politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Categories

One in four support compulsory voting – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,219
edited February 2023 in General
One in four support compulsory voting – politicalbetting.com

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

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,409
    edited February 2023
    Intyeresting. Yet we are always being told [edit] by PBers of a certain mentality how much we have in common with Australia. And they have compulsory voting (with cerftain exemptions, e.g. illness or seasonal workers).
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Very illiberal. Of course voting must be voluntary.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    In Australia voting is compulsory and you get fined if you don't.

    Personally though I think choosing not to vote is as much a choice as choosing to vote
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,973
    This was always strikes me as perverse.

    "Freedom of choice is vital, and you *must* exercise it."

    Not voting is also a choice.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    edited February 2023
    Twitter rumour that the current FAV Angus Robertson (5/4) will not be a candidate.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,516
    HYUFD said:

    In Australia voting is compulsory and you get fined if you don't.

    Personally though I think choosing not to vote is as much a choice as choosing to vote

    The fine is only about £16. Bit of a waste of time.
  • TresTres Posts: 2,724
    edited February 2023
    If they did they should have an 'none of the above' option or election agents and returning officers will have to spend the election count reading various obscenities and interesting but not always anatomically correct cartoons.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,714
    A Boris comeback is not beyond the realms of possibility. The way in which he's trying to destroy Rishi's NI-protocol negotiations - one of the few potential bright spots of Rishi's premiership - suggests the sly old dog still thinks he's in with a chance. Dave, Theresa and now Rishi... which Tory PM hasn't Boris set out to destroy? Liz perhaps, although we've learned that Boris actively wanted her to be a disaster because that would reflect well on him. The old schemer!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,973
    Mr. Tres, a write-in option would also be interesting.

    I received write-in electoral support once to be Governor of California.

    [I didn't win.]
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,798
    But drawing a cock on the paper is deemed a legal ballot.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-election-penis-idINKBN0NT1YX20150508

    So the last paragraph is based on a phallusy.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,752
    Sample bias.

    The people who contribute to Yougov polls on politics are much more likely to be voters in the first place.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,798
    edited February 2023
    Not sure whether it counts towards the thread or not, but at the last election in 2019 I did actually turn up to the voting booth and spoil my ballot paper.

    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.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    Carnyx said:

    Intyeresting. Yet we are always being told [edit] by PBers of a certain mentality how much we have in common with Australia. And they have compulsory voting (with cerftain exemptions, e.g. illness or seasonal workers).

    Are you literally trying to claim that saying “the British are like the Aussies” is some kind of Britnat delusion?

    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
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,921
    Carnyx said:

    Another point: having a legal requirement to vote would clash with current Conservative Party policies to disenfranchise people on the sly.

    But those who were not so disenfranchised would have to vote...

    All Tory voters of course.....
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,409
    edited February 2023
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Intyeresting. Yet we are always being told [edit] by PBers of a certain mentality how much we have in common with Australia. And they have compulsory voting (with cerftain exemptions, e.g. illness or seasonal workers).

    Are you literally trying to claim that saying “the British are like the Aussies” is some kind of Britnat delusion?

    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
    No, it's genuinely surprising to me that there is this difference given the similarities. Though there are real differences, of a kind which make me wonder why it isn't the other way round.

    Edit: from being there, and reading around Austdralian history, esp. the class/union struggles.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,319
    edited February 2023
    Fascinating map of Europe.
    If you had to leave your country, where would you go?

    https://twitter.com/carlbildt/status/1627076673425530881?s=46&t=kDa9lHTqNXfbvLaNYApLIQ

    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.
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,049
    ydoethur said:

    Not sure whether it counts towards the thread or not, but at the last election in 2019 I did actually turn up to the voting booth and spoil my ballot paper.

    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 who may write a note to vote if I choose. So actually perversely this proposal to improve democracy would be anti-democratic.

    I don’t plan to vote in future elections both national or local. People died for the right to vote. Surely they didn’t die to compel me to vote.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,779
    As such evidence as there is indicates that it would be quite strongly beneficial for parties of the left, it would be quite funny if Labour won the next election by a landslide and then made voting compulsory.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,955
    StuartDickson said:

    Twitter rumour that the current FAV Angus Robertson (5/4) will not be a candidate.

