Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Something to ponder – politicalbetting.com

1356789

Comments

  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,109

    ydoethur said:

    Voting systems, Australia.

    Obviously we need the Seventh Vote.

    Or is that all wet as an idea?

    Your way or no highway?
    I had no idea that concept was So Disdained.
    Well, it is in the far country.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    edited May 2022
    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    All this talk of armageddon for the Tories if we get electoral reform is of course complete rubbish.

    After all the last party the Liberal Democrats formed a national government with were the Conservatives not Labour. In 2015 we would likely have got an even more rightwing government of Tories and UKIP had we had STV PR.

    There is also no guarantee Labour would be able to get it through either whether with a majority or just short, as undoubtedly some Labour MPs who won their seats under FPTP would lose them under STV PR just as some Tory MPs who won them under FPTP would lose them.

    The biggest losers from PR and electoral reform would in fact be the SNP, so it might even be a boost to the Union too.

    The main winners the LDs, followed by the Greens and RefUK, none of whom the 3 main parties in the Commons will have great incentive to help at their expense

    I think around a third of LD voters would prefer the Tories over Labour most of the time. It might be different in a year like 1997 when the Tories were especially unpopular.
    Yes and in 1997 the Tories lost by a landslide under FPTP anyway, in fact on pure PR they would have got slightly more seats than they ended up with under FPTP and would not have been left with the zero seats in Scotland and Wales they were left with
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,845
    HYUFD said:

    By the way, if NZ is any guide, any move to PR will lead to various breakaway attempts by assorted gadflies and nutters, and a certain period of instability.

    Over time though we could expect there to be five main parties represented (and assorted nationalists), to wit: Con, Lab, LD, Green and Reform.

    Lab would alternate between Lab/Green and Lab/LD coalitions.

    Con would alternate between Con/Ref and Con/LD coalitions.

    One confounding factor is the SNP and their ability to hold Westminster to random for repeated Indy refs. This needs to be sorted one way or another before PR can really be “safe”.

    Agree with the first four paragraphs. On the last paragraph of course even in 2015 under PR the SNP would not have got near power.

    In fact at every general election this century the balance of power with PR would have been held by the LDs, with UKIP having the balance of power in 2015 as the only exception. Indeed in 2015 the SNP would have only got half the seats in Scotland with PR rather than the more than 90% of seats in Scotland they got with FPTP
    Sure, but the 4% (perhaps 5% once sun-threshold voted are discarded) could be pivotal more often than you’d like.
  • Options
    Dirty Leeds in the lead.

    Salah substituted on to replace Jota.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,495

    Pagan2 said:


    The labour party can bugger off. Voting systems do not belong to politicians and they should get no say in what we select as a people. You want to change the voting system you ask the people. Politicians are servants not masters and shouldn't be able to impose their terms of employment on us

    That's how I feel about changing the rules for how you can vote (by requiring ID). Do you agree?
    The photo ID requirements are ridiculous. I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that personation is such a massive issue nationally that it outweighs the consequences of people not being able to vote who should be able.

    I don't care if it advantages one party or disadvantages a different one. It is wrong.
    My preferred system is polling card to be shown and if not, and only then, photo ID of some sort.
    The flaw in the system is postal voting, not old ladies at polling booths who only have a Co-op card.

    Anyway, we need the old ladies to turn up. They swing elections.

  • Options
    ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    edited May 2022

    Applicant said:

    Pagan2 said:


    The labour party can bugger off. Voting systems do not belong to politicians and they should get no say in what we select as a people. You want to change the voting system you ask the people. Politicians are servants not masters and shouldn't be able to impose their terms of employment on us

    That's how I feel about changing the rules for how you can vote (by requiring ID). Do you agree?
    The photo ID requirements are ridiculous. I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that personation is such a massive issue nationally that it outweighs the consequences of people not being able to vote who should be able.

    I don't care if it advantages one party or disadvantages a different one. It is wrong.
    My preferred system is polling card to be shown and if not, and only then, photo ID of some sort.
    Why not print the photo on the polling card?
    That would require every voter to have a government held photo, i.e. a totally new system to fix something is only marginally broken. I do find it odd how many other countries require ID to vote, yet if we try it in the U.K. it’s voter suppression.
    Only if we try it in GB is it voter suppression. NI already has it, and I'm not aware of any significant movement to abolish it there.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,130
    algarkirk said:

    Pagan2 said:


    The labour party can bugger off. Voting systems do not belong to politicians and they should get no say in what we select as a people. You want to change the voting system you ask the people. Politicians are servants not masters and shouldn't be able to impose their terms of employment on us

    That's how I feel about changing the rules for how you can vote (by requiring ID). Do you agree?
    The photo ID requirements are ridiculous. I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that personation is such a massive issue nationally that it outweighs the consequences of people not being able to vote who should be able.

    I don't care if it advantages one party or disadvantages a different one. It is wrong.
    My preferred system is polling card to be shown and if not, and only then, photo ID of some sort.
    The flaw in the system is postal voting, not old ladies at polling booths who only have a Co-op card.

    Anyway, we need the old ladies to turn up. They swing elections.

    I would restrict postal voting to specific need. It is open to abuse. It also runs the risk of missing important information in the run up to the election.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,213

    Cat meet pigeons...
    Could it happen?

    Is that the Hammers finishing above Man Utd? 🤔
    Brighton equalise...
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,845
    ydoethur said:

    By the way, if NZ is any guide, any move to PR will lead to various breakaway attempts by assorted gadflies and nutters, and a certain period of instability.

    You mean, we might not have the calm and peace we've had for the last fifteen years and some crazy loon with no principles, no sense, no brain cells and far too much fondness for booze might be a party leader?

    Well, we can't have that, can we?
    You make 2007 the threshold?

    Wait until Nigel Farage holds the balance of power and then attempts a coalition of convenience with a Corbyn-led Labour flake-away.

    That’s the sort of thing that happens, until things “bed in”.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943

    HYUFD said:

    By the way, if NZ is any guide, any move to PR will lead to various breakaway attempts by assorted gadflies and nutters, and a certain period of instability.

    Over time though we could expect there to be five main parties represented (and assorted nationalists), to wit: Con, Lab, LD, Green and Reform.

    Lab would alternate between Lab/Green and Lab/LD coalitions.

    Con would alternate between Con/Ref and Con/LD coalitions.

    One confounding factor is the SNP and their ability to hold Westminster to random for repeated Indy refs. This needs to be sorted one way or another before PR can really be “safe”.

    Agree with the first four paragraphs. On the last paragraph of course even in 2015 under PR the SNP would not have got near power.

    In fact at every general election this century the balance of power with PR would have been held by the LDs, with UKIP having the balance of power in 2015 as the only exception. Indeed in 2015 the SNP would have only got half the seats in Scotland with PR rather than the more than 90% of seats in Scotland they got with FPTP
    Sure, but the 4% (perhaps 5% once sun-threshold voted are discarded) could be pivotal more often than you’d like.
    They would not have been pivotal in any recent election unless in 2017 and 2019 Labour had tried to form a rainbow coalition with the LDs, SNP and Greens under PR but then the LDs refused to support a Corbyn led Labour anyway
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,131

    Dirty Leeds in the lead.

    Salah substituted on to replace Jota.

    Looks like Burnley are going down. This revived Newcastle team, who are undoubtedly playing for their places next year, was always going to be a handful for them.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,104
    edited May 2022

    DavidL said:

    City must be getting distinctly twitchy now. Liverpool can dream. United just want this season to be over, quite simply the worst effort in my adult lifetime, and I include the season they got relegated.

    I have supported United since 1953 and I have never witnessed anything like this seasons collapse and they are fortunate they are not battling relegation

    The team playing today is simply inexplicable
    The thing that is truly shocking is the attitude of the players. United, like Liverpool of the 00's are still a top club even if not Champions, that might still win cup silverware some seasons, but the attitude is completely different.

    Even during the decades when Liverpool struggled in the League and United were on top, you could see that Liverpool players were still proud to pull on the shirt and who they were representing. That attitude seems to have vanished in the United players this season. They don't seem to be willing to push themselves, or even proud to be representing United.

