coalition, that is a fact, since the 2010 coalition were not on the ballot paper.
Does that mean that people weren't happy with it? No, of course not. Just the same as if someone votes for an election loser but likes what the government does and decides to vote for them next time as a convert might be happy with the government, even if they didn't vote for them.
As the FPTP fetishists have been arguing all day that it's the vote for the individual MP that counts, you're wanting your cake and ha'penny. The majority of MPs voted for the coalition.
How may voters actually think that one of the two large parties actually represent their views ? That's what you're arguing.
I approve. A simple system that delivers proportionality (when each constituency has enough seats).
Way, way better than STV.
A the danger of starting down a rabbit hole, I wholly disagree. D'Hondt gives far too much power to parties, and too little to voters. Simplicity isn't itself a virtue.
If simplicity is a virtue, stick with FPTP...
Fairness is also a virtue. Switch to d'Hondt.
Simplicity and fairness.
Define "fairness", taking into account Arrow's theorem.
Fairness:
20% of the votes gets you 20% of the seats.
Resulting, in nearly all cases, in a government that 0% has voted for.
Surely resulting in nearly all cases in a government that 50%+ have voted for?
(maybe under 50% depending on thresholds for representation at all, but higher % than most FPTP governments - the 2010 coalition was one of the few that >50% voted for)
See my comment two before yours for why this is a logical fallacy. Zero people voted for the 2010 coalition.
And yet the vast majority of those who voted for the two parties involved were quite happy about it at the time. Your point is a real world fallacy.
That's the same fallacy as HYUFD saying "a majority of Tory voters agree with extreme position here so therefore that's fine".
A majority of those who voted for a party is not all of those who voted for the party and would not generally be enough to win an election.
If we guess that 60% of 2010 Lib Dems and 60% of 2010 Tories (a strong majority of both) were quite happy about it then that's just under 36% of the vote not a majority of it.
Unless a coalition is agreed before the election (like Australia's "Coalition") adding up its votes afterwards is a fallacy.
Did I suggest you should ? Just pointing out that Applicant's 'zero' comment was nonsense.
Its not nonsense. Zero people voted for the 2010 coalition, that is a fact, since the 2010 coalition were not on the ballot paper.
Does that mean that people weren't happy with it? No, of course not. Just the same as if someone votes for an election loser but likes what the government does and decides to vote for them next time as a convert might be happy with the government, even if they didn't vote for them.
If I had been able to vote "coalition" I would have done. I voted Conservative and they ended up with a majority and the rest, as they say, is lunacy.
Indeed, I would have voted for it too, had it been an option and I knew then what I know now. I voted for Conservative too and while I was upset at the time we didn't get a majority, it was still a good government.
But that doesn't mean adding up the two parties votes mean they all voted for the Coalition. Many voters were upset about the Coalition.
All governments end up being coalitions of interests - the only difference is if you find out about the coalition before you vote (big tent politics) or afterwards (coalition haggling).
If we were designing a political system from scratch we'd surely separate out election of the PM from election of the Commons.
Rest of South Con 41% Lab 29% LD 14% Grn 9% Ref 5%
Midlands and Wales Con 42% Lab 38% LD 8% Grn 5% PC 3% Ref 2%
North Lab 45% Con 31% Grn 9% LD 6% Ref 4%
Scotland SNP 51% Con 18% Lab 16% LD 8% Grn 6%
(YouGov/The Times; Sample Size: 1707; Fieldwork: 5-6 May 2022)
There seems to be a bit of a caesura in the SLab and Anas will save the Union clamour since their 'historic' damp squib in the locals. Of course sooner or later it'll start again..
SLab winning 10 seats in Scotland is quite possible, even likely. I think SLab was ahead of the SNPin 1st prefs in East Lothian, Lanark and Hamilton East and some of the Glasgow seats plus only narrowly behind in Kircaldy&Cowdenbeath, West Dunbartonshire and Inverclyde.
The Scottish local elections were in line with what I expected voteshare wise for SNP and Labour (I predicted SNP 35% Lab 23%) although the SNP profited a lot more than I expected in seats from the Tory collapse.
Also lib dems will be very happy and more confident about holding their 4 seats now with boundary changes even Caithness.
The Tories did terribly although are still likely to hold Banff and Buchan and the 3 south of Scotland seats.
This is what you wrote just before polling day:
- “… I can't see how [the Scottish Tories] lose much more than 20-30 councillors in Scotland on a bad day… ”
Actual result: SCons lost 63 councillors.
So, I think we’ll treat your prediction with the respect it deserves.
I approve. A simple system that delivers proportionality (when each constituency has enough seats).
Way, way better than STV.
A the danger of starting down a rabbit hole, I wholly disagree. D'Hondt gives far too much power to parties, and too little to voters. Simplicity isn't itself a virtue.
If simplicity is a virtue, stick with FPTP...
Fairness is also a virtue. Switch to d'Hondt.
Simplicity and fairness.
Define "fairness", taking into account Arrow's theorem.