    Some of his close allies have backed Yousaf. Not sure why, I would've thought he'd be the unexciting, continuity candidate to hold things together until the likes of Mairi McAllan are ready.

    Skeletons? He was aware of the Edinburgh Airport incident.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,409
    edited February 2023
    ClippP said:

    Carnyx said:

    Another point: having a legal requirement to vote would clash with current Conservative Party policies to disenfranchise people on the sly.

    But those who were not so disenfranchised would have to vote...

    All Tory voters of course.....
    I was thinking in the sense of disenfranchised = did not vote. And the discouragement of those registered in practical terms, with ID. But quite right to pick up on the terminology, ta.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,779
    ydoethur said:

    Not sure whether it counts towards the thread or not, but at the last election in 2019 I did actually turn up to the voting booth and spoil my ballot paper.

    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 who may write a note to vote if I choose. So actually perversely this proposal to improve democracy would be anti-democratic.

    I also go to the trouble of spoiling my ballot paper. Though admittedly it's only a postal one.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny

    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
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,038
    Daylight robbery at OT, only 65k witnesses.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,752
    edited February 2023
    Leon said:

    Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny

    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

    It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.

    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"?

  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,319
    🧵 My biggest surprise from our focus group in Leigh on Friday was quite how ridiculous/infuriating participants thought Lee Anderson’s comments about food-bank users were. Everyone (Tory and Labour voting alike) thought the person saying them was on a different planet. (1/6)

    https://twitter.com/luketryl/status/1627260636030722049?s=46&t=kDa9lHTqNXfbvLaNYApLIQ
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,798
    Gardenwalker said:

    🧵 My biggest surprise from our focus group in Leigh on Friday was quite how ridiculous/infuriating participants thought Lee Anderson’s comments about food-bank users were. Everyone (Tory and Labour voting alike) thought the person saying them was on a different planet. (1/6)

    https://twitter.com/luketryl/status/1627260636030722049?s=46&t=kDa9lHTqNXfbvLaNYApLIQ

    If only he were!
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,955
    Leon said:

    Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny

    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

    If we end up with Regan v Yousaf, there is plenty of room for an unknown to come through the middle.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Gardenwalker said:

    Fascinating map of Europe.
    If you had to leave your country, where would you go?

    https://twitter.com/carlbildt/status/1627076673425530881?s=46&t=kDa9lHTqNXfbvLaNYApLIQ

    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.

    The Swiss are the only ones to answer that question correctly: France.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Eabhal said:

    StuartDickson said:

    Twitter rumour that the current FAV Angus Robertson (5/4) will not be a candidate.

    Some of his close allies have backed Yousaf. Not sure why, I would've thought he'd be the unexciting, continuity candidate to hold things together until the likes of Mairi McAllan are ready.

    Skeletons? He was aware of the Edinburgh Airport incident.
    The words “Twitter” and “rumour” are the keys in that sentence. Nevertheless, punters might like to know.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    solarflare said:

    Leon said:

    Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny

    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

    It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.

    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"?

    She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum

    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
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,038
    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny

    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

    If we end up with Regan v Yousaf, there is plenty of room for an unknown to come through the middle.
    If we end up with Yousaf-v-Regan there will be plenty of room for absolute despair.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,798
    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny

    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

    If we end up with Regan v Yousaf, there is plenty of room for an unknown to come through the middle.
    If we end up with Yousaf-v-Regan there will be plenty of room for absolute despair.
    I know very little about Regan, but if she's not significantly better than that idiot Yousaf she must be Boris Johnson levels of bad.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,516
    StuartDickson said:

    Eabhal said:

    StuartDickson said:

    Twitter rumour that the current FAV Angus Robertson (5/4) will not be a candidate.

    Some of his close allies have backed Yousaf. Not sure why, I would've thought he'd be the unexciting, continuity candidate to hold things together until the likes of Mairi McAllan are ready.

    Skeletons? He was aware of the Edinburgh Airport incident.
    The words “Twitter” and “rumour” are the keys in that sentence. Nevertheless, punters might like to know.
    To be fair, the Twitter rumours about Sturgeon resigning were spot on. Broken clock and all that...
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,983
    Police searching for missing Nicola Bulley say they have found a body in the river
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,169
    StuartDickson said:

    Twitter rumour that the current FAV Angus Robertson (5/4) will not be a candidate.

