Howdy, Stranger!

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

SKS doesn’t need a LAB majority to become PM – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,163
edited December 2022 in General
imageSKS doesn’t need a LAB majority to become PM – politicalbetting.com

All of the discussion after the Chester by-election about whether LAB can get a majority is irrelevant to whether SKS moves into Number 10. The big issue is the Tory seat total.

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • First among equals once again. I think a Starmer-Liberal Democrat coalition would be best for the country.
  • Maybe a big LAB - CON alliance to keep SNP out?
  • Not much of the analysis I have read recently has made much of the possibilities/dangers/consequences of tactical voting. I think that the obsession amongst commentators about the Red Wall (and its newly erected companion, the Blue Wall) is over-simplistic, and strangely short-sighted.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,397

    Maybe a big LAB - CON alliance to keep SNP out?

    Every argument as to why Sturgeon won't prop up the Tories applies to Starmer with bells on. The only time Labour entered a peacetime coalition with the Tories they lost an extraordinary 235 seats at the next election - the second highest attrition rate since 1832 (1906 being the highest when the Unionists lost 246).
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,557
    Would the DUP vote for Starmer over a Tory government? They might prefer to abstain. That means Sunak could stay in office with less than 326 seats.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,072
    What price S Korea/Brazil now ?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,397
    Andy_JS said:

    Would the DUP vote for Starmer over a Tory government? They might prefer to abstain. That means Sunak could stay in office with less than 326 seats.

    Sunak put a border in the Irish Sea. If Starmer offers to get rid of it, they'll back him faster than you can say 'No surrender.'
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,960
    No but if the SNP held the balance of power they would abstain if the Tories were still largest party unless Starmer offered them indyref2.

    Alternatively and more palatable for Starmer would be to do a deal with the LDs if just short of a majority as Cameron did in 2010
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963
    Must be a slow news day, it feels like about the tenth time this year we've had the same header.

    The facts remain the same - the Tory leader (presumably Sunak, but by then who knows?) stays PM until, after the election, Sir Keir has a demonstrable majority, either through Labour seats alone or some formal agreement with another party or parties.

    In this case, possession really is nine-tenths of the law.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,960
    ydoethur said:

    Maybe a big LAB - CON alliance to keep SNP out?

    Every argument as to why Sturgeon won't prop up the Tories applies to Starmer with bells on. The only time Labour entered a peacetime coalition with the Tories they lost an extraordinary 235 seats at the next election - the second highest attrition rate since 1832 (1906 being the highest when the Unionists lost 246).
    The SPD formed a government with the CDU from 2005 to 2009 and 2013 to 2021 and are now back leading a government.

    However yes it is very unlikely and only slightly possible if SNP hold balance of power and demand indyref
  • ydoethur said:

    Maybe a big LAB - CON alliance to keep SNP out?

    Every argument as to why Sturgeon won't prop up the Tories applies to Starmer with bells on. The only time Labour entered a peacetime coalition with the Tories they lost an extraordinary 235 seats at the next election - the second highest attrition rate since 1832 (1906 being the highest when the Unionists lost 246).
    The scenario I was thinking of is that LAB is the biggest party with CON a little behind but well short of 325.

    Rishi might say to Keir 'OK we've lost, it's your turn now, as long as you don't do anything completely stupid we will give you informal support' ie not a coalition, no cabinet seats for CON.

    Just an idea but probably not going to happen!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,397
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Maybe a big LAB - CON alliance to keep SNP out?

    Every argument as to why Sturgeon won't prop up the Tories applies to Starmer with bells on. The only time Labour entered a peacetime coalition with the Tories they lost an extraordinary 235 seats at the next election - the second highest attrition rate since 1832 (1906 being the highest when the Unionists lost 246).
    The SPD formed a government with the CDU from 2005 to 2009 and 2013 to 2021 and are now back leading a government.

    However yes it is very unlikely and only slightly possible if SNP hold balance of power and demand indyref
    That's in Germany. We are not Germany. Our entire political system and outlook is different, in particular, much more tribal.

    Can you imagine what the likes of Pidcock and Long Bailey would say to a grand coalition? Or even BJO, Nick Palmer and Kinabalu on these very boards?

    Starmer would far more likely dare the SNP to vote the Tories back in then go to Scotland and say, 'OK, who's your real enemy?'
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sounds like being a libertarian is all about someone defining the initial conditions before the state steps out of the process.

    Being a libertarian is about as much as possible people being free to make their own choices.

    The state should exist, otherwise we're talking absolute anarchy not libertarian. And of course any state that exists must be paid for.

    The idea that land ownership should be taxed is an ancient libertarian dating back to the 18th centuries within the framework of Geolibertarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

    Geolibertarianism is a political and economic ideology that integrates libertarianism with Georgism. It favors a taxation system based (as in Georgism) on income derived from land and natural resources instead of on labor, coupled with a minimalist model of government, as in libertarianism.

    Geolibertarians recognize the right to private ownership of land, but only if fair recompense is paid to the community for the loss of access to that land. Some geolibertarians broaden out the tax base to include resource depletion, environmental damage, and other ancillaries to land use.

    A succinct summary of this philosophy can be found in Thomas Paine's 1797 pamphlet Agrarian Justice: "Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds".
    So at what point does the state step out of the process? With the Duke of Buccleuch or you owning your gaff? All razed to the ground and start again?
    Neither.

    If I own my own gaff then that should be a liability I need to pay for, in order to have a gaff to live in, that's not a problem I'm responsible for paying my own way.

    If the Duke of Buccleuch owns lots of gaffs, then they should be liabilities he needs to pay for too, scaled up to match whatever he owns.

    If you're making productive use out of your land, because you have a productive business or because you need a place to live, then there's no harm in you paying your fair share of taxation from your ownership. As said, land ownership should be taxed as recompense for the community losing access to that land, but if you're using it productively you can afford to pay that tax.

    If you're not using it productively, well you always have the option of selling the land and relinquishing the property rights to someone else who can use it as a home of their own to live in rather than being obliged to pay rent to the Duke of Buccleuch who is living off rent-seeking from you.

    The key is if you tax land properly, then you deal with the externality of the rest of the community not having access to their land and can significantly reduce income-related taxes meaning that people can keep more of their own efforts, rather than rent-seeking off others.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,072
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Maybe a big LAB - CON alliance to keep SNP out?

    Every argument as to why Sturgeon won't prop up the Tories applies to Starmer with bells on. The only time Labour entered a peacetime coalition with the Tories they lost an extraordinary 235 seats at the next election - the second highest attrition rate since 1832 (1906 being the highest when the Unionists lost 246).
    The SPD formed a government with the CDU from 2005 to 2009 and 2013 to 2021 and are now back leading a government.

    However yes it is very unlikely and only slightly possible if SNP hold balance of power and demand indyref
    That's in Germany. We are not Germany. Our entire political system and outlook is different, in particular, much more tribal.

    Can you imagine what the likes of Pidcock and Long Bailey would say to a grand coalition? Or even BJO, Nick Palmer and Kinabalu on these very boards?

    Starmer would far more likely dare the SNP to vote the Tories back in then go to Scotland and say, 'OK, who's your real enemy?'
    I thought BJO had already envisaged a deal with Boris's Tories ?
    And we know Nick is so reasonable he'd consider any proposal.

    Kinabalu might be a stumbling block.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,362
    Driver said:

    Must be a slow news day, it feels like about the tenth time this year we've had the same header.

    The facts remain the same - the Tory leader (presumably Sunak, but by then who knows?) stays PM until, after the election, Sir Keir has a demonstrable majority, either through Labour seats alone or some formal agreement with another party or parties.

    In this case, possession really is nine-tenths of the law.

    I think that's right, and I think that's what all the precedent shows.

    In the scenario where the Tories have most seats, but are well short of a majority it will likely go to a confidence vote of some sort. The SNP will want a second referendum before supporting a Labour government, Labour won't want to promise that, so it goes to a vote and we'd see whether the SNP would really keep a Tory in Number Ten without a deal.

    But I think it's academic because the next election will set more records than Ben Stokes' England Test team.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331
    edited December 2022
    Best result for the country would be a Lab/ LD alliance. SKS: re-entering the single market was the price we had to pay to form a government …

    Nige and other Europhobes will be wanting a stinking Lab majority.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,397
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Maybe a big LAB - CON alliance to keep SNP out?

    Every argument as to why Sturgeon won't prop up the Tories applies to Starmer with bells on. The only time Labour entered a peacetime coalition with the Tories they lost an extraordinary 235 seats at the next election - the second highest attrition rate since 1832 (1906 being the highest when the Unionists lost 246).
    The SPD formed a government with the CDU from 2005 to 2009 and 2013 to 2021 and are now back leading a government.

    However yes it is very unlikely and only slightly possible if SNP hold balance of power and demand indyref
    That's in Germany. We are not Germany. Our entire political system and outlook is different, in particular, much more tribal.

    Can you imagine what the likes of Pidcock and Long Bailey would say to a grand coalition? Or even BJO, Nick Palmer and Kinabalu on these very boards?

    Starmer would far more likely dare the SNP to vote the Tories back in then go to Scotland and say, 'OK, who's your real enemy?'
    I thought BJO had already envisaged a deal with Boris's Tories ?
    And we know Nick is so reasonable he'd consider any proposal.

    Kinabalu might be a stumbling block.
    I think BJO would simply say he always knew Starmer was a Tory.

    I think it was Johnson he liked rather than the Tories per se. As a shallow, bungling opportunist with racist overtones and a penchant for splurging lots of money he didn't have on things he didn't need I suppose the parallels with Corbyn were gratifying for him.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,960
    edited December 2022

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sounds like being a libertarian is all about someone defining the initial conditions before the state steps out of the process.

    Being a libertarian is about as much as possible people being free to make their own choices.

    The state should exist, otherwise we're talking absolute anarchy not libertarian. And of course any state that exists must be paid for.

    The idea that land ownership should be taxed is an ancient libertarian dating back to the 18th centuries within the framework of Geolibertarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

    Geolibertarianism is a political and economic ideology that integrates libertarianism with Georgism. It favors a taxation system based (as in Georgism) on income derived from land and natural resources instead of on labor, coupled with a minimalist model of government, as in libertarianism.

    Geolibertarians recognize the right to private ownership of land, but only if fair recompense is paid to the community for the loss of access to that land. Some geolibertarians broaden out the tax base to include resource depletion, environmental damage, and other ancillaries to land use.

    A succinct summary of this philosophy can be found in Thomas Paine's 1797 pamphlet Agrarian Justice: "Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds".
    So at what point does the state step out of the process? With the Duke of Buccleuch or you owning your gaff? All razed to the ground and start again?
    Neither.

    If I own my own gaff then that should be a liability I need to pay for, in order to have a gaff to live in, that's not a problem I'm responsible for paying my own way.

    If the Duke of Buccleuch owns lots of gaffs, then they should be liabilities he needs to pay for too, scaled up to match whatever he owns.

    If you're making productive use out of your land, because you have a productive business or because you need a place to live, then there's no harm in you paying your fair share of taxation from your ownership. As said, land ownership should be taxed as recompense for the community losing access to that land, but if you're using it productively you can afford to pay that tax.

    If you're not using it productively, well you always have the option of selling the land and relinquishing the property rights to someone else who can use it as a home of their own to live in rather than being obliged to pay rent to the Duke of Buccleuch who is living off rent-seeking from you.

    The key is if you tax land properly, then you deal with the externality of the rest of the community not having access to their land and can significantly reduce income-related taxes meaning that people can keep more of their own efforts, rather than rent-seeking off others.
    Or alternatively you destroy many traditional family farms and estates and small businesses and hand them over to global multinationals with little care for the local area, community or environment.

    You don't become a farmer for the money, only to preserve the family farm and provide food and wholesome produce.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,072
    edited December 2022
    Just greened my Japan bet on Betfair.
    If you'd put £10 on this morning, you could have it back, along with the prospect of £400 if Japan go all the way.

    Not bad for a football ignoramus.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,318
    I want to watch the last day of Pakistan Test from the start in toto

    Is that possible? I have not recorded it

    It is mad that you cannot do this. With streamed sports you can go back and watch the entire thing from the start, no problemo - eg Amazon's rugby broadcasts
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677
    Would Sunak offer the referendum to get SNP support? He obviously doesn't give a fuck about Scotland and doesn't even bother pretending like Johnson and May.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,397
    Leon said:

    I want to watch the last day of Pakistan Test from the start in toto

    Is that possible? I have not recorded it

    It is mad that you cannot do this. With streamed sports you can go back and watch the entire thing from the start, no problemo - eg Amazon's rugby broadcasts

    I don't believe so. You might be able to find a rebroadcast later on Sky Cricket and record that.

    Agree about the madness.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,405

    ydoethur said:

    Maybe a big LAB - CON alliance to keep SNP out?

    Every argument as to why Sturgeon won't prop up the Tories applies to Starmer with bells on. The only time Labour entered a peacetime coalition with the Tories they lost an extraordinary 235 seats at the next election - the second highest attrition rate since 1832 (1906 being the highest when the Unionists lost 246).
    The scenario I was thinking of is that LAB is the biggest party with CON a little behind but well short of 325.

    Rishi might say to Keir 'OK we've lost, it's your turn now, as long as you don't do anything completely stupid we will give you informal support' ie not a coalition, no cabinet seats for CON.

    Just an idea but probably not going to happen!
    In those circs you'd expect the Labour minority government to try to work for a few months then call a new election to try to get a workable majority.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,960

    Best result for the country would be a Lab/ LD alliance. SKS: re-entering the single market was the price we had to pay to form a government …

    Nige and other Europhobes will be wanting a stinking Lab majority.

    No they won't, as Labour going back into the single market plus free movement is the best route to the Tories and Farage prospering in the redwall again
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840

    Driver said:

    Must be a slow news day, it feels like about the tenth time this year we've had the same header.

    The facts remain the same - the Tory leader (presumably Sunak, but by then who knows?) stays PM until, after the election, Sir Keir has a demonstrable majority, either through Labour seats alone or some formal agreement with another party or parties.