Fairness:
20% of the votes gets you 20% of the seats.
Resulting, in nearly all cases, in a government that 0% has voted for.
Surely resulting in nearly all cases in a government that 50%+ have voted for?
(maybe under 50% depending on thresholds for representation at all, but higher % than most FPTP governments - the 2010 coalition was one of the few that >50% voted for)
See my comment two before yours for why this is a logical fallacy. Zero people voted for the 2010 coalition.
And yet the vast majority of those who voted for the two parties involved were quite happy about it at the time. Your point is a real world fallacy.
That's the same fallacy as HYUFD saying "a majority of Tory voters agree with extreme position here so therefore that's fine".
A majority of those who voted for a party is not all of those who voted for the party and would not generally be enough to win an election.
If we guess that 60% of 2010 Lib Dems and 60% of 2010 Tories (a strong majority of both) were quite happy about it then that's just under 36% of the vote not a majority of it.
Unless a coalition is agreed before the election (like Australia's "Coalition") adding up its votes afterwards is a fallacy.
Did I suggest you should ? Just pointing out that Applicant's 'zero' comment was nonsense.
Its not nonsense. Zero people voted for the 2010 coalition, that is a fact, since the 2010 coalition were not on the ballot paper.
Does that mean that people weren't happy with it? No, of course not. Just the same as if someone votes for an election loser but likes what the government does and decides to vote for them next time as a convert might be happy with the government, even if they didn't vote for them.
As the FPTP fetishists have been arguing all day that it's the vote for the individual MP that counts, you're wanting your cake and ha'penny. The majority of MPs voted for the coalition.
How may voters actually think that one of the two large parties actually represent their views ? That's what you're arguing.
Touché.
No I'm not arguing that. What I'm arguing is that governing necessarily involves compromising conflicting interests and its better to have big tents admitting the compromises up front, which the voters then get to choose between, rather than having "purity" and parties cleanly representing the voters views - but then abandoning their pledges the second they sign up to a coalition because they need to compromise.
Can't see hitting a lamppost getting a custodial sentence. No injuries were there?
Didn't he do a runner?
Leaving the scene carries up to 6 months but that's usually if there were injuries to another party. First offence etc.... I can't see them handing down a custodial as they aren't going for under the influence/failure yo provide a specimen. If he's just crashed and run away it's a fine I think and thats not enough to provoke recall
Can't see hitting a lamppost getting a custodial sentence. No injuries were there?
Didn't he do a runner?
Leaving the scene carries up to 6 months but that's usually if there were injuries to another party. First offence etc.... I can't see them handing down a custodial as they aren't going for under the influence/failure yo provide a specimen. If he's just crashed and run away it's a fine I think and thats not enough to provoke recall
Apparently his lawyer is claiming mental health issues including PTSD
If I had been able to vote "coalition" I would have done. I voted Conservative and they ended up with a majority and the rest, as they say, is lunacy.
Indeed, I would have voted for it too, had it been an option and I knew then what I know now. I voted for Conservative too and while I was upset at the time we didn't get a majority, it was still a good government.
But that doesn't mean adding up the two parties votes mean they all voted for the Coalition. Many voters were upset about the Coalition.
All governments end up being coalitions of interests - the only difference is if you find out about the coalition before you vote (big tent politics) or afterwards (coalition haggling).
I would also have voted Coalition, but history bears out how ephemeral that was.
As a socially liberal, economically conservative, person, in the space of a decade, I have gone from two parties I was happy supporting to zero, with the third party (Labour) having spent most of that in their own world. Nobody seems to want my vote at all.
I could never play "village / friendly" cricket. The thought of having totally useless / biased umpires drawn from the opposition, would drive me to drink.
TBF at my level (3rd team in Wilts Div 7) we usually are umpired by our own players, so the wanker giving you out LBW is just trying to get an earlier bat himself...
As a keeper I get more annoyed by stumpings not given. My favourite was a guy a foot out of his crease. Both umps were from the batting side. The square leg ump looked to his skipper, standing at the bowlers end, who shook his head. Square leg ump declares 'not out'.
I suspect the monarchy will just fizzle out as the UK does.
Neither the monarchy or the UK will fizzle out
All this thousand year empire talk, where did I hear that before and what happened to the last one?
The monarchy has already lasted 1000 years in England and the UK has been around for centuries too
Longer than that. William the Conqueror (possibly my ggggggg grandad, his concubine maud angelric was my gggggg mother) derived his claim to the throne, in part, from his multiple dynastic relationships with the Anglo Saxon state (including Maud)
The English crown can be plausibly traced back to about the 6th or 7th century AD. The Queen is a provably direct descendant of Alfred the Great
Given the knonw illegitimacy rates in human society, I find that last difficult to believe. Or did they dig up Alfred of Wessex for a DNA sample? Genuinely curious.
Surely almost anyone alive today of vaguely European descent is directly descended from any 9th century European who has any living descendants.