    Gonnae be messy with heads of the Nippy has it fixed brigade exploding all over the shop.
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,049
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Police searching for missing Nicola Bulley say they have found a body in the river

    https://twitter.com/bbclancashire/status/1627315514631499776?s=61&t=g-9E36aKrWtZ6rrM1O4phQ
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,038
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny

    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

    If we end up with Regan v Yousaf, there is plenty of room for an unknown to come through the middle.
    If we end up with Yousaf-v-Regan there will be plenty of room for absolute despair.
    I know very little about Regan, but if she's not significantly better than that idiot Yousaf she must be Boris Johnson levels of bad.
    I have now discovered that the position she resigned from was Minister for Community Safety. No, me neither.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    …
    …
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,752
    Leon said:

    solarflare said:

    Leon said:

    Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny

    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

    It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.

    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"?

    She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum

    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
    It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?

    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.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,409
    Theuniondivvie said:

    StuartDickson said:

    Twitter rumour that the current FAV Angus Robertson (5/4) will not be a candidate.

    Gonnae be messy with heads of the Nippy has it fixed brigade exploding all over the shop.
    Already is ... like the watermelon in the Day of the Jackal.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,798
    StuartDickson said:

    …
    …

    That's an old one.

    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.'
  • CorrectHorseBattery3CorrectHorseBattery3 Posts: 2,757
    Labour lead of 30 by July.
  • CorrectHorseBattery3CorrectHorseBattery3 Posts: 2,757
    https://twitter.com/MirrorBreaking_/status/1627316108389761024

    BREAKING: A body has been found in the search for missing dog walker Nicola Bulley, police have confirmed.

    Terribly sad.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,798
    CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

    https://twitter.com/MirrorBreaking_/status/1627316108389761024

    BREAKING: A body has been found in the search for missing dog walker Nicola Bulley, police have confirmed.

    Terribly sad.

    It is. And also, unfortunately for her family, I very much doubt if that will be the end of the rumours, gossip mongering and conspiracy theories. They seem to have taken on a life of their own now.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,169
    Yep.




  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,169
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Police searching for missing Nicola Bulley say they have found a body in the river

    The twats that leaked her medical history must feel really proud.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,038
    Carnyx said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    StuartDickson said:

    Twitter rumour that the current FAV Angus Robertson (5/4) will not be a candidate.

    Gonnae be messy with heads of the Nippy has it fixed brigade exploding all over the shop.
    Already is ... like the watermelon in the Day of the Jackal.
    Possibly just her usual level of competence has been applied.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    solarflare said:

    Leon said:

    solarflare said:

    Leon said:

    Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny

    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

    It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.

    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"?

    She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum

    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
    It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?

    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.

    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
  • CorrectHorseBattery3CorrectHorseBattery3 Posts: 2,757
    ydoethur said:

    CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

    https://twitter.com/MirrorBreaking_/status/1627316108389761024

    BREAKING: A body has been found in the search for missing dog walker Nicola Bulley, police have confirmed.

    Terribly sad.

    It is. And also, unfortunately for her family, I very much doubt if that will be the end of the rumours, gossip mongering and conspiracy theories. They seem to have taken on a life of their own now.
    A collection of quotes from social media, despite the police saying they believed she fell in the river.
    "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"
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,798
    Theuniondivvie said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Police searching for missing Nicola Bulley say they have found a body in the river

    The twats that leaked her medical history must feel really proud.
    The sarcasm implies they are capable of feeling shame.

    As they are senior police officers our friend @Cyclefree would point out this is very unlikely.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,169
    Leon said:

    solarflare said:

    Leon said:

    solarflare said:

    Leon said:

    Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny

    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

    It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.

    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"?

    She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum

    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
    It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?

    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.

    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
    Tbf that’s longer than some of your ‘creations’.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,798
    One for @dixiedean

    https://www.tes.com/jobs/vacancy/assistant-headteacher-1786164

    And some people wonder whether the two of us exaggerate the current state of teaching...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,973
    Mr. Battery, there was a case in Australia of a toddler (or maybe baby) grabbed by dingos. The mother was deemed not sufficiently mournful (not enough tears) and convicted. She was later released when evidence of the child was found, I think in a dingo's stomach or in a den.

