I have myself a strong suspicion the sea has got NOISIER these last 20-30 years
Sonic pollution is certainly supposed to have got worse, hence apparently the increased problems with beached whales and dolphins etc.
It’s bloody ridiculous here. Wave after wave after wave. Each one notably noisy
Crumple, drag, ssssfff, crumple, on and on it goes, wave after wave after wave, and the locals just ignore it, like it’s normal. And it goes on right through the night
I am considering moving here, as it is outside the EU and it is full of furtive British gays and young mammacious Armenian women but if I do move, I’m going to take a role in local government and do something about this noise pollution from the so-called sea. It’s time someone took a stand and the locals seem helpless and resigned
I have myself a strong suspicion the sea has got NOISIER these last 20-30 years
Sonic pollution is certainly supposed to have got worse, hence apparently the increased problems with beached whales and dolphins etc.
It’s bloody ridiculous here. Wave after wave after wave. Each one notably noisy
Crumple, drag, ssssfff, crumple, on and on it goes, wave after wave after wave, and the locals just ignore it, like it’s normal. And it goes on right through the night
I am considering moving here, as it is outside the EU and it is full of furtive British gays and young mammacious Armenian women but if I do move, I’m going to take a role in local government and do something about this noise pollution from the so-called sea. It’s time someone took a stand and the locals seem helpless and resigned
@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.
Macron included. He's so desperate to play the statesman role that he can't see he's become an apologist for evil.
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
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.
I did not vote remain and we never had a nanny but a lot of my friends did. Their pay rates were shocking. It was seriously exploitative.
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.
I did not vote remain and we never had a nanny but a lot of my friends did. Their pay rates were shocking. It was seriously exploitative.
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.
I did not vote remain and we never had a nanny but a lot of my friends did. Their pay rates were shocking. It was seriously exploitative.
How did it compare with picking raspberries?
When I was at school a hard day’s work at the berries earned £7-10. Which was certainly a lot more than I earned in my first job in a DIY shop. Although, in fairness, the fact I worked there has given my wife 40 years of amusement so far.
Really? We have left the EU. We no longer pay money directly to the EU and have no say in what they do. We have made a horlicks off it and no mistake, but why do you people persist with Brexit isn't done? It is. We now have post Brexit issues.
Take WW2 - you lot would dispute VE day as the countries finances were fecked and the consequences ran on for decades (arguably still running on). but WW2 was over on May 8th.
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.
I did not vote remain and we never had a nanny but a lot of my friends did. Their pay rates were shocking. It was seriously exploitative.
How did it compare with picking raspberries?
When I was at school a hard day’s work at the berries earned £7-10. Which was certainly a lot more than I earned in my first job in a DIY shop. Although, in fairness, the fact I worked there has given my wife 40 years of amusement so far.
I hate to think what your arms looked like with the scratches, mites and weevils - my dad's garden was bad enough. An old colleague of mine was from Montrose and flinched at the mention of the fruit. Difficult to decide whether I'd rather be a nanny or a rasp-picker, though.
The other interesting thing about the Welsh proposal is that it perma-locks PC into government.
And, presuming that PC would rather suicide than coalesce with the Tories, it does the same to Labour.
This is a gerrymander.
Like Labour and the LDs did for Holyrood, with a permanent Lab-LD coalition forever. Though I suspect they have gamed the details a bit better this time round.
The other interesting thing about the Welsh proposal is that it perma-locks PC into government.
And, presuming that PC would rather suicide than coalesce with the Tories, it does the same to Labour.
This is a gerrymander.
It's changing the electoral system without consulting the people to favour the ruling parties, it's the kind of thing we'd condemn were it to happen in Africa or South America.
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.
I did not vote remain and we never had a nanny but a lot of my friends did. Their pay rates were shocking. It was seriously exploitative.
How did it compare with picking raspberries?
When I was at school a hard day’s work at the berries earned £7-10. Which was certainly a lot more than I earned in my first job in a DIY shop. Although, in fairness, the fact I worked there has given my wife 40 years of amusement so far.
I hate to think what your arms looked like with the scratches, mites and weevils - my dad's garden was bad enough. An old colleague of mine was from Montrose and flinched at the mention of the fruit. Difficult to decide whether I'd rather be a nanny or a rasp-picker, 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.
I did not vote remain and we never had a nanny but a lot of my friends did. Their pay rates were shocking. It was seriously exploitative.
How did it compare with picking raspberries?
When I was at school a hard day’s work at the berries earned £7-10. Which was certainly a lot more than I earned in my first job in a DIY shop. Although, in fairness, the fact I worked there has given my wife 40 years of amusement so far.
I hate to think what your arms looked like with the scratches, mites and weevils - my dad's garden was bad enough. An old colleague of mine was from Montrose and flinched at the mention of the fruit. Difficult to decide whether I'd rather be a nanny or a rasp-picker, though.
The strawberries paid a little better but it was back breaking. I preferred the raspberries.
Starmer is spewing Stagflation all across the despatch box today. He gets away with this becuase your golden rule there isn’t enough unemployment to call it stagflation doesn’t apply in the commons chamber?
The other interesting thing about the Welsh proposal is that it perma-locks PC into government.
And, presuming that PC would rather suicide than coalesce with the Tories, it does the same to Labour.
This is a gerrymander.
We are used to it
It strikes me as worryingly anti-democratic.
Of course, the voters in Wales do seem to prefer Labour led governments, but this effectively makes only one form of government possible.
Until they don't, look at what happened in Scotland. Locking out the opposition from ever being in power by forcing through changes in the system is simply wrong, I think the Westminster government should intervene and disallow voting/electoral system changes without approval.
I expect the Welsh proposals to go through, because opponents are unlikely to agree on a common criticism.
The Welsh Tories don’t like any form of PR. The Welsh LDs are a diminished force. The UK government don’t care about Wales.
I wonder how the Welsh Greens feel. They are admittedly unrepresented now (due to the existing botch-job), but would have hoped to gain representation in the future.
I wonder if there if Welsh Labour are creating a problem here.
Boris could pick this up and say, look, at least one part of Labour are trying to change the electoral system and lock themselves into government permanently.
The other interesting thing about the Welsh proposal is that it perma-locks PC into government.
And, presuming that PC would rather suicide than coalesce with the Tories, it does the same to Labour.
This is a gerrymander.
It's changing the electoral system without consulting the people to favour the ruling parties, it's the kind of thing we'd condemn were it to happen in Africa or South America.
It somewhat staggers me that we ever have the audacity to criticise other people's systems. We should be rightly proud of our freedom of speech and respect for the rule of law (except if your name is Boris), but our system of democracy is quasi-democracy at best. FPTP and the arbitrary nature of constituencies is ludicrous, and the HoL anachronistic. Then there is asymmetric devolution and some mayors in some places and not in others. It is a dogs dinner of a system. It needs wholesale reform, but both major parties make excuses and very little happens.
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).
True: although it equally means that you can direct your vote in a much more granular way.