    United had players like Giggs, Scholes and Keane etc who would never say die when on top, but Liverpool had their own never say die players like Gerrard and Carragher who may never have won the League but could inspire the rest of the club and knew what it meant to be pulling on that red shirt.

    What's gone wrong in United that they lack that attitude and leadership?
    Glazers.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,845
    I’m against postal voting.

    It breaks the ideal of voting as a universal civic ritual.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,213
    Sandpit said:

    kyf_100 said:

    algarkirk said:

    "The Electoral Reform Society calculates that STV would have meant the Tories winning a majority only twice in the postwar era."


    The above quote from the article - very interesting, thank you - typifies an error. It smuggles in an assumption that under a different voting system other things would be equal.

    This is wrong. Political parties are evolved creatures within particular habitats. Under FPTP we have evolved into two parties of possible government, without significant differences at the macro level, both centrist and neither with a reputation for running a country with foresight and competence, since neither faces serious competition from a competent rival, nor can one emerge.

    Under any other voting system a different political ecology will unavoidably emerge. We do not know what elections would have been like, or will be like, under different rules. The ERS calculation is not wrong. It is without meaning.

    Indeed. I suspect we would have spent most of the last decade being ruled by a coalition of Conservative and UKIP, with Farage at the heart of government.

    Progressives need to be careful what they wish for. The idea of a 1000 year progressive reich is for the birds, I'm afraid.

    Moderates on both left and right will need to govern with more extreme parties on their flank to stand a chance of governing at all. I'm not sure that is a good thing.
    Yes, under any sort of PR system, the 2015 election would have delivered a Con/UKIP coalition.

    Like many others, I would rather see policy debates happen before the election, than after.
    By contrast, at the 2019 election, the "progressive alliance" won easily in excess of 50% of the vote.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    Dirty Leeds in the lead.

    Salah substituted on to replace Jota.

    Looks like Burnley are going down. This revived Newcastle team, who are undoubtedly playing for their places next year, was always going to be a handful for them.
    The Newcastle team are one of the most remarkable 'season of two halves' I think I've ever witnessed.

    From fighting against the drop themselves, they ought to be competing for European places next season.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,130

    DavidL said:

    City must be getting distinctly twitchy now. Liverpool can dream. United just want this season to be over, quite simply the worst effort in my adult lifetime, and I include the season they got relegated.

    I have supported United since 1953 and I have never witnessed anything like this seasons collapse and they are fortunate they are not battling relegation

    The team playing today is simply inexplicable
    The thing that is truly shocking is the attitude of the players. United, like Liverpool of the 00's are still a top club even if not Champions, that might still win cup silverware some seasons, but the attitude is completely different.

    Even during the decades when Liverpool struggled in the League and United were on top, you could see that Liverpool players were still proud to pull on the shirt and who they were representing. That attitude seems to have vanished in the United players this season. They don't seem to be willing to push themselves, or even proud to be representing United.

    United had players like Giggs, Scholes and Keane etc who would never say die when on top, but Liverpool had their own never say die players like Gerrard and Carragher who may never have won the League but could inspire the rest of the club and knew what it meant to be pulling on that red shirt.

    What's gone wrong in United that they lack that attitude and leadership?
    Glazers.
    Yep. Apparently the stadium needs a huge refurbishment. The club has a stench of decline about it right now.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,845
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    By the way, if NZ is any guide, any move to PR will lead to various breakaway attempts by assorted gadflies and nutters, and a certain period of instability.

    Over time though we could expect there to be five main parties represented (and assorted nationalists), to wit: Con, Lab, LD, Green and Reform.

    Lab would alternate between Lab/Green and Lab/LD coalitions.

    Con would alternate between Con/Ref and Con/LD coalitions.

    One confounding factor is the SNP and their ability to hold Westminster to random for repeated Indy refs. This needs to be sorted one way or another before PR can really be “safe”.

    Agree with the first four paragraphs. On the last paragraph of course even in 2015 under PR the SNP would not have got near power.

    In fact at every general election this century the balance of power with PR would have been held by the LDs, with UKIP having the balance of power in 2015 as the only exception. Indeed in 2015 the SNP would have only got half the seats in Scotland with PR rather than the more than 90% of seats in Scotland they got with FPTP
    Sure, but the 4% (perhaps 5% once sun-threshold voted are discarded) could be pivotal more often than you’d like.
    They would not have been pivotal in any recent election unless in 2017 and 2019 Labour had tried to form a rainbow coalition with the LDs, SNP and Greens under PR but then the LDs refused to support a Corbyn led Labour anyway
    It is rather futile to take FTPT results and try to project them into a PR future.
  • Options

    DavidL said:

    City must be getting distinctly twitchy now. Liverpool can dream. United just want this season to be over, quite simply the worst effort in my adult lifetime, and I include the season they got relegated.

    I have supported United since 1953 and I have never witnessed anything like this seasons collapse and they are fortunate they are not battling relegation

    The team playing today is simply inexplicable
    The thing that is truly shocking is the attitude of the players. United, like Liverpool of the 00's are still a top club even if not Champions, that might still win cup silverware some seasons, but the attitude is completely different.

    Even during the decades when Liverpool struggled in the League and United were on top, you could see that Liverpool players were still proud to pull on the shirt and who they were representing. That attitude seems to have vanished in the United players this season. They don't seem to be willing to push themselves, or even proud to be representing United.

    United had players like Giggs, Scholes and Keane etc who would never say die when on top, but Liverpool had their own never say die players like Gerrard and Carragher who may never have won the League but could inspire the rest of the club and knew what it meant to be pulling on that red shirt.

    What's gone wrong in United that they lack that attitude and leadership?
    Glazers.
    They haven't helped, but even when Hicks and Gillette were in charge of LFC and the club was very troubled, the players still gave a damn.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,109

    ydoethur said:

    By the way, if NZ is any guide, any move to PR will lead to various breakaway attempts by assorted gadflies and nutters, and a certain period of instability.

    You mean, we might not have the calm and peace we've had for the last fifteen years and some crazy loon with no principles, no sense, no brain cells and far too much fondness for booze might be a party leader?

    Well, we can't have that, can we?
    You make 2007 the threshold?

    Wait until Nigel Farage holds the balance of power and then attempts a coalition of convenience with a Corbyn-led Labour flake-away.

    That’s the sort of thing that happens, until things “bed in”.
    Ok, fair point. That would be worse.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    edited May 2022

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    By the way, if NZ is any guide, any move to PR will lead to various breakaway attempts by assorted gadflies and nutters, and a certain period of instability.

    Over time though we could expect there to be five main parties represented (and assorted nationalists), to wit: Con, Lab, LD, Green and Reform.

    Lab would alternate between Lab/Green and Lab/LD coalitions.

    Con would alternate between Con/Ref and Con/LD coalitions.

    One confounding factor is the SNP and their ability to hold Westminster to random for repeated Indy refs. This needs to be sorted one way or another before PR can really be “safe”.

    Agree with the first four paragraphs. On the last paragraph of course even in 2015 under PR the SNP would not have got near power.

    In fact at every general election this century the balance of power with PR would have been held by the LDs, with UKIP having the balance of power in 2015 as the only exception. Indeed in 2015 the SNP would have only got half the seats in Scotland with PR rather than the more than 90% of seats in Scotland they got with FPTP
    Sure, but the 4% (perhaps 5% once sun-threshold voted are discarded) could be pivotal more often than you’d like.
    They would not have been pivotal in any recent election unless in 2017 and 2019 Labour had tried to form a rainbow coalition with the LDs, SNP and Greens under PR but then the LDs refused to support a Corbyn led Labour anyway
    It is rather futile to take FTPT results and try to project them into a PR future.
    Even so in Scottish terms the SNP would have only half the seats with PR they win under FPTP, even if at UK level the Greens and RefUK and LDs would get more seats with PR at the expense of the Conservatives and Labour
  • Options
    How did Salah miss then, I was out of my seat ready to cheer.
  • Options
    COUTINHO!!!!!!

    Come on! Come on!
  • Options
    ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    DavidL said:

    City must be getting distinctly twitchy now. Liverpool can dream. United just want this season to be over, quite simply the worst effort in my adult lifetime, and I include the season they got relegated.