    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.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,916
    Leon said:

    solarflare said:

    Leon said:

    Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny

    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

    It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.

    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"?

    She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum

    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
    Unionists aren't going to boycott a Parliamentary election, regardless of what anyone else says about it being a de facto referendum. That would then sign a blank cheque for any and all other policies to be enacted without opposition.

    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.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,798
    CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

    ydoethur said:

    CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

    https://twitter.com/MirrorBreaking_/status/1627316108389761024

    BREAKING: A body has been found in the search for missing dog walker Nicola Bulley, police have confirmed.

    Terribly sad.

    It is. And also, unfortunately for her family, I very much doubt if that will be the end of the rumours, gossip mongering and conspiracy theories. They seem to have taken on a life of their own now.
    A collection of quotes from social media, despite the police saying they believed she fell in the river.
    "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"
    I obviously won't 'like' that, but that's roughly what I was expecting, sadly.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Tres, a write-in option would also be interesting.

    I received write-in electoral support once to be Governor of California.

    [I didn't win.]

    Meanwhile rumours Meghan has met Governor Newsom and is considering running for Dianne Feinstein's vacant Senate seat in California
    https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2023/02/blind-item-12_0119634634.html
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,049
    CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

    ydoethur said:

    CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

    https://twitter.com/MirrorBreaking_/status/1627316108389761024

    BREAKING: A body has been found in the search for missing dog walker Nicola Bulley, police have confirmed.

    Terribly sad.

    It is. And also, unfortunately for her family, I very much doubt if that will be the end of the rumours, gossip mongering and conspiracy theories. They seem to have taken on a life of their own now.
    A collection of quotes from social media, despite the police saying they believed she fell in the river.
    "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 I posted here in the week. Twitter has moved from being full of armchair virologists, armchair epidemiologists, military strategists onto experts in searches for missing persons. There was an element of it here too.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,955
    edited February 2023
    HYUFD said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Tres, a write-in option would also be interesting.

    I received write-in electoral support once to be Governor of California.

    [I didn't win.]

    Meanwhile rumours Meghan has met Governor Newsom and is considering running for Dianne Feinstein's vacant Senate seat in California
    https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2023/02/blind-item-12_0119634634.html
    King William V welcomes President Markle on her first State Visit to the UK...
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,067
    Good afternoon all! I have been catching up on the previous thread. The effect of Kate Forbes’ religious affiliations on future SNP policies seems to be exercising many. Have I missed all the posts similarly querying the effect of Humza Yousaf’s religious affiliations?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,983
    General MacArthur was right, we should have nuked China when we had the chance.

    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.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64695042.amp
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Tres, a write-in option would also be interesting.

    I received write-in electoral support once to be Governor of California.

    [I didn't win.]

    Meanwhile rumours Meghan has met Governor Newsom and is considering running for Dianne Feinstein's vacant Senate seat in California
    https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2023/02/blind-item-12_0119634634.html
    King William V welcomes President Markle on her first State visit to the UK...
    Meghan could win safe Democrat California to become its Senator but zero chance she wins the swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio needed to win the US Presidency
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    President Joe Biden would defeat former President Donald Trump In a hypothetical 2024 rematch 45% to 42%, while Trump would win with Vice President Kamala Harris as his Democratic opponent.

    https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/2024_biden_narrowly_leads_trump
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,798
    Fairliered said:

    Good afternoon all! I have been catching up on the previous thread. The effect of Kate Forbes’ religious affiliations on future SNP policies seems to be exercising many. Have I missed all the posts similarly querying the effect of Humza Yousaf’s religious affiliations?

    I suppose the assumption is that Kate Forbes may stay true to her principles whereas we all know Yousaf doesn't have any.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,457
    edited February 2023
    DavidL said:

    Daylight robbery at OT, only 65k witnesses.

    Quality statistical trivia from the BBC Sports team: "That opener was the 400th Premier League goal conceded by a Brendan Rodgers team."
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/football/63892803
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,916
    Leon said:

    solarflare said:

    Leon said:

    solarflare said:

    Leon said:

    Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny

    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

    It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.

    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"?

    She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum

    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
    It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?

    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.

