Do you think people should be legally required to vote at general elections, or should people be able to choose whether or not to vote?Legally required to vote: 27%Able to choose whether or not to vote: 63%https://t.co/72rYgRLGg9 pic.twitter.com/R4Jx4TbADu
Personally though I think choosing not to vote is as much a choice as choosing to vote
"Freedom of choice is vital, and you *must* exercise it."
Not voting is also a choice.
I received write-in electoral support once to be Governor of California.
[I didn't win.]
So the last paragraph is based on a phallusy.
The people who contribute to Yougov polls on politics are much more likely to be voters in the first place.
This is because although I could not bring myself to vote for any of the collection of racists, liars, tax evaders and fascists on offer, I still felt it was important that I turned up to actually vote because after all people die for my right to do it.
Equally, paradoxically, they also died for my right not to vote if I choose. So actually perversely this proposal to improve democracy would be anti-democratic.
Have you been to Australia? I have. A dozen times. I have a daughter growing up there. The British are more like the Aussies than probably any other nation on earth, including Ireland (I have not been to NZ, so that’s the one exception whereof I cannot speak)
This is hardly surprising given the overwhelmingly British origins - for good and bad - of modern Oz
All Tory voters of course.....
Edit: from being there, and reading around Austdralian history, esp. the class/union struggles.
If you had to leave your country, where would you go?
Europe has four clear zones:
A Latin zone, favouring Switzerland
A Central and Balkan zone, favouring Germany.
A Scandinavian zone, favouring Sweden.
An Atlantic zone, favouring Anglo countries.
This maps vaguely onto economic models and maybe even defence constructs.
Skeletons? He was aware of the Edinburgh Airport incident.
What happens if the Indy parties don’t get 50%, is Indy then abandoned? For how long? Who decides how long? If it’s not abandoned then this just means the Nits can call a referendum, ie an election, whenever they like, for as long as they like, every year if needs be. They could have two “de facto referendums” a month, and the rest of the UK, destabilized by this, can go fuck itself
I kind of hope she wins so we can see this idiocy collide with legal and constitutional reality. It will not be pretty
You can put whatever you want in your manifesto when your party stands for election. Whether anyone buys it is for the electorate to decide.
In this case the obvious question would be "sure, the principle is sound. What happens when you enact it and invite Westminster to the negotiation table and they just say 'nah, not today mate'. What will you do then"?
As I say, it won’t withstand scrutiny. She surely knows this and is bidding to be the Indy hardcore candidate
What if she won the leadership, called an election on this basis, and unionists boycotted it? What then?
it’s a recipe for getting Indy bogged down in decades of legal bickering
As I say the problem isn't the principle. On any given election you stand on and for what you believe, regardless of previous electoral cycles. You put what you'd do in your manifesto if you win. If no-one wants that then you don't win. It's pretty simple.
As I say in this instance the issue is more in the substance of what you actually do after you win and enact your manifesto. The SNP can put whatever they like in their election manifesto. Whether anyone else actually recognises that if the SNP win is a totally separate issue.
If Westminster want to actually properly clarify the circumstances in which Section 30 orders would be granted if requested, then perhaps the discussion would be different, but otherwise I see no particular problem here.
The soldiers rushed about the Med in Churchill's desperate attempt to save Crete used to say 'never in the whole field of human conflict have so many been been buggered about by so much by so few.'
BREAKING: A body has been found in the search for missing dog walker Nicola Bulley, police have confirmed.
So the 50+1 vow is legally, practically, constitutionally and technically meaningless? It’s pure gesture, and its main consequence will be to make the Nat leader look stupid?
As I said, it won’t survive scrutiny. It hasn’t survived 5 minutes on PB
"There's something dodgy going on"
"There's no evidence she fell"
"She must have been grabbed by two people and carried which is why there weren't any drag marks"
"If she fell in why didn't the dog jump after her".
"The husband must have done it, he was crying too much/not enough"
"The police need to do X, that's what I'd do"
Soon to be replaced with:
"Why didn't the police dredge it"
"Why didn't the police send in more divers "
"Why didn't the police set up big nets to block the river"
"The husband did it, he looks guilty"
As they are senior police officers our friend @Cyclefree would point out this is very unlikely.
And some people wonder whether the two of us exaggerate the current state of teaching...
The casting of judgement on how someone either grieves or copes (or not) in very high stress/sad situations is particularly distasteful. It's also not very illuminating. Not that that will stop some on social media and elsewhere weighing in.
Bit of a rough choice for a voter like me, who'd like to vote Green, on the basis that there are pressing environmental problems, but doesn't want my vote counted as one for a unilateral declaration of independence.
China is considering giving Russia weapons and ammunition for the Ukraine war, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said.
Mr Blinken told CBS News that Chinese companies were already providing "non-lethal support" to Russia - and new information suggested Beijing could provide "lethal support".
This escalation would mean "serious consequences" for China, he warned.
There was the People's Budget election before WWI that led to the diminution of the power of the Lords. We had Heath's appeal to the public to back him against the Unions in 1974. Theresa May called a general election in 2017 to ask for a strong mandate from the British people for Brexit negotiations.
It's entirely in keeping with British political tradition to contest a general election primarily on one issue. If the incumbent doesn't have the strong support of the public on that single issue then the election normally goes badly for them.
Given the low priority most voters place on the Constitutional question, then you'd have to expect that the response of the voters would be a rejection of the SNP, in favour of parties that offered policies to address their areas of priority, such as health care and the economy. But that would be up to the voters.
But how anyone could think she'd make a worse president than Trump is actually beyond me.
From a Scotland Act position I suspect WM will be legally as able to say "fuck off" to that as they are to a S30 request. But they will have proven once and for all that the UK isn't a voluntary union.
As I say the question at that point is "what does First Minister Ash Regan do when WM just ignore that anyway"? But that's a separate discussion to the actual premise of the manifesto.
Not at all surprised.
Our current arguments over the cost of living, austerity, etc, will seem like the affectations of a more innocent and naive age.
50%+1 of combined votes from pro-independence parties in any WM or HR election is a clear instruction from the electorate that we commence withdrawal negotiations from the U.K. Independence - nothing less
I mean, Yousaf would be Liz Truss on crack.
Well. Yes I am actually. Detention Saturday morning?
Someone watched too much Breakfast Club in their youth.
Sorry about this by the way. Leicester should clearly have been ahead at half time.
That is verging on discrimination against family people. As well as a getout if you end up suing them for overwork and stress health breakdown.
The only permanent appointment made this school year is of a fourth Deputy Head. 3 wasn't enough apparently.
The exception is if there are withdrawals and only one is left standing, but that would surprise me for obvious reasons.