My favourite counter-measure would be quite technical - instruct the Boundary Commission to draw constituency boundaries according to population, as shown by the census, rather than by the number who have registered. That would eliminate the inherent bias to older, more settled people, as opposed to young people who constantly move around. I wouldn't extend the vote to anyone unregistered, but a community of 80,000 should be worth an MP regardless of how many of them have in fact registered.
Although we know from some of the covid stats ( @stodge in Newham I think) that the population figures were pretty far out
“Canadians are very much split on their opinions when it comes to the monarchy in Canada. Roughly half (54%) agree (20% strongly/33% somewhat) that now that Queen Elizabeth II’s reign has ended, Canada should end its formal ties to the British monarchy. This sentiment is down 5 points from 2021, but up from 44% in 2011. Conversely, 46% disagree (19% strongly/27% somewhat) that Canada should sever ties, up 5 points.”
Only 20% are strong republicans (bet they’re mostly in Quebec). You need way more than that to go through the enormous arse-ache of massive constitutional turmoil. It’s not gonna happen. Canada is a safe, stable, prosperous country, looked on with envy by many. Why change what works?
Also, the monarchy sets Canada apart from the USA and, in my experience, Canadians love ANYTHING that does that
It's in the Guardian, so you can properly ChatGPT the whole article from here: "write me an article in the style of the Guardian as to why the monarchy is unpopular in Canada"
In fact, I just did - here is what it said: "As a Commonwealth country with a constitutional monarchy, Canada has long been associated with the British royal family. However, recent years have seen a decline in support for the monarchy in Canada, with polls indicating that a growing number of Canadians now believe that the country should become a republic.
The reasons for this shift in opinion are multifaceted. Firstly, many Canadians see the monarchy as an anachronism that is out of step with modern values. The monarchy is seen by some as a relic of the past, with its focus on tradition and ceremony seen as at odds with Canada's progressive, diverse and egalitarian society.
Additionally, many Canadians object to the idea of a hereditary head of state. The fact that the position of monarch is passed down through a single family, with no democratic input, is seen by many as fundamentally undemocratic. In a country that values meritocracy and equal opportunity, the idea of a person holding a position of power simply because of their birthright is unpalatable to many.
Another factor contributing to the unpopularity of the monarchy in Canada is the cost of maintaining the royal family. Despite the fact that Canada is a constitutional monarchy, the royal family does not actually reside in the country, meaning that Canadian taxpayers foot the bill for their security when they visit. This has led to criticism that the money spent on the monarchy could be better used to fund public services or support vulnerable communities.
Moreover, recent controversies surrounding the royal family have also played a role in eroding support for the institution. The revelations of racism and colonialism made by Prince Harry and Meghan Markle in their interview with Oprah Winfrey, as well as the scandals surrounding Prince Andrew, have called into question the values and behaviour of the royal family.
Despite these challenges, supporters of the monarchy argue that it provides a link to Canada's history and tradition, and that the cost of maintaining the royal family is minimal compared to the economic benefits that they bring to the country. However, with support for the monarchy declining and calls for a republic growing louder, it remains to be seen whether the institution will continue to have a place in Canadian society.
Regenerate response"
That’s a pretty good response to brief. Probably would get a B+ at A level
It is but it's not sensationalist enough for the Guardian - you've got to touch left-wing erogenous zones for that, and stir the pot - and it tries to deliver too much balance with the final paragraph.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
“Canadians are very much split on their opinions when it comes to the monarchy in Canada. Roughly half (54%) agree (20% strongly/33% somewhat) that now that Queen Elizabeth II’s reign has ended, Canada should end its formal ties to the British monarchy. This sentiment is down 5 points from 2021, but up from 44% in 2011. Conversely, 46% disagree (19% strongly/27% somewhat) that Canada should sever ties, up 5 points.”
Only 20% are strong republicans (bet they’re mostly in Quebec). You need way more than that to go through the enormous arse-ache of massive constitutional turmoil. It’s not gonna happen. Canada is a safe, stable, prosperous country, looked on with envy by many. Why change what works?
Also, the monarchy sets Canada apart from the USA and, in my experience, Canadians love ANYTHING that does that
It's in the Guardian, so you can properly ChatGPT the whole article from here: "write me an article in the style of the Guardian as to why the monarchy is unpopular in Canada"
In fact, I just did - here is what it said: "As a Commonwealth country with a constitutional monarchy, Canada has long been associated with the British royal family. However, recent years have seen a decline in support for the monarchy in Canada, with polls indicating that a growing number of Canadians now believe that the country should become a republic.
The reasons for this shift in opinion are multifaceted. Firstly, many Canadians see the monarchy as an anachronism that is out of step with modern values. The monarchy is seen by some as a relic of the past, with its focus on tradition and ceremony seen as at odds with Canada's progressive, diverse and egalitarian society.
Additionally, many Canadians object to the idea of a hereditary head of state. The fact that the position of monarch is passed down through a single family, with no democratic input, is seen by many as fundamentally undemocratic. In a country that values meritocracy and equal opportunity, the idea of a person holding a position of power simply because of their birthright is unpalatable to many.
Another factor contributing to the unpopularity of the monarchy in Canada is the cost of maintaining the royal family. Despite the fact that Canada is a constitutional monarchy, the royal family does not actually reside in the country, meaning that Canadian taxpayers foot the bill for their security when they visit. This has led to criticism that the money spent on the monarchy could be better used to fund public services or support vulnerable communities.