    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
    Britain has had general elections as quasi-referendums many times before. Arguably they're a better approach than single-issue referendums (which are never only about the single question on the ballot paper either).

    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.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,798
    HYUFD said:

    President Joe Biden would defeat former President Donald Trump In a hypothetical 2024 rematch 45% to 42%, while Trump would win with Vice President Kamala Harris as his Democratic opponent.

    https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/2024_biden_narrowly_leads_trump

    Kamala Harris is not Joan of Arc, or even Margaret Thatcher.

    But how anyone could think she'd make a worse president than Trump is actually beyond me.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,106
    Fairliered said:

    Good afternoon all! I have been catching up on the previous thread. The effect of Kate Forbes’ religious affiliations on future SNP policies seems to be exercising many. Have I missed all the posts similarly querying the effect of Humza Yousaf’s religious affiliations?

    His religion is not the greatest impediment to his premiership ambitions
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,955
    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Tres, a write-in option would also be interesting.

    I received write-in electoral support once to be Governor of California.

    [I didn't win.]

    Meanwhile rumours Meghan has met Governor Newsom and is considering running for Dianne Feinstein's vacant Senate seat in California
    https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2023/02/blind-item-12_0119634634.html
    King William V welcomes President Markle on her first State visit to the UK...
    Meghan could win safe Democrat California to become its Senator but zero chance she wins the swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio needed to win the US Presidency
    You can get on for next US President at 259/1. I would think 2028 at earliest though, running mate Oprah Winfrey.

    DYOR.
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,049
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    General MacArthur was right, we should have nuked China when we had the chance.

    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.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64695042.amp

    ‘Serious consequences’. Like what. The west won’t go to war with China.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Gardenwalker said:

    Fascinating map of Europe.
    If you had to leave your country, where would you go?

    https://twitter.com/carlbildt/status/1627076673425530881?s=46&t=kDa9lHTqNXfbvLaNYApLIQ

    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.

    In Britain’s case it’s where Brits have actually gone - more in Australia than the entire EU.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,457
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Battery, there was a case in Australia of a toddler (or maybe baby) grabbed by dingos. The mother was deemed not sufficiently mournful (not enough tears) and convicted. She was later released when evidence of the child was found, I think in a dingo's stomach or in a den.

    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.

    True but surely this is part of our jury system; probably the part that causes miscarriages of justice.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,752
    Leon said:

    solarflare said:

    Leon said:

    solarflare said:

    Leon said:

    Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny

    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

    It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.

    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"?

    She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum

    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
    It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?

    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.

    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
    Regan is saying next time if they win an election and break 50% they won't be asking for a S30. They'll basically say they have a mandate to negotiate independence, not a mandate to ask WM politely if they'd ever so kindly mind granting the powers for a referendum to see if anyone wants independence.

    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.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,157
    ydoethur said:

    Fairliered said:

    Good afternoon all! I have been catching up on the previous thread. The effect of Kate Forbes’ religious affiliations on future SNP policies seems to be exercising many. Have I missed all the posts similarly querying the effect of Humza Yousaf’s religious affiliations?

    I suppose the assumption is that Kate Forbes may stay true to her principles whereas we all know Yousaf doesn't have any.
    I didn't think Yousaf stood a chance.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Tres, a write-in option would also be interesting.

    I received write-in electoral support once to be Governor of California.

    [I didn't win.]

    Meanwhile rumours Meghan has met Governor Newsom and is considering running for Dianne Feinstein's vacant Senate seat in California
    https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2023/02/blind-item-12_0119634634.html
    King William V welcomes President Markle on her first State visit to the UK...
    Meghan could win safe Democrat California to become its Senator but zero chance she wins the swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio needed to win the US Presidency
    You can get on for next US President at 259/1. I would think 2028 at earliest though, running mate Oprah Winfrey.