This is a particular issue here in the US, where the two tents contain a lot of crazy people.
The other interesting thing about the Welsh proposal is that it perma-locks PC into government.
And, presuming that PC would rather suicide than coalesce with the Tories, it does the same to Labour.
This is a gerrymander.
We are used to it
It strikes me as worryingly anti-democratic.
Of course, the voters in Wales do seem to prefer Labour led governments, but this effectively makes only one form of government possible.
Until they don't, look at what happened in Scotland. Locking out the opposition from ever being in power by forcing through changes in the system is simply wrong, I think the Westminster government should intervene and disallow voting/electoral system changes without approval.
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.
So that we can have a legislature and an executive at war with each other?
Starmer is spewing Stagflation all across the despatch box today. He gets away with this becuase your golden rule there isn’t enough unemployment to call it stagflation doesn’t apply in the commons chamber?
What's unemployment got to do with it ? 'Stagnation' - is only usually accompanied by high unemployment, but it doesn't have to be. Stagflation is about recession plus inflation.
In any event, did you not notice that the number in employment has dropped significantly ? https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy-report/2022/may-2022#chapter-10 ...There are over 600,000 more people inactive in the labour market – those without a job and not actively searching for one – compared to before the pandemic (Chart 2.11). Bank staff estimate that around a third of the rise in activity is related to the ageing of the UK population and accompanying retirement of workers, which implies at least some of the rise may persist. Consistent with that, it appears that the flow from employment to inactivity has remained at elevated levels. This flow has been relatively insensitive to the economic cycle in the past, also suggesting that the current rise in inactivity could prove more persistent. That would contribute to labour market tightness in the near term, as there are fewer people available to work...
The other interesting thing about the Welsh proposal is that it perma-locks PC into government.
And, presuming that PC would rather suicide than coalesce with the Tories, it does the same to Labour.
This is a gerrymander.
We are used to it
It strikes me as worryingly anti-democratic.
Of course, the voters in Wales do seem to prefer Labour led governments, but this effectively makes only one form of government possible.
Until they don't, look at what happened in Scotland. Locking out the opposition from ever being in power by forcing through changes in the system is simply wrong, I think the Westminster government should intervene and disallow voting/electoral system changes without approval.
The other interesting thing about the Welsh proposal is that it perma-locks PC into government.
And, presuming that PC would rather suicide than coalesce with the Tories, it does the same to Labour.
This is a gerrymander.
We are used to it
It strikes me as worryingly anti-democratic.
Of course, the voters in Wales do seem to prefer Labour led governments, but this effectively makes only one form of government possible.
Until they don't, look at what happened in Scotland. Locking out the opposition from ever being in power by forcing through changes in the system is simply wrong, I think the Westminster government should intervene and disallow voting/electoral system changes without approval.
If it's devolved, it's devolved.
Until it's not, of course.
Bit late now. If you give the Senedd the powers in the first place ...
The other interesting thing about the Welsh proposal is that it perma-locks PC into government.
And, presuming that PC would rather suicide than coalesce with the Tories, it does the same to Labour.
This is a gerrymander.
We are used to it
It strikes me as worryingly anti-democratic.
Of course, the voters in Wales do seem to prefer Labour led governments, but this effectively makes only one form of government possible.
The conservatives did well at the last election but the locals were very poor and even I voted for the independent candidates (2)
I really do not know when we as a nation will wake up to the dreadful legacy of labour in Wales with failing health and education and frankly unacceptably high levels of poverty
Mind you the leader of the Welsh conservatives is a disaster and it is the case if you put a red rose on a donkey it would be elected
The other interesting thing about the Welsh proposal is that it perma-locks PC into government.
And, presuming that PC would rather suicide than coalesce with the Tories, it does the same to Labour.
This is a gerrymander.
We are used to it
It strikes me as worryingly anti-democratic.
Of course, the voters in Wales do seem to prefer Labour led governments, but this effectively makes only one form of government possible.
The conservatives did well at the last election but the locals were very poor and even I voted for the independent candidates (2)
I really do not know when we as a nation will wake up to the dreadful legacy of labour in Wales with failing health and education and frankly unacceptably high levels of poverty
Mind you the leader of the Welsh conservatives is a disaster and it is the case if you put a red rose on a donkey it would be elected
The other interesting thing about the Welsh proposal is that it perma-locks PC into government.
And, presuming that PC would rather suicide than coalesce with the Tories, it does the same to Labour.
This is a gerrymander.
We are used to it
It strikes me as worryingly anti-democratic.
Of course, the voters in Wales do seem to prefer Labour led governments, but this effectively makes only one form of government possible.
Until they don't, look at what happened in Scotland. Locking out the opposition from ever being in power by forcing through changes in the system is simply wrong, I think the Westminster government should intervene and disallow voting/electoral system changes without approval.
If it's devolved, it's devolved.
Until it's not, of course.
Bit late now. If you give the Senedd the powers in the first place ...
But that power comes from an act of parliament. It isn't inherent to the institution itself.
The other interesting thing about the Welsh proposal is that it perma-locks PC into government.
And, presuming that PC would rather suicide than coalesce with the Tories, it does the same to Labour.
This is a gerrymander.
It's changing the electoral system without consulting the people to favour the ruling parties, it's the kind of thing we'd condemn were it to happen in Africa or South America.
It somewhat staggers me that we ever have the audacity to criticise other people's systems. We should be rightly proud of our freedom of speech and respect for the rule of law (except if your name is Boris), but our system of democracy is quasi-democracy at best. FPTP and the arbitrary nature of constituencies is ludicrous, and the HoL anachronistic. Then there is asymmetric devolution and some mayors in some places and not in others. It is a dogs dinner of a system. It needs wholesale reform, but both major parties make excuses and very little happens.
FPTP has been endorsed by voters, so whatever one thinks of it the voting system has popular support. Whatever they are doing in Wales hasn't been put to the people, they are quietly ramming it through and hoping that no one notices it locks the two parties proposing it in power in perpetuity.
Labour tried to do this in Scotland and look at how badly it's fucked up, it emboldened nationalists to become a "safe haven" for dissenters until suddenly nationalism in Scotland became a serious threat. This will produce the same idiotic result in Wales.
As for everything else in the UK, ultimately when we had big decisions to make the government put those decisions to the people. Changing the voting system and leaving the EU were both put to the people, not done on a whim. Few governments has that record of trusting the people and then following through with the decision, you might not agree with Brexit, but the fact that the people voted for it and we actually left the EU is a very powerful statement of democracy in the UK. There's not a lot of countries that would accept such a controversial vote and would try and undo it or have second, third, fourth votes until they got the "right" answer.
The other interesting thing about the Welsh proposal is that it perma-locks PC into government.
And, presuming that PC would rather suicide than coalesce with the Tories, it does the same to Labour.
This is a gerrymander.
We are used to it
It strikes me as worryingly anti-democratic.
Of course, the voters in Wales do seem to prefer Labour led governments, but this effectively makes only one form of government possible.