    I have supported United since 1953 and I have never witnessed anything like this seasons collapse and they are fortunate they are not battling relegation

    The team playing today is simply inexplicable
    The thing that is truly shocking is the attitude of the players. United, like Liverpool of the 00's are still a top club even if not Champions, that might still win cup silverware some seasons, but the attitude is completely different.

    Even during the decades when Liverpool struggled in the League and United were on top, you could see that Liverpool players were still proud to pull on the shirt and who they were representing. That attitude seems to have vanished in the United players this season. They don't seem to be willing to push themselves, or even proud to be representing United.

    United had players like Giggs, Scholes and Keane etc who would never say die when on top, but Liverpool had their own never say die players like Gerrard and Carragher who may never have won the League but could inspire the rest of the club and knew what it meant to be pulling on that red shirt.

    What's gone wrong in United that they lack that attitude and leadership?
    Glazers.
    They haven't helped, but even when Hicks and Gillette were in charge of LFC and the club was very troubled, the players still gave a damn.
    Ferguson still hanging around surely can't help any other manager.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,853

    I’m against postal voting.

    It breaks the ideal of voting as a universal civic ritual.

    I have a postal vote (because i travel so much) which I usually deliver in person. Best of both worlds
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,399
    edited May 2022
    "Interesting" proposals for second homes in Wales.

    Council tax will be up to 400% of the base level, and you can't register it as a business to avoid it unless it is available for guests 252 days a year, and actually occupied by paying guests for at least 182 days.

    That CT surcharge is around £5k extra where Councils implement it for a Band D house.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-61525903

    We discussed wrt England that such proposals would be easy to dodge.

    Will this work? Is 182 days occupancy common in Welsh holiday lets?

    £5k extra looks big enough to me to deter at least ordinary 2nd home owners. Not such how much £7k of Council Tax is on a standard Welsh holiday let turnover.

    One possibility is a hybrid model where 2nd homes are let out enough to cover the surcharge = 8-10k of bookings, which will certainly improve occupation efficiency and may reduce 2nd homes.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,848
    Advantage Liverpool!!!
  • Options
    londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,174
    Norwich 3-0 down. Watford heading for top 19 finish 👍
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,945
    Must say.
    I didn't factor Villa winning at City in any calculations.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,853

    DavidL said:

    Dirty Leeds in the lead.

    Salah substituted on to replace Jota.

    Looks like Burnley are going down. This revived Newcastle team, who are undoubtedly playing for their places next year, was always going to be a handful for them.
    The Newcastle team are one of the most remarkable 'season of two halves' I think I've ever witnessed.

    From fighting against the drop themselves, they ought to be competing for European places next season.
    And halfway through they were bought by the richest sovereign wealth fund in the world, making them, arguably, the richest club in the world

    Yes, remarkable
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,848
    MattW said:

    "Interesting" proposals for second homes in Wales.

    Council tax will up to 400% of the base level, and you can't register it as a business to avoid it unless it is available for guests 252 days a year, and actually occupied by paying guests for at least 182 days.

    That CT surcharge is around £5k extra where Councils implement it for a Band D house.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-61525903

    We discussed wrt England that such proposals would be easy to dodge.

    Will this work? Is 182 days occupancy common in Welsh holiday lets?

    £5k extra looks big enough to me to deter at least ordinary 2nd home owners. Not such how much £7k of Council Tax is on a standard Welsh holiday let turnover.

    They’re trying to distinguish between a genuine holiday let, and a second home that’s empty most of the time.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,848
    dixiedean said:

    Must say.
    I didn't factor Villa winning at City in any calculations.

    Steven Gerrard will be over the moon if this comes off!
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,853
    edited May 2022
    Native Epirots are gathering around the big TV screens, and shouting, so the EPL must be exciting

    An incredible asset for the UK
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,845
    edited May 2022
    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    "Interesting" proposals for second homes in Wales.

    Council tax will up to 400% of the base level, and you can't register it as a business to avoid it unless it is available for guests 252 days a year, and actually occupied by paying guests for at least 182 days.

    That CT surcharge is around £5k extra where Councils implement it for a Band D house.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-61525903

    We discussed wrt England that such proposals would be easy to dodge.

    Will this work? Is 182 days occupancy common in Welsh holiday lets?

    £5k extra looks big enough to me to deter at least ordinary 2nd home owners. Not such how much £7k of Council Tax is on a standard Welsh holiday let turnover.

    They’re trying to distinguish between a genuine holiday let, and a second home that’s empty most of the time.
    What if your “first home” is in England?
    Or France?

    Can you designate your Welsh holiday home as your “first home” and your Edgbadon terrace as your “second”?

    Having said this, I cautiously welcome this kind of thing.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,130

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    "Interesting" proposals for second homes in Wales.

    Council tax will up to 400% of the base level, and you can't register it as a business to avoid it unless it is available for guests 252 days a year, and actually occupied by paying guests for at least 182 days.

    That CT surcharge is around £5k extra where Councils implement it for a Band D house.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-61525903

    We discussed wrt England that such proposals would be easy to dodge.

    Will this work? Is 182 days occupancy common in Welsh holiday lets?

    £5k extra looks big enough to me to deter at least ordinary 2nd home owners. Not such how much £7k of Council Tax is on a standard Welsh holiday let turnover.

    They’re trying to distinguish between a genuine holiday let, and a second home that’s empty most of the time.
    What if your “first home” is in England?
    Or France?

    Can you designate your Welsh holiday home as your “first home” and your Edgbadon terrace as your “second”?

    Having said this, I cautiously welcome this kind of thing.
    Even the threat of this has deterred one of my colleagues from buying a welsh second home in Pembrokeshire. I see no issue with it.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,853
    OK OMFG
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,213
    edited May 2022
    Noooo! Brighton score again!!
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,130
    I turn over to the Liverpool game to see them win the league and Citeh scor3 twice in two... Back to that game!
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,945
    Blooming heck. Drama all over the place now.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,399

    Applicant said:

    Pagan2 said:


    The labour party can bugger off. Voting systems do not belong to politicians and they should get no say in what we select as a people. You want to change the voting system you ask the people. Politicians are servants not masters and shouldn't be able to impose their terms of employment on us

    That's how I feel about changing the rules for how you can vote (by requiring ID). Do you agree?
    The photo ID requirements are ridiculous. I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that personation is such a massive issue nationally that it outweighs the consequences of people not being able to vote who should be able.

    I don't care if it advantages one party or disadvantages a different one. It is wrong.
    My preferred system is polling card to be shown and if not, and only then, photo ID of some sort.
    Why not print the photo on the polling card?
    That would require every voter to have a government held photo, i.e. a totally new system to fix something is only marginally broken. I do find it odd how many other countries require ID to vote, yet if we try it in the U.K. it’s voter suppression.
    Does it?

    Almost 50 million of us have passport photos, and almost 50 million of us have Driving License photos, so we are pretty close to being there already.

    I find the knee-jerk objections to the basic concept quite bizarre.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,853
    Incroyable
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,573

    algarkirk said:

    Pagan2 said:


    The labour party can bugger off. Voting systems do not belong to politicians and they should get no say in what we select as a people. You want to change the voting system you ask the people. Politicians are servants not masters and shouldn't be able to impose their terms of employment on us

    That's how I feel about changing the rules for how you can vote (by requiring ID). Do you agree?
    The photo ID requirements are ridiculous. I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that personation is such a massive issue nationally that it outweighs the consequences of people not being able to vote who should be able.

    I don't care if it advantages one party or disadvantages a different one. It is wrong.
    My preferred system is polling card to be shown and if not, and only then, photo ID of some sort.
    The flaw in the system is postal voting, not old ladies at polling booths who only have a Co-op card.

    Anyway, we need the old ladies to turn up. They swing elections.

    I would restrict postal voting to specific need. It is open to abuse. It also runs the risk of missing important information in the run up to the election.
    Agree. I would like to see voting on Sat and Sun instead which should reduce the need for postal votes by a certain amount.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,242
    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    Pagan2 said:


    The labour party can bugger off. Voting systems do not belong to politicians and they should get no say in what we select as a people. You want to change the voting system you ask the people. Politicians are servants not masters and shouldn't be able to impose their terms of employment on us

    That's how I feel about changing the rules for how you can vote (by requiring ID). Do you agree?
    The photo ID requirements are ridiculous. I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that personation is such a massive issue nationally that it outweighs the consequences of people not being able to vote who should be able.