    DYOR.
    She would only have a chance of the Democratic nomination, let alone winning the general election, if the GOP won in 2024 and there was an incumbent GOP President running for re election. Otherwise VP Harris or Buttigieg would be heavily favoured for the Democratic nomination in 2028
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,481
    Gardenwalker said:

    🧵 My biggest surprise from our focus group in Leigh on Friday was quite how ridiculous/infuriating participants thought Lee Anderson’s comments about food-bank users were. Everyone (Tory and Labour voting alike) thought the person saying them was on a different planet. (1/6)

    https://twitter.com/luketryl/status/1627260636030722049?s=46&t=kDa9lHTqNXfbvLaNYApLIQ

    Red Wall folk don't comply with the stereotypical views projected onto them by outsiders.
    Not at all surprised.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    President Joe Biden would defeat former President Donald Trump In a hypothetical 2024 rematch 45% to 42%, while Trump would win with Vice President Kamala Harris as his Democratic opponent.

    https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/2024_biden_narrowly_leads_trump

    Kamala Harris is not Joan of Arc, or even Margaret Thatcher.

    But how anyone could think she'd make a worse president than Trump is actually beyond me.
    Middle America clearly does, say what you like about Biden, he appeals to them and Hillary and Kemala don't
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,067
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fairliered said:

    Good afternoon all! I have been catching up on the previous thread. The effect of Kate Forbes’ religious affiliations on future SNP policies seems to be exercising many. Have I missed all the posts similarly querying the effect of Humza Yousaf’s religious affiliations?

    I suppose the assumption is that Kate Forbes may stay true to her principles whereas we all know Yousaf doesn't have any.
    I didn't think Yousaf stood a chance.
    At the moment it’s only Yousaf and Regan. If they are the only two candidates, the Sturgeon supporters will support Yousaf. Therefore he would stand a very good chance.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,955
    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Tres, a write-in option would also be interesting.

    I received write-in electoral support once to be Governor of California.

    [I didn't win.]

    Meanwhile rumours Meghan has met Governor Newsom and is considering running for Dianne Feinstein's vacant Senate seat in California
    https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2023/02/blind-item-12_0119634634.html
    King William V welcomes President Markle on her first State visit to the UK...
    Meghan could win safe Democrat California to become its Senator but zero chance she wins the swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio needed to win the US Presidency
    You can get on for next US President at 259/1. I would think 2028 at earliest though, running mate Oprah Winfrey.

    DYOR.
    She would only have a chance of the Democratic nomination, let alone winning the general election, if the GOP won in 2024 and there was an incumbent GOP President running for re election. Otherwise VP Harris or Buttigieg would be heavily favoured for the Democratic nomination in 2028
    And Boris was born in New York.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,916
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    General MacArthur was right, we should have nuked China when we had the chance.

    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.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64695042.amp

    If China provides weapons to Russia then Ukraine and the West is stuffed. The 2020s and 2030s will become massively worse than otherwise.

    Our current arguments over the cost of living, austerity, etc, will seem like the affectations of a more innocent and naive age.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Battery, there was a case in Australia of a toddler (or maybe baby) grabbed by dingos. The mother was deemed not sufficiently mournful (not enough tears) and convicted. She was later released when evidence of the child was found, I think in a dingo's stomach or in a den.

    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.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Azaria_Chamberlain
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,955
    Taz said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    General MacArthur was right, we should have nuked China when we had the chance.

    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.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64695042.amp

    ‘Serious consequences’. Like what. The west won’t go to war with China.

    Something something Taiwan, I reckon.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,409
    solarflare said:

    Leon said:

    solarflare said:

    Leon said:

    solarflare said:

    Leon said:

    Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny

    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

    It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.

    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"?

    She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum

    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
    It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?

    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.

    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
    Regan is saying next time if they win an election and break 50% they won't be asking for a S30. They'll basically say they have a mandate to negotiate independence, not a mandate to ask WM politely if they'd ever so kindly mind granting the powers for a referendum to see if anyone wants independence.

    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.
    It's the logical next step from Ms Sturgeon forcing the SC decision - which basically proved that the refusal of a S30 request relied solely on the contingent legislation passed very recently by Westminster. Work down through all the possibilities, and the situation will be ever clearer.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,516
    FPT
    CarlottaVance said:

    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




    https://twitter.com/AshtenRegan/status/1627238466470699008?s=20


    yes
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,798
    Fairliered said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fairliered said:

    Good afternoon all! I have been catching up on the previous thread. The effect of Kate Forbes’ religious affiliations on future SNP policies seems to be exercising many. Have I missed all the posts similarly querying the effect of Humza Yousaf’s religious affiliations?