The conservatives did well at the last election but the locals were very poor and even I voted for the independent candidates (2)
I really do not know when we as a nation will wake up to the dreadful legacy of labour in Wales with failing health and education and frankly unacceptably high levels of poverty
Mind you the leader of the Welsh conservatives is a disaster and it is the case if you put a red rose on a donkey it would be elected
Obviously I have no time for the Cons, and the Welsh Cons least of all.
But I don’t agree with gerrymandering.
The very essence of democracy allows for a reasonable contest between viable contenders.
The proposals ensure a permanent government — and when you add closed lists, this is a recipe for obscene corruption.
The other interesting thing about the Welsh proposal is that it perma-locks PC into government.
And, presuming that PC would rather suicide than coalesce with the Tories, it does the same to Labour.
This is a gerrymander.
We are used to it
It strikes me as worryingly anti-democratic.
Of course, the voters in Wales do seem to prefer Labour led governments, but this effectively makes only one form of government possible.
Until they don't, look at what happened in Scotland. Locking out the opposition from ever being in power by forcing through changes in the system is simply wrong, I think the Westminster government should intervene and disallow voting/electoral system changes without approval.
If it's devolved, it's devolved.
Until it's not, of course.
Bit late now. If you give the Senedd the powers in the first place ...
But that power comes from an act of parliament. It isn't inherent to the institution itself.
Of course. That's rthe nature of devolution. But if you provide the powers, or are you arguing that they shouldn't somehow be allowed to use them?
(I haven't looked into the proposals in detail. But the threshold seems rather high if it has been accurately reported on PB today.)
The other interesting thing about the Welsh proposal is that it perma-locks PC into government.
And, presuming that PC would rather suicide than coalesce with the Tories, it does the same to Labour.
This is a gerrymander.
It's changing the electoral system without consulting the people to favour the ruling parties, it's the kind of thing we'd condemn were it to happen in Africa or South America.
It somewhat staggers me that we ever have the audacity to criticise other people's systems. We should be rightly proud of our freedom of speech and respect for the rule of law (except if your name is Boris), but our system of democracy is quasi-democracy at best. FPTP and the arbitrary nature of constituencies is ludicrous, and the HoL anachronistic. Then there is asymmetric devolution and some mayors in some places and not in others. It is a dogs dinner of a system. It needs wholesale reform, but both major parties make excuses and very little happens.
FPTP has been endorsed by voters, so whatever one thinks of it the voting system has popular support. Whatever they are doing in Wales hasn't been put to the people, they are quietly ramming it through and hoping that no one notices it locks the two parties proposing it in power in perpetuity.
Labour tried to do this in Scotland and look at how badly it's fucked up, it emboldened nationalists to become a "safe haven" for dissenters until suddenly nationalism in Scotland became a serious threat. This will produce the same idiotic result in Wales.
As for everything else in the UK, ultimately when we had big decisions to make the government put those decisions to the people. Changing the voting system and leaving the EU were both put to the people, not done on a whim. Few governments has that record of trusting the people and then following through with the decision, you might not agree with Brexit, but the fact that the people voted for it and we actually left the EU is a very powerful statement of democracy in the UK. There's not a lot of countries that would accept such a controversial vote and would try and undo it or have second, third, fourth votes until they got the "right" answer.
So Scots shouldn't be enabled to vote for what they want just because you can fiddle another answer at Westminster?
The other interesting thing about the Welsh proposal is that it perma-locks PC into government.
And, presuming that PC would rather suicide than coalesce with the Tories, it does the same to Labour.
This is a gerrymander.
We are used to it
It strikes me as worryingly anti-democratic.
Of course, the voters in Wales do seem to prefer Labour led governments, but this effectively makes only one form of government possible.
Until they don't, look at what happened in Scotland. Locking out the opposition from ever being in power by forcing through changes in the system is simply wrong, I think the Westminster government should intervene and disallow voting/electoral system changes without approval.
If it's devolved, it's devolved.
Not really, Parliament is sovereign and could simply pass laws to undo all devolution. It wouldn't be popular in the devolved countries but ultimately anything brought in by an Act of Parliament can be undone by one.
On the VoteUK forum the constituency results from the local elections are being posted, and the Tories would have gained Croydon Central and Enfield Southgate. Thy would have lost all 3 seats in Barnet though.
The other interesting thing about the Welsh proposal is that it perma-locks PC into government.
And, presuming that PC would rather suicide than coalesce with the Tories, it does the same to Labour.
This is a gerrymander.
We are used to it
It strikes me as worryingly anti-democratic.
Of course, the voters in Wales do seem to prefer Labour led governments, but this effectively makes only one form of government possible.
Until they don't, look at what happened in Scotland. Locking out the opposition from ever being in power by forcing through changes in the system is simply wrong, I think the Westminster government should intervene and disallow voting/electoral system changes without approval.
If it's devolved, it's devolved.
Not really, Parliament is sovereign and could simply pass laws to undo all devolution. It wouldn't be popular in the devolved countries but ultimately anything brought in by an Act of Parliament can be undone by one.
That's the point - the Tories at Westminster could instantly undo anything the Senedd passes. Simply by being mostly not in WAles. Would they?
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.
So that we can have a legislature and an executive at war with each other?
The other interesting thing about the Welsh proposal is that it perma-locks PC into government.
And, presuming that PC would rather suicide than coalesce with the Tories, it does the same to Labour.
This is a gerrymander.
It's changing the electoral system without consulting the people to favour the ruling parties, it's the kind of thing we'd condemn were it to happen in Africa or South America.
It somewhat staggers me that we ever have the audacity to criticise other people's systems. We should be rightly proud of our freedom of speech and respect for the rule of law (except if your name is Boris), but our system of democracy is quasi-democracy at best. FPTP and the arbitrary nature of constituencies is ludicrous, and the HoL anachronistic. Then there is asymmetric devolution and some mayors in some places and not in others. It is a dogs dinner of a system. It needs wholesale reform, but both major parties make excuses and very little happens.
FPTP has been endorsed by voters, so whatever one thinks of it the voting system has popular support. Whatever they are doing in Wales hasn't been put to the people, they are quietly ramming it through and hoping that no one notices it locks the two parties proposing it in power in perpetuity.
Labour tried to do this in Scotland and look at how badly it's fucked up, it emboldened nationalists to become a "safe haven" for dissenters until suddenly nationalism in Scotland became a serious threat. This will produce the same idiotic result in Wales.
As for everything else in the UK, ultimately when we had big decisions to make the government put those decisions to the people. Changing the voting system and leaving the EU were both put to the people, not done on a whim. Few governments has that record of trusting the people and then following through with the decision, you might not agree with Brexit, but the fact that the people voted for it and we actually left the EU is a very powerful statement of democracy in the UK. There's not a lot of countries that would accept such a controversial vote and would try and undo it or have second, third, fourth votes until they got the "right" answer.
So Scots shouldn't be enabled to vote for what they want just because you can fiddle another answer at Westminster?