Also, if you are a direct descendant of Alfred, there's a high chance that you will still share no DNA, so a DNA sample probably wouldn't help.
Tories taking the piss as usual. Put it in the manifesto, then forget about it altogether.
They know on which side their bread is buttered.
Reminds me very much of the Theresa May and her six-month enthusiasm for "workers on boards", taken from Ed Miliband. Very much window-dressing, but helps the government appropriate the tone and steal the clothes of the opposition for a while, until some of the public's attention has moved on, forgotten the actual details but absorbed part of the impression.
On topic. We have all agreed before Yougov are the most volatile of all the pollsters. Mike is right, will other pollsters bear this headline generating 1% gap out. Having said that, it’s recent lab shares are latest first 36, 39, 39, 38, 37 Tory. 35, 33, 33, 33, 34 So not a great movement beyond sampling, I think our first reaction, almost reflexive is to read a poll not from its own sequence but based on other recent polls - and the catch there is each new month tend to start with Labour friendly polling before Kantor, yougov and opinium tend to come along like three blue buses.
What I tend to do in looking for a trend is not the gap between conservatives and labour but the labour Libdem green (what we presume will become effective anti Tory tactical alliance in both red and blue walls in the coming gaggle of general elections because of the apparent permanent change BREXIT has brought to UK political support, Corbyn factor apart) versus the Tory score. Recent trend has been for the anti Tory alliance to be growing into later fifties, this yougov puts it at 54 for firms tendency for high greens at Labours expense from time to time. Even if a rogue good one for Tories, they still not breaking 35.
That’s my tea time post, hope you enjoy chewing it over. But you know I am right and all over this politics and trends analytics at the moment. 😇.
Can't see hitting a lamppost getting a custodial sentence. No injuries were there?
Didn't he do a runner?
Leaving the scene carries up to 6 months but that's usually if there were injuries to another party. First offence etc.... I can't see them handing down a custodial as they aren't going for under the influence/failure yo provide a specimen. If he's just crashed and run away it's a fine I think and thats not enough to provoke recall
Apparently his lawyer is claiming mental health issues including PTSD
Unless they've changed what they were proposing before, it isn't - the extra places "based on previous performances" were proposed to be only amongst those teams finishing in the highest league place not otherwise qualifying - so this year, Man U wouldn't qualify.
I suspect the monarchy will just fizzle out as the UK does.
Neither the monarchy or the UK will fizzle out
@SouthamObserver just WANTS the UK to fizzle out, because Brexit
They see it as a deserved punishment on ordinary Britons, for daring to upset the second home plans of their betters
Ordinary Britons really don't care that much about the UK. It's only the privileged right that get all hot and bothered about it - and that's largely driven by English nationalism. Most ordinary Britons are much more focused on their English, Scottish and Welsh identities. Even in Northern Ireland notions of Britishness are declining. I regret that, but it was happening way before Brexit. As for the monarchy, the Queen is the glue that keeps it all together, not the institution itself. If I think of my kids and their mates, it's something that doesn't even register with them.
Scots still voted to stay in the UK, every other home nation still has a majority of Unionist parties in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland Unionist parties still win more seats than Nationalists.
The monarchy was there for centuries before the Queen and will be there centuries after she dies. She was a reasonably good monarch but the monarchy is far more than her
Neither you nor I know what it's like to have another head of state - one that linked us to a pivotal time in our country's history. I don't think there will be any kind of mass movement to end the monarchy, I just think that there will come a time, relatively soon (but probably after I'm dead) when not enough people will care about keeping it, allowing those who feel strongly about getting rid of it to prevail.
But those who “feel strongly about getting rid of it” are a small rump of miserable incel non binary Remoanering volcano-loving republican Fascisto-socialists, like you - as @HYUFD correctly points out, with his normal forensic accuracy
Persuading the rest of the country to adopt your position will be like persuading Malaga holiday makers to become breatharians
The monarchy is genuinely popular in this country. I don't see that changing.
After PM hints at new measures on cost of living in the chamber, a Treasury source says they have no idea what he's referring to as they're not aware of anything specific on the way. https://twitter.com/KateEMcCann/status/1524034729015660546
Things might not be going as well for Ukraine as we all (well, perhaps all) hope. The next few days might show whether Russia makes a breakthrough in Donbass and on the south coast.
Fingers crossed for Ukraine!
Interesting comment, what do you suspect is happening?
Unless they've changed what they were proposing before, it isn't - the extra places "based on previous performances" were proposed to be only amongst those teams finishing in the highest league place not otherwise qualifying - so this year, Man U wouldn't qualify.
I believe they changed that part of the plan slightly so that wouldn't happen.
PB Republicans need to imagine what a UK (except it would then be something else - the UR?) would look like
The crown is woven into every corner of our national life, from the law to parliament to the army and navy to our stamps and money and shared and collective memory
It would be an act of near-impossible vandalism to get rid of all that. A huge emotional and constitutional wrench. And for what? To what end? How would we be better? We’d need some elected figurehead so it would be president fuck knows. Ed sheeran? President Mister Tumble off of CBBC?