    I don't care if it advantages one party or disadvantages a different one. It is wrong.
    My preferred system is polling card to be shown and if not, and only then, photo ID of some sort.
    Why not print the photo on the polling card?
    That would require every voter to have a government held photo, i.e. a totally new system to fix something is only marginally broken. I do find it odd how many other countries require ID to vote, yet if we try it in the U.K. it’s voter suppression.
    Only if we try it in GB is it voter suppression. NI already has it, and I'm not aware of any significant movement to abolish it there.
    When they introduced the voting reforms in NI, several hundred thousand voters were found to experiencing problems. With their existence.

    There were rumblings. Then the chap in charge of the reforms gave a press conference at which he gave out his office number and asked asked anyone disenfranchised to call. A brave man….

    The sound of crickets was overwhelming. Even the psycho school teacher shut up and suddenly discovered his sock drawer needed sorting.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,945
    MattW said:

    Applicant said:

    Pagan2 said:


    The labour party can bugger off. Voting systems do not belong to politicians and they should get no say in what we select as a people. You want to change the voting system you ask the people. Politicians are servants not masters and shouldn't be able to impose their terms of employment on us

    That's how I feel about changing the rules for how you can vote (by requiring ID). Do you agree?
    The photo ID requirements are ridiculous. I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that personation is such a massive issue nationally that it outweighs the consequences of people not being able to vote who should be able.

    I don't care if it advantages one party or disadvantages a different one. It is wrong.
    My preferred system is polling card to be shown and if not, and only then, photo ID of some sort.
    Why not print the photo on the polling card?
    That would require every voter to have a government held photo, i.e. a totally new system to fix something is only marginally broken. I do find it odd how many other countries require ID to vote, yet if we try it in the U.K. it’s voter suppression.
    Does it?

    Almost 50 million of us have passport photos, and almost 50 million of us have Driving License photos, so we are pretty close to being there already.

    I find the knee-jerk objections to the basic concept quite bizarre.
    Yet. Obtaining and returning a postal vote requires no such checks.
    Why?
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,945
    Football. Bloody hell!
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,364
    Leon said:

    Incroyable

    Abide with me, fast falls the eventide...
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,077
    Get in City
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,845


    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    Pagan2 said:


    The labour party can bugger off. Voting systems do not belong to politicians and they should get no say in what we select as a people. You want to change the voting system you ask the people. Politicians are servants not masters and shouldn't be able to impose their terms of employment on us

    That's how I feel about changing the rules for how you can vote (by requiring ID). Do you agree?
    The photo ID requirements are ridiculous. I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that personation is such a massive issue nationally that it outweighs the consequences of people not being able to vote who should be able.

    I don't care if it advantages one party or disadvantages a different one. It is wrong.
    My preferred system is polling card to be shown and if not, and only then, photo ID of some sort.
    Why not print the photo on the polling card?
    That would require every voter to have a government held photo, i.e. a totally new system to fix something is only marginally broken. I do find it odd how many other countries require ID to vote, yet if we try it in the U.K. it’s voter suppression.
    Only if we try it in GB is it voter suppression. NI already has it, and I'm not aware of any significant movement to abolish it there.
    When they introduced the voting reforms in NI, several hundred thousand voters were found to experiencing problems. With their existence.

    There were rumblings. Then the chap in charge of the reforms gave a press conference at which he gave out his office number and asked asked anyone disenfranchised to call. A brave man….

    The sound of crickets was overwhelming. Even the psycho school teacher shut up and suddenly discovered his sock drawer needed sorting.
    Northern Ireland is sui generis.
  • Options
    SALAH!

    Now we need Coutinho/Gerrard to help engineer a miracle, we need them to get a third.
  • Options
    ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    kjh said:

    algarkirk said:

    Pagan2 said:


    The labour party can bugger off. Voting systems do not belong to politicians and they should get no say in what we select as a people. You want to change the voting system you ask the people. Politicians are servants not masters and shouldn't be able to impose their terms of employment on us

    That's how I feel about changing the rules for how you can vote (by requiring ID). Do you agree?
    The photo ID requirements are ridiculous. I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that personation is such a massive issue nationally that it outweighs the consequences of people not being able to vote who should be able.

    I don't care if it advantages one party or disadvantages a different one. It is wrong.
    My preferred system is polling card to be shown and if not, and only then, photo ID of some sort.
    The flaw in the system is postal voting, not old ladies at polling booths who only have a Co-op card.

    Anyway, we need the old ladies to turn up. They swing elections.

    I would restrict postal voting to specific need. It is open to abuse. It also runs the risk of missing important information in the run up to the election.
    Agree. I would like to see voting on Sat and Sun instead which should reduce the need for postal votes by a certain amount.
    I'm not so sure about that - aren't people more likely to be away at the weekend? The polls are open for 15 hours, very few people can have work commitments that stop them getting to the polling station for the whole of that period.

    Thursday voting and Thursday night/Friday counting works well - there's a weekend to recover and serious business can start on the Monday.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,853
    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Incroyable

    Abide with me, fast falls the eventide...
    Lol, yeh, fuck the beauty-hating, feces-throwing hymn-booers

    Come on Citeh, come on Real!
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,399

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    "Interesting" proposals for second homes in Wales.

    Council tax will up to 400% of the base level, and you can't register it as a business to avoid it unless it is available for guests 252 days a year, and actually occupied by paying guests for at least 182 days.

    That CT surcharge is around £5k extra where Councils implement it for a Band D house.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-61525903

    We discussed wrt England that such proposals would be easy to dodge.

    Will this work? Is 182 days occupancy common in Welsh holiday lets?

    £5k extra looks big enough to me to deter at least ordinary 2nd home owners. Not such how much £7k of Council Tax is on a standard Welsh holiday let turnover.

    They’re trying to distinguish between a genuine holiday let, and a second home that’s empty most of the time.
    What if your “first home” is in England?
    Or France?

    Can you designate your Welsh holiday home as your “first home” and your Edgbadon terrace as your “second”?

    Having said this, I cautiously welcome this kind of thing.
    Even the threat of this has deterred one of my colleagues from buying a welsh second home in Pembrokeshire. I see no issue with it.
    Interesting - I'm not sure how well they have judged the surcharge and the time thresholds, which is the key to it.

    I'm guessing that the Welsh Govt would have access to the Land Registry - the England one being the key as NI and Scotland are very small in total house ownership numbers, and that there will be heavy penalties for deception, and that there will be heavy enough bureaucracy attached to make it onerous just to have one.

    And I am not clear how they will deal with couples who own one house each to avoid it, and designate one as main residence for each.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,848
    Come on Villa,. one more…
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,853
    Jeez Denise
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,130
    MattW said:

    Applicant said:

    Pagan2 said:


    The labour party can bugger off. Voting systems do not belong to politicians and they should get no say in what we select as a people. You want to change the voting system you ask the people. Politicians are servants not masters and shouldn't be able to impose their terms of employment on us

    That's how I feel about changing the rules for how you can vote (by requiring ID). Do you agree?
    The photo ID requirements are ridiculous. I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that personation is such a massive issue nationally that it outweighs the consequences of people not being able to vote who should be able.

    I don't care if it advantages one party or disadvantages a different one. It is wrong.
    My preferred system is polling card to be shown and if not, and only then, photo ID of some sort.
    Why not print the photo on the polling card?
    That would require every voter to have a government held photo, i.e. a totally new system to fix something is only marginally broken. I do find it odd how many other countries require ID to vote, yet if we try it in the U.K. it’s voter suppression.
    Does it?

    Almost 50 million of us have passport photos, and almost 50 million of us have Driving License photos, so we are pretty close to being there already.