    I suppose the assumption is that Kate Forbes may stay true to her principles whereas we all know Yousaf doesn't have any.
    I didn't think Yousaf stood a chance.
    At the moment it’s only Yousaf and Regan. If they are the only two candidates, the Sturgeon supporters will support Yousaf. Therefore he would stand a very good chance.
    Surely to goodness they'll find another candidate somewhere?

    I mean, Yousaf would be Liz Truss on crack.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,798
    malcolmg said:

    FPT
    CarlottaVance said:

    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




    https://twitter.com/AshtenRegan/status/1627238466470699008?s=20


    yes

    Called it...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    malcolmg said:

    FPT
    CarlottaVance said:

    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




    https://twitter.com/AshtenRegan/status/1627238466470699008?s=20


    yes

    She’d have your vote then…..if you had one!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,516
    Fairliered said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fairliered said:

    Good afternoon all! I have been catching up on the previous thread. The effect of Kate Forbes’ religious affiliations on future SNP policies seems to be exercising many. Have I missed all the posts similarly querying the effect of Humza Yousaf’s religious affiliations?

    I suppose the assumption is that Kate Forbes may stay true to her principles whereas we all know Yousaf doesn't have any.
    I didn't think Yousaf stood a chance.
    At the moment it’s only Yousaf and Regan. If they are the only two candidates, the Sturgeon supporters will support Yousaf. Therefore he would stand a very good chance.
    Fairlie, even the sheeple cannot be that stupid, that would be genocide for SNP
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,481
    ydoethur said:

    One for @dixiedean

    https://www.tes.com/jobs/vacancy/assistant-headteacher-1786164

    And some people wonder whether the two of us exaggerate the current state of teaching...

    "Not put off?"
    Well. Yes I am actually. Detention Saturday morning?
    Someone watched too much Breakfast Club in their youth.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,516
    solarflare said:

    Leon said:

    solarflare said:

    Leon said:

    solarflare said:

    Leon said:

    Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny

    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

    It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.

    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"?

    She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum

    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
    It's not as if Farage was only allowed to stand for election on the principle of getting the UK out of the EU for one election cycle. If I put in my manifesto that I want to introduce a universal basic income and don't win the election then I can't propose it next time round because it's been rejected for an indeterminate period of time? If I'm in opposition and say I want to improve the NHS two, three electoral cycles running then I'm trying to browbeat the nation into agreeing with the principle?

    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.

    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
    Regan is saying next time if they win an election and break 50% they won't be asking for a S30. They'll basically say they have a mandate to negotiate independence, not a mandate to ask WM politely if they'd ever so kindly mind granting the powers for a referendum to see if anyone wants independence.

    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.
    Use International law that states a country should be free to decide their own countries future.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,038
    edited February 2023
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fairliered said:

    Good afternoon all! I have been catching up on the previous thread. The effect of Kate Forbes’ religious affiliations on future SNP policies seems to be exercising many. Have I missed all the posts similarly querying the effect of Humza Yousaf’s religious affiliations?

    I suppose the assumption is that Kate Forbes may stay true to her principles whereas we all know Yousaf doesn't have any.
    I didn't think Yousaf stood a chance.
    Something about one eyed men, land of the blind and kings comes to mind. Its a catastrophically poor field.

    Sorry about this by the way. Leicester should clearly have been ahead at half time.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,516
    Scott_xP said:

    Fairliered said:

    Good afternoon all! I have been catching up on the previous thread. The effect of Kate Forbes’ religious affiliations on future SNP policies seems to be exercising many. Have I missed all the posts similarly querying the effect of Humza Yousaf’s religious affiliations?

    His religion is not the greatest impediment to his premiership ambitions
    Stupidity would not help, the ultimate no user
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,067
    On topic (it would be a shame for @TSE to go to all that effort for everyone to ignore it), I am in favour of compulsory voting, as long as there is also a “none of the above “ option. It needs to be combined with proper PR, to ensure that everyone has an opportunity of having their views heard. A minimum threshold would be helpful, though.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Environment minister @MairiMcAllan has ruled herself out of standing for @theSNP leadership



    https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1627311993584484352?s=20
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,409
    edited February 2023
    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    One for @dixiedean

    https://www.tes.com/jobs/vacancy/assistant-headteacher-1786164

    And some people wonder whether the two of us exaggerate the current state of teaching...