It’s just never going to happen. Even if republican sentiment went over 50% people would look at the pointless chaos and say Nah
I would agree, but then I look at the Brexit vote. You can argue about whether being in or out was better and whether having monarchy or republic is better, but either way there's a fair bit of pain changing it. So you'd better be sure that the alternative is better. That was a chunk of my remain vote and would make me hesitant if there was a vote to rejoin in the near future. Yet it happened.
Destroying the monarchy would be an emotional convulsion that would make Brexit look like the great Hertfordshire earthquake of 2013
I can only see it happening if we were horribly conquered in a war or some such utter catastrophe
Hardly.
Brexit fucked the British economy, wrecked travel and stoked culture wars.
Abolishing the monarchy would be a total 'meh' for most people. It would make zero difference to our lives, except lighten the mood.
“Wrecked travel”
Er, OK. I’ve just come directly from the USA to Turkey (with a stopover in Munich). I am now staring at my raki wondering whether to eat more pistachios. I’m sailing to Greece in a day or two. And In about ten days I will smoothly go on from there
For someone who is big on world travel you don’t know much about travel
Brexit made it slightly harder to get into Schengen but that's about it really.
No, it took away the legal right to live, work, study and travel freely at will in around 30 European countries. But, to be fair, most people will just notice the extra queues in airports and seaports.
Strange. I still manage to live, work and travel around the EU quite nicely thankyou. I am too busy for the study bit at the moment. Apart from a couple of extra bits of paper, working inside the EEA is no harder now than it was 5 years ago.
If you are a UK citizen, you cannot now just move from, say, Norway to Sweden to live and work. You now need the permission of the Swedish government and must fulfil the criteria they set for non-EU/EEA citizens to stay in their country. That never used to be the case. But, as I say, this will not have an impact on most people. They'll just spend longer in queues.
Personally I am all in favour of complete freedom of movement for everyone from anywhere - something even the most ardent of Europhiles seem to be strangely averse to. But on a practical level, the actual work involved in going to live or work in Norway, France, Italy, Spain or anywhere else in the EU is no worse than it was before. It is a bit more paperwork. Hardly the end of the world.
That depends on the country and what you want to do. You can't just hop on an Easyjet and go get a bar job for the summer in Spain anymore, for example. Like the UK, many EU countries will have salary bands for non-EU/EEA workers and income requirements for those who want to settle. Again, Spain does. For example, if you want to retire there now you need to prove an income of around €2150 per month for the first individual, plus another €500 or so for a partner and any dependents. On top of that you have to pay health insurance.
Correct - although I think there are signs from Portugal of some relaxation going on there. Anecdotally there are signs in Spain of many second homers selling up and clearly the new arrivals will slow down. It remains to be seen what Spain will do if the property market stall badly again. The growth from Belgium, etc. will not fill the gap.
They’ll probably come up with a way to make it easier for Brits to retire to Spain. Just a hunch.
Can't see hitting a lamppost getting a custodial sentence. No injuries were there?
Didn't he do a runner?
Leaving the scene carries up to 6 months but that's usually if there were injuries to another party. First offence etc.... I can't see them handing down a custodial as they aren't going for under the influence/failure yo provide a specimen. If he's just crashed and run away it's a fine I think and thats not enough to provoke recall
Apparently his lawyer is claiming mental health issues including PTSD
After PM hints at new measures on cost of living in the chamber, a Treasury source says they have no idea what he's referring to as they're not aware of anything specific on the way. https://twitter.com/KateEMcCann/status/1524034729015660546
Perhaps he will reduce cost of living via “interpretive dance”.
The proposed changes in Wales are an absolute stitch-up.
It will mean you need to get over 16% in one of the 16 “electorates” in order to get representation in the Senedd.
Goodbye any chances for LDs, Greens, and those assorted Brexit ultras.
Add the fact that the lists are closed, and they want to add 16 SDs, and this is very much a “jobs for the boyos”.
Central government should step in.
“Central government” chortle.
Moscow is not the only “central government” with satellite states.
It’s farcical that Wales (or Scotland, or Cornwall) should be able to unilaterally change its electoral system.
There should be some kind of check, both at federal level (minimum stamdards) and probably with the need for referendum too.
I am sure that would be the case in Sweden.
Not in Scotland they can't.
Ands there is no such thing as a federal level in the UK.
Federal = central. The UK is a unitary state masquerading as a federal system, or vice versa.
Still surprised the Welsh can change their pmt (as opposed to details like voting age which do happen in Scotland). But the legislation was in different acts anyway.
After PM hints at new measures on cost of living in the chamber, a Treasury source says they have no idea what he's referring to as they're not aware of anything specific on the way. https://twitter.com/KateEMcCann/status/1524034729015660546
The great thing about Johnson is he is likely to announce an off the cuff thousand pounds a week (remember he has no idea of the value of money) supplement for all UK adults on a campaign event in Uttoxeter, especially if a pretty young reporter asks him a difficult question.