    I find the knee-jerk objections to the basic concept quite bizarre.
    I was talking about the idea of putting your photo on your polling card. Would require a system linked to the electoral register.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,945
    Both sets of fans celebrate a goal at the same time at Arsenal.
  • Options
    Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,802
    Just need a Brentford winner now and job done.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,247

    Applicant said:

    Pagan2 said:


    The labour party can bugger off. Voting systems do not belong to politicians and they should get no say in what we select as a people. You want to change the voting system you ask the people. Politicians are servants not masters and shouldn't be able to impose their terms of employment on us

    That's how I feel about changing the rules for how you can vote (by requiring ID). Do you agree?
    The photo ID requirements are ridiculous. I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that personation is such a massive issue nationally that it outweighs the consequences of people not being able to vote who should be able.

    I don't care if it advantages one party or disadvantages a different one. It is wrong.
    My preferred system is polling card to be shown and if not, and only then, photo ID of some sort.
    Why not print the photo on the polling card?
    That would require every voter to have a government held photo, i.e. a totally new system to fix something is only marginally broken. I do find it odd how many other countries require ID to vote, yet if we try it in the U.K. it’s voter suppression.
    Do these other countries have ID cards? It is voter suppression when we do it because we do not have universal photo ID so it makes voting harder for the group that does not already have ID while adding no burden for those who do already have ID.

    Coincidentally, the latter group is thought to vote for the government party more than the first lot. A cynic might say that since there is no evidence of widespread personation, this suppression of your opponents' voters is entirely the point.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,104

    DavidL said:

    City must be getting distinctly twitchy now. Liverpool can dream. United just want this season to be over, quite simply the worst effort in my adult lifetime, and I include the season they got relegated.

    I have supported United since 1953 and I have never witnessed anything like this seasons collapse and they are fortunate they are not battling relegation

    The team playing today is simply inexplicable
    The thing that is truly shocking is the attitude of the players. United, like Liverpool of the 00's are still a top club even if not Champions, that might still win cup silverware some seasons, but the attitude is completely different.

    Even during the decades when Liverpool struggled in the League and United were on top, you could see that Liverpool players were still proud to pull on the shirt and who they were representing. That attitude seems to have vanished in the United players this season. They don't seem to be willing to push themselves, or even proud to be representing United.

    United had players like Giggs, Scholes and Keane etc who would never say die when on top, but Liverpool had their own never say die players like Gerrard and Carragher who may never have won the League but could inspire the rest of the club and knew what it meant to be pulling on that red shirt.

    What's gone wrong in United that they lack that attitude and leadership?
    Glazers.
    They haven't helped, but even when Hicks and Gillette were in charge of LFC and the club was very troubled, the players still gave a damn.
    When you look into the detail of how the Glazers have run the club, and extracted money from it, you can see how they've run the club down. They've spent a lot on transfers, but that seems to be only to keep up the appearance of being a big club, to keep the money coming in.

    All the supporting structure that would be needed to create success has rotted away.

    Hicks and Gillette only owned Liverpool for three years. It took longer than that for the malign effect of the Glazers to reach the team - the last title win was eight years after they bought the club.
  • Options
    pm215pm215 Posts: 933
    MattW said:


    Will this work? Is 182 days occupancy common in Welsh holiday lets?

    I wonder if it will result in the odd off-season bargain from a holiday let owner trying to get their occupancy past the magic number...

  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,399

    MattW said:

    Applicant said:

    Pagan2 said:


    The labour party can bugger off. Voting systems do not belong to politicians and they should get no say in what we select as a people. You want to change the voting system you ask the people. Politicians are servants not masters and shouldn't be able to impose their terms of employment on us

    That's how I feel about changing the rules for how you can vote (by requiring ID). Do you agree?
    The photo ID requirements are ridiculous. I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that personation is such a massive issue nationally that it outweighs the consequences of people not being able to vote who should be able.

    I don't care if it advantages one party or disadvantages a different one. It is wrong.
    My preferred system is polling card to be shown and if not, and only then, photo ID of some sort.
    Why not print the photo on the polling card?
    That would require every voter to have a government held photo, i.e. a totally new system to fix something is only marginally broken. I do find it odd how many other countries require ID to vote, yet if we try it in the U.K. it’s voter suppression.
    Does it?

    Almost 50 million of us have passport photos, and almost 50 million of us have Driving License photos, so we are pretty close to being there already.

    I find the knee-jerk objections to the basic concept quite bizarre.
    I was talking about the idea of putting your photo on your polling card. Would require a system linked to the electoral register.
    Thanks.
  • Options

    Applicant said:

    Pagan2 said:


    The labour party can bugger off. Voting systems do not belong to politicians and they should get no say in what we select as a people. You want to change the voting system you ask the people. Politicians are servants not masters and shouldn't be able to impose their terms of employment on us

    That's how I feel about changing the rules for how you can vote (by requiring ID). Do you agree?
    The photo ID requirements are ridiculous. I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that personation is such a massive issue nationally that it outweighs the consequences of people not being able to vote who should be able.

    I don't care if it advantages one party or disadvantages a different one. It is wrong.
    My preferred system is polling card to be shown and if not, and only then, photo ID of some sort.
    Why not print the photo on the polling card?
    That would require every voter to have a government held photo, i.e. a totally new system to fix something is only marginally broken. I do find it odd how many other countries require ID to vote, yet if we try it in the U.K. it’s voter suppression.
    Do these other countries have ID cards? It is voter suppression when we do it because we do not have universal photo ID so it makes voting harder for the group that does not already have ID while adding no burden for those who do already have ID.

    Coincidentally, the latter group is thought to vote for the government party more than the first lot. A cynic might say that since there is no evidence of widespread personation, this suppression of your opponents' voters is entirely the point.
    Availability to a universal photo ID was part of the NI reforms and is part of the proposal here too.
  • Options
    Robertson!

    Now all just on Villa.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,130
    MattW said:

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    "Interesting" proposals for second homes in Wales.

    Council tax will up to 400% of the base level, and you can't register it as a business to avoid it unless it is available for guests 252 days a year, and actually occupied by paying guests for at least 182 days.

    That CT surcharge is around £5k extra where Councils implement it for a Band D house.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-61525903

    We discussed wrt England that such proposals would be easy to dodge.

    Will this work? Is 182 days occupancy common in Welsh holiday lets?

    £5k extra looks big enough to me to deter at least ordinary 2nd home owners. Not such how much £7k of Council Tax is on a standard Welsh holiday let turnover.

    They’re trying to distinguish between a genuine holiday let, and a second home that’s empty most of the time.
    What if your “first home” is in England?
    Or France?

    Can you designate your Welsh holiday home as your “first home” and your Edgbadon terrace as your “second”?

    Having said this, I cautiously welcome this kind of thing.
    Even the threat of this has deterred one of my colleagues from buying a welsh second home in Pembrokeshire. I see no issue with it.
    Interesting - I'm not sure how well they have judged the surcharge and the time thresholds, which is the key to it.

    I'm guessing that the Welsh Govt would have access to the Land Registry - the England one being the key as NI and Scotland are very small in total house ownership numbers, and that there will be heavy penalties for deception, and that there will be heavy enough bureaucracy attached to make it onerous just to have one.

    And I am not clear how they will deal with couples who own one house each to avoid it, and designate one as main residence for each.
    Bit like married MPs used to, you mean?
    I’m sure there will be some who do, and some who get found out and heavily punished. But yes, some would pathetically abuse the loophole.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,213
    Ooops! 3-1 Brighton-West Ham

    United assured of 6th place.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,399
    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    "Interesting" proposals for second homes in Wales.

    Council tax will up to 400% of the base level, and you can't register it as a business to avoid it unless it is available for guests 252 days a year, and actually occupied by paying guests for at least 182 days.

    That CT surcharge is around £5k extra where Councils implement it for a Band D house.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-61525903

    We discussed wrt England that such proposals would be easy to dodge.

    Will this work? Is 182 days occupancy common in Welsh holiday lets?

    £5k extra looks big enough to me to deter at least ordinary 2nd home owners. Not such how much £7k of Council Tax is on a standard Welsh holiday let turnover.

    They’re trying to distinguish between a genuine holiday let, and a second home that’s empty most of the time.
    Yes I know.

    The current threshold for occupancy to register it as a business is 70 days. Not sure what the availability criteria is.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,130

    Applicant said:

    Pagan2 said:


    The labour party can bugger off. Voting systems do not belong to politicians and they should get no say in what we select as a people. You want to change the voting system you ask the people. Politicians are servants not masters and shouldn't be able to impose their terms of employment on us

    That's how I feel about changing the rules for how you can vote (by requiring ID). Do you agree?
    The photo ID requirements are ridiculous. I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that personation is such a massive issue nationally that it outweighs the consequences of people not being able to vote who should be able.