Where did you get that from what I wrote, nationalists are all so paranoid.
The other interesting thing about the Welsh proposal is that it perma-locks PC into government.
And, presuming that PC would rather suicide than coalesce with the Tories, it does the same to Labour.
This is a gerrymander.
It's changing the electoral system without consulting the people to favour the ruling parties, it's the kind of thing we'd condemn were it to happen in Africa or South America.
It somewhat staggers me that we ever have the audacity to criticise other people's systems. We should be rightly proud of our freedom of speech and respect for the rule of law (except if your name is Boris), but our system of democracy is quasi-democracy at best. FPTP and the arbitrary nature of constituencies is ludicrous, and the HoL anachronistic. Then there is asymmetric devolution and some mayors in some places and not in others. It is a dogs dinner of a system. It needs wholesale reform, but both major parties make excuses and very little happens.
FPTP has been endorsed by voters, so whatever one thinks of it the voting system has popular support. Whatever they are doing in Wales hasn't been put to the people, they are quietly ramming it through and hoping that no one notices it locks the two parties proposing it in power in perpetuity.
Labour tried to do this in Scotland and look at how badly it's fucked up, it emboldened nationalists to become a "safe haven" for dissenters until suddenly nationalism in Scotland became a serious threat. This will produce the same idiotic result in Wales.
As for everything else in the UK, ultimately when we had big decisions to make the government put those decisions to the people. Changing the voting system and leaving the EU were both put to the people, not done on a whim. Few governments has that record of trusting the people and then following through with the decision, you might not agree with Brexit, but the fact that the people voted for it and we actually left the EU is a very powerful statement of democracy in the UK. There's not a lot of countries that would accept such a controversial vote and would try and undo it or have second, third, fourth votes until they got the "right" answer.
So Scots shouldn't be enabled to vote for what they want just because you can fiddle another answer at Westminster?
Where did you get that from what I wrote, nationalists are all so paranoid.
'Labour tried to do this in Scotland and look at how badly it's fucked up, it emboldened nationalists to become a "safe haven" for dissenters until suddenly nationalism in Scotland became a serious threat. This will produce the same idiotic result in Wales'
Really? We have left the EU. We no longer pay money directly to the EU and have no say in what they do. We have made a horlicks off it and no mistake, but why do you people persist with Brexit isn't done? It is. We now have post Brexit issues.
Take WW2 - you lot would dispute VE day as the countries finances were fecked and the consequences ran on for decades (arguably still running on). but WW2 was over on May 8th.
Ha ha ha. 😂. What a crazy post. Absolute fantasy land. What’s my lot then? Point 1. Lord Frost and his supporters are adamant, we have the power to break now with the EU social model we never had before, we don’t achieve Brexit, it’s not done till we use those powers and break from the European Social Model. So not done from that point of view.
Point 2. Brexit is never done till “better” is delivered. UK better than before removal itself from worlds biggest trading bloc is a tangible that can certainly be measured. No Brexit till “better” as in doing better, feeling better about things, is delivered, is it fair to say. And at this point of point 2 the point 1 brigade may concur.
Welsh Labour has been in power since 1999. Is the "problem" here simply that they are popular regardless of which system you choose?
True, but they’ve usually had to share power with PC or the LDs.
This proposal permanently locks in a Lab/PC executive at the expense of Lab/LD, Lab/Green, or Con/LD possibilities.
Because those parties are unpopular, which is a common problem in democracies. I agree that district magnitude seems too small, but if a political party can't win 16% anywhere in a country, its exclusion is not exactly a crime against democracy.
The other interesting thing about the Welsh proposal is that it perma-locks PC into government.
And, presuming that PC would rather suicide than coalesce with the Tories, it does the same to Labour.
This is a gerrymander.
It's changing the electoral system without consulting the people to favour the ruling parties, it's the kind of thing we'd condemn were it to happen in Africa or South America.
It somewhat staggers me that we ever have the audacity to criticise other people's systems. We should be rightly proud of our freedom of speech and respect for the rule of law (except if your name is Boris), but our system of democracy is quasi-democracy at best. FPTP and the arbitrary nature of constituencies is ludicrous, and the HoL anachronistic. Then there is asymmetric devolution and some mayors in some places and not in others. It is a dogs dinner of a system. It needs wholesale reform, but both major parties make excuses and very little happens.
FPTP has been endorsed by voters, so whatever one thinks of it the voting system has popular support. Whatever they are doing in Wales hasn't been put to the people, they are quietly ramming it through and hoping that no one notices it locks the two parties proposing it in power in perpetuity.
Labour tried to do this in Scotland and look at how badly it's fucked up, it emboldened nationalists to become a "safe haven" for dissenters until suddenly nationalism in Scotland became a serious threat. This will produce the same idiotic result in Wales.
As for everything else in the UK, ultimately when we had big decisions to make the government put those decisions to the people. Changing the voting system and leaving the EU were both put to the people, not done on a whim. Few governments has that record of trusting the people and then following through with the decision, you might not agree with Brexit, but the fact that the people voted for it and we actually left the EU is a very powerful statement of democracy in the UK. There's not a lot of countries that would accept such a controversial vote and would try and undo it or have second, third, fourth votes until they got the "right" answer.
So Scots shouldn't be enabled to vote for what they want just because you can fiddle another answer at Westminster?
Where did you get that from what I wrote, nationalists are all so paranoid.
'Labour tried to do this in Scotland and look at how badly it's fucked up, it emboldened nationalists to become a "safe haven" for dissenters until suddenly nationalism in Scotland became a serious threat. This will produce the same idiotic result in Wales'
Very paranoid right wing statement, no?
Maybe.
Max is right though that among the various baleful effects, nationalism in Wales is guaranteed a permanent seat in power.
Welsh Labour has been in power since 1999. Is the "problem" here simply that they are popular regardless of which system you choose?
True, but they’ve usually had to share power with PC or the LDs.
This proposal permanently locks in a Lab/PC executive at the expense of Lab/LD, Lab/Green, or Con/LD possibilities.
Because those parties are unpopular, which is a common problem in democracies. I agree that district magnitude seems too small, but if a political party can't win 16% anywhere in a country, its exclusion is not exactly a crime against democracy.
That’s silly. Most PR countries set a threshold (if at all) at 4 or 5%
This YouGov poll is similar to the Rallings and Thrasher local elections projected national share which was Lab 35%, Con 33%.
The thing is, who's going to coalition with the Tories.
Depends on the numbers.
But I can't see anyone ; I mean, the Tories need to be several percentage points ahead of now, to be in clear maj territory, I would say. I can't see the DUP being as much of a solid bet this time, either.
One thing that may help is the new Trumpite-inspired voter registration policies, but that may not be enough.
The other interesting thing about the Welsh proposal is that it perma-locks PC into government.
And, presuming that PC would rather suicide than coalesce with the Tories, it does the same to Labour.
This is a gerrymander.
It's changing the electoral system without consulting the people to favour the ruling parties, it's the kind of thing we'd condemn were it to happen in Africa or South America.