    In this case, possession really is nine-tenths of the law.

    I think that's right, and I think that's what all the precedent shows.

    In the scenario where the Tories have most seats, but are well short of a majority it will likely go to a confidence vote of some sort. The SNP will want a second referendum before supporting a Labour government, Labour won't want to promise that, so it goes to a vote and we'd see whether the SNP would really keep a Tory in Number Ten without a deal.

    But I think it's academic because the next election will set more records than Ben Stokes' England Test team.
    Everyone's forgetting that the SNP don't vote on non-Scots matters. Which would make life impossible for a Labour minority government, if in the situation where SNP support is needed, and yet the SNP do not have to lift a finger to vote with the Tories in any way related to Scotland.

    Would be different if England had a parliament, with Tories in charge, and Labour et al i/c the UK, but it doesn't and it won't.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,397
    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sounds like being a libertarian is all about someone defining the initial conditions before the state steps out of the process.

    Being a libertarian is about as much as possible people being free to make their own choices.

    The state should exist, otherwise we're talking absolute anarchy not libertarian. And of course any state that exists must be paid for.

    The idea that land ownership should be taxed is an ancient libertarian dating back to the 18th centuries within the framework of Geolibertarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

    Geolibertarianism is a political and economic ideology that integrates libertarianism with Georgism. It favors a taxation system based (as in Georgism) on income derived from land and natural resources instead of on labor, coupled with a minimalist model of government, as in libertarianism.

    Geolibertarians recognize the right to private ownership of land, but only if fair recompense is paid to the community for the loss of access to that land. Some geolibertarians broaden out the tax base to include resource depletion, environmental damage, and other ancillaries to land use.

    A succinct summary of this philosophy can be found in Thomas Paine's 1797 pamphlet Agrarian Justice: "Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds".
    So at what point does the state step out of the process? With the Duke of Buccleuch or you owning your gaff? All razed to the ground and start again?
    Neither.

    If I own my own gaff then that should be a liability I need to pay for, in order to have a gaff to live in, that's not a problem I'm responsible for paying my own way.

    If the Duke of Buccleuch owns lots of gaffs, then they should be liabilities he needs to pay for too, scaled up to match whatever he owns.

    If you're making productive use out of your land, because you have a productive business or because you need a place to live, then there's no harm in you paying your fair share of taxation from your ownership. As said, land ownership should be taxed as recompense for the community losing access to that land, but if you're using it productively you can afford to pay that tax.

    If you're not using it productively, well you always have the option of selling the land and relinquishing the property rights to someone else who can use it as a home of their own to live in rather than being obliged to pay rent to the Duke of Buccleuch who is living off rent-seeking from you.

    The key is if you tax land properly, then you deal with the externality of the rest of the community not having access to their land and can significantly reduce income-related taxes meaning that people can keep more of their own efforts, rather than rent-seeking off others.
    Or alternatively you destroy many traditional family farms and estates and hand them over to global multinationals with little care for the local area or environment.

    You don't become a farmer for the money, only to preserve the family farm and provide food and wholesome produce.

    I think it was PopeJohn XXIII who said, 'there are three ways a man may ruin himself - drink, women and farming. My father chose the most boring of the three.'
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840
    Dura_Ace said:

    Would Sunak offer the referendum to get SNP support? He obviously doesn't give a fuck about Scotland and doesn't even bother pretending like Johnson and May.

    Would he be allowed to? If HYUFD is any guide, he wouldn't survive till the next Scotland Act was passed, never mind referendum.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,072
    Nigelb said:

    Just greened my Japan bet on Betfair.
    If you'd put £10 on this morning, you could have it back, along with the prospect of £400 if Japan go all the way.

    Not bad for a football ignoramus.

    Damn, just jinxed them.
    They're doomed now.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,960
    Carnyx said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Would Sunak offer the referendum to get SNP support? He obviously doesn't give a fuck about Scotland and doesn't even bother pretending like Johnson and May.

    Would he be allowed to? If HYUFD is any guide, he wouldn't survive till the next Scotland Act was passed, never mind referendum.
    He would be removed as leader before he even tried.

    However there is near zero chance of him being in a position to form a government with SNP support on current polls anyway
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677
    Carnyx said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Would Sunak offer the referendum to get SNP support? He obviously doesn't give a fuck about Scotland and doesn't even bother pretending like Johnson and May.

    Would he be allowed to? If HYUFD is any guide, he wouldn't survive till the next Scotland Act was passed, never mind referendum.
    What happens if Sunak and Starmer both tell the SNP to do one but neither can muster a majority? Another election? That outcome is probably be better for Labour than the tories as the country's crisis fatigue will be acute at that point.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sounds like being a libertarian is all about someone defining the initial conditions before the state steps out of the process.

    Being a libertarian is about as much as possible people being free to make their own choices.

    The state should exist, otherwise we're talking absolute anarchy not libertarian. And of course any state that exists must be paid for.

    The idea that land ownership should be taxed is an ancient libertarian dating back to the 18th centuries within the framework of Geolibertarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

    Geolibertarianism is a political and economic ideology that integrates libertarianism with Georgism. It favors a taxation system based (as in Georgism) on income derived from land and natural resources instead of on labor, coupled with a minimalist model of government, as in libertarianism.

    Geolibertarians recognize the right to private ownership of land, but only if fair recompense is paid to the community for the loss of access to that land. Some geolibertarians broaden out the tax base to include resource depletion, environmental damage, and other ancillaries to land use.

    A succinct summary of this philosophy can be found in Thomas Paine's 1797 pamphlet Agrarian Justice: "Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds".
    So at what point does the state step out of the process? With the Duke of Buccleuch or you owning your gaff? All razed to the ground and start again?
    Neither.

    If I own my own gaff then that should be a liability I need to pay for, in order to have a gaff to live in, that's not a problem I'm responsible for paying my own way.

    If the Duke of Buccleuch owns lots of gaffs, then they should be liabilities he needs to pay for too, scaled up to match whatever he owns.

    If you're making productive use out of your land, because you have a productive business or because you need a place to live, then there's no harm in you paying your fair share of taxation from your ownership. As said, land ownership should be taxed as recompense for the community losing access to that land, but if you're using it productively you can afford to pay that tax.

    If you're not using it productively, well you always have the option of selling the land and relinquishing the property rights to someone else who can use it as a home of their own to live in rather than being obliged to pay rent to the Duke of Buccleuch who is living off rent-seeking from you.

    The key is if you tax land properly, then you deal with the externality of the rest of the community not having access to their land and can significantly reduce income-related taxes meaning that people can keep more of their own efforts, rather than rent-seeking off others.
    Quite so. And any subsidy to farmers (for reasons of, for instamce, food security) should apply to all farmers. Likewise pressure on supermarkets to pay fair prices. Not pampering only those farms owned by farmers.

    In any case, the preservation argument doesn't apply to great estates which rent out farms - you can't claim the argument of estate preservation as a justification for renting out farms and them claim it also for owner occupied farms.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840
    Dura_Ace said:

    Carnyx said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Would Sunak offer the referendum to get SNP support? He obviously doesn't give a fuck about Scotland and doesn't even bother pretending like Johnson and May.

    Would he be allowed to? If HYUFD is any guide, he wouldn't survive till the next Scotland Act was passed, never mind referendum.
    What happens if Sunak and Starmer both tell the SNP to do one but neither can muster a majority? Another election? That outcome is probably be better for Labour than the tories as the country's crisis fatigue will be acute at that point.
    Quite so.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,405
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sounds like being a libertarian is all about someone defining the initial conditions before the state steps out of the process.

    Being a libertarian is about as much as possible people being free to make their own choices.

    The state should exist, otherwise we're talking absolute anarchy not libertarian. And of course any state that exists must be paid for.

    The idea that land ownership should be taxed is an ancient libertarian dating back to the 18th centuries within the framework of Geolibertarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

    Geolibertarianism is a political and economic ideology that integrates libertarianism with Georgism. It favors a taxation system based (as in Georgism) on income derived from land and natural resources instead of on labor, coupled with a minimalist model of government, as in libertarianism.

    Geolibertarians recognize the right to private ownership of land, but only if fair recompense is paid to the community for the loss of access to that land. Some geolibertarians broaden out the tax base to include resource depletion, environmental damage, and other ancillaries to land use.

    A succinct summary of this philosophy can be found in Thomas Paine's 1797 pamphlet Agrarian Justice: "Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds".
    So at what point does the state step out of the process? With the Duke of Buccleuch or you owning your gaff? All razed to the ground and start again?
    Neither.

    If I own my own gaff then that should be a liability I need to pay for, in order to have a gaff to live in, that's not a problem I'm responsible for paying my own way.

    If the Duke of Buccleuch owns lots of gaffs, then they should be liabilities he needs to pay for too, scaled up to match whatever he owns.

    If you're making productive use out of your land, because you have a productive business or because you need a place to live, then there's no harm in you paying your fair share of taxation from your ownership. As said, land ownership should be taxed as recompense for the community losing access to that land, but if you're using it productively you can afford to pay that tax.

    If you're not using it productively, well you always have the option of selling the land and relinquishing the property rights to someone else who can use it as a home of their own to live in rather than being obliged to pay rent to the Duke of Buccleuch who is living off rent-seeking from you.

    The key is if you tax land properly, then you deal with the externality of the rest of the community not having access to their land and can significantly reduce income-related taxes meaning that people can keep more of their own efforts, rather than rent-seeking off others.
    Or alternatively you destroy many traditional family farms and estates and hand them over to global multinationals with little care for the local area or environment.

    You don't become a farmer for the money, only to preserve the family farm and provide food and wholesome produce.

    I think it was PopeJohn XXIII who said, 'there are three ways a man may ruin himself - drink, women and farming. My father chose the most boring of the three.'
    Drink?
  • ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Maybe a big LAB - CON alliance to keep SNP out?

    Every argument as to why Sturgeon won't prop up the Tories applies to Starmer with bells on. The only time Labour entered a peacetime coalition with the Tories they lost an extraordinary 235 seats at the next election - the second highest attrition rate since 1832 (1906 being the highest when the Unionists lost 246).
    The SPD formed a government with the CDU from 2005 to 2009 and 2013 to 2021 and are now back leading a government.

    However yes it is very unlikely and only slightly possible if SNP hold balance of power and demand indyref
    That's in Germany. We are not Germany. Our entire political system and outlook is different, in particular, much more tribal.

    Can you imagine what the likes of Pidcock and Long Bailey would say to a grand coalition? Or even BJO, Nick Palmer and Kinabalu on these very boards?

    Starmer would far more likely dare the SNP to vote the Tories back in then go to Scotland and say, 'OK, who's your real enemy?'
    Vote SNP, get Sunak!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,960
    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sounds like being a libertarian is all about someone defining the initial conditions before the state steps out of the process.

    Being a libertarian is about as much as possible people being free to make their own choices.

    The state should exist, otherwise we're talking absolute anarchy not libertarian. And of course any state that exists must be paid for.

    The idea that land ownership should be taxed is an ancient libertarian dating back to the 18th centuries within the framework of Geolibertarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

    Geolibertarianism is a political and economic ideology that integrates libertarianism with Georgism. It favors a taxation system based (as in Georgism) on income derived from land and natural resources instead of on labor, coupled with a minimalist model of government, as in libertarianism.

    Geolibertarians recognize the right to private ownership of land, but only if fair recompense is paid to the community for the loss of access to that land. Some geolibertarians broaden out the tax base to include resource depletion, environmental damage, and other ancillaries to land use.

    A succinct summary of this philosophy can be found in Thomas Paine's 1797 pamphlet Agrarian Justice: "Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds".
    So at what point does the state step out of the process? With the Duke of Buccleuch or you owning your gaff? All razed to the ground and start again?
    Neither.

    If I own my own gaff then that should be a liability I need to pay for, in order to have a gaff to live in, that's not a problem I'm responsible for paying my own way.

    If the Duke of Buccleuch owns lots of gaffs, then they should be liabilities he needs to pay for too, scaled up to match whatever he owns.

    If you're making productive use out of your land, because you have a productive business or because you need a place to live, then there's no harm in you paying your fair share of taxation from your ownership. As said, land ownership should be taxed as recompense for the community losing access to that land, but if you're using it productively you can afford to pay that tax.

    If you're not using it productively, well you always have the option of selling the land and relinquishing the property rights to someone else who can use it as a home of their own to live in rather than being obliged to pay rent to the Duke of Buccleuch who is living off rent-seeking from you.

    The key is if you tax land properly, then you deal with the externality of the rest of the community not having access to their land and can significantly reduce income-related taxes meaning that people can keep more of their own efforts, rather than rent-seeking off others.
    Quite so. And any subsidy to farmers (for reasons of, for instamce, food security) should apply to all farmers. Likewise pressure on supermarkets to pay fair prices. Not pampering only those farms owned by farmers.

    In any case, the preservation argument doesn't apply to great estates which rent out farms - you can't claim the argument of estate preservation as a justification for renting out farms and them claim it also for owner occupied farms.
    It does as they would also have to pass on the costs to farms they rent out.

    All it would do is see more large estates, farms and small businesses be taken over by soulless multinationals
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,658
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Maybe a big LAB - CON alliance to keep SNP out?

    Every argument as to why Sturgeon won't prop up the Tories applies to Starmer with bells on. The only time Labour entered a peacetime coalition with the Tories they lost an extraordinary 235 seats at the next election - the second highest attrition rate since 1832 (1906 being the highest when the Unionists lost 246).
    The SPD formed a government with the CDU from 2005 to 2009 and 2013 to 2021 and are now back leading a government.

    However yes it is very unlikely and only slightly possible if SNP hold balance of power and demand indyref
    That's in Germany. We are not Germany. Our entire political system and outlook is different, in particular, much more tribal.

    Can you imagine what the likes of Pidcock and Long Bailey would say to a grand coalition? Or even BJO, Nick Palmer and Kinabalu on these very boards?

    Starmer would far more likely dare the SNP to vote the Tories back in then go to Scotland and say, 'OK, who's your real enemy?'
    I thought BJO had already envisaged a deal with Boris's Tories ?
    And we know Nick is so reasonable he'd consider any proposal.