    I don't care if it advantages one party or disadvantages a different one. It is wrong.
    My preferred system is polling card to be shown and if not, and only then, photo ID of some sort.
    Why not print the photo on the polling card?
    That would require every voter to have a government held photo, i.e. a totally new system to fix something is only marginally broken. I do find it odd how many other countries require ID to vote, yet if we try it in the U.K. it’s voter suppression.
    Do these other countries have ID cards? It is voter suppression when we do it because we do not have universal photo ID so it makes voting harder for the group that does not already have ID while adding no burden for those who do already have ID.

    Coincidentally, the latter group is thought to vote for the government party more than the first lot. A cynic might say that since there is no evidence of widespread personation, this suppression of your opponents' voters is entirely the point.
    And I find it odd that the post office requires more proof of my identity that when I vote.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,499

    I’m against postal voting.

    It breaks the ideal of voting as a universal civic ritual.

    Not in Oregon. Nor in Washington State. Both with vote-by-mail for all elections.

    Note that current problems with vote counting in Clackamas County, Oregon are due to ballot printing snafu NOT to anything to do with postal system or drop boxes.

    Further note that in both OR and WA, voter signatures on outside envelop of ALL returning ballots, are checked by election workers against signatures on file, and must match in order for ballot to be counted.

    Perhaps biggest impact of postal voting is increased turnout. And lowered costs for conducting elections, in particular obtaining & staffing large network of voting places on Election Days.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,573
    Applicant said:

    kjh said:

    algarkirk said:

    Pagan2 said:


    The labour party can bugger off. Voting systems do not belong to politicians and they should get no say in what we select as a people. You want to change the voting system you ask the people. Politicians are servants not masters and shouldn't be able to impose their terms of employment on us

    That's how I feel about changing the rules for how you can vote (by requiring ID). Do you agree?
    The photo ID requirements are ridiculous. I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that personation is such a massive issue nationally that it outweighs the consequences of people not being able to vote who should be able.

    I don't care if it advantages one party or disadvantages a different one. It is wrong.
    My preferred system is polling card to be shown and if not, and only then, photo ID of some sort.
    The flaw in the system is postal voting, not old ladies at polling booths who only have a Co-op card.

    Anyway, we need the old ladies to turn up. They swing elections.

    I would restrict postal voting to specific need. It is open to abuse. It also runs the risk of missing important information in the run up to the election.
    Agree. I would like to see voting on Sat and Sun instead which should reduce the need for postal votes by a certain amount.
    I'm not so sure about that - aren't people more likely to be away at the weekend? The polls are open for 15 hours, very few people can have work commitments that stop them getting to the polling station for the whole of that period.

    Thursday voting and Thursday night/Friday counting works well - there's a weekend to recover and serious business can start on the Monday.
    My gut tells me I right, but my gut is often wrong, so I looked it up and believe it or not there is a Wikipedia page on it 'Election day'. Apparently the vast majority of countries have it on Sat/Sun to make it easier for people to get to vote. So most unlikely my gut appears to be correct.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,853
    This is why the EPL is the biggest sporting brand in the world
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,077
    Ho ho ho delicious scouse tears
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,109
    MattW said:

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    "Interesting" proposals for second homes in Wales.

    Council tax will up to 400% of the base level, and you can't register it as a business to avoid it unless it is available for guests 252 days a year, and actually occupied by paying guests for at least 182 days.

    That CT surcharge is around £5k extra where Councils implement it for a Band D house.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-61525903

    We discussed wrt England that such proposals would be easy to dodge.

    Will this work? Is 182 days occupancy common in Welsh holiday lets?

    £5k extra looks big enough to me to deter at least ordinary 2nd home owners. Not such how much £7k of Council Tax is on a standard Welsh holiday let turnover.

    They’re trying to distinguish between a genuine holiday let, and a second home that’s empty most of the time.
    Yes I know.

    The current threshold for occupancy to register it as a business is 70 days. Not sure what the availability criteria is.
    I'm not an expert but I would have thought the normal occupancy rate for a genuine holiday let in Wales would be more like 140 days. In which case this bill will be a right bastard for anyone trying to run a letting agency. Plus the cleaning businesses, accountants, any tourism related stuff.

    However, I wonder if they would make it applicable only to those people who don't live in Wales. That would solve the problem for quite a lot of genuine holiday lets.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,848
    pm215 said:

    MattW said:


    Will this work? Is 182 days occupancy common in Welsh holiday lets?

    I wonder if it will result in the odd off-season bargain from a holiday let owner trying to get their occupancy past the magic number...

    Which is exactly what the council want to see. Houses occupied and the occupants spending their money locally.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,321

    Applicant said:

    Pagan2 said:


    The labour party can bugger off. Voting systems do not belong to politicians and they should get no say in what we select as a people. You want to change the voting system you ask the people. Politicians are servants not masters and shouldn't be able to impose their terms of employment on us

    That's how I feel about changing the rules for how you can vote (by requiring ID). Do you agree?
    The photo ID requirements are ridiculous. I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that personation is such a massive issue nationally that it outweighs the consequences of people not being able to vote who should be able.

    I don't care if it advantages one party or disadvantages a different one. It is wrong.
    My preferred system is polling card to be shown and if not, and only then, photo ID of some sort.
    Why not print the photo on the polling card?
    That would require every voter to have a government held photo, i.e. a totally new system to fix something is only marginally broken. I do find it odd how many other countries require ID to vote, yet if we try it in the U.K. it’s voter suppression.
    The difference is that most countries have convenient ID cards which people are used to carrying all the time. We have resisted that, so in practice only drivers regularly carry identification around. If you don't drive, you need to hunt out your passport if you have one, or apply for a form from the council, and at that point the "ah, sod it" factor kicks in and participation is reduced.

    It's quite possible that it's Tory participation that will be reduced more - forgetful elderly people who haven't seen their passport for years are not uncommon, and disproportionately Tory voters. But whatever, it makes voting slightly more difficult, without addressing any known problem. I agree that postal voting is FAR more likely to be a cause of dodgy behaviour.
  • Options
    So close, but what an amazing season anyway. Credit to Man City, deserved Champions, though Liverpool would have deserved it too, any club that gets over 90 points ought to be Champions.

    The Premier League is incredible, isn't it? Well done City.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,499
    Leon said:

    I’m against postal voting.

    It breaks the ideal of voting as a universal civic ritual.

    I have a postal vote (because i travel so much) which I usually deliver in person. Best of both worlds
    Yours truly also delivers my vote in person, usually at elections HQ when I go down there at some point to observe during an election.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,213

    Robertson!

    Now all just on Villa.

    Well done to Man City!
  • Options
    ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    kjh said:

    Applicant said:

    kjh said:

    algarkirk said:

    Pagan2 said:


    The labour party can bugger off. Voting systems do not belong to politicians and they should get no say in what we select as a people. You want to change the voting system you ask the people. Politicians are servants not masters and shouldn't be able to impose their terms of employment on us

    That's how I feel about changing the rules for how you can vote (by requiring ID). Do you agree?
    The photo ID requirements are ridiculous. I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that personation is such a massive issue nationally that it outweighs the consequences of people not being able to vote who should be able.

    I don't care if it advantages one party or disadvantages a different one. It is wrong.
    My preferred system is polling card to be shown and if not, and only then, photo ID of some sort.
    The flaw in the system is postal voting, not old ladies at polling booths who only have a Co-op card.

    Anyway, we need the old ladies to turn up. They swing elections.

    I would restrict postal voting to specific need. It is open to abuse. It also runs the risk of missing important information in the run up to the election.
    Agree. I would like to see voting on Sat and Sun instead which should reduce the need for postal votes by a certain amount.
    I'm not so sure about that - aren't people more likely to be away at the weekend? The polls are open for 15 hours, very few people can have work commitments that stop them getting to the polling station for the whole of that period.