It somewhat staggers me that we ever have the audacity to criticise other people's systems. We should be rightly proud of our freedom of speech and respect for the rule of law (except if your name is Boris), but our system of democracy is quasi-democracy at best. FPTP and the arbitrary nature of constituencies is ludicrous, and the HoL anachronistic. Then there is asymmetric devolution and some mayors in some places and not in others. It is a dogs dinner of a system. It needs wholesale reform, but both major parties make excuses and very little happens.
FPTP has been endorsed by voters, so whatever one thinks of it the voting system has popular support. Whatever they are doing in Wales hasn't been put to the people, they are quietly ramming it through and hoping that no one notices it locks the two parties proposing it in power in perpetuity.
Labour tried to do this in Scotland and look at how badly it's fucked up, it emboldened nationalists to become a "safe haven" for dissenters until suddenly nationalism in Scotland became a serious threat. This will produce the same idiotic result in Wales.
As for everything else in the UK, ultimately when we had big decisions to make the government put those decisions to the people. Changing the voting system and leaving the EU were both put to the people, not done on a whim. Few governments has that record of trusting the people and then following through with the decision, you might not agree with Brexit, but the fact that the people voted for it and we actually left the EU is a very powerful statement of democracy in the UK. There's not a lot of countries that would accept such a controversial vote and would try and undo it or have second, third, fourth votes until they got the "right" answer.
So Scots shouldn't be enabled to vote for what they want just because you can fiddle another answer at Westminster?
Where did you get that from what I wrote, nationalists are all so paranoid.
'Labour tried to do this in Scotland and look at how badly it's fucked up, it emboldened nationalists to become a "safe haven" for dissenters until suddenly nationalism in Scotland became a serious threat. This will produce the same idiotic result in Wales'
Very paranoid right wing statement, no?
Maybe.
Max is right though that among the various baleful effects, nationalism in Wales is guaranteed a permanent seat in power.
Worse still, how many cycles will it be until PC become the dominant party? Instead of Lab/PC it becomes PC/Lab and eventually PC. Just as we saw in Scotland. Worse, this time Labour are inviting the devil into the house and pretending he won't turn it into hell.
@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.
Macron included. He's so desperate to play the statesman role that he can't see he's become an apologist for evil.
Macron has been strange, and reporting of Macron has been stranger.
Macron: “Even if tomorrow we granted them the status of candidate for membership of our European Union … we all know perfectly well that the process allowing them to join would take several years — in truth, probably several decades."
They'll be in NATO first once the border with Russia is resolved, as they have been reorganising their Armed Forces to fit with NATO systems for years.
Back to Macron - I need to relistening to his initial press conference to see how many objectives have been achieved.
This YouGov poll is similar to the Rallings and Thrasher local elections projected national share which was Lab 35%, Con 33%.
Almost all Governments would kill for those mid-term numbers.
Has any Government with as good/better splits failed to be re-elected?
Labour led many opinion polls in 1976-78 (it was behind in quite a few too, but it regularly led). Labour also had a reasonable spell with healthy poll leads in 2008.
So yes. The only one that lost that didn't have its moments in recent history was the Major Government, which was and remained miles behind.
The other interesting thing about the Welsh proposal is that it perma-locks PC into government.
And, presuming that PC would rather suicide than coalesce with the Tories, it does the same to Labour.
This is a gerrymander.
It's changing the electoral system without consulting the people to favour the ruling parties, it's the kind of thing we'd condemn were it to happen in Africa or South America.
It somewhat staggers me that we ever have the audacity to criticise other people's systems. We should be rightly proud of our freedom of speech and respect for the rule of law (except if your name is Boris), but our system of democracy is quasi-democracy at best. FPTP and the arbitrary nature of constituencies is ludicrous, and the HoL anachronistic. Then there is asymmetric devolution and some mayors in some places and not in others. It is a dogs dinner of a system. It needs wholesale reform, but both major parties make excuses and very little happens.
FPTP has been endorsed by voters, so whatever one thinks of it the voting system has popular support. Whatever they are doing in Wales hasn't been put to the people, they are quietly ramming it through and hoping that no one notices it locks the two parties proposing it in power in perpetuity.
Labour tried to do this in Scotland and look at how badly it's fucked up, it emboldened nationalists to become a "safe haven" for dissenters until suddenly nationalism in Scotland became a serious threat. This will produce the same idiotic result in Wales.
As for everything else in the UK, ultimately when we had big decisions to make the government put those decisions to the people. Changing the voting system and leaving the EU were both put to the people, not done on a whim. Few governments has that record of trusting the people and then following through with the decision, you might not agree with Brexit, but the fact that the people voted for it and we actually left the EU is a very powerful statement of democracy in the UK. There's not a lot of countries that would accept such a controversial vote and would try and undo it or have second, third, fourth votes until they got the "right" answer.
So Scots shouldn't be enabled to vote for what they want just because you can fiddle another answer at Westminster?
Where did you get that from what I wrote, nationalists are all so paranoid.
'Labour tried to do this in Scotland and look at how badly it's fucked up, it emboldened nationalists to become a "safe haven" for dissenters until suddenly nationalism in Scotland became a serious threat. This will produce the same idiotic result in Wales'
Very paranoid right wing statement, no?
Nothing paranoid about it, it's the truth of what happened.
This YouGov poll is similar to the Rallings and Thrasher local elections projected national share which was Lab 35%, Con 33%.
Almost all Governments would kill for those mid-term numbers.
Has any Government with as good/better splits failed to be re-elected?
You make a great point which is being ignored on this site, Labour should have won the LE by 10-15 points not by 2.
I've not ignored it!! I have posted several times that the Lab numbers were terrible considering it is mid term after more than a decade of power with an unpopular leader and economic crisis. It was an appalling result frankly and I don't care how many times people say yeh but look we have to compare it to the number of councillors back when last contested. Balls. The projected overall vote share is dire for Labour at this point.
The other interesting thing about the Welsh proposal is that it perma-locks PC into government.
And, presuming that PC would rather suicide than coalesce with the Tories, it does the same to Labour.
This is a gerrymander.
It's changing the electoral system without consulting the people to favour the ruling parties, it's the kind of thing we'd condemn were it to happen in Africa or South America.
It somewhat staggers me that we ever have the audacity to criticise other people's systems. We should be rightly proud of our freedom of speech and respect for the rule of law (except if your name is Boris), but our system of democracy is quasi-democracy at best. FPTP and the arbitrary nature of constituencies is ludicrous, and the HoL anachronistic. Then there is asymmetric devolution and some mayors in some places and not in others. It is a dogs dinner of a system. It needs wholesale reform, but both major parties make excuses and very little happens.
FPTP has been endorsed by voters, so whatever one thinks of it the voting system has popular support. Whatever they are doing in Wales hasn't been put to the people, they are quietly ramming it through and hoping that no one notices it locks the two parties proposing it in power in perpetuity.