Unless they've changed what they were proposing before, it isn't - the extra places "based on previous performances" were proposed to be only amongst those teams finishing in the highest league place not otherwise qualifying - so this year, Man U wouldn't qualify.
I believe they changed that part of the plan slightly so that wouldn't happen.
This actually sounds better than it was:
Two of the additional four places will be awarded on the basis of the highest performing countries in each individual season of Uefa club competition.
[...]
A previous proposal to award two Champions League places to clubs on the basis of their historic performance in European competition will not come into effect.
So that probably means an extra place for England and Spain pretty much every year unless there's some major change.
On topic. We have all agreed before Yougov are the most volatile of all the pollsters. Mike is right, will other pollsters bear this headline generating 1% gap out. Having said that, it’s recent lab shares are latest first 36, 39, 39, 38, 37 Tory. 35, 33, 33, 33, 34 So not a great movement beyond sampling, I think our first reaction, almost reflexive is to read a poll not from its own sequence but based on other recent polls - and the catch there is each new month tend to start with Labour friendly polling before Kantor, yougov and opinium tend to come along like three blue buses.
What I tend to do in looking for a trend is not the gap between conservatives and labour but the labour Libdem green (what we presume will become effective anti Tory tactical alliance in both red and blue walls in the coming gaggle of general elections because of the apparent permanent change BREXIT has brought to UK political support, Corbyn factor apart) versus the Tory score. Recent trend has been for the anti Tory alliance to be growing into later fifties, this yougov puts it at 54 for firms tendency for high greens at Labours expense from time to time. Even if a rogue good one for Tories, they still not breaking 35.
That’s my tea time post, hope you enjoy chewing it over. But you know I am right and all over this politics and trends analytics at the moment. 😇.
Yes, the LLG number vs Con-BXP is instructive and seemingly less volatile than Labour-Tory. There is a lot of churn between the non-Tory parties. Has been in the range 53-56 (with occasional 57-58) for a long time now, since roughly North Shropshire.
I suspect the monarchy will just fizzle out as the UK does.
Neither the monarchy or the UK will fizzle out
@SouthamObserver just WANTS the UK to fizzle out, because Brexit
They see it as a deserved punishment on ordinary Britons, for daring to upset the second home plans of their betters
A little harsh there. I suspect the UK will break up of it's own accord anyway. I can see NI becoming a self governing part of Ireland within the next 10 years along with Scotland becoming an Independent country in a similar timespan.
Also Leon knows only full well that the Brexit debate was about more than 2nd homes
Absolutely. There were the super cheap nannies or au pairs from Eastern Europe for a start.
Can't see hitting a lamppost getting a custodial sentence. No injuries were there?
Didn't he do a runner?
Leaving the scene carries up to 6 months but that's usually if there were injuries to another party. First offence etc.... I can't see them handing down a custodial as they aren't going for under the influence/failure yo provide a specimen. If he's just crashed and run away it's a fine I think and thats not enough to provoke recall
Apparently his lawyer is claiming mental health issues including PTSD
Half the Tory party are suffering from PTBD.
It is not something to joke about believe me
Folk stopped laughing with or at Boris a long time ago. The joke is staler than surströmming.
And? He could be removed the coterie of wastrels can't.
I'm so glad you have that much faith in the quality of our politicians that you think having more of them is a good idea.
Some of our politicians are brilliant. I've got a lot of time Hunt, Starmer, Sturgeon, Davis. Just because we get twats like Boris, Corbyn, Salmond, Patel, doesn't mean they're all bad.
Oh fer fucks sake. Starmer. Not even starmer’s mum would call Starmer “a brilliant politician”
Salmond on the other hand WAS quite brilliant. Nearly single handedly broke up one of the grandest old nations in the world, pretty much by sheer force of personality
He is now a corpulent sleaze bag but all political careers end thusly
Previous post highlights why UK is so F***ed up, not one of the supposed good ones has ever done anything other than line their own pockets , lie , cheat or be incompetent.
Yes. A pretty desperate list
Vanishingly few politicians are “brilliant”. In the last 40 years of British political life I’d suggest salmond and thatcher. With the possibility of early Blair. That’s it
Hate to say it, but when you start to look back wistfully on how things were better back in the day, it's a sign
Yes , 70's were happy days , 8 pints for a pound, pay rises every month, sunny uplands indeed.
Get real, when I started pub drinking in 1972 (about) 8 pints cost as much as £1.12p. Which then was nearly half a crown more than a pound. Big money. Happy days.
You must have been a city boy, I was out in the country in the wilds of Ayrshire.
Picture shown on stage as part of Moscow's 9th May celebrations, purported to be Russian couple separated by WW2, is actually famous picture (from wiki) of Bonnie & Clyde! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnie_and_Clyde
I suspect the monarchy will just fizzle out as the UK does.