    Thursday voting and Thursday night/Friday counting works well - there's a weekend to recover and serious business can start on the Monday.
    My gut tells me I right, but my gut is often wrong, so I looked it up and believe it or not there is a Wikipedia page on it 'Election day'. Apparently the vast majority of countries have it on Sat/Sun to make it easier for people to get to vote. So most unlikely my gut appears to be correct.
    Most countries have voting finishing much earlier, though, don't they?
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,945
    Blue Moon!
    4 in 5. This City side is one of the all time greats.
    Sean Dyche vindicated too. Strange decision.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,848

    So close, but what an amazing season anyway. Credit to Man City, deserved Champions, though Liverpool would have deserved it too, any club that gets over 90 points ought to be Champions.

    The Premier League is incredible, isn't it? Well done City.

    Damn, so close. But when they were 2-0 down, they felt like we did at the CL final in 2005.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,364

    Ooops! 3-1 Brighton-West Ham

    United assured of 6th place.

    I have few very strong feelings about which team of mercenaries I should favour. But it's hard to shed any tears for a team which harbours a cat torturer.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,251

    Ho ho ho delicious scouse tears

    They have only won the premiership once alongside Blackburn Rovers and Leicester
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,130

    Applicant said:

    Pagan2 said:


    The labour party can bugger off. Voting systems do not belong to politicians and they should get no say in what we select as a people. You want to change the voting system you ask the people. Politicians are servants not masters and shouldn't be able to impose their terms of employment on us

    That's how I feel about changing the rules for how you can vote (by requiring ID). Do you agree?
    The photo ID requirements are ridiculous. I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that personation is such a massive issue nationally that it outweighs the consequences of people not being able to vote who should be able.

    I don't care if it advantages one party or disadvantages a different one. It is wrong.
    My preferred system is polling card to be shown and if not, and only then, photo ID of some sort.
    Why not print the photo on the polling card?
    That would require every voter to have a government held photo, i.e. a totally new system to fix something is only marginally broken. I do find it odd how many other countries require ID to vote, yet if we try it in the U.K. it’s voter suppression.
    The difference is that most countries have convenient ID cards which people are used to carrying all the time. We have resisted that, so in practice only drivers regularly carry identification around. If you don't drive, you need to hunt out your passport if you have one, or apply for a form from the council, and at that point the "ah, sod it" factor kicks in and participation is reduced.

    It's quite possible that it's Tory participation that will be reduced more - forgetful elderly people who haven't seen their passport for years are not uncommon, and disproportionately Tory voters. But whatever, it makes voting slightly more difficult, without addressing any known problem. I agree that postal voting is FAR more likely to be a cause of dodgy behaviour.
    Is it really that many people that have no ID at all? I have at least four forms (passport, driving licence, two x university library cards). I’d love to know how many voters have zero ID.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,945

    So close, but what an amazing season anyway. Credit to Man City, deserved Champions, though Liverpool would have deserved it too, any club that gets over 90 points ought to be Champions.

    The Premier League is incredible, isn't it? Well done City.

    But it's FPTP.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,399
    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    "Interesting" proposals for second homes in Wales.

    Council tax will up to 400% of the base level, and you can't register it as a business to avoid it unless it is available for guests 252 days a year, and actually occupied by paying guests for at least 182 days.

    That CT surcharge is around £5k extra where Councils implement it for a Band D house.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-61525903

    We discussed wrt England that such proposals would be easy to dodge.

    Will this work? Is 182 days occupancy common in Welsh holiday lets?

    £5k extra looks big enough to me to deter at least ordinary 2nd home owners. Not such how much £7k of Council Tax is on a standard Welsh holiday let turnover.

    They’re trying to distinguish between a genuine holiday let, and a second home that’s empty most of the time.
    Yes I know.

    The current threshold for occupancy to register it as a business is 70 days. Not sure what the availability criteria is.

    They might have this about right to trigger a lot of second homes to be genuinely available as holiday lets, and concentrate holidaymakers into fewer homes, plus create local house-management jobs. Hmmm.

    25k second homes are registered in Wales for Council Tax purposes, so that alone is a potential extra ~£125m per year tax on non-residents. And there are presumably all the business-registered Council Tax dodgers on top.

    I wonder what will happen to second homes of Senedd Members in their constituencies.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,130
    Footballs fans doing their best to see the return of some kind of barriers round the pitch. I’d vote for big trenchs, water filled if possible. Pitch invasions getting out of hand now. They are all breaking the law.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,247

    Applicant said:

    Pagan2 said:


    The labour party can bugger off. Voting systems do not belong to politicians and they should get no say in what we select as a people. You want to change the voting system you ask the people. Politicians are servants not masters and shouldn't be able to impose their terms of employment on us

    That's how I feel about changing the rules for how you can vote (by requiring ID). Do you agree?
    The photo ID requirements are ridiculous. I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that personation is such a massive issue nationally that it outweighs the consequences of people not being able to vote who should be able.

    I don't care if it advantages one party or disadvantages a different one. It is wrong.
    My preferred system is polling card to be shown and if not, and only then, photo ID of some sort.
    Why not print the photo on the polling card?
    That would require every voter to have a government held photo, i.e. a totally new system to fix something is only marginally broken. I do find it odd how many other countries require ID to vote, yet if we try it in the U.K. it’s voter suppression.
    Do these other countries have ID cards? It is voter suppression when we do it because we do not have universal photo ID so it makes voting harder for the group that does not already have ID while adding no burden for those who do already have ID.

    Coincidentally, the latter group is thought to vote for the government party more than the first lot. A cynic might say that since there is no evidence of widespread personation, this suppression of your opponents' voters is entirely the point.
    Availability to a universal photo ID was part of the NI reforms and is part of the proposal here too.
    Ah but that in its present form is still problematic. HMG is not saying everyone must get a new ID card but that only people without passports or driving licences have to get the new voter card. One group has to jump through hoops; the others just turn up with what they carry in their pockets every day.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,399
    edited May 2022
    ydoethur said:

    MattW said:

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    "Interesting" proposals for second homes in Wales.

    Council tax will up to 400% of the base level, and you can't register it as a business to avoid it unless it is available for guests 252 days a year, and actually occupied by paying guests for at least 182 days.

    That CT surcharge is around £5k extra where Councils implement it for a Band D house.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-61525903

    We discussed wrt England that such proposals would be easy to dodge.

    Will this work? Is 182 days occupancy common in Welsh holiday lets?

    £5k extra looks big enough to me to deter at least ordinary 2nd home owners. Not such how much £7k of Council Tax is on a standard Welsh holiday let turnover.

    They’re trying to distinguish between a genuine holiday let, and a second home that’s empty most of the time.
    Yes I know.

    The current threshold for occupancy to register it as a business is 70 days. Not sure what the availability criteria is.
    I'm not an expert but I would have thought the normal occupancy rate for a genuine holiday let in Wales would be more like 140 days. In which case this bill will be a right bastard for anyone trying to run a letting agency. Plus the cleaning businesses, accountants, any tourism related stuff.

    However, I wonder if they would make it applicable only to those people who don't live in Wales. That would solve the problem for quite a lot of genuine holiday lets.
    So, general PB reaction across the piece seems to be "Hmmmm" rather than "Shock Horror!".

    That's really quite interesting.

    I can see there being a marginal effect on 'main dwelling' housing supply in Wales - perhaps 1% as a one-off - but no long term impact or noticeable impact on house prices, so there will be demands for more action within 2-3 years.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,130

    Ho ho ho delicious scouse tears

    They have only won the premiership once alongside Blackburn Rovers and Leicester
    Please Big G, I know you are a Man Utd fan, but don’t fall into the premiership being a new competition from the old first division trap.
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    So close, but what an amazing season anyway. Credit to Man City, deserved Champions, though Liverpool would have deserved it too, any club that gets over 90 points ought to be Champions.

    The Premier League is incredible, isn't it? Well done City.

    Damn, so close. But when they were 2-0 down, they felt like we did at the CL final in 2005.
    Indeed. They'll deservedly remember this for years to come, bit like their first league win in decades with Aguero's goal.

    Football is great. Even though we haven't won this one, you just have to appreciate it. Roll on the Champions League final now, fingers crossed for the 7th there.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,364
    Cookie said:

    Ooops! 3-1 Brighton-West Ham

    United assured of 6th place.