    Kinabalu might be a stumbling block.
    I think BJO would simply say he always knew Starmer was a Tory.

    I think it was Johnson he liked rather than the Tories per se. As a shallow, bungling opportunist with racist overtones and a penchant for splurging lots of money he didn't have on things he didn't need I suppose the parallels with Corbyn were gratifying for him.
    We see now how following from the big spending oaf is not a good position.
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 2,005
    This sort of thing doesn't help Harry and Meghan.

    This photograph used by @netflix and Harry and Meghan to suggest intrusion by the press is a complete travesty. It was taken from a accredited pool at Archbishop Tutu’s residence in Cape Town. Only 3 people were in the accredited position. H & M agreed the position. I was there.
    https://twitter.com/theroyaleditor/status/1599799660335472641
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sounds like being a libertarian is all about someone defining the initial conditions before the state steps out of the process.

    Being a libertarian is about as much as possible people being free to make their own choices.

    The state should exist, otherwise we're talking absolute anarchy not libertarian. And of course any state that exists must be paid for.

    The idea that land ownership should be taxed is an ancient libertarian dating back to the 18th centuries within the framework of Geolibertarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

    Geolibertarianism is a political and economic ideology that integrates libertarianism with Georgism. It favors a taxation system based (as in Georgism) on income derived from land and natural resources instead of on labor, coupled with a minimalist model of government, as in libertarianism.

    Geolibertarians recognize the right to private ownership of land, but only if fair recompense is paid to the community for the loss of access to that land. Some geolibertarians broaden out the tax base to include resource depletion, environmental damage, and other ancillaries to land use.

    A succinct summary of this philosophy can be found in Thomas Paine's 1797 pamphlet Agrarian Justice: "Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds".
    So at what point does the state step out of the process? With the Duke of Buccleuch or you owning your gaff? All razed to the ground and start again?
    Neither.

    If I own my own gaff then that should be a liability I need to pay for, in order to have a gaff to live in, that's not a problem I'm responsible for paying my own way.

    If the Duke of Buccleuch owns lots of gaffs, then they should be liabilities he needs to pay for too, scaled up to match whatever he owns.

    If you're making productive use out of your land, because you have a productive business or because you need a place to live, then there's no harm in you paying your fair share of taxation from your ownership. As said, land ownership should be taxed as recompense for the community losing access to that land, but if you're using it productively you can afford to pay that tax.

    If you're not using it productively, well you always have the option of selling the land and relinquishing the property rights to someone else who can use it as a home of their own to live in rather than being obliged to pay rent to the Duke of Buccleuch who is living off rent-seeking from you.

    The key is if you tax land properly, then you deal with the externality of the rest of the community not having access to their land and can significantly reduce income-related taxes meaning that people can keep more of their own efforts, rather than rent-seeking off others.
    Quite so. And any subsidy to farmers (for reasons of, for instamce, food security) should apply to all farmers. Likewise pressure on supermarkets to pay fair prices. Not pampering only those farms owned by farmers.

    In any case, the preservation argument doesn't apply to great estates which rent out farms - you can't claim the argument of estate preservation as a justification for renting out farms and them claim it also for owner occupied farms.
    It does as they would also have to pass on the costs to farms they rent out.

    All it would do is see more large estates, farms and small businesses be taken over by soulless multinationals
    Capital not income, remember.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,397

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sounds like being a libertarian is all about someone defining the initial conditions before the state steps out of the process.

    Being a libertarian is about as much as possible people being free to make their own choices.

    The state should exist, otherwise we're talking absolute anarchy not libertarian. And of course any state that exists must be paid for.

    The idea that land ownership should be taxed is an ancient libertarian dating back to the 18th centuries within the framework of Geolibertarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

    Geolibertarianism is a political and economic ideology that integrates libertarianism with Georgism. It favors a taxation system based (as in Georgism) on income derived from land and natural resources instead of on labor, coupled with a minimalist model of government, as in libertarianism.

    Geolibertarians recognize the right to private ownership of land, but only if fair recompense is paid to the community for the loss of access to that land. Some geolibertarians broaden out the tax base to include resource depletion, environmental damage, and other ancillaries to land use.

    A succinct summary of this philosophy can be found in Thomas Paine's 1797 pamphlet Agrarian Justice: "Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds".
    So at what point does the state step out of the process? With the Duke of Buccleuch or you owning your gaff? All razed to the ground and start again?
    Neither.

    If I own my own gaff then that should be a liability I need to pay for, in order to have a gaff to live in, that's not a problem I'm responsible for paying my own way.

    If the Duke of Buccleuch owns lots of gaffs, then they should be liabilities he needs to pay for too, scaled up to match whatever he owns.

    If you're making productive use out of your land, because you have a productive business or because you need a place to live, then there's no harm in you paying your fair share of taxation from your ownership. As said, land ownership should be taxed as recompense for the community losing access to that land, but if you're using it productively you can afford to pay that tax.

    If you're not using it productively, well you always have the option of selling the land and relinquishing the property rights to someone else who can use it as a home of their own to live in rather than being obliged to pay rent to the Duke of Buccleuch who is living off rent-seeking from you.

    The key is if you tax land properly, then you deal with the externality of the rest of the community not having access to their land and can significantly reduce income-related taxes meaning that people can keep more of their own efforts, rather than rent-seeking off others.
    Or alternatively you destroy many traditional family farms and estates and hand them over to global multinationals with little care for the local area or environment.

    You don't become a farmer for the money, only to preserve the family farm and provide food and wholesome produce.

    I think it was PopeJohn XXIII who said, 'there are three ways a man may ruin himself - drink, women and farming. My father chose the most boring of the three.'
    Drink?
    Feck!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sounds like being a libertarian is all about someone defining the initial conditions before the state steps out of the process.

    Being a libertarian is about as much as possible people being free to make their own choices.

    The state should exist, otherwise we're talking absolute anarchy not libertarian. And of course any state that exists must be paid for.

    The idea that land ownership should be taxed is an ancient libertarian dating back to the 18th centuries within the framework of Geolibertarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

    Geolibertarianism is a political and economic ideology that integrates libertarianism with Georgism. It favors a taxation system based (as in Georgism) on income derived from land and natural resources instead of on labor, coupled with a minimalist model of government, as in libertarianism.

    Geolibertarians recognize the right to private ownership of land, but only if fair recompense is paid to the community for the loss of access to that land. Some geolibertarians broaden out the tax base to include resource depletion, environmental damage, and other ancillaries to land use.

    A succinct summary of this philosophy can be found in Thomas Paine's 1797 pamphlet Agrarian Justice: "Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds".
    So at what point does the state step out of the process? With the Duke of Buccleuch or you owning your gaff? All razed to the ground and start again?
    Neither.

    If I own my own gaff then that should be a liability I need to pay for, in order to have a gaff to live in, that's not a problem I'm responsible for paying my own way.

    If the Duke of Buccleuch owns lots of gaffs, then they should be liabilities he needs to pay for too, scaled up to match whatever he owns.

    If you're making productive use out of your land, because you have a productive business or because you need a place to live, then there's no harm in you paying your fair share of taxation from your ownership. As said, land ownership should be taxed as recompense for the community losing access to that land, but if you're using it productively you can afford to pay that tax.

    If you're not using it productively, well you always have the option of selling the land and relinquishing the property rights to someone else who can use it as a home of their own to live in rather than being obliged to pay rent to the Duke of Buccleuch who is living off rent-seeking from you.

    The key is if you tax land properly, then you deal with the externality of the rest of the community not having access to their land and can significantly reduce income-related taxes meaning that people can keep more of their own efforts, rather than rent-seeking off others.
    Quite so. And any subsidy to farmers (for reasons of, for instamce, food security) should apply to all farmers. Likewise pressure on supermarkets to pay fair prices. Not pampering only those farms owned by farmers.

    In any case, the preservation argument doesn't apply to great estates which rent out farms - you can't claim the argument of estate preservation as a justification for renting out farms and them claim it also for owner occupied farms.
    It does as they would also have to pass on the costs to farms they rent out.

    All it would do is see more large estates, farms and small businesses be taken over by soulless multinationals
    What do you think Tory policy has led to in the property market more generally?

  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,904

    Not much of the analysis I have read recently has made much of the possibilities/dangers/consequences of tactical voting. I think that the obsession amongst commentators about the Red Wall (and its newly erected companion, the Blue Wall) is over-simplistic, and strangely short-sighted.

    Yes indeed. Most of the comments about the Chester byelection have focused on the Labour win and the Conservative collapse. Very little attention has been paid to the way the Lib Dems ran their campaign. If they had run a "kitchen sink" campaign, then no doubt their vote would have been higher, and Labour's lower. The problem is that the Lib Dems cannot afford to do this in every byelection. But they can in some - and at the next general election too.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,960
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sounds like being a libertarian is all about someone defining the initial conditions before the state steps out of the process.

    Being a libertarian is about as much as possible people being free to make their own choices.

    The state should exist, otherwise we're talking absolute anarchy not libertarian. And of course any state that exists must be paid for.

    The idea that land ownership should be taxed is an ancient libertarian dating back to the 18th centuries within the framework of Geolibertarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

    Geolibertarianism is a political and economic ideology that integrates libertarianism with Georgism. It favors a taxation system based (as in Georgism) on income derived from land and natural resources instead of on labor, coupled with a minimalist model of government, as in libertarianism.

    Geolibertarians recognize the right to private ownership of land, but only if fair recompense is paid to the community for the loss of access to that land. Some geolibertarians broaden out the tax base to include resource depletion, environmental damage, and other ancillaries to land use.

    A succinct summary of this philosophy can be found in Thomas Paine's 1797 pamphlet Agrarian Justice: "Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds".
    So at what point does the state step out of the process? With the Duke of Buccleuch or you owning your gaff? All razed to the ground and start again?
    Neither.

    If I own my own gaff then that should be a liability I need to pay for, in order to have a gaff to live in, that's not a problem I'm responsible for paying my own way.

    If the Duke of Buccleuch owns lots of gaffs, then they should be liabilities he needs to pay for too, scaled up to match whatever he owns.

    If you're making productive use out of your land, because you have a productive business or because you need a place to live, then there's no harm in you paying your fair share of taxation from your ownership. As said, land ownership should be taxed as recompense for the community losing access to that land, but if you're using it productively you can afford to pay that tax.

    If you're not using it productively, well you always have the option of selling the land and relinquishing the property rights to someone else who can use it as a home of their own to live in rather than being obliged to pay rent to the Duke of Buccleuch who is living off rent-seeking from you.

    The key is if you tax land properly, then you deal with the externality of the rest of the community not having access to their land and can significantly reduce income-related taxes meaning that people can keep more of their own efforts, rather than rent-seeking off others.
    Quite so. And any subsidy to farmers (for reasons of, for instamce, food security) should apply to all farmers. Likewise pressure on supermarkets to pay fair prices. Not pampering only those farms owned by farmers.

    In any case, the preservation argument doesn't apply to great estates which rent out farms - you can't claim the argument of estate preservation as a justification for renting out farms and them claim it also for owner occupied farms.
    It does as they would also have to pass on the costs to farms they rent out.

    All it would do is see more large estates, farms and small businesses be taken over by soulless multinationals
    Capital not income, remember.
    And they need extra income to pay the extra tax you want to impose on them if they are to survive
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963
    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Must be a slow news day, it feels like about the tenth time this year we've had the same header.

    The facts remain the same - the Tory leader (presumably Sunak, but by then who knows?) stays PM until, after the election, Sir Keir has a demonstrable majority, either through Labour seats alone or some formal agreement with another party or parties.

    In this case, possession really is nine-tenths of the law.

    I think that's right, and I think that's what all the precedent shows.

    In the scenario where the Tories have most seats, but are well short of a majority it will likely go to a confidence vote of some sort. The SNP will want a second referendum before supporting a Labour government, Labour won't want to promise that, so it goes to a vote and we'd see whether the SNP would really keep a Tory in Number Ten without a deal.

    But I think it's academic because the next election will set more records than Ben Stokes' England Test team.
    Everyone's forgetting that the SNP don't vote on non-Scots matters. Which would make life impossible for a Labour minority government, if in the situation where SNP support is needed, and yet the SNP do not have to lift a finger to vote with the Tories in any way related to Scotland.

    Would be different if England had a parliament, with Tories in charge, and Labour et al i/c the UK, but it doesn't and it won't.
    Except when they do.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,960
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sounds like being a libertarian is all about someone defining the initial conditions before the state steps out of the process.

    Being a libertarian is about as much as possible people being free to make their own choices.

    The state should exist, otherwise we're talking absolute anarchy not libertarian. And of course any state that exists must be paid for.

    The idea that land ownership should be taxed is an ancient libertarian dating back to the 18th centuries within the framework of Geolibertarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

    Geolibertarianism is a political and economic ideology that integrates libertarianism with Georgism. It favors a taxation system based (as in Georgism) on income derived from land and natural resources instead of on labor, coupled with a minimalist model of government, as in libertarianism.

    Geolibertarians recognize the right to private ownership of land, but only if fair recompense is paid to the community for the loss of access to that land. Some geolibertarians broaden out the tax base to include resource depletion, environmental damage, and other ancillaries to land use.

    A succinct summary of this philosophy can be found in Thomas Paine's 1797 pamphlet Agrarian Justice: "Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds".
    So at what point does the state step out of the process? With the Duke of Buccleuch or you owning your gaff? All razed to the ground and start again?
    Neither.

    If I own my own gaff then that should be a liability I need to pay for, in order to have a gaff to live in, that's not a problem I'm responsible for paying my own way.

    If the Duke of Buccleuch owns lots of gaffs, then they should be liabilities he needs to pay for too, scaled up to match whatever he owns.

    If you're making productive use out of your land, because you have a productive business or because you need a place to live, then there's no harm in you paying your fair share of taxation from your ownership. As said, land ownership should be taxed as recompense for the community losing access to that land, but if you're using it productively you can afford to pay that tax.