    "Not put off?"
    Well. Yes I am actually. Detention Saturday morning?
    Someone watched too much Breakfast Club in their youth.
    They're rather obsessed with detention, aren't they? (Much simpler to have the tawse in the old days. Over quickly and you were home. Edit: That is meant ironically.)

    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.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,067
    malcolmg said:

    Fairliered said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fairliered said:

    Good afternoon all! I have been catching up on the previous thread. The effect of Kate Forbes’ religious affiliations on future SNP policies seems to be exercising many. Have I missed all the posts similarly querying the effect of Humza Yousaf’s religious affiliations?

    I suppose the assumption is that Kate Forbes may stay true to her principles whereas we all know Yousaf doesn't have any.
    I didn't think Yousaf stood a chance.
    At the moment it’s only Yousaf and Regan. If they are the only two candidates, the Sturgeon supporters will support Yousaf. Therefore he would stand a very good chance.
    Fairlie, even the sheeple cannot be that stupid, that would be genocide for SNP
    I hope you’re right, Malc. Let’s wait and see to what extent ordinary members are encouraged to vote.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,516
    LostPassword said:

    Leon said:

    solarflare said:

    Leon said:

    Prediction: the assertion by MSP “Ash Regan” that the next GE or Holyrood election will be a de facto plebiscite, with 50% for Indy parties meaning independence must happen, will not withstand a week of scrutiny

    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

    It's not especially difficult to understand. If the threshold isn't reached then it's not taken as a mandate for independence. But that doesn't stop a future election being run on the same principle. It's not like the SNP hasn't already run on every election since the year dot as a pro-independence party. There's nothing really changed in that sense.

    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"?

    She seems to be claiming this will be a lot more than a normal election. It will be a de facto referendum

    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
    Unionists aren't going to boycott a Parliamentary election, regardless of what anyone else says about it being a de facto referendum. That would then sign a blank cheque for any and all other policies to be enacted without opposition.

    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.
    HOWEVER THE WEIRDO GREENS IN SCOTLAND ARE HARDLY INTERESTED IN THE ENVIRONMENT , THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH BRAINS FOR THAT.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,481
    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    One for @dixiedean

    https://www.tes.com/jobs/vacancy/assistant-headteacher-1786164

    And some people wonder whether the two of us exaggerate the current state of teaching...

    "Not put off?"
    Well. Yes I am actually. Detention Saturday morning?
    Someone watched too much Breakfast Club in their youth.
    Incidentally. We've now a majority of staff on supply.
    The only permanent appointment made this school year is of a fourth Deputy Head. 3 wasn't enough apparently.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,873
    Fairliered said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fairliered said:

    Good afternoon all! I have been catching up on the previous thread. The effect of Kate Forbes’ religious affiliations on future SNP policies seems to be exercising many. Have I missed all the posts similarly querying the effect of Humza Yousaf’s religious affiliations?

    I suppose the assumption is that Kate Forbes may stay true to her principles whereas we all know Yousaf doesn't have any.
    I didn't think Yousaf stood a chance.
    At the moment it’s only Yousaf and Regan. If they are the only two candidates, the Sturgeon supporters will support Yousaf. Therefore he would stand a very good chance.
    Has he actually entered the race. Good Lord.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,409
    Fairliered said:

    malcolmg said:

    Fairliered said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fairliered said:

    Good afternoon all! I have been catching up on the previous thread. The effect of Kate Forbes’ religious affiliations on future SNP policies seems to be exercising many. Have I missed all the posts similarly querying the effect of Humza Yousaf’s religious affiliations?

    I suppose the assumption is that Kate Forbes may stay true to her principles whereas we all know Yousaf doesn't have any.
    I didn't think Yousaf stood a chance.
    At the moment it’s only Yousaf and Regan. If they are the only two candidates, the Sturgeon supporters will support Yousaf. Therefore he would stand a very good chance.
    Fairlie, even the sheeple cannot be that stupid, that would be genocide for SNP
    I hope you’re right, Malc. Let’s wait and see to what extent ordinary members are encouraged to vote.
    Oh, they are. The early warning emails have been out for some time.

    The exception is if there are withdrawals and only one is left standing, but that would surprise me for obvious reasons.
This discussion has been closed.