Neither the monarchy or the UK will fizzle out
@SouthamObserver just WANTS the UK to fizzle out, because Brexit
They see it as a deserved punishment on ordinary Britons, for daring to upset the second home plans of their betters
Ordinary Britons really don't care that much about the UK. It's only the privileged right that get all hot and bothered about it - and that's largely driven by English nationalism. Most ordinary Britons are much more focused on their English, Scottish and Welsh identities. Even in Northern Ireland notions of Britishness are declining. I regret that, but it was happening way before Brexit. As for the monarchy, the Queen is the glue that keeps it all together, not the institution itself. If I think of my kids and their mates, it's something that doesn't even register with them.
Scots still voted to stay in the UK, every other home nation still has a majority of Unionist parties in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland Unionist parties still win more seats than Nationalists.
The monarchy was there for centuries before the Queen and will be there centuries after she dies. She was a reasonably good monarch but the monarchy is far more than her
Neither you nor I know what it's like to have another head of state - one that linked us to a pivotal time in our country's history. I don't think there will be any kind of mass movement to end the monarchy, I just think that there will come a time, relatively soon (but probably after I'm dead) when not enough people will care about keeping it, allowing those who feel strongly about getting rid of it to prevail.
But those who “feel strongly about getting rid of it” are a small rump of miserable incel non binary Remoanering volcano-loving republican Fascisto-socialists, like you - as @HYUFD correctly points out, with his normal forensic accuracy
Persuading the rest of the country to adopt your position will be like persuading Malaga holiday makers to become breatharians
The monarchy is genuinely popular in this country. I don't see that changing.
The monarchy is not going anywhere, and neither are Scotland or Northern Ireland. This talk about it, here and elsewhere, is just displacement activity.
Saw my first swifts of the year yesterday. Reassuring.
PB Republicans need to imagine what a UK (except it would then be something else - the UR?) would look like
The crown is woven into every corner of our national life, from the law to parliament to the army and navy to our stamps and money and shared and collective memory
It would be an act of near-impossible vandalism to get rid of all that. A huge emotional and constitutional wrench. And for what? To what end? How would we be better? We’d need some elected figurehead so it would be president fuck knows. Ed sheeran? President Mister Tumble off of CBBC?
It’s just never going to happen. Even if republican sentiment went over 50% people would look at the pointless chaos and say Nah
I would agree, but then I look at the Brexit vote. You can argue about whether being in or out was better and whether having monarchy or republic is better, but either way there's a fair bit of pain changing it. So you'd better be sure that the alternative is better. That was a chunk of my remain vote and would make me hesitant if there was a vote to rejoin in the near future. Yet it happened.
Destroying the monarchy would be an emotional convulsion that would make Brexit look like the great Hertfordshire earthquake of 2013
I can only see it happening if we were horribly conquered in a war or some such utter catastrophe
Hardly.
Brexit fucked the British economy, wrecked travel and stoked culture wars.
Abolishing the monarchy would be a total 'meh' for most people. It would make zero difference to our lives, except lighten the mood.
“Wrecked travel”
Er, OK. I’ve just come directly from the USA to Turkey (with a stopover in Munich). I am now staring at my raki wondering whether to eat more pistachios. I’m sailing to Greece in a day or two. And In about ten days I will smoothly go on from there
For someone who is big on world travel you don’t know much about travel
Brexit made it slightly harder to get into Schengen but that's about it really.
No, it took away the legal right to live, work, study and travel freely at will in around 30 European countries. But, to be fair, most people will just notice the extra queues in airports and seaports.
Strange. I still manage to live, work and travel around the EU quite nicely thankyou. I am too busy for the study bit at the moment. Apart from a couple of extra bits of paper, working inside the EEA is no harder now than it was 5 years ago.
If you are a UK citizen, you cannot now just move from, say, Norway to Sweden to live and work. You now need the permission of the Swedish government and must fulfil the criteria they set for non-EU/EEA citizens to stay in their country. That never used to be the case. But, as I say, this will not have an impact on most people. They'll just spend longer in queues.
Personally I am all in favour of complete freedom of movement for everyone from anywhere - something even the most ardent of Europhiles seem to be strangely averse to. But on a practical level, the actual work involved in going to live or work in Norway, France, Italy, Spain or anywhere else in the EU is no worse than it was before. It is a bit more paperwork. Hardly the end of the world.
That depends on the country and what you want to do. You can't just hop on an Easyjet and go get a bar job for the summer in Spain anymore, for example. Like the UK, many EU countries will have salary bands for non-EU/EEA workers and income requirements for those who want to settle. Again, Spain does. For example, if you want to retire there now you need to prove an income of around €2150 per month for the first individual, plus another €500 or so for a partner and any dependents. On top of that you have to pay health insurance.
Correct - although I think there are signs from Portugal of some relaxation going on there. Anecdotally there are signs in Spain of many second homers selling up and clearly the new arrivals will slow down. It remains to be seen what Spain will do if the property market stall badly again. The growth from Belgium, etc. will not fill the gap.
They’ll probably come up with a way to make it easier for Brits to retire to Spain. Just a hunch.