    If you're not using it productively, well you always have the option of selling the land and relinquishing the property rights to someone else who can use it as a home of their own to live in rather than being obliged to pay rent to the Duke of Buccleuch who is living off rent-seeking from you.

    The key is if you tax land properly, then you deal with the externality of the rest of the community not having access to their land and can significantly reduce income-related taxes meaning that people can keep more of their own efforts, rather than rent-seeking off others.
    Quite so. And any subsidy to farmers (for reasons of, for instamce, food security) should apply to all farmers. Likewise pressure on supermarkets to pay fair prices. Not pampering only those farms owned by farmers.

    In any case, the preservation argument doesn't apply to great estates which rent out farms - you can't claim the argument of estate preservation as a justification for renting out farms and them claim it also for owner occupied farms.
    It does as they would also have to pass on the costs to farms they rent out.

    All it would do is see more large estates, farms and small businesses be taken over by soulless multinationals
    What do you think Tory policy has led to in the property market more generally?

    2/3 of the adult population being homeowners, whereas 100 years ago most rented
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,362
    Leon said:

    I want to watch the last day of Pakistan Test from the start in toto

    Is that possible? I have not recorded it

    It is mad that you cannot do this. With streamed sports you can go back and watch the entire thing from the start, no problemo - eg Amazon's rugby broadcasts

    I watched the entirety of the 2019 Headingley Test in 2020. The ECB had put it on YouTube.

    I'd be surprised if you couldn't watch it through Now TV.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,397
    edited December 2022
    Dura_Ace said:

    Carnyx said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Would Sunak offer the referendum to get SNP support? He obviously doesn't give a fuck about Scotland and doesn't even bother pretending like Johnson and May.

    Would he be allowed to? If HYUFD is any guide, he wouldn't survive till the next Scotland Act was passed, never mind referendum.
    What happens if Sunak and Starmer both tell the SNP to do one but neither can muster a majority? Another election? That outcome is probably be better for Labour than the tories as the country's crisis fatigue will be acute at that point.
    If Starmer leads the largest party he could probably vote the Tories out unless the SNP voted for the Tories. At that point the SNP would more or less have to back him - either actively by voting for him or passively by abstaining - or be accused of being Sunak's little helpers.

    If the Tories are the largest party then I think it would have to be another election. The SNP would then have to explain what the point is of voting for them when they won't get rid of the hated Tories at the first opportunity.

    Bluntly, it is hard to see a positive scenario for the SNP in the event of a hung Parliament. They almost certainly won't be getting their referendum, and they will have to either vote Labour in without one or explain why they didn't get rid of the Tories. Neither is a good option.

    Their optimum result is a very small Tory majority with zero seats in Scotland. At that point you would have to say the UK government lacked legitimacy north of the border.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840
    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Must be a slow news day, it feels like about the tenth time this year we've had the same header.

    The facts remain the same - the Tory leader (presumably Sunak, but by then who knows?) stays PM until, after the election, Sir Keir has a demonstrable majority, either through Labour seats alone or some formal agreement with another party or parties.

    In this case, possession really is nine-tenths of the law.

    I think that's right, and I think that's what all the precedent shows.

    In the scenario where the Tories have most seats, but are well short of a majority it will likely go to a confidence vote of some sort. The SNP will want a second referendum before supporting a Labour government, Labour won't want to promise that, so it goes to a vote and we'd see whether the SNP would really keep a Tory in Number Ten without a deal.

    But I think it's academic because the next election will set more records than Ben Stokes' England Test team.
    Everyone's forgetting that the SNP don't vote on non-Scots matters. Which would make life impossible for a Labour minority government, if in the situation where SNP support is needed, and yet the SNP do not have to lift a finger to vote with the Tories in any way related to Scotland.

    Would be different if England had a parliament, with Tories in charge, and Labour et al i/c the UK, but it doesn't and it won't.
    Except when they do.
    Which is so rare as to be irrelevant and to come under the category of grey areas. Indeed, the last occasion led to some criticism within the party, so I will be very surrpised if it happens again.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sounds like being a libertarian is all about someone defining the initial conditions before the state steps out of the process.

    Being a libertarian is about as much as possible people being free to make their own choices.

    The state should exist, otherwise we're talking absolute anarchy not libertarian. And of course any state that exists must be paid for.

    The idea that land ownership should be taxed is an ancient libertarian dating back to the 18th centuries within the framework of Geolibertarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

    Geolibertarianism is a political and economic ideology that integrates libertarianism with Georgism. It favors a taxation system based (as in Georgism) on income derived from land and natural resources instead of on labor, coupled with a minimalist model of government, as in libertarianism.

    Geolibertarians recognize the right to private ownership of land, but only if fair recompense is paid to the community for the loss of access to that land. Some geolibertarians broaden out the tax base to include resource depletion, environmental damage, and other ancillaries to land use.

    A succinct summary of this philosophy can be found in Thomas Paine's 1797 pamphlet Agrarian Justice: "Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds".
    So at what point does the state step out of the process? With the Duke of Buccleuch or you owning your gaff? All razed to the ground and start again?
    Neither.

    If I own my own gaff then that should be a liability I need to pay for, in order to have a gaff to live in, that's not a problem I'm responsible for paying my own way.

    If the Duke of Buccleuch owns lots of gaffs, then they should be liabilities he needs to pay for too, scaled up to match whatever he owns.

    If you're making productive use out of your land, because you have a productive business or because you need a place to live, then there's no harm in you paying your fair share of taxation from your ownership. As said, land ownership should be taxed as recompense for the community losing access to that land, but if you're using it productively you can afford to pay that tax.

    If you're not using it productively, well you always have the option of selling the land and relinquishing the property rights to someone else who can use it as a home of their own to live in rather than being obliged to pay rent to the Duke of Buccleuch who is living off rent-seeking from you.

    The key is if you tax land properly, then you deal with the externality of the rest of the community not having access to their land and can significantly reduce income-related taxes meaning that people can keep more of their own efforts, rather than rent-seeking off others.
    Quite so. And any subsidy to farmers (for reasons of, for instamce, food security) should apply to all farmers. Likewise pressure on supermarkets to pay fair prices. Not pampering only those farms owned by farmers.

    In any case, the preservation argument doesn't apply to great estates which rent out farms - you can't claim the argument of estate preservation as a justification for renting out farms and them claim it also for owner occupied farms.
    It does as they would also have to pass on the costs to farms they rent out.

    All it would do is see more large estates, farms and small businesses be taken over by soulless multinationals
    What do you think Tory policy has led to in the property market more generally?

    2/3 of the adult population being homeowners, whereas 100 years ago most rented
    No: the rise of major corporations and businesses as farmland owners and industry owners.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,960
    edited December 2022
    AlistairM said:

    This sort of thing doesn't help Harry and Meghan.

    This photograph used by @netflix and Harry and Meghan to suggest intrusion by the press is a complete travesty. It was taken from a accredited pool at Archbishop Tutu’s residence in Cape Town. Only 3 people were in the accredited position. H & M agreed the position. I was there.
    https://twitter.com/theroyaleditor/status/1599799660335472641

    Nor is Harry preparing to go to war with the British public saying 'those Brits need to learn a lesson'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11499543/Harry-Meghans-bombshell-Netflix-documentary-war-public.html
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963
    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Carnyx said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Would Sunak offer the referendum to get SNP support? He obviously doesn't give a fuck about Scotland and doesn't even bother pretending like Johnson and May.

    Would he be allowed to? If HYUFD is any guide, he wouldn't survive till the next Scotland Act was passed, never mind referendum.
    What happens if Sunak and Starmer both tell the SNP to do one but neither can muster a majority? Another election? That outcome is probably be better for Labour than the tories as the country's crisis fatigue will be acute at that point.
    If Starmer leads the largest party he could probably vote the Tories out unless the SNP voted for the Tories. At that point the SNP would more or less have to back him - either actively by voting for him or passively by abstaining - or be accused of being Sunak's little helpers.

    If the Tories are the largest party then I think it would have to be another election. The SNP would then have to explain what the point is of voting for them when they won't get rid of the hated Tories at the first opportunity.

    Bluntly, it is hard to see a positive scenario for the SNP in the event of a hung Parliament. They almost certainly won't be getting their referendum, and they will have to either vote Labour in without one or explain why they didn't get rid of the Tories. Neither is a good option.

    Their optimum result is a very small Tory majority with zero seats in Scotland. At that point you would have to say the UK government lacked legitimacy north of the border.
    I think you're misunderstanding how the process works. There is never a direct vote in parliament between two possible governments. Sir Keir only gets to be PM if he can demonstrate before a King's Speech vote that he can win it - in the situation you posit that would need a formal commitment from the SNP to at least abstain on a Labour King's Speech. They could easily commit to voting against a King's Speech in any circumstances and force a new election if they don't get their second referendum.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,960
    edited December 2022
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sounds like being a libertarian is all about someone defining the initial conditions before the state steps out of the process.

    Being a libertarian is about as much as possible people being free to make their own choices.

    The state should exist, otherwise we're talking absolute anarchy not libertarian. And of course any state that exists must be paid for.

    The idea that land ownership should be taxed is an ancient libertarian dating back to the 18th centuries within the framework of Geolibertarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

    Geolibertarianism is a political and economic ideology that integrates libertarianism with Georgism. It favors a taxation system based (as in Georgism) on income derived from land and natural resources instead of on labor, coupled with a minimalist model of government, as in libertarianism.

    Geolibertarians recognize the right to private ownership of land, but only if fair recompense is paid to the community for the loss of access to that land. Some geolibertarians broaden out the tax base to include resource depletion, environmental damage, and other ancillaries to land use.

    A succinct summary of this philosophy can be found in Thomas Paine's 1797 pamphlet Agrarian Justice: "Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds".
    So at what point does the state step out of the process? With the Duke of Buccleuch or you owning your gaff? All razed to the ground and start again?
    Neither.

    If I own my own gaff then that should be a liability I need to pay for, in order to have a gaff to live in, that's not a problem I'm responsible for paying my own way.

    If the Duke of Buccleuch owns lots of gaffs, then they should be liabilities he needs to pay for too, scaled up to match whatever he owns.

    If you're making productive use out of your land, because you have a productive business or because you need a place to live, then there's no harm in you paying your fair share of taxation from your ownership. As said, land ownership should be taxed as recompense for the community losing access to that land, but if you're using it productively you can afford to pay that tax.

    If you're not using it productively, well you always have the option of selling the land and relinquishing the property rights to someone else who can use it as a home of their own to live in rather than being obliged to pay rent to the Duke of Buccleuch who is living off rent-seeking from you.

    The key is if you tax land properly, then you deal with the externality of the rest of the community not having access to their land and can significantly reduce income-related taxes meaning that people can keep more of their own efforts, rather than rent-seeking off others.
    Quite so. And any subsidy to farmers (for reasons of, for instamce, food security) should apply to all farmers. Likewise pressure on supermarkets to pay fair prices. Not pampering only those farms owned by farmers.

    In any case, the preservation argument doesn't apply to great estates which rent out farms - you can't claim the argument of estate preservation as a justification for renting out farms and them claim it also for owner occupied farms.
    It does as they would also have to pass on the costs to farms they rent out.

    All it would do is see more large estates, farms and small businesses be taken over by soulless multinationals
    What do you think Tory policy has led to in the property market more generally?

    2/3 of the adult population being homeowners, whereas 100 years ago most rented
    No: the rise of major corporations and businesses as farmland owners and industry owners.
    Would accelerate further if you heavily tax the estates and lands of family farms and premises if small businesses.

    It is the likes of Amazon and their warehouses that need to be
    taxed more to bring them into line with the corporation tax etc other businesses pay
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,258
    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Must be a slow news day, it feels like about the tenth time this year we've had the same header.

    The facts remain the same - the Tory leader (presumably Sunak, but by then who knows?) stays PM until, after the election, Sir Keir has a demonstrable majority, either through Labour seats alone or some formal agreement with another party or parties.

    In this case, possession really is nine-tenths of the law.

    I think that's right, and I think that's what all the precedent shows.

    In the scenario where the Tories have most seats, but are well short of a majority it will likely go to a confidence vote of some sort. The SNP will want a second referendum before supporting a Labour government, Labour won't want to promise that, so it goes to a vote and we'd see whether the SNP would really keep a Tory in Number Ten without a deal.

    But I think it's academic because the next election will set more records than Ben Stokes' England Test team.
    Everyone's forgetting that the SNP don't vote on non-Scots matters. Which would make life impossible for a Labour minority government, if in the situation where SNP support is needed, and yet the SNP do not have to lift a finger to vote with the Tories in any way related to Scotland.

    Would be different if England had a parliament, with Tories in charge, and Labour et al i/c the UK, but it doesn't and it won't.
    That’s BS. If they want to vote they find a way to vote (eg English Sunday trading hours because of the impact on profitability of Scottish shops near the border)
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,362

    Leon said:

    I want to watch the last day of Pakistan Test from the start in toto

    Is that possible? I have not recorded it

    It is mad that you cannot do this. With streamed sports you can go back and watch the entire thing from the start, no problemo - eg Amazon's rugby broadcasts

    I watched the entirety of the 2019 Headingley Test in 2020. The ECB had put it on YouTube.

    I'd be surprised if you couldn't watch it through Now TV.
    Okay. I am surprised. How prehistoric. Never had a problem doing this on iPlayer...
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963

    Leon said:

    I want to watch the last day of Pakistan Test from the start in toto

    Is that possible? I have not recorded it

    It is mad that you cannot do this. With streamed sports you can go back and watch the entire thing from the start, no problemo - eg Amazon's rugby broadcasts

    I watched the entirety of the 2019 Headingley Test in 2020. The ECB had put it on YouTube.

    I'd be surprised if you couldn't watch it through Now TV.
    Okay. I am surprised. How prehistoric. Never had a problem doing this on iPlayer...
    Media rights are the sole preserve of the home Board in bilateral series, so presumably PCB hasn't granted on-demand rights.
  • HYUFD said:

    Best result for the country would be a Lab/ LD alliance. SKS: re-entering the single market was the price we had to pay to form a government …

    Nige and other Europhobes will be wanting a stinking Lab majority.