Labour tried to do this in Scotland and look at how badly it's fucked up, it emboldened nationalists to become a "safe haven" for dissenters until suddenly nationalism in Scotland became a serious threat. This will produce the same idiotic result in Wales.
As for everything else in the UK, ultimately when we had big decisions to make the government put those decisions to the people. Changing the voting system and leaving the EU were both put to the people, not done on a whim. Few governments has that record of trusting the people and then following through with the decision, you might not agree with Brexit, but the fact that the people voted for it and we actually left the EU is a very powerful statement of democracy in the UK. There's not a lot of countries that would accept such a controversial vote and would try and undo it or have second, third, fourth votes until they got the "right" answer.
So Scots shouldn't be enabled to vote for what they want just because you can fiddle another answer at Westminster?
Where did you get that from what I wrote, nationalists are all so paranoid.
'Labour tried to do this in Scotland and look at how badly it's fucked up, it emboldened nationalists to become a "safe haven" for dissenters until suddenly nationalism in Scotland became a serious threat. This will produce the same idiotic result in Wales'
Very paranoid right wing statement, no?
Maybe.
Max is right though that among the various baleful effects, nationalism in Wales is guaranteed a permanent seat in power.
Worse still, how many cycles will it be until PC become the dominant party? Instead of Lab/PC it becomes PC/Lab and eventually PC. Just as we saw in Scotland. Worse, this time Labour are inviting the devil into the house and pretending he won't turn it into hell.
Yes I was just thinking that.
The system will struggle to deliver any alternative to Lab/PC, but the “least unlikely” alternative will be exactly what you say.
Really? We have left the EU. We no longer pay money directly to the EU and have no say in what they do. We have made a horlicks off it and no mistake, but why do you people persist with Brexit isn't done? It is. We now have post Brexit issues.
Take WW2 - you lot would dispute VE day as the countries finances were fecked and the consequences ran on for decades (arguably still running on). but WW2 was over on May 8th.
Ha ha ha. 😂. What a crazy post. Absolute fantasy land. What’s my lot then? Point 1. Lord Frost and his supporters are adamant, we have the power to break now with the EU social model we never had before, we don’t achieve Brexit, it’s not done till we use those powers and break from the European Social Model. So not done from that point of view.
Point 2. Brexit is never done till “better” is delivered. UK better than before removal itself from worlds biggest trading bloc is a tangible that can certainly be measured. No Brexit till “better” as in doing better, feeling better about things, is delivered, is it fair to say. And at this point of point 2 the point 1 brigade may concur.
No, Brexit is done, we have left, we can now achieve better or worse or indifferent based upon our own control.
The rest is post-Brexit or simply put, "democracy". Its up to whoever we elect to do whatever we elect them to do.
Starmer is spewing Stagflation all across the despatch box today. He gets away with this becuase your golden rule there isn’t enough unemployment to call it stagflation doesn’t apply in the commons chamber?
This YouGov poll is similar to the Rallings and Thrasher local elections projected national share which was Lab 35%, Con 33%.
Almost all Governments would kill for those mid-term numbers.
Has any Government with as good/better splits failed to be re-elected?
Labour led many opinion polls in 1976-78 (it was behind in quite a few too, but it regularly led). Labour also had a reasonable spell with healthy poll leads in 2008.
So yes. The only one that lost that didn't have its moments in recent history was the Major Government, which was and remained miles behind.
I've generally not been over-optimistic about Labour's chances over the last few years, but I don't see this as typical mid-term blues for the Tories.
I just can't see where the great big new motivator to get out the Tory vote is going to come from. I don't think confecting new fights over the NI border is going to rekindle the 2016 and 2019 greatest hits magic for many core Tory voters, and after last week's figures on Tory voter turnout that seems to be what many Tory councillors are worried about, too.
Starmer is spewing Stagflation all across the despatch box today. He gets away with this becuase your golden rule there isn’t enough unemployment to call it stagflation doesn’t apply in the commons chamber?
Labour leader is economically illiterate and spouting bollocks?
That's not news. He gets away with it, because that's what Labour does. Those who dislike the Tories might say the same about their leader too.
Parliamentary privilege means he can say whatever he pleases.
Starmer is spewing Stagflation all across the despatch box today. He gets away with this becuase your golden rule there isn’t enough unemployment to call it stagflation doesn’t apply in the commons chamber?
Labour leader is economically illiterate and spouting bollocks?
Parliamentary privilege means he can say whatever he pleases.
I have now read the Welsh government proposal. A party would only be excluded from the Senedd if it failed to win around 13-15% of the vote, across ANY of the pairs of 2 Westminster constituencies. For example, half of Cardiff, or Bangor and Holyhead, or a few towns in the valleys. If the Lib Dems get 15% anywhere they would be tantamount to elected there. Yes, it puts the fix in somewhat for the 3 large parties right now, but any small party with a local base should have some chances.
This YouGov poll is similar to the Rallings and Thrasher local elections projected national share which was Lab 35%, Con 33%.
The thing is, who's going to coalition with the Tories.
Depends on the numbers.
But I can't see anyone ; I mean, the Tories need to be several percentage points ahead of now, to be in clear maj territory, I would say. I can't see the DUP being as much of a solid bet this time, either.
One thing that may help is the new Trumpite-inspired voter registration policies, but that may not be enough.
Ignoring the paranoia about bringing the electoral system in GB line with that of NI, the bottom line is it's highly unlikley there will be more than one possible stable coalition after the next general election. And a minor party that rejects a possible stable coalition in favour of a new election will surely suffer.
Really? We have left the EU. We no longer pay money directly to the EU and have no say in what they do. We have made a horlicks off it and no mistake, but why do you people persist with Brexit isn't done? It is. We now have post Brexit issues.
Take WW2 - you lot would dispute VE day as the countries finances were fecked and the consequences ran on for decades (arguably still running on). but WW2 was over on May 8th.
Ha ha ha. 😂. What a crazy post. Absolute fantasy land. What’s my lot then? Point 1. Lord Frost and his supporters are adamant, we have the power to break now with the EU social model we never had before, we don’t achieve Brexit, it’s not done till we use those powers and break from the European Social Model. So not done from that point of view.
Point 2. Brexit is never done till “better” is delivered. UK better than before removal itself from worlds biggest trading bloc is a tangible that can certainly be measured. No Brexit till “better” as in doing better, feeling better about things, is delivered, is it fair to say. And at this point of point 2 the point 1 brigade may concur.
Utter bullshit. Just because one hard brexit warrior defines Brexit as breaking the EU social model blah blah blah...
Brexit isn't done until better is delivered? WTAF?
Brexit (as regarded by 99.9% of normal people) is complete. We have left the EU. Do you deny that? We do not pay money directly to the EU. Do you deny that? We have no say over what the EU does - thats up to them. Do you deny that?
We are in the post Brexit era. Looks like its not going as well as some hoped. Its certainly not as bad as some of the remainer faction hoped either.