The issue will be ensuring people are self-financing and can pay their medical bills. The Spanish have special arrangements for Latin Americans, so it is doable.
I approve. A simple system that delivers proportionality (when each constituency has enough seats).
Way, way better than STV.
A the danger of starting down a rabbit hole, I wholly disagree. D'Hondt gives far too much power to parties, and too little to voters. Simplicity isn't itself a virtue.
If simplicity is a virtue, stick with FPTP...
Fairness is also a virtue. Switch to d'Hondt.
Simplicity and fairness.
Define "fairness", taking into account Arrow's theorem.
Fairness:
20% of the votes gets you 20% of the seats.
Resulting, in nearly all cases, in a government that 0% has voted for.
Surely resulting in nearly all cases in a government that 50%+ have voted for?
(maybe under 50% depending on thresholds for representation at all, but higher % than most FPTP governments - the 2010 coalition was one of the few that >50% voted for)
See my comment two before yours for why this is a logical fallacy. Zero people voted for the 2010 coalition.
And yet the vast majority of those who voted for the two parties involved were quite happy about it at the time. Your point is a real world fallacy.
That's the same fallacy as HYUFD saying "a majority of Tory voters agree with extreme position here so therefore that's fine".
A majority of those who voted for a party is not all of those who voted for the party and would not generally be enough to win an election.
If we guess that 60% of 2010 Lib Dems and 60% of 2010 Tories (a strong majority of both) were quite happy about it then that's just under 36% of the vote not a majority of it.
Unless a coalition is agreed before the election (like Australia's "Coalition") adding up its votes afterwards is a fallacy.
Did I suggest you should ? Just pointing out that Applicant's 'zero' comment was nonsense.
Its not nonsense. Zero people voted for the 2010 coalition, that is a fact, since the 2010 coalition were not on the ballot paper.
Does that mean that people weren't happy with it? No, of course not. Just the same as if someone votes for an election loser but likes what the government does and decides to vote for them next time as a convert might be happy with the government, even if they didn't vote for them.
As the FPTP fetishists have been arguing all day that it's the vote for the individual MP that counts, you're wanting your cake and ha'penny. The majority of MPs voted for the coalition.
How may voters actually think that one of the two large parties actually represent their views ? That's what you're arguing.
Touché.
No I'm not arguing that. What I'm arguing is that governing necessarily involves compromising conflicting interests and its better to have big tents admitting the compromises up front, which the voters then get to choose between, rather than having "purity" and parties cleanly representing the voters views - but then abandoning their pledges the second they sign up to a coalition because they need to compromise.
Which is at least a coherent view, so thanks. I disagree profoundly, though.
I suspect the monarchy will just fizzle out as the UK does.
Neither the monarchy or the UK will fizzle out
@SouthamObserver just WANTS the UK to fizzle out, because Brexit
They see it as a deserved punishment on ordinary Britons, for daring to upset the second home plans of their betters
A little harsh there. I suspect the UK will break up of it's own accord anyway. I can see NI becoming a self governing part of Ireland within the next 10 years along with Scotland becoming an Independent country in a similar timespan.
Also Leon knows only full well that the Brexit debate was about more than 2nd homes
Absolutely. There were the super cheap nannies or au pairs from Eastern Europe for a start.
Dearie dearie me. You voted Remain cos of cheap nannies did you? Have a little self-respect man.
Comments
I know a weird urgent smile when I see it. He was way past me and heading into the hotel and LOOKED BACK AT ME WITH FURTIVE YET EARNEST DESIRE
The wife was oblivious
Maybe he knows of my dildo-work? It does happen. Not often, tho
Of course Mrs Alfred the Great may not have been reliable in marriage vow terms. The history of their Merovingian and Carolingian royal friends in Frankland at the same time does not encourage much certainty about who any of your relations actually are. Charlemagne himself was quite a lad.
Opposite of Blitzkrieg; A poorly-organized military campaign or war that results in minimal or no gain at extraordinary loss as the prosecuting power; Translates from Russian “Fuck War” or “Fucked War”
Putin: “How goes my beautiful Blitzkrieg?”
Shoigu: “It’s become a Blyatzkrieg!”
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Blyatzkrieg
I think changing our head of state pretty pointless, but so was Brexit, so it doesn't mean it won't happen.
OK, we shall obviously defer to your greater knowledge.
Bit like "Alexa....tell me all about the government spying on its own citizens"....