    No they won't, as Labour going back into the single market plus free movement is the best route to the Tories and Farage prospering in the redwall again
    You sound like King Canute

    The tide is turning in large parts of the country towards a closer relationship with the EU and single market and away from the little Englander attitudes of the ERG and Farage
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Must be a slow news day, it feels like about the tenth time this year we've had the same header.

    The facts remain the same - the Tory leader (presumably Sunak, but by then who knows?) stays PM until, after the election, Sir Keir has a demonstrable majority, either through Labour seats alone or some formal agreement with another party or parties.

    In this case, possession really is nine-tenths of the law.

    I think that's right, and I think that's what all the precedent shows.

    In the scenario where the Tories have most seats, but are well short of a majority it will likely go to a confidence vote of some sort. The SNP will want a second referendum before supporting a Labour government, Labour won't want to promise that, so it goes to a vote and we'd see whether the SNP would really keep a Tory in Number Ten without a deal.

    But I think it's academic because the next election will set more records than Ben Stokes' England Test team.
    Everyone's forgetting that the SNP don't vote on non-Scots matters. Which would make life impossible for a Labour minority government, if in the situation where SNP support is needed, and yet the SNP do not have to lift a finger to vote with the Tories in any way related to Scotland.

    Would be different if England had a parliament, with Tories in charge, and Labour et al i/c the UK, but it doesn't and it won't.
    That’s BS. If they want to vote they find a way to vote (eg English Sunday trading hours because of the impact on profitability of Scottish shops near the border)
    Wasn't that - it was because the unions wanted them to do so because they had worries about UK wide contracts being forced onto the Scottish workforces, something like that. And those were Labour unions too IIRC.

    The whole point is that they do not *normally* vote. They did not vote on the student fees issue, for instance, unlike (IIRC) Unionist MPs for Scottish constituencies, with some honourable exceptions amongst the Tories at least.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sounds like being a libertarian is all about someone defining the initial conditions before the state steps out of the process.

    Being a libertarian is about as much as possible people being free to make their own choices.

    The state should exist, otherwise we're talking absolute anarchy not libertarian. And of course any state that exists must be paid for.

    The idea that land ownership should be taxed is an ancient libertarian dating back to the 18th centuries within the framework of Geolibertarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

    Geolibertarianism is a political and economic ideology that integrates libertarianism with Georgism. It favors a taxation system based (as in Georgism) on income derived from land and natural resources instead of on labor, coupled with a minimalist model of government, as in libertarianism.

    Geolibertarians recognize the right to private ownership of land, but only if fair recompense is paid to the community for the loss of access to that land. Some geolibertarians broaden out the tax base to include resource depletion, environmental damage, and other ancillaries to land use.

    A succinct summary of this philosophy can be found in Thomas Paine's 1797 pamphlet Agrarian Justice: "Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds".
    So at what point does the state step out of the process? With the Duke of Buccleuch or you owning your gaff? All razed to the ground and start again?
    Neither.

    If I own my own gaff then that should be a liability I need to pay for, in order to have a gaff to live in, that's not a problem I'm responsible for paying my own way.

    If the Duke of Buccleuch owns lots of gaffs, then they should be liabilities he needs to pay for too, scaled up to match whatever he owns.

    If you're making productive use out of your land, because you have a productive business or because you need a place to live, then there's no harm in you paying your fair share of taxation from your ownership. As said, land ownership should be taxed as recompense for the community losing access to that land, but if you're using it productively you can afford to pay that tax.

    If you're not using it productively, well you always have the option of selling the land and relinquishing the property rights to someone else who can use it as a home of their own to live in rather than being obliged to pay rent to the Duke of Buccleuch who is living off rent-seeking from you.

    The key is if you tax land properly, then you deal with the externality of the rest of the community not having access to their land and can significantly reduce income-related taxes meaning that people can keep more of their own efforts, rather than rent-seeking off others.
    Quite so. And any subsidy to farmers (for reasons of, for instamce, food security) should apply to all farmers. Likewise pressure on supermarkets to pay fair prices. Not pampering only those farms owned by farmers.

    In any case, the preservation argument doesn't apply to great estates which rent out farms - you can't claim the argument of estate preservation as a justification for renting out farms and them claim it also for owner occupied farms.
    It does as they would also have to pass on the costs to farms they rent out.

    All it would do is see more large estates, farms and small businesses be taken over by soulless multinationals
    What do you think Tory policy has led to in the property market more generally?

    2/3 of the adult population being homeowners, whereas 100 years ago most rented
    No: the rise of major corporations and businesses as farmland owners and industry owners.
    Would accelerate further if you heavily tax the estates and lands of family farms and premises if small businesses.

    It is the likes of Amazon and their warehouses that need to be
    taxed more to bring them into line with the corporation tax etc other businesses pay
    Both categories need to be fairly taxed, I'll agree so far as that.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,362
    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Must be a slow news day, it feels like about the tenth time this year we've had the same header.

    The facts remain the same - the Tory leader (presumably Sunak, but by then who knows?) stays PM until, after the election, Sir Keir has a demonstrable majority, either through Labour seats alone or some formal agreement with another party or parties.

    In this case, possession really is nine-tenths of the law.

    I think that's right, and I think that's what all the precedent shows.

    In the scenario where the Tories have most seats, but are well short of a majority it will likely go to a confidence vote of some sort. The SNP will want a second referendum before supporting a Labour government, Labour won't want to promise that, so it goes to a vote and we'd see whether the SNP would really keep a Tory in Number Ten without a deal.

    But I think it's academic because the next election will set more records than Ben Stokes' England Test team.
    Everyone's forgetting that the SNP don't vote on non-Scots matters. Which would make life impossible for a Labour minority government, if in the situation where SNP support is needed, and yet the SNP do not have to lift a finger to vote with the Tories in any way related to Scotland.

    Would be different if England had a parliament, with Tories in charge, and Labour et al i/c the UK, but it doesn't and it won't.
    I've not forgotten that. Such a Labour government would have to stick to UK-only legislation/spending to deal with that situation, which wouldn't be too onerous when so much has Barnett consequentials.

    And losing a couple of votes on popular English-only legislation would be a way to make the argument to the voters that an early election was required where they were given a majority.

    It would certainly be a difficult situation and require certain qualities of leadership - seeing what a mess some PMs have created even with a majority you might have low confidence that those skills would be evident, but that says more about the standard of our politicians than the difficulty of the situation.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,960

    HYUFD said:

    Best result for the country would be a Lab/ LD alliance. SKS: re-entering the single market was the price we had to pay to form a government …

    Nige and other Europhobes will be wanting a stinking Lab majority.

    No they won't, as Labour going back into the single market plus free movement is the best route to the Tories and Farage prospering in the redwall again
    You sound like King Canute

    The tide is turning in large parts of the country towards a closer relationship with the EU and single market and away from the little Englander attitudes of the ERG and Farage
    Just 34% want to rejoin the EU or single market

    https://institute.global/policy/moving-how-british-public-views-brexit-and-what-it-wants-future-relationship-european-union
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Must be a slow news day, it feels like about the tenth time this year we've had the same header.

    The facts remain the same - the Tory leader (presumably Sunak, but by then who knows?) stays PM until, after the election, Sir Keir has a demonstrable majority, either through Labour seats alone or some formal agreement with another party or parties.

    In this case, possession really is nine-tenths of the law.

    I think that's right, and I think that's what all the precedent shows.

    In the scenario where the Tories have most seats, but are well short of a majority it will likely go to a confidence vote of some sort. The SNP will want a second referendum before supporting a Labour government, Labour won't want to promise that, so it goes to a vote and we'd see whether the SNP would really keep a Tory in Number Ten without a deal.

    But I think it's academic because the next election will set more records than Ben Stokes' England Test team.
    Everyone's forgetting that the SNP don't vote on non-Scots matters. Which would make life impossible for a Labour minority government, if in the situation where SNP support is needed, and yet the SNP do not have to lift a finger to vote with the Tories in any way related to Scotland.

    Would be different if England had a parliament, with Tories in charge, and Labour et al i/c the UK, but it doesn't and it won't.
    I've not forgotten that. Such a Labour government would have to stick to UK-only legislation/spending to deal with that situation, which wouldn't be too onerous when so much has Barnett consequentials.

    And losing a couple of votes on popular English-only legislation would be a way to make the argument to the voters that an early election was required where they were given a majority.

    It would certainly be a difficult situation and require certain qualities of leadership - seeing what a mess some PMs have created even with a majority you might have low confidence that those skills would be evident, but that says more about the standard of our politicians than the difficulty of the situation.
    Fair enough - you have obviously considered it! Apols for the injustice.
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Must be a slow news day, it feels like about the tenth time this year we've had the same header.

    The facts remain the same - the Tory leader (presumably Sunak, but by then who knows?) stays PM until, after the election, Sir Keir has a demonstrable majority, either through Labour seats alone or some formal agreement with another party or parties.

    In this case, possession really is nine-tenths of the law.

    I think that's right, and I think that's what all the precedent shows.

    In the scenario where the Tories have most seats, but are well short of a majority it will likely go to a confidence vote of some sort. The SNP will want a second referendum before supporting a Labour government, Labour won't want to promise that, so it goes to a vote and we'd see whether the SNP would really keep a Tory in Number Ten without a deal.

    But I think it's academic because the next election will set more records than Ben Stokes' England Test team.
    Everyone's forgetting that the SNP don't vote on non-Scots matters. Which would make life impossible for a Labour minority government, if in the situation where SNP support is needed, and yet the SNP do not have to lift a finger to vote with the Tories in any way related to Scotland.

    Would be different if England had a parliament, with Tories in charge, and Labour et al i/c the UK, but it doesn't and it won't.
    That’s BS. If they want to vote they find a way to vote (eg English Sunday trading hours because of the impact on profitability of Scottish shops near the border)
    Wasn't that - it was because the unions wanted them to do so because they had worries about UK wide contracts being forced onto the Scottish workforces, something like that. And those were Labour unions too IIRC.

    The whole point is that they do not *normally* vote. They did not vote on the student fees issue, for instance, unlike (IIRC) Unionist MPs for Scottish constituencies, with some honourable exceptions amongst the Tories at least.
    They don't normally vote, except for when they find it to be politically convenient.

    That's not principles, that's politics.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990
    EXCLUSIVE by me and @Daniel_J_Martin

    Michael Gove drops mandatory housebuilding targets in face of Conservative rebellion

    Full story at the @Telegraph's website

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/12/05/michael-gove-house-building-targets-scrapped-tory-rebellion/
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,362
    Driver said:

    Leon said:

    I want to watch the last day of Pakistan Test from the start in toto

    Is that possible? I have not recorded it

    It is mad that you cannot do this. With streamed sports you can go back and watch the entire thing from the start, no problemo - eg Amazon's rugby broadcasts

    I watched the entirety of the 2019 Headingley Test in 2020. The ECB had put it on YouTube.

    I'd be surprised if you couldn't watch it through Now TV.
    Okay. I am surprised. How prehistoric. Never had a problem doing this on iPlayer...
    Media rights are the sole preserve of the home Board in bilateral series, so presumably PCB hasn't granted on-demand rights.
    Perhaps, but with no way for them to take Leon's money so he can watch it on catch-up through their website, What's the point of that restriction?

    Ireland seems to be the only place in the world you can't watch Doctor Who on catch-up - Disney have bought the rights for everywhere in the world excluding UK & Ireland. Nobody will pay for the Irish rights because you can get the live BBC broadcast signal in most of Ireland, but iPlayer is blocked outside of the UK.

    The only remaining alternative is to wait for the DVDs (or use a VPN and give a fake postcode).

    The situation with geographical restrictions on media rights is bafflingly complex. At least with Netflix stuff they've produced themselves you know you can watch it wherever you are.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Must be a slow news day, it feels like about the tenth time this year we've had the same header.

    The facts remain the same - the Tory leader (presumably Sunak, but by then who knows?) stays PM until, after the election, Sir Keir has a demonstrable majority, either through Labour seats alone or some formal agreement with another party or parties.

    In this case, possession really is nine-tenths of the law.

    I think that's right, and I think that's what all the precedent shows.

    In the scenario where the Tories have most seats, but are well short of a majority it will likely go to a confidence vote of some sort. The SNP will want a second referendum before supporting a Labour government, Labour won't want to promise that, so it goes to a vote and we'd see whether the SNP would really keep a Tory in Number Ten without a deal.

    But I think it's academic because the next election will set more records than Ben Stokes' England Test team.
    Everyone's forgetting that the SNP don't vote on non-Scots matters. Which would make life impossible for a Labour minority government, if in the situation where SNP support is needed, and yet the SNP do not have to lift a finger to vote with the Tories in any way related to Scotland.

    Would be different if England had a parliament, with Tories in charge, and Labour et al i/c the UK, but it doesn't and it won't.
    That’s BS. If they want to vote they find a way to vote (eg English Sunday trading hours because of the impact on profitability of Scottish shops near the border)
    Wasn't that - it was because the unions wanted them to do so because they had worries about UK wide contracts being forced onto the Scottish workforces, something like that. And those were Labour unions too IIRC.

    The whole point is that they do not *normally* vote. They did not vote on the student fees issue, for instance, unlike (IIRC) Unionist MPs for Scottish constituencies, with some honourable exceptions amongst the Tories at least.
    They don't normally vote, except for when they find it to be politically convenient.

    That's not principles, that's politics.
    Still, very unusual, and the issue will be muich more sensitive.

    But how come nobody asks *why* the Tories should ask the SNP to vote on English-only matters? They've b een complaining about the West Lothian Question for a quarter of a century and yet did almost nothing on it, setting up and then abolishing EVEL.
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 2,005
    Fascinating short thread on Ukraine's drone attacks and the impact on future militaries. Ukraine has managed in months to knock together drones with a 1,000km range that could attack Russian air force bases.

    Key quote:
    The emergence of DIY Assault Drone/Cruise missile production by Syrian warlords, & now AFU, marks a “Revolution in Military Affairs” that rivals the 1967 sinking of the Israeli Destroyer INS Eilat by Egyptian Styx Cruise missiles.
    https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1599806940678303744
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,904
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sounds like being a libertarian is all about someone defining the initial conditions before the state steps out of the process.