I have now read the Welsh government proposal. A party would only be excluded from the Senedd if it failed to win around 13-15% of the vote, across ANY of the pairs of 2 Westminster constituencies. For example, half of Cardiff, or Bangor and Holyhead, or a few towns in the valleys. If the Lib Dems get 15% anywhere they would be tantamount to elected there. Yes, it puts the fix in somewhat for the 3 large parties right now, but any small party with a local base should have some chances.
No (minor) party has achieved that except for the LDs in Mid Wales where they could pick up one or two SDs.
It is a very tall order, especially since the party system will further disincentivise independents.
Really? We have left the EU. We no longer pay money directly to the EU and have no say in what they do. We have made a horlicks off it and no mistake, but why do you people persist with Brexit isn't done? It is. We now have post Brexit issues.
Take WW2 - you lot would dispute VE day as the countries finances were fecked and the consequences ran on for decades (arguably still running on). but WW2 was over on May 8th.
Ha ha ha. 😂. What a crazy post. Absolute fantasy land. What’s my lot then? Point 1. Lord Frost and his supporters are adamant, we have the power to break now with the EU social model we never had before, we don’t achieve Brexit, it’s not done till we use those powers and break from the European Social Model. So not done from that point of view.
Point 2. Brexit is never done till “better” is delivered. UK better than before removal itself from worlds biggest trading bloc is a tangible that can certainly be measured. No Brexit till “better” as in doing better, feeling better about things, is delivered, is it fair to say. And at this point of point 2 the point 1 brigade may concur.
No, Brexit is done, we have left, we can now achieve better or worse or indifferent based upon our own control.
The rest is post-Brexit or simply put, "democracy". Its up to whoever we elect to do whatever we elect them to do.
I'm glad its not just me. I truly wonder what planet some people are on. I think if you asked the public whether Brexit was done you'd get a very different answer to asking PB.
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.
Yes, these massive prices (14p a pint) were with top London middle class patch mark up. When I went off to university it all seemed quite cheap.
Was it as much as 50p (ten bob) at the turnstile to stand in the North Bank at Highbury during the great double season of 70-71? My memory is failing. Though I remember the racist chanting.
This YouGov poll is similar to the Rallings and Thrasher local elections projected national share which was Lab 35%, Con 33%.
Almost all Governments would kill for those mid-term numbers.
Has any Government with as good/better splits failed to be re-elected?
You make a great point which is being ignored on this site, Labour should have won the LE by 10-15 points not by 2.
I've not ignored it!! I have posted several times that the Lab numbers were terrible considering it is mid term after more than a decade of power with an unpopular leader and economic crisis. It was an appalling result frankly and I don't care how many times people say yeh but look we have to compare it to the number of councillors back when last contested. Balls. The projected overall vote share is dire for Labour at this point.
Wait until Aspire goes national, which it will off the back of what it did with Tower Hamlets.
FPTP has been endorsed by voters, so whatever one thinks of it the voting system has popular support. Whatever they are doing in Wales hasn't been put to the people, they are quietly ramming it through and hoping that no one notices it locks the two parties proposing it in power in perpetuity..
Sorry, but FPTP has most certainly NOT been endorsed by voters. Ever.
The other interesting thing about the Welsh proposal is that it perma-locks PC into government.
And, presuming that PC would rather suicide than coalesce with the Tories, it does the same to Labour.
This is a gerrymander.
It's changing the electoral system without consulting the people to favour the ruling parties, it's the kind of thing we'd condemn were it to happen in Africa or South America.
It somewhat staggers me that we ever have the audacity to criticise other people's systems. We should be rightly proud of our freedom of speech and respect for the rule of law (except if your name is Boris), but our system of democracy is quasi-democracy at best. FPTP and the arbitrary nature of constituencies is ludicrous, and the HoL anachronistic. Then there is asymmetric devolution and some mayors in some places and not in others. It is a dogs dinner of a system. It needs wholesale reform, but both major parties make excuses and very little happens.
FPTP has been endorsed by voters, so whatever one thinks of it the voting system has popular support. Whatever they are doing in Wales hasn't been put to the people, they are quietly ramming it through and hoping that no one notices it locks the two parties proposing it in power in perpetuity.
Labour tried to do this in Scotland and look at how badly it's fucked up, it emboldened nationalists to become a "safe haven" for dissenters until suddenly nationalism in Scotland became a serious threat. This will produce the same idiotic result in Wales.
As for everything else in the UK, ultimately when we had big decisions to make the government put those decisions to the people. Changing the voting system and leaving the EU were both put to the people, not done on a whim. Few governments has that record of trusting the people and then following through with the decision, you might not agree with Brexit, but the fact that the people voted for it and we actually left the EU is a very powerful statement of democracy in the UK. There's not a lot of countries that would accept such a controversial vote and would try and undo it or have second, third, fourth votes until they got the "right" answer.
Perhaps you think that because it was "the right answer" for you. No doubt if it had been the "wrong answer" you might have been clamouring for another vote like the SNP. Democracy is a fickle and complex thing. People tend to claim the primacy of the democratic vote rather like those who claim God is on their side in time of war. My own view is that the 2016 vote had to be enacted. Was it "democratic"? Almost certainly very flakey. "The people" did not get to vote on anything real, only blandishments and guesses. Cameron et al should have had a two phase vote that enabled people to endorse the final deal. That would have been genuinely democratic, but of course Brexiteers didn't want that, they wanted the hardest Brexit possible. No-one, including people on this site knew what the final deal would look like. Most would have probably settled for an EEA type compromise. It was never on offer. Not very democratic.
On the VoteUK forum the constituency results from the local elections are being posted, and the Tories would have gained Croydon Central and Enfield Southgate. Thy would have lost all 3 seats in Barnet though.
The biggest swings were in Croydon North - upwards of 12%. But nowhere near enough to make it even competitive! There was a distinct lack of increase in Tory votes, it was a big increase in patches for LDs and Green but given most of Croydon is a straight blue on red fight, they gained from the Labour vote not turning out at all or going green and orange (unsurprisingly given the mess there). 2021 Tories would have taken the council with room to spare.
This YouGov poll is similar to the Rallings and Thrasher local elections projected national share which was Lab 35%, Con 33%.
Almost all Governments would kill for those mid-term numbers.
Has any Government with as good/better splits failed to be re-elected?
You make a great point which is being ignored on this site, Labour should have won the LE by 10-15 points not by 2.
I've not ignored it!! I have posted several times that the Lab numbers were terrible considering it is mid term after more than a decade of power with an unpopular leader and economic crisis. It was an appalling result frankly and I don't care how many times people say yeh but look we have to compare it to the number of councillors back when last contested. Balls. The projected overall vote share is dire for Labour at this point.
Wait until Aspire goes national, which it will off the back of what it did with Tower Hamlets.
Seems very unlikely. Maybe there’s another one or two seats up north with characteristics similar to TH?