    I have few very strong feelings about which team of mercenaries I should favour. But it's hard to shed any tears for a team which harbours a cat torturer.
    Jesus, that was pompous, wasn't it? Sorry. But still - well done Brighton, and boo to the cat torturers.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,247

    So close, but what an amazing season anyway. Credit to Man City, deserved Champions, though Liverpool would have deserved it too, any club that gets over 90 points ought to be Champions.

    The Premier League is incredible, isn't it? Well done City.

    Bad luck on whoever had that big bet on Liverpool's quadruple.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,573

    Footballs fans doing their best to see the return of some kind of barriers round the pitch. I’d vote for big trenchs, water filled if possible. Pitch invasions getting out of hand now. They are all breaking the law.

    Sharks included as well? There is a lake on an Australian Golf course with Bull Sharks (it is assumed that when a river overflowed its banks some young ones got in) Challenging for reclaiming your ball.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,251

    Ho ho ho delicious scouse tears

    They have only won the premiership once alongside Blackburn Rovers and Leicester
    Please Big G, I know you are a Man Utd fan, but don’t fall into the premiership being a new competition from the old first division trap.
    Why not - it is 30 years old
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,104

    Footballs fans doing their best to see the return of some kind of barriers round the pitch. I’d vote for big trenchs, water filled if possible. Pitch invasions getting out of hand now. They are all breaking the law.

    The football-related madness is the main sign of the devil-may-care hedonistic post-pandemic decade that was foretold.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,247

    Applicant said:

    Pagan2 said:


    The labour party can bugger off. Voting systems do not belong to politicians and they should get no say in what we select as a people. You want to change the voting system you ask the people. Politicians are servants not masters and shouldn't be able to impose their terms of employment on us

    That's how I feel about changing the rules for how you can vote (by requiring ID). Do you agree?
    The photo ID requirements are ridiculous. I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that personation is such a massive issue nationally that it outweighs the consequences of people not being able to vote who should be able.

    I don't care if it advantages one party or disadvantages a different one. It is wrong.
    My preferred system is polling card to be shown and if not, and only then, photo ID of some sort.
    Why not print the photo on the polling card?
    That would require every voter to have a government held photo, i.e. a totally new system to fix something is only marginally broken. I do find it odd how many other countries require ID to vote, yet if we try it in the U.K. it’s voter suppression.
    Do these other countries have ID cards? It is voter suppression when we do it because we do not have universal photo ID so it makes voting harder for the group that does not already have ID while adding no burden for those who do already have ID.

    Coincidentally, the latter group is thought to vote for the government party more than the first lot. A cynic might say that since there is no evidence of widespread personation, this suppression of your opponents' voters is entirely the point.
    And I find it odd that the post office requires more proof of my identity that when I vote.
    It may indeed be odd. Or because there's more money in nicking parcels.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,364

    Footballs fans doing their best to see the return of some kind of barriers round the pitch. I’d vote for big trenchs, water filled if possible. Pitch invasions getting out of hand now. They are all breaking the law.

    Pitch invasions aren't in themselves bad. ISTR it used to be a feature at the end of test matches. If pitch invasions could be done in a cheerful and non-threatening way we could indulge them. It's the behaviour which as often as not goes on with them at football matches that's the problem.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,247

    Applicant said:

    Pagan2 said:


    The labour party can bugger off. Voting systems do not belong to politicians and they should get no say in what we select as a people. You want to change the voting system you ask the people. Politicians are servants not masters and shouldn't be able to impose their terms of employment on us

    That's how I feel about changing the rules for how you can vote (by requiring ID). Do you agree?
    The photo ID requirements are ridiculous. I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that personation is such a massive issue nationally that it outweighs the consequences of people not being able to vote who should be able.

    I don't care if it advantages one party or disadvantages a different one. It is wrong.
    My preferred system is polling card to be shown and if not, and only then, photo ID of some sort.
    Why not print the photo on the polling card?
    That would require every voter to have a government held photo, i.e. a totally new system to fix something is only marginally broken. I do find it odd how many other countries require ID to vote, yet if we try it in the U.K. it’s voter suppression.
    The difference is that most countries have convenient ID cards which people are used to carrying all the time. We have resisted that, so in practice only drivers regularly carry identification around. If you don't drive, you need to hunt out your passport if you have one, or apply for a form from the council, and at that point the "ah, sod it" factor kicks in and participation is reduced.

    It's quite possible that it's Tory participation that will be reduced more - forgetful elderly people who haven't seen their passport for years are not uncommon, and disproportionately Tory voters. But whatever, it makes voting slightly more difficult, without addressing any known problem. I agree that postal voting is FAR more likely to be a cause of dodgy behaviour.
    Is it really that many people that have no ID at all? I have at least four forms (passport, driving licence, two x university library cards). I’d love to know how many voters have zero ID.
    I have no photo ID, so that's one of us.
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,045

    Applicant said:

    Pagan2 said:


    The labour party can bugger off. Voting systems do not belong to politicians and they should get no say in what we select as a people. You want to change the voting system you ask the people. Politicians are servants not masters and shouldn't be able to impose their terms of employment on us

    That's how I feel about changing the rules for how you can vote (by requiring ID). Do you agree?
    The photo ID requirements are ridiculous. I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that personation is such a massive issue nationally that it outweighs the consequences of people not being able to vote who should be able.

    I don't care if it advantages one party or disadvantages a different one. It is wrong.
    My preferred system is polling card to be shown and if not, and only then, photo ID of some sort.
    Why not print the photo on the polling card?
    That would require every voter to have a government held photo, i.e. a totally new system to fix something is only marginally broken. I do find it odd how many other countries require ID to vote, yet if we try it in the U.K. it’s voter suppression.
    The difference is that most countries have convenient ID cards which people are used to carrying all the time. We have resisted that, so in practice only drivers regularly carry identification around. If you don't drive, you need to hunt out your passport if you have one, or apply for a form from the council, and at that point the "ah, sod it" factor kicks in and participation is reduced.

    It's quite possible that it's Tory participation that will be reduced more - forgetful elderly people who haven't seen their passport for years are not uncommon, and disproportionately Tory voters. But whatever, it makes voting slightly more difficult, without addressing any known problem. I agree that postal voting is FAR more likely to be a cause of dodgy behaviour.
    It's not just about voting too. The removal of gov.uk verify is causing a lot of people problems in proving their identity. You either need a UK passport or Northern Ireland driving licence (presumably for those who are Irish citizens). Maybe there is a case for ID cards? Just not ones that have to be carried at all times.

  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,364

    Applicant said:

    Pagan2 said:


    The labour party can bugger off. Voting systems do not belong to politicians and they should get no say in what we select as a people. You want to change the voting system you ask the people. Politicians are servants not masters and shouldn't be able to impose their terms of employment on us

    That's how I feel about changing the rules for how you can vote (by requiring ID). Do you agree?
    The photo ID requirements are ridiculous. I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that personation is such a massive issue nationally that it outweighs the consequences of people not being able to vote who should be able.

    I don't care if it advantages one party or disadvantages a different one. It is wrong.
    My preferred system is polling card to be shown and if not, and only then, photo ID of some sort.
    Why not print the photo on the polling card?
    That would require every voter to have a government held photo, i.e. a totally new system to fix something is only marginally broken. I do find it odd how many other countries require ID to vote, yet if we try it in the U.K. it’s voter suppression.
    The difference is that most countries have convenient ID cards which people are used to carrying all the time. We have resisted that, so in practice only drivers regularly carry identification around. If you don't drive, you need to hunt out your passport if you have one, or apply for a form from the council, and at that point the "ah, sod it" factor kicks in and participation is reduced.

    It's quite possible that it's Tory participation that will be reduced more - forgetful elderly people who haven't seen their passport for years are not uncommon, and disproportionately Tory voters. But whatever, it makes voting slightly more difficult, without addressing any known problem. I agree that postal voting is FAR more likely to be a cause of dodgy behaviour.
    Is it really that many people that have no ID at all? I have at least four forms (passport, driving licence, two x university library cards). I’d love to know how many voters have zero ID.
    Many more than you'd think. Concentrated in the 17-20 demographic and the 80+ demographic.
This discussion has been closed.