    Being a libertarian is about as much as possible people being free to make their own choices.

    The state should exist, otherwise we're talking absolute anarchy not libertarian. And of course any state that exists must be paid for.

    The idea that land ownership should be taxed is an ancient libertarian dating back to the 18th centuries within the framework of Geolibertarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

    Geolibertarianism is a political and economic ideology that integrates libertarianism with Georgism. It favors a taxation system based (as in Georgism) on income derived from land and natural resources instead of on labor, coupled with a minimalist model of government, as in libertarianism.

    Geolibertarians recognize the right to private ownership of land, but only if fair recompense is paid to the community for the loss of access to that land. Some geolibertarians broaden out the tax base to include resource depletion, environmental damage, and other ancillaries to land use.

    A succinct summary of this philosophy can be found in Thomas Paine's 1797 pamphlet Agrarian Justice: "Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds".
    So at what point does the state step out of the process? With the Duke of Buccleuch or you owning your gaff? All razed to the ground and start again?
    Neither.

    If I own my own gaff then that should be a liability I need to pay for, in order to have a gaff to live in, that's not a problem I'm responsible for paying my own way.

    If the Duke of Buccleuch owns lots of gaffs, then they should be liabilities he needs to pay for too, scaled up to match whatever he owns.

    If you're making productive use out of your land, because you have a productive business or because you need a place to live, then there's no harm in you paying your fair share of taxation from your ownership. As said, land ownership should be taxed as recompense for the community losing access to that land, but if you're using it productively you can afford to pay that tax.

    If you're not using it productively, well you always have the option of selling the land and relinquishing the property rights to someone else who can use it as a home of their own to live in rather than being obliged to pay rent to the Duke of Buccleuch who is living off rent-seeking from you.

    The key is if you tax land properly, then you deal with the externality of the rest of the community not having access to their land and can significantly reduce income-related taxes meaning that people can keep more of their own efforts, rather than rent-seeking off others.
    Quite so. And any subsidy to farmers (for reasons of, for instamce, food security) should apply to all farmers. Likewise pressure on supermarkets to pay fair prices. Not pampering only those farms owned by farmers.

    In any case, the preservation argument doesn't apply to great estates which rent out farms - you can't claim the argument of estate preservation as a justification for renting out farms and them claim it also for owner occupied farms.
    It does as they would also have to pass on the costs to farms they rent out.

    All it would do is see more large estates, farms and small businesses be taken over by soulless multinationals
    Not if we had a government ready willing and able to keep the soulless multinationals in their place. But that would go against the vey spirit of today's Conservative Party.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990
    NEW: Win for the Tory housing rebels.

    Theresa Villiers tells @skynews that Michael Gove has listened on housing targets and councils will be able to get out of them if it damages the “character of the area”

    First reported by @TelePolitics

    https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1599808233761169413
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,397
    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Carnyx said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Would Sunak offer the referendum to get SNP support? He obviously doesn't give a fuck about Scotland and doesn't even bother pretending like Johnson and May.

    Would he be allowed to? If HYUFD is any guide, he wouldn't survive till the next Scotland Act was passed, never mind referendum.
    What happens if Sunak and Starmer both tell the SNP to do one but neither can muster a majority? Another election? That outcome is probably be better for Labour than the tories as the country's crisis fatigue will be acute at that point.
    If Starmer leads the largest party he could probably vote the Tories out unless the SNP voted for the Tories. At that point the SNP would more or less have to back him - either actively by voting for him or passively by abstaining - or be accused of being Sunak's little helpers.

    If the Tories are the largest party then I think it would have to be another election. The SNP would then have to explain what the point is of voting for them when they won't get rid of the hated Tories at the first opportunity.

    Bluntly, it is hard to see a positive scenario for the SNP in the event of a hung Parliament. They almost certainly won't be getting their referendum, and they will have to either vote Labour in without one or explain why they didn't get rid of the Tories. Neither is a good option.

    Their optimum result is a very small Tory majority with zero seats in Scotland. At that point you would have to say the UK government lacked legitimacy north of the border.
    I think you're misunderstanding how the process works. There is never a direct vote in parliament between two possible governments. Sir Keir only gets to be PM if he can demonstrate before a King's Speech vote that he can win it - in the situation you posit that would need a formal commitment from the SNP to at least abstain on a Labour King's Speech. They could easily commit to voting against a King's Speech in any circumstances and force a new election if they don't get their second referendum.
    Incorrect. If Starmer has more MPs than the Tories, he can win the vote on the Address in Reply as long as the SNP abstain. Then the government has to resign and the King would by convention send for Starmer. Starmer then gets through a Speech of his own using the same methods.

    Unless of course the Tories had the sense to realise, as did Heath in 1974 and Baldwin in 1929 but not of course the phenomenally ill-advised Brown in 2010, that it's hopeless and they resign anyway.

    There is no requirement for the SNP to publicly support anything.

    I know Gus O'Donnell thought otherwise but he was an even bigger and more useless twat than Susan Acland-Hood.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990
    Mark Pawsey, MP for Rugby, becomes the 14th Tory to confirm they are standing down at the next election
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,362
    AlistairM said:

    Fascinating short thread on Ukraine's drone attacks and the impact on future militaries. Ukraine has managed in months to knock together drones with a 1,000km range that could attack Russian air force bases.

    Key quote:
    The emergence of DIY Assault Drone/Cruise missile production by Syrian warlords, & now AFU, marks a “Revolution in Military Affairs” that rivals the 1967 sinking of the Israeli Destroyer INS Eilat by Egyptian Styx Cruise missiles.
    https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1599806940678303744

    Worth noting that Ukraine's maritime drones couldn't stop today's launch of Kalibr cruise missiles by the Russian Black Sea fleet. And I think one reason Ukraine's long-range weapons have been so much more effective than Russia's is that they have much better target acquisition and reconnaissance capabilities.

    Not much point having long-range precision weaponry if you don't know where to target it - that seems to be one of the key Russian failings.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990
    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 48% (+1)
    CON: 26% (-1)
    LDEM: 10% (-1)
    GRN: 6% (+1)
    REF: 5% (-)

    via @RedfieldWilton, 04 Dec
    https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2022/11/britainpredicts
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990
    If this is true, it would be unconscionable in the middle of a housing crisis.

    We offered Labour votes to defeat the rebels, but Rishi Sunak and Michael Gove seem to have chosen party before country.

    This is so weak. In office but not in power.


    https://twitter.com/lisanandy/status/1599811012646952966
    https://twitter.com/daniel_j_martin/status/1599802725868670976
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,269

    AlistairM said:

    Fascinating short thread on Ukraine's drone attacks and the impact on future militaries. Ukraine has managed in months to knock together drones with a 1,000km range that could attack Russian air force bases.

    Key quote:
    The emergence of DIY Assault Drone/Cruise missile production by Syrian warlords, & now AFU, marks a “Revolution in Military Affairs” that rivals the 1967 sinking of the Israeli Destroyer INS Eilat by Egyptian Styx Cruise missiles.
    https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1599806940678303744

    Worth noting that Ukraine's maritime drones couldn't stop today's launch of Kalibr cruise missiles by the Russian Black Sea fleet. And I think one reason Ukraine's long-range weapons have been so much more effective than Russia's is that they have much better target acquisition and reconnaissance capabilities.

    Not much point having long-range precision weaponry if you don't know where to target it - that seems to be one of the key Russian failings.
    A weapon can only do so much. Which is why you need different types.

    The revolution with drones/cheap cruise missiles is the breaking of the rules of military procurement - that it is a solemn, ultra expensive way of procuring an ever smaller number of weapons.

    People having been talking about how you could knock together a V1 look alike for a few thousand quid a pop, for years. Now it is happening.

    It’s something like SpaceX - by ignoring the rules about feeding the politicians, their friends and the rest of the pyramid of the military-industrial base, they’ve got space launch down to a *cost* of $20 million or so for 16 tons to LEO. It’s not magic, just throw away what you don’t need….
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963
    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Carnyx said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Would Sunak offer the referendum to get SNP support? He obviously doesn't give a fuck about Scotland and doesn't even bother pretending like Johnson and May.

    Would he be allowed to? If HYUFD is any guide, he wouldn't survive till the next Scotland Act was passed, never mind referendum.
    What happens if Sunak and Starmer both tell the SNP to do one but neither can muster a majority? Another election? That outcome is probably be better for Labour than the tories as the country's crisis fatigue will be acute at that point.
    If Starmer leads the largest party he could probably vote the Tories out unless the SNP voted for the Tories. At that point the SNP would more or less have to back him - either actively by voting for him or passively by abstaining - or be accused of being Sunak's little helpers.

    If the Tories are the largest party then I think it would have to be another election. The SNP would then have to explain what the point is of voting for them when they won't get rid of the hated Tories at the first opportunity.

    Bluntly, it is hard to see a positive scenario for the SNP in the event of a hung Parliament. They almost certainly won't be getting their referendum, and they will have to either vote Labour in without one or explain why they didn't get rid of the Tories. Neither is a good option.

    Their optimum result is a very small Tory majority with zero seats in Scotland. At that point you would have to say the UK government lacked legitimacy north of the border.
    I think you're misunderstanding how the process works. There is never a direct vote in parliament between two possible governments. Sir Keir only gets to be PM if he can demonstrate before a King's Speech vote that he can win it - in the situation you posit that would need a formal commitment from the SNP to at least abstain on a Labour King's Speech. They could easily commit to voting against a King's Speech in any circumstances and force a new election if they don't get their second referendum.
    Incorrect. If Starmer has more MPs than the Tories, he can win the vote on the Address in Reply as long as the SNP abstain. Then the government has to resign and the King would by convention send for Starmer. Starmer then gets through a Speech of his own using the same methods.

    Unless of course the Tories had the sense to realise, as did Heath in 1974 and Baldwin in 1929 but not of course the phenomenally ill-advised Brown in 2010, that it's hopeless and they resign anyway.

    There is no requirement for the SNP to publicly support anything.

    I know Gus O'Donnell thought otherwise but he was an even bigger and more useless twat than Susan Acland-Hood.
    You say I'm incorrect, but I don't think you're actually contradicting me, with the possible exception that I think that if the SNP were committed (not necessarily publicly) to opposing a Starmer King's Speech then the government could request a new election based on there being no possible government.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 3,028
    Scott_xP said:

    EXCLUSIVE by me and @Daniel_J_Martin

    Michael Gove drops mandatory housebuilding targets in face of Conservative rebellion

    Full story at the @Telegraph's website

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/12/05/michael-gove-house-building-targets-scrapped-tory-rebellion/

    What a load of rubbish. Wonderful way to send a signal to a large majority that you really don’t give a shit about house building.

    There’s no point in dragging out a govt where loony backbenchers have such a huge sway. Looking forward to a large number of these MPs losing their seat
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,397
    edited December 2022
    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Carnyx said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Would Sunak offer the referendum to get SNP support? He obviously doesn't give a fuck about Scotland and doesn't even bother pretending like Johnson and May.

    Would he be allowed to? If HYUFD is any guide, he wouldn't survive till the next Scotland Act was passed, never mind referendum.
    What happens if Sunak and Starmer both tell the SNP to do one but neither can muster a majority? Another election? That outcome is probably be better for Labour than the tories as the country's crisis fatigue will be acute at that point.
    If Starmer leads the largest party he could probably vote the Tories out unless the SNP voted for the Tories. At that point the SNP would more or less have to back him - either actively by voting for him or passively by abstaining - or be accused of being Sunak's little helpers.

    If the Tories are the largest party then I think it would have to be another election. The SNP would then have to explain what the point is of voting for them when they won't get rid of the hated Tories at the first opportunity.

    Bluntly, it is hard to see a positive scenario for the SNP in the event of a hung Parliament. They almost certainly won't be getting their referendum, and they will have to either vote Labour in without one or explain why they didn't get rid of the Tories. Neither is a good option.

    Their optimum result is a very small Tory majority with zero seats in Scotland. At that point you would have to say the UK government lacked legitimacy north of the border.
    I think you're misunderstanding how the process works. There is never a direct vote in parliament between two possible governments. Sir Keir only gets to be PM if he can demonstrate before a King's Speech vote that he can win it - in the situation you posit that would need a formal commitment from the SNP to at least abstain on a Labour King's Speech. They could easily commit to voting against a King's Speech in any circumstances and force a new election if they don't get their second referendum.
    Incorrect. If Starmer has more MPs than the Tories, he can win the vote on the Address in Reply as long as the SNP abstain. Then the government has to resign and the King would by convention send for Starmer. Starmer then gets through a Speech of his own using the same methods.

    Unless of course the Tories had the sense to realise, as did Heath in 1974 and Baldwin in 1929 but not of course the phenomenally ill-advised Brown in 2010, that it's hopeless and they resign anyway.

    There is no requirement for the SNP to publicly support anything.

    I know Gus O'Donnell thought otherwise but he was an even bigger and more useless twat than Susan Acland-Hood.
    You say I'm incorrect, but I don't think you're actually contradicting me, with the possible exception that I think that if the SNP were committed (not necessarily publicly) to opposing a Starmer King's Speech then the government could request a new election based on there being no possible government.
    The convention is that if you can't pass a King's Speech after an election, the opposition then get to have a go in preference to a new election. Only if they fail do you have a new election.

    I think it unlikely Charles would depart from that.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 3,028
    Scott_xP said:

    Mark Pawsey, MP for Rugby, becomes the 14th Tory to confirm they are standing down at the next election

    Deadline was today, I think? So could see some more ..
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840
    edited December 2022

    Scott_xP said:

    EXCLUSIVE by me and @Daniel_J_Martin

    Michael Gove drops mandatory housebuilding targets in face of Conservative rebellion

    Full story at the @Telegraph's website

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/12/05/michael-gove-house-building-targets-scrapped-tory-rebellion/

    What a load of rubbish. Wonderful way to send a signal to a large majority that you really don’t give a shit about house building.