Comments
Crumple, drag, ssssfff, crumple, on and on it goes, wave after wave after wave, and the locals just ignore it, like it’s normal. And it goes on right through the night
I am considering moving here, as it is outside the EU and it is full of furtive British gays and young mammacious Armenian women but if I do move, I’m going to take a role in local government and do something about this noise pollution from the so-called sea. It’s time someone took a stand and the locals seem helpless and resigned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sea,_the_Sea
Or was that a previous incarnation ?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7278074/
So how do they get a green 3 and yougov 8?
Again...
And, presuming that PC would rather suicide than coalesce with the Tories, it does the same to Labour.
This is a gerrymander.
We have made a horlicks off it and no mistake, but why do you people persist with Brexit isn't done? It is. We now have post Brexit issues.
Take WW2 - you lot would dispute VE day as the countries finances were fecked and the consequences ran on for decades (arguably still running on). but WW2 was over on May 8th.
Of course, the voters in Wales do seem to prefer Labour led governments, but this effectively makes only one form of government possible.
https://www.eetimes.com/india-prepares-to-build-nations-first-chip-fab/
Starmer is spewing Stagflation all across the despatch box today. He gets away with this becuase your golden rule there isn’t enough unemployment to call it stagflation doesn’t apply in the commons chamber?
The Welsh Tories don’t like any form of PR.
The Welsh LDs are a diminished force.
The UK government don’t care about Wales.
I wonder how the Welsh Greens feel.
They are admittedly unrepresented now (due to the existing botch-job), but would have hoped to gain representation in the future.
This proposal effectively makes that impossible.
Do the maths on this.
This is basically Lab / PC forever.
Boris could pick this up and say, look, at least one part of Labour are trying to change the electoral system and lock themselves into government permanently.
I am quite disturbed by this.
Nothing is forever.
This is a particular issue here in the US, where the two tents contain a lot of crazy people.
OR, the LDs or Greens improve in Wales to c. 20% of the vote.
How likely would you rate each possibility?
'Stagnation' - is only usually accompanied by high unemployment, but it doesn't have to be.
Stagflation is about recession plus inflation.
In any event, did you not notice that the number in employment has dropped significantly ?
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy-report/2022/may-2022#chapter-10
...There are over 600,000 more people inactive in the labour market – those without a job and not actively searching for one – compared to before the pandemic (Chart 2.11). Bank staff estimate that around a third of the rise in activity is related to the ageing of the UK population and accompanying retirement of workers, which implies at least some of the rise may persist. Consistent with that, it appears that the flow from employment to inactivity has remained at elevated levels. This flow has been relatively insensitive to the economic cycle in the past, also suggesting that the current rise in inactivity could prove more persistent. That would contribute to labour market tightness in the near term, as there are fewer people available to work...
This proposal permanently locks in a Lab/PC executive at the expense of Lab/LD, Lab/Green, or Con/LD possibilities.
I really do not know when we as a nation will wake up to the dreadful legacy of labour in Wales with failing health and education and frankly unacceptably high levels of poverty
Mind you the leader of the Welsh conservatives is a disaster and it is the case if you put a red rose on a donkey it would be elected
Scotland -63
London -38
North -26
Midlands & Wales -20
Rest of South -18
GB -26
(YouGov/The Times; Sample Size: 1707; Fieldwork: 5-6 May 2022)
Labour tried to do this in Scotland and look at how badly it's fucked up, it emboldened nationalists to become a "safe haven" for dissenters until suddenly nationalism in Scotland became a serious threat. This will produce the same idiotic result in Wales.
As for everything else in the UK, ultimately when we had big decisions to make the government put those decisions to the people. Changing the voting system and leaving the EU were both put to the people, not done on a whim. Few governments has that record of trusting the people and then following through with the decision, you might not agree with Brexit, but the fact that the people voted for it and we actually left the EU is a very powerful statement of democracy in the UK. There's not a lot of countries that would accept such a controversial vote and would try and undo it or have second, third, fourth votes until they got the "right" answer.
But I don’t agree with gerrymandering.
The very essence of democracy allows for a reasonable contest between viable contenders.
The proposals ensure a permanent government — and when you add closed lists, this is a recipe for obscene corruption.
(I haven't looked into the proposals in detail. But the threshold seems rather high if it has been accurately reported on PB today.)
Has any Government with as good/better splits failed to be re-elected?
The proposals rely on people not really understanding electoral systems. All of the attention will be on the increase in number of SDs.
Very paranoid right wing statement, no?
Point 2. Brexit is never done till “better” is delivered. UK better than before removal itself from worlds biggest trading bloc is a tangible that can certainly be measured. No Brexit till “better” as in doing better, feeling better about things, is delivered, is it fair to say. And at this point of point 2 the point 1 brigade may concur.
Max is right though that among the various baleful effects, nationalism in Wales is guaranteed a permanent seat in power.
Most PR countries set a threshold (if at all) at 4 or 5%
One thing that may help is the new Trumpite-inspired voter registration policies, but that may not be enough.
Macron:
“Even if tomorrow we granted them the status of candidate for membership of our European Union … we all know perfectly well that the process allowing them to join would take several years — in truth, probably several decades."
Beeb: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61383632
Ukraine bid to join EU will take decades says Macron
Nuance? Dream on, Sweet Chariot.
They'll be in NATO first once the border with Russia is resolved, as they have been reorganising their Armed Forces to fit with NATO systems for years.
Back to Macron - I need to relistening to his initial press conference to see how many objectives have been achieved.
So yes. The only one that lost that didn't have its moments in recent history was the Major Government, which was and remained miles behind.
The system will struggle to deliver any alternative to Lab/PC, but the “least unlikely” alternative will be exactly what you say.
You are no good at the little subtleties of things are you?
The rest is post-Brexit or simply put, "democracy". Its up to whoever we elect to do whatever we elect them to do.
I just can't see where the great big new motivator to get out the Tory vote is going to come from. I don't think confecting new fights over the NI border is going to rekindle the 2016 and 2019 greatest hits magic for many core Tory voters, and after last week's figures on Tory voter turnout that seems to be what many Tory councillors are worried about, too.
That's not news. He gets away with it, because that's what Labour does. Those who dislike the Tories might say the same about their leader too.
Parliamentary privilege means he can say whatever he pleases.
Brexit isn't done until better is delivered? WTAF?
Brexit (as regarded by 99.9% of normal people) is complete. We have left the EU. Do you deny that?
We do not pay money directly to the EU. Do you deny that?
We have no say over what the EU does - thats up to them. Do you deny that?
We are in the post Brexit era. Looks like its not going as well as some hoped. Its certainly not as bad as some of the remainer faction hoped either.
It is a very tall order, especially since the party system will further disincentivise independents.
Was it as much as 50p (ten bob) at the turnstile to stand in the North Bank at Highbury during the great double season of 70-71? My memory is failing. Though I remember the racist chanting.
There was a distinct lack of increase in Tory votes, it was a big increase in patches for LDs and Green but given most of Croydon is a straight blue on red fight, they gained from the Labour vote not turning out at all or going green and orange (unsurprisingly given the mess there). 2021 Tories would have taken the council with room to spare.