Does that mean that people weren't happy with it? No, of course not. Just the same as if someone votes for an election loser but likes what the government does and decides to vote for them next time as a convert might be happy with the government, even if they didn't vote for them.
https://electionresults.parliament.uk/election/2019-12-12/Results/Location/Constituency/Bridgend/?msclkid=f880311cd06811eca8f090b0ade7840f
Chinese President Xi Jinping and his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron agreed on the urgent need for a ceasefire in Ukraine, according to a statement from the Elysee palace
https://twitter.com/business/status/1524026231007715329
Labour I think at the moment get 3 to 10 seats but there's a tipping point if they trend beyond 26 or 27% to many more, but the realignment from the early 2010s to now mean Tories through the middle, SNP remakes of safer Tory border seats and other errata are possible. Tories hold Dumfries on all but the darkest night, mundell as ever will be interesting and Berwickshire.... it's sll down to where those local indies go
I fully expect when Russia realises they're going to struggle to hold on any longer to the territory they've temporarily occupied he'll call for a "ceasefire" and Putin's useful idiots will be screaming that Ukraine should put down arms for a ceasefire too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hnmawRRH1k
But that doesn't mean adding up the two parties votes mean they all voted for the Coalition. Many voters were upset about the Coalition.
All governments end up being coalitions of interests - the only difference is if you find out about the coalition before you vote (big tent politics) or afterwards (coalition haggling).
Perhaps Starmer knows he'll soon be in the clear, and Johnson also knows he's in the clear from any significant leadership challenges for a good while.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61392768
Tories taking the piss as usual. Put it in the manifesto, then forget about it altogether.
They know on which side their bread is buttered.
The majority of MPs voted for the coalition.
How may voters actually think that one of the two large parties actually represent their views ? That's what you're arguing.
- “… I can't see how [the Scottish Tories] lose much more than 20-30 councillors in Scotland on a bad day… ”
Actual result: SCons lost 63 councillors.
So, I think we’ll treat your prediction with the respect it deserves.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/fail-to-stopreport-road-accident-revised-2017/
No I'm not arguing that. What I'm arguing is that governing necessarily involves compromising conflicting interests and its better to have big tents admitting the compromises up front, which the voters then get to choose between, rather than having "purity" and parties cleanly representing the voters views - but then abandoning their pledges the second they sign up to a coalition because they need to compromise.
First offence etc.... I can't see them handing down a custodial as they aren't going for under the influence/failure yo provide a specimen. If he's just crashed and run away it's a fine I think and thats not enough to provoke recall
I would also have voted Coalition, but history bears out how ephemeral that was.
As a socially liberal, economically conservative, person, in the space of a decade, I have gone from two parties I was happy supporting to zero, with the third party (Labour) having spent most of that in their own world. Nobody seems to want my vote at all.
So bad, it was laughable. I didn't.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/61388244
This is worse than the Super League.
Also, if you are a direct descendant of Alfred, there's a high chance that you will still share no DNA, so a DNA sample probably wouldn't help.
It will mean you need to get over 16% in one of the 16 “electorates” in order to get representation in the Senedd.
Goodbye any chances for LDs, Greens, and those assorted Brexit ultras.
Add the fact that the lists are closed, and they want to add 16 SDs, and this is very much a “jobs for the boyos”.
Central government should step in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd79Ie_vWyQ
So not a great movement beyond sampling, I think our first reaction, almost reflexive is to read a poll not from its own sequence but based on other recent polls - and the catch there is each new month tend to start with Labour friendly polling before Kantor, yougov and opinium tend to come along like three blue buses.
What I tend to do in looking for a trend is not the gap between conservatives and labour but the labour Libdem green (what we presume will become effective anti Tory tactical alliance in both red and blue walls in the coming gaggle of general elections because of the apparent permanent change BREXIT has brought to UK political support, Corbyn factor apart) versus the Tory score. Recent trend has been for the anti Tory alliance to be growing into later fifties, this yougov puts it at 54 for firms tendency for high greens at Labours expense from time to time. Even if a rogue good one for Tories, they still not breaking 35.
That’s my tea time post, hope you enjoy chewing it over. But you know I am right and all over this politics and trends analytics at the moment. 😇.
Moscow is not the only “central government” with satellite states.
https://twitter.com/KateEMcCann/status/1524034729015660546
There should be some kind of check, both at federal level (minimum stamdards) and probably with the need for referendum too.
I am sure that would be the case in Sweden.
https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1524035698688409600
Ands there is no such thing as a federal level in the UK.
The UK is a unitary state masquerading as a federal system, or vice versa.
LAB: 39% (-2)
CON: 34% (-1)
LDM: 11% (+2)
SNP: 4% (=)
GRN: 3% (-1)
Via @SavantaComRes, 6-8 May.
Changes w/ 29 Apr - 1 May.
This is why we love the guy
Not great for Labour, but not terrible.
Or at least a bigger taxi…
Two of the additional four places will be awarded on the basis of the highest performing countries in each individual season of Uefa club competition.
[...]
A previous proposal to award two Champions League places to clubs on the basis of their historic performance in European competition will not come into effect.
So that probably means an extra place for England and Spain pretty much every year unless there's some major change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnie_and_Clyde
Saw my first swifts of the year yesterday. Reassuring.
LAB: 39% (-2)
CON: 34% (-1)
LDEM: 11% (+2)
GRN: 3% (-1)
via
@SavantaComRes
, 06 - 08 May
LLG = 53%, 1 down from last time
I disagree profoundly, though.