    There’s no point in dragging out a govt where loony backbenchers have such a huge sway. Looking forward to a large number of these MPs losing their seat
    But it's great for house owners in, let's just for a moment imagine, Epping. Their inflated prices remain high. Edit: And the core vote is retained.

    All that is needed now is increased allowances for IHT (to Tory-approved nuclear families only).
  • ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Carnyx said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Would Sunak offer the referendum to get SNP support? He obviously doesn't give a fuck about Scotland and doesn't even bother pretending like Johnson and May.

    Would he be allowed to? If HYUFD is any guide, he wouldn't survive till the next Scotland Act was passed, never mind referendum.
    What happens if Sunak and Starmer both tell the SNP to do one but neither can muster a majority? Another election? That outcome is probably be better for Labour than the tories as the country's crisis fatigue will be acute at that point.
    If Starmer leads the largest party he could probably vote the Tories out unless the SNP voted for the Tories. At that point the SNP would more or less have to back him - either actively by voting for him or passively by abstaining - or be accused of being Sunak's little helpers.

    If the Tories are the largest party then I think it would have to be another election. The SNP would then have to explain what the point is of voting for them when they won't get rid of the hated Tories at the first opportunity.

    Bluntly, it is hard to see a positive scenario for the SNP in the event of a hung Parliament. They almost certainly won't be getting their referendum, and they will have to either vote Labour in without one or explain why they didn't get rid of the Tories. Neither is a good option.

    Their optimum result is a very small Tory majority with zero seats in Scotland. At that point you would have to say the UK government lacked legitimacy north of the border.
    I think you're misunderstanding how the process works. There is never a direct vote in parliament between two possible governments. Sir Keir only gets to be PM if he can demonstrate before a King's Speech vote that he can win it - in the situation you posit that would need a formal commitment from the SNP to at least abstain on a Labour King's Speech. They could easily commit to voting against a King's Speech in any circumstances and force a new election if they don't get their second referendum.
    Incorrect. If Starmer has more MPs than the Tories, he can win the vote on the Address in Reply as long as the SNP abstain. Then the government has to resign and the King would by convention send for Starmer. Starmer then gets through a Speech of his own using the same methods.

    Unless of course the Tories had the sense to realise, as did Heath in 1974 and Baldwin in 1929 but not of course the phenomenally ill-advised Brown in 2010, that it's hopeless and they resign anyway.

    There is no requirement for the SNP to publicly support anything.

    I know Gus O'Donnell thought otherwise but he was an even bigger and more useless twat than Susan Acland-Hood.
    I think Driver was pointing out that the SNP can scupper any putative minority Labour Government by simply saying they will not support it without a commitment to a referendum vote. In those circumstances no party would be able to demonstrate they have a majority via either coalition or C&S and so there would have to be a new election. The interesting point is what happens if neither of the major parties will commit to a new referendum but repeated elections continue to deliver the balance of power to the SNP.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,397

    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Carnyx said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Would Sunak offer the referendum to get SNP support? He obviously doesn't give a fuck about Scotland and doesn't even bother pretending like Johnson and May.

    Would he be allowed to? If HYUFD is any guide, he wouldn't survive till the next Scotland Act was passed, never mind referendum.
    What happens if Sunak and Starmer both tell the SNP to do one but neither can muster a majority? Another election? That outcome is probably be better for Labour than the tories as the country's crisis fatigue will be acute at that point.
    If Starmer leads the largest party he could probably vote the Tories out unless the SNP voted for the Tories. At that point the SNP would more or less have to back him - either actively by voting for him or passively by abstaining - or be accused of being Sunak's little helpers.

    If the Tories are the largest party then I think it would have to be another election. The SNP would then have to explain what the point is of voting for them when they won't get rid of the hated Tories at the first opportunity.

    Bluntly, it is hard to see a positive scenario for the SNP in the event of a hung Parliament. They almost certainly won't be getting their referendum, and they will have to either vote Labour in without one or explain why they didn't get rid of the Tories. Neither is a good option.

    Their optimum result is a very small Tory majority with zero seats in Scotland. At that point you would have to say the UK government lacked legitimacy north of the border.
    I think you're misunderstanding how the process works. There is never a direct vote in parliament between two possible governments. Sir Keir only gets to be PM if he can demonstrate before a King's Speech vote that he can win it - in the situation you posit that would need a formal commitment from the SNP to at least abstain on a Labour King's Speech. They could easily commit to voting against a King's Speech in any circumstances and force a new election if they don't get their second referendum.
    Incorrect. If Starmer has more MPs than the Tories, he can win the vote on the Address in Reply as long as the SNP abstain. Then the government has to resign and the King would by convention send for Starmer. Starmer then gets through a Speech of his own using the same methods.

    Unless of course the Tories had the sense to realise, as did Heath in 1974 and Baldwin in 1929 but not of course the phenomenally ill-advised Brown in 2010, that it's hopeless and they resign anyway.

    There is no requirement for the SNP to publicly support anything.

    I know Gus O'Donnell thought otherwise but he was an even bigger and more useless twat than Susan Acland-Hood.
    I think Driver was pointing out that the SNP can scupper any putative minority Labour Government by simply saying they will not support it without a commitment to a referendum vote. In those circumstances no party would be able to demonstrate they have a majority via either coalition or C&S and so there would have to be a new election. The interesting point is what happens if neither of the major parties will commit to a new referendum but repeated elections continue to deliver the balance of power to the SNP.
    If that is what s/he was driving at, that would make sense.

    Sorry, if so @Driver , not very well today, struggling to understand some things.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,960

    Scott_xP said:

    EXCLUSIVE by me and @Daniel_J_Martin

    Michael Gove drops mandatory housebuilding targets in face of Conservative rebellion

    Full story at the @Telegraph's website

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/12/05/michael-gove-house-building-targets-scrapped-tory-rebellion/

    What a load of rubbish. Wonderful way to send a signal to a large majority that you really don’t give a shit about house building.

    There’s no point in dragging out a govt where loony backbenchers have such a huge sway. Looking forward to a large number of these MPs losing their seat
    If they do it won't be because of that. The vast majority of Tory voters in the home counties especially oppose new building outside brownbelt areas.

    At the Epping Christmas Trees Festival at the weekend the Epping Society even had a 'Protect our Greenbelt' tree.

    You only have to look at Chesham and Amersham and the Tory councillors who have lost their seats to LDs and Independents over housebuilding proposals in local plans to see that.

    Though longer term housebuilding targets which were in place and local plans are necessary to get new housing and property owners and potential Tory voters, especially in the expensive London and South East and home counties region, in the short term voters who live there and own property won't thank you for it
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,994
    Scott_xP said:

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 48% (+1)
    CON: 26% (-1)
    LDEM: 10% (-1)
    GRN: 6% (+1)
    REF: 5% (-)

    via @RedfieldWilton, 04 Dec
    https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2022/11/britainpredicts

    R&W have been some of the worst for the Tories recently, and despite not much of a shift towards REFUK.

    64% for LLG is wipeout territory. Add 3% to Labour for Greens coming home, and 3% to Con for REFs coming home, and you still have a handy 10% LD vote to do some nice tactical damage in the South.

    But other pollsters are available and I still expect Labour down to low 40s and Tories up to mid 30s by end of 2024.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,072
    Scott_xP said:

    EXCLUSIVE by me and @Daniel_J_Martin

    Michael Gove drops mandatory housebuilding targets in face of Conservative rebellion

    Full story at the @Telegraph's website

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/12/05/michael-gove-house-building-targets-scrapped-tory-rebellion/

    Every government promises to sort housebuilding. None do.

    The best idea suggested here was for Labour to promise half a dozen new towns in Conservative safe seats. Worth it just for the trolling, and might even get built.
  • Scott_xP said:

    EXCLUSIVE by me and @Daniel_J_Martin

    Michael Gove drops mandatory housebuilding targets in face of Conservative rebellion

    Full story at the @Telegraph's website

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/12/05/michael-gove-house-building-targets-scrapped-tory-rebellion/

    What a load of rubbish. Wonderful way to send a signal to a large majority that you really don’t give a shit about house building.

    There’s no point in dragging out a govt where loony backbenchers have such a huge sway. Looking forward to a large number of these MPs losing their seat
    The irony is that today Starmer has announced devolution of planning, transport, etc to local mayors and authorities with the result of the end of top down targets as requested by these back benches

    Maybe Lisa Nandy needs to catch up with the new labour policy which is now conservative policy
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963
    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Carnyx said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Would Sunak offer the referendum to get SNP support? He obviously doesn't give a fuck about Scotland and doesn't even bother pretending like Johnson and May.

    Would he be allowed to? If HYUFD is any guide, he wouldn't survive till the next Scotland Act was passed, never mind referendum.
    What happens if Sunak and Starmer both tell the SNP to do one but neither can muster a majority? Another election? That outcome is probably be better for Labour than the tories as the country's crisis fatigue will be acute at that point.
    If Starmer leads the largest party he could probably vote the Tories out unless the SNP voted for the Tories. At that point the SNP would more or less have to back him - either actively by voting for him or passively by abstaining - or be accused of being Sunak's little helpers.

    If the Tories are the largest party then I think it would have to be another election. The SNP would then have to explain what the point is of voting for them when they won't get rid of the hated Tories at the first opportunity.

    Bluntly, it is hard to see a positive scenario for the SNP in the event of a hung Parliament. They almost certainly won't be getting their referendum, and they will have to either vote Labour in without one or explain why they didn't get rid of the Tories. Neither is a good option.

    Their optimum result is a very small Tory majority with zero seats in Scotland. At that point you would have to say the UK government lacked legitimacy north of the border.
    I think you're misunderstanding how the process works. There is never a direct vote in parliament between two possible governments. Sir Keir only gets to be PM if he can demonstrate before a King's Speech vote that he can win it - in the situation you posit that would need a formal commitment from the SNP to at least abstain on a Labour King's Speech. They could easily commit to voting against a King's Speech in any circumstances and force a new election if they don't get their second referendum.
    Incorrect. If Starmer has more MPs than the Tories, he can win the vote on the Address in Reply as long as the SNP abstain. Then the government has to resign and the King would by convention send for Starmer. Starmer then gets through a Speech of his own using the same methods.

    Unless of course the Tories had the sense to realise, as did Heath in 1974 and Baldwin in 1929 but not of course the phenomenally ill-advised Brown in 2010, that it's hopeless and they resign anyway.

    There is no requirement for the SNP to publicly support anything.

    I know Gus O'Donnell thought otherwise but he was an even bigger and more useless twat than Susan Acland-Hood.
    You say I'm incorrect, but I don't think you're actually contradicting me, with the possible exception that I think that if the SNP were committed (not necessarily publicly) to opposing a Starmer King's Speech then the government could request a new election based on there being no possible government.
    The convention is that if you can't pass a King's Speech after an election, the opposition then get to have a go in preference to a new election. Only if they fail do you have a new election.

    I think it unlikely Charles would depart from that.
    Right. But "having a go" AIUI only extends to negotiations, not to actually taking office if it's known a King's Speech will fail.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Carnyx said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Would Sunak offer the referendum to get SNP support? He obviously doesn't give a fuck about Scotland and doesn't even bother pretending like Johnson and May.

    Would he be allowed to? If HYUFD is any guide, he wouldn't survive till the next Scotland Act was passed, never mind referendum.
    What happens if Sunak and Starmer both tell the SNP to do one but neither can muster a majority? Another election? That outcome is probably be better for Labour than the tories as the country's crisis fatigue will be acute at that point.
    If Starmer leads the largest party he could probably vote the Tories out unless the SNP voted for the Tories. At that point the SNP would more or less have to back him - either actively by voting for him or passively by abstaining - or be accused of being Sunak's little helpers.

    If the Tories are the largest party then I think it would have to be another election. The SNP would then have to explain what the point is of voting for them when they won't get rid of the hated Tories at the first opportunity.

    Bluntly, it is hard to see a positive scenario for the SNP in the event of a hung Parliament. They almost certainly won't be getting their referendum, and they will have to either vote Labour in without one or explain why they didn't get rid of the Tories. Neither is a good option.

    Their optimum result is a very small Tory majority with zero seats in Scotland. At that point you would have to say the UK government lacked legitimacy north of the border.
    I think you're misunderstanding how the process works. There is never a direct vote in parliament between two possible governments. Sir Keir only gets to be PM if he can demonstrate before a King's Speech vote that he can win it - in the situation you posit that would need a formal commitment from the SNP to at least abstain on a Labour King's Speech. They could easily commit to voting against a King's Speech in any circumstances and force a new election if they don't get their second referendum.
    Incorrect. If Starmer has more MPs than the Tories, he can win the vote on the Address in Reply as long as the SNP abstain. Then the government has to resign and the King would by convention send for Starmer. Starmer then gets through a Speech of his own using the same methods.

    Unless of course the Tories had the sense to realise, as did Heath in 1974 and Baldwin in 1929 but not of course the phenomenally ill-advised Brown in 2010, that it's hopeless and they resign anyway.

    There is no requirement for the SNP to publicly support anything.

    I know Gus O'Donnell thought otherwise but he was an even bigger and more useless twat than Susan Acland-Hood.
    I think Driver was pointing out that the SNP can scupper any putative minority Labour Government by simply saying they will not support it without a commitment to a referendum vote. In those circumstances no party would be able to demonstrate they have a majority via either coalition or C&S and so there would have to be a new election. The interesting point is what happens if neither of the major parties will commit to a new referendum but repeated elections continue to deliver the balance of power to the SNP.
    If that is what s/he was driving at, that would make sense.

    Sorry, if so @Driver , not very well today, struggling to understand some things.
    Yes, indeed that's what my point was. I'll let Richard off for the unintentional "driving at" pun :D
  • HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    EXCLUSIVE by me and @Daniel_J_Martin

    Michael Gove drops mandatory housebuilding targets in face of Conservative rebellion

    Full story at the @Telegraph's website

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/12/05/michael-gove-house-building-targets-scrapped-tory-rebellion/

    What a load of rubbish. Wonderful way to send a signal to a large majority that you really don’t give a shit about house building.

    There’s no point in dragging out a govt where loony backbenchers have such a huge sway. Looking forward to a large number of these MPs losing their seat
    If they do it won't be because of that. The vast majority of Tory voters in the home counties especially oppose new building outside brownbelt areas.

    At the Epping Christmas Trees Festival at the weekend the Epping Society even had a 'Protect our Greenbelt' tree.

    You only have to look at Chesham and Amersham and the Tory councillors who have lost their seats to LDs and Independents over housebuilding proposals in local plans to see that.

    Though longer term housebuilding targets which were in place and local plans are necessary to get new housing and property owners and potential Tory voters, especially in the expensive London and South East and home counties region, in the short term voters who live there and own property won't thank you for it
    OK, the government have to dance to the tune of their core vote, who don't understand why people think there is a housing crisis because they and all their friends own their own homes.

    But can't the Conservatives find a less damaging way to do that? Turn Channel 4 into 24 hour rolling Countdown or something. (To be clear, proper Countdown, not that horrible Jimmy Carr version. Poor Rachel and Suzie must be mortified.)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,072

    AlistairM said:

    Fascinating short thread on Ukraine's drone attacks and the impact on future militaries. Ukraine has managed in months to knock together drones with a 1,000km range that could attack Russian air force bases.

    Key quote:
    The emergence of DIY Assault Drone/Cruise missile production by Syrian warlords, & now AFU, marks a “Revolution in Military Affairs” that rivals the 1967 sinking of the Israeli Destroyer INS Eilat by Egyptian Styx Cruise missiles.
    https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1599806940678303744

    Worth noting that Ukraine's maritime drones couldn't stop today's launch of Kalibr cruise missiles by the Russian Black Sea fleet. And I think one reason Ukraine's long-range weapons have been so much more effective than Russia's is that they have much better target acquisition and reconnaissance capabilities.

    Not much point having long-range precision weaponry if you don't know where to target it - that seems to be one of the key Russian failings.
    A weapon can only do so much. Which is why you need different types.

    The revolution with drones/cheap cruise missiles is the breaking of the rules of military procurement - that it is a solemn, ultra expensive way of procuring an ever smaller number of weapons.

    People having been talking about how you could knock together a V1 look alike for a few thousand quid a pop, for years. Now it is happening.

    It’s something like SpaceX - by ignoring the rules about feeding the politicians, their friends and the rest of the pyramid of the military-industrial base, they’ve got space launch down to a *cost* of $20 million or so for 16 tons to LEO. It’s not magic, just throw away what you don’t need….
    The west is waking up to the problem, slowly.

    The US is looking at how to revamp its procurement for volume munitions (the ground launched small diameter bomb program is an example).

    And one of the most wanted bits of kit in Ukraine is the four decades old Gepard - decent radar, and can cheaply and very effectively shoot down drones:
    https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/10/24/ukraine-launches-android-app-to-track-and-destroy-kamikaze-drones_6001541_4.html

    Ought to be relatively easy to produce a cheaper mass produced modern version.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,705

    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Carnyx said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Would Sunak offer the referendum to get SNP support? He obviously doesn't give a fuck about Scotland and doesn't even bother pretending like Johnson and May.

    Would he be allowed to? If HYUFD is any guide, he wouldn't survive till the next Scotland Act was passed, never mind referendum.
    What happens if Sunak and Starmer both tell the SNP to do one but neither can muster a majority? Another election? That outcome is probably be better for Labour than the tories as the country's crisis fatigue will be acute at that point.
    If Starmer leads the largest party he could probably vote the Tories out unless the SNP voted for the Tories. At that point the SNP would more or less have to back him - either actively by voting for him or passively by abstaining - or be accused of being Sunak's little helpers.

    If the Tories are the largest party then I think it would have to be another election. The SNP would then have to explain what the point is of voting for them when they won't get rid of the hated Tories at the first opportunity.

    Bluntly, it is hard to see a positive scenario for the SNP in the event of a hung Parliament. They almost certainly won't be getting their referendum, and they will have to either vote Labour in without one or explain why they didn't get rid of the Tories. Neither is a good option.

    Their optimum result is a very small Tory majority with zero seats in Scotland. At that point you would have to say the UK government lacked legitimacy north of the border.
    I think you're misunderstanding how the process works. There is never a direct vote in parliament between two possible governments. Sir Keir only gets to be PM if he can demonstrate before a King's Speech vote that he can win it - in the situation you posit that would need a formal commitment from the SNP to at least abstain on a Labour King's Speech. They could easily commit to voting against a King's Speech in any circumstances and force a new election if they don't get their second referendum.
    Incorrect. If Starmer has more MPs than the Tories, he can win the vote on the Address in Reply as long as the SNP abstain. Then the government has to resign and the King would by convention send for Starmer. Starmer then gets through a Speech of his own using the same methods.

    Unless of course the Tories had the sense to realise, as did Heath in 1974 and Baldwin in 1929 but not of course the phenomenally ill-advised Brown in 2010, that it's hopeless and they resign anyway.

    There is no requirement for the SNP to publicly support anything.

    I know Gus O'Donnell thought otherwise but he was an even bigger and more useless twat than Susan Acland-Hood.
    I think Driver was pointing out that the SNP can scupper any putative minority Labour Government by simply saying they will not support it without a commitment to a referendum vote. In those circumstances no party would be able to demonstrate they have a majority via either coalition or C&S and so there would have to be a new election. The interesting point is what happens if neither of the major parties will commit to a new referendum but repeated elections continue to deliver the balance of power to the SNP.
    Makes sense.

    Though the SNP case for a second referendum may be undermined if they go into the election that delivers that hung parliament treating it as a de facto referendum and not making the 50% target they would effectively need to demonstrate majority support for independence. Would be hard to then stand up and say "we won't support your minority Lab government without a commitment to indyref2".

    Equally though, if they did make that target would strengthen the case to say no support to Labour without an indyref2 commitment as a bare minimum.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,072
    Damn, this is going to penalties.
    I was relying on Japan's fitter team to see them through in extra time.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,157
    edited December 2022
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Maybe a big LAB - CON alliance to keep SNP out?

    Every argument as to why Sturgeon won't prop up the Tories applies to Starmer with bells on. The only time Labour entered a peacetime coalition with the Tories they lost an extraordinary 235 seats at the next election - the second highest attrition rate since 1832 (1906 being the highest when the Unionists lost 246).
    The SPD formed a government with the CDU from 2005 to 2009 and 2013 to 2021 and are now back leading a government.

    However yes it is very unlikely and only slightly possible if SNP hold balance of power and demand indyref
    That's in Germany. We are not Germany. Our entire political system and outlook is different, in particular, much more tribal.

    Can you imagine what the likes of Pidcock and Long Bailey would say to a grand coalition? Or even BJO, Nick Palmer and Kinabalu on these very boards?

    Starmer would far more likely dare the SNP to vote the Tories back in then go to Scotland and say, 'OK, who's your real enemy?'
    I thought BJO had already envisaged a deal with Boris's Tories ?
    And we know Nick is so reasonable he'd consider any proposal.

    Kinabalu might be a stumbling block.
    I don't like to think of myself as a stumbling block - sounds a bit spiteful and negative - but you're reading it right here. The Tories and all traces thereof have to be removed from government. I think I can just about hang on till the GE but not a moment longer.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,072
    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:

    EXCLUSIVE by me and @Daniel_J_Martin

    Michael Gove drops mandatory housebuilding targets in face of Conservative rebellion

    Full story at the @Telegraph's website

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/12/05/michael-gove-house-building-targets-scrapped-tory-rebellion/

    Every government promises to sort housebuilding. None do.

    The best idea suggested here was for Labour to promise (to build) half a dozen new towns in Conservative safe seats. Worth it just for the trolling, and might even get built.
    Genuinely, why do they not do this; what's the downside ?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,157
    edited December 2022
    Oh no it's looking like penalties. Do not enjoy watching that. Always feel worse for the losers than I am pleased for the winners.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840
    edited December 2022
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:

    EXCLUSIVE by me and @Daniel_J_Martin

    Michael Gove drops mandatory housebuilding targets in face of Conservative rebellion

    Full story at the @Telegraph's website

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/12/05/michael-gove-house-building-targets-scrapped-tory-rebellion/

    Every government promises to sort housebuilding. None do.

    The best idea suggested here was for Labour to promise (to build) half a dozen new towns in Conservative safe seats. Worth it just for the trolling, and might even get built.
    Genuinely, why do they not do this; what's the downside ?
    A few months ago this issue came up and we were discussing how the SNP* brought in a fairly substantial programme of council house building. Much greater pro rata than rUk. Though arguably still too small - half what is needed? - it helps. The ones I've seen seem a decent standard though without the huge gardens of the 1920s/30s equivalents.

    Not sure what happened in NI and Wales.

    Edit: *obvs in cooperation with local councils of various hues/mixes.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103
    Cyclefree said:

    Whodathunkit?

    Five human rights organisations that wrote to a UN expert defending the gender recognition reform bill have received Scottish government funding, it has emerged.

    The charities published a letter to Reem Alsalem, the UN special rapporteur for violence against women and girls, last Wednesday supporting the SNP reforms which, if passed, would allow transgender people to self-identify in order to obtain a gender recognition certificate.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/backers-of-gender-reform-bill-given-scottish-government-funding-xmwxpmdb8


    There is a crying need for training in the public and private sectors on conflicts of interest, what they are, why they are a problem, how to recognise them and how to eliminate or mitigate them. Accompanied by oodles of stories showing that they are at the heart of pretty much every scandal going.
    Going back a bit, but on this point I think there is plenty of information out there about conflicts of interest. But people, and organisations, simply refuse to recognise they are an issue. The culture is that anything that gets in the way is bad, even taking time to ensure there is no conflict, or no appearance of conflict, or to take suitable action if there is one.

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    SKS gives a speech on policy, and PB is talking about cricket.

    I certainly wasn't, as I stated his proposal to scrap the Lords and replace it with a directly elected Upper House could lead to a Tory upper house elected midterm using its mandate to block and delay as much legislation passed by a Labour government with a majority in the House of Commons as possible and vice versa.

    It would move us much more to the US model of gridlock than we are now.
    SKS said that the new "Senate" (or whatever it is called) will not have the power to delay legislation by a year, as is the case with the Lords.
    Then what will be the point if it ?
    Thes always been the problem hasn't it. If it's toothless, then it's a talking shop and no one cares so why have it at all.

    If it's got powers, then it's undemocratic (unless it's elected), and it needs the government giving up powers, which they tend not to do...

    And if it is elected, then how will it be different from the HoC...
    This is also a fundamental problem - lots of people, probably a majority, think an unelected upper chamber is ridiculous, but the government won't want to give up power, and people don't agree on the precise replacement (or to replace at all).

    It's why more incremental reform is the way to go - there is not a sufficient problem from the existence of the Lords to spend inordinate time replacing it with something confused, they can take their time and there are some easy quick fixes to start with.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,318
    kinabalu said:

    Oh no it's looking like penalties. Do not enjoy watching that. Always feel worse for the losers than I am pleased for the winners.

    There's a kind of pleasure in the vicarious pain?

    At least it's not us

    GO JAPAN
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,397
    edited December 2022
    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Carnyx said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Would Sunak offer the referendum to get SNP support? He obviously doesn't give a fuck about Scotland and doesn't even bother pretending like Johnson and May.

    Would he be allowed to? If HYUFD is any guide, he wouldn't survive till the next Scotland Act was passed, never mind referendum.
    What happens if Sunak and Starmer both tell the SNP to do one but neither can muster a majority? Another election? That outcome is probably be better for Labour than the tories as the country's crisis fatigue will be acute at that point.
    If Starmer leads the largest party he could probably vote the Tories out unless the SNP voted for the Tories. At that point the SNP would more or less have to back him - either actively by voting for him or passively by abstaining - or be accused of being Sunak's little helpers.

    If the Tories are the largest party then I think it would have to be another election. The SNP would then have to explain what the point is of voting for them when they won't get rid of the hated Tories at the first opportunity.

    Bluntly, it is hard to see a positive scenario for the SNP in the event of a hung Parliament. They almost certainly won't be getting their referendum, and they will have to either vote Labour in without one or explain why they didn't get rid of the Tories. Neither is a good option.

    Their optimum result is a very small Tory majority with zero seats in Scotland. At that point you would have to say the UK government lacked legitimacy north of the border.
    I think you're misunderstanding how the process works. There is never a direct vote in parliament between two possible governments. Sir Keir only gets to be PM if he can demonstrate before a King's Speech vote that he can win it - in the situation you posit that would need a formal commitment from the SNP to at least abstain on a Labour King's Speech. They could easily commit to voting against a King's Speech in any circumstances and force a new election if they don't get their second referendum.
    Incorrect. If Starmer has more MPs than the Tories, he can win the vote on the Address in Reply as long as the SNP abstain. Then the government has to resign and the King would by convention send for Starmer. Starmer then gets through a Speech of his own using the same methods.

    Unless of course the Tories had the sense to realise, as did Heath in 1974 and Baldwin in 1929 but not of course the phenomenally ill-advised Brown in 2010, that it's hopeless and they resign anyway.

    There is no requirement for the SNP to publicly support anything.

    I know Gus O'Donnell thought otherwise but he was an even bigger and more useless twat than Susan Acland-Hood.
    You say I'm incorrect, but I don't think you're actually contradicting me, with the possible exception that I think that if the SNP were committed (not necessarily publicly) to opposing a Starmer King's Speech then the government could request a new election based on there being no possible government.
    The convention is that if you can't pass a King's Speech after an election, the opposition then get to have a go in preference to a new election. Only if they fail do you have a new election.

    I think it unlikely Charles would depart from that.
    Right. But "having a go" AIUI only extends to negotiations, not to actually taking office if it's known a King's Speech will fail.
    No, it does extend to taking office, as with Wilson in 1974. Negotiations are an extra and don't count.

    The only way it would be different is if the largest opposition party has fewer MPs than the government, as in 1924 when Baldwin decided to meet Parliament even though Asquith had already announced he would vote the Unionists out and put Labour in.
This discussion has been closed.