Moreover, recent controversies surrounding the royal family have also played a role in eroding support for the institution. The revelations of racism and colonialism made by Prince Harry and Meghan Markle in their interview with Oprah Winfrey, as well as the scandals surrounding Prince Andrew, have called into question the values and behaviour of the royal family.
Despite these challenges, supporters of the monarchy argue that it provides a link to Canada's history and tradition, and that the cost of maintaining the royal family is minimal compared to the economic benefits that they bring to the country. However, with support for the monarchy declining and calls for a republic growing louder, it remains to be seen whether the institution will continue to have a place in Canadian society.
Regenerate response"
That’s a pretty good response to brief. Probably would get a B+ at A level
It is but it's not sensationalist enough for the Guardian - you've got to touch left-wing erogenous zones for that, and stir the pot - and it tries to deliver too much balance with the final paragraph.
Other than that, not bad.
Do Guardian articles generally end with the cryptic comment "Regenerate response"?
It is known that local elections and by elections are limited predictors of general elections, what I don't know historically is how good local by elections are at predicting local elections.
The Tories sit only 4 points behind Labour on a prior NEV plus vote share change in the last 3 months local by elections. The numbers are a bit swingy and the last few months include bigger proportions from London, Scotland and Wales than from the shires where LEs are taking place.
But as a left leaning worrier, I am taking very seriously the possibility that the Tories might suffer very few losses, even as everyone and his dog knows otherwise. Call it practice for the GE.
Truth be told, I expect Labour to do better than a 4 point NEV lead, but not so much better.
The LE VI surveys all have Labour a bit better. I think the doubt here is on the turnout filters. Opinium recorded very high turnout intention in giving Labour a healthy vote lead in the areas voting, but their write up was sceptical of their own results. Btw, I think this year's pattern means a Lab NEV lead would be around 5 points more than their raw vote lead.
So, the element of doubt against this measure is simply that the turnout filters might be less developed in these surveys, and the pollsters are less experienced in local VI polling by simple fact that they do it less.
In summary, I'm not taking a shellacking for granted, and I think the counter possibility is worth bearing in mind for betting purposes.
I'm expecting differential turnout to favour Labour - a lot of Lab voters are really keen to vote, and I've only met a few Tories who feel like that.
Thanks Foxy - am booked for lunch at SALT a 1 star restaurant in Stratford. Take the view that not much more I can do here! At postal vote opening comment was that less interest than usual - not as many calls to the office and fewer postal votes returned as a proportion of those issued - but suppose could be because post not so good these days!
1) I suppose we can't know how many personations (?) took place
2) Surely it's older voters who are most likely to not have a valid passport/driving licence? Even with the trend for not drinking/driving, most younger people have ID to get into concerts etc
3) lots of countries that we admire have ID requirements (and monarchies ). Sweden, for example.
The main thing it will do is cause massive queues, lots of angst and general ill feeling.
Of developed world democracies without ID cards - New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and Japan - two don't require ID to vote at all (NZ and Japan), while two (Australia and Canada) do.
However, in both cases, there are contingencies for people who arrive without ID*: if another voter attests to your identity, then you can vote; and if you don't have another voter who can attest, then you can cast a provisional ballot that can be cured later in the event that the result is sufficiently close.
* And their list of acceptable IDs is longer
Though worth adding that in Australia voting is compulsory so the effect of ID cards upon likelihood to vote and disenfrancisement is probably rather muted
Does Australia require voter ID? Quick google says no although they have been through a near identical debate.
It is known that local elections and by elections are limited predictors of general elections, what I don't know historically is how good local by elections are at predicting local elections.
The Tories sit only 4 points behind Labour on a prior NEV plus vote share change in the last 3 months local by elections. The numbers are a bit swingy and the last few months include bigger proportions from London, Scotland and Wales than from the shires where LEs are taking place.
But as a left leaning worrier, I am taking very seriously the possibility that the Tories might suffer very few losses, even as everyone and his dog knows otherwise. Call it practice for the GE.
Truth be told, I expect Labour to do better than a 4 point NEV lead, but not so much better.
The LE VI surveys all have Labour a bit better. I think the doubt here is on the turnout filters. Opinium recorded very high turnout intention in giving Labour a healthy vote lead in the areas voting, but their write up was sceptical of their own results. Btw, I think this year's pattern means a Lab NEV lead would be around 5 points more than their raw vote lead.
So, the element of doubt against this measure is simply that the turnout filters might be less developed in these surveys, and the pollsters are less experienced in local VI polling by simple fact that they do it less.
In summary, I'm not taking a shellacking for granted, and I think the counter possibility is worth bearing in mind for betting purposes.
I'm expecting differential turnout to favour Labour - a lot of Lab voters are really keen to vote, and I've only met a few Tories who feel like that.
Thanks Foxy - am booked for lunch at SALT a 1 star restaurant in Stratford. Take the view that not much more I can do here! At postal vote opening comment was that less interest than usual - not as many calls to the office and fewer postal votes returned as a proportion of those issued - but suppose could be because post not so good these days!
Deliver a good morning leaflet, check on telling, and then start knocking up?
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
That's to suggest that the arguments about the lack of efficacy and negative effects of these measures haven't already been discussed ad nauseam, and the arguments ignored completely by the government.
So yes, in this case, undemocratic, immoral Tories.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You snowflakes have a real thing about criticism = almost being labelled a fascist and therefore should not be allowed. There is a whole spectrum of malign. The Boris and post Boris version of the Tories is more malign than any UK government of my lifetime by a distance. That does not make them the worst political party in the world ever or anywhere remotely close, but they are still problematic and should be challenged loudly and clearly.
1) I suppose we can't know how many personations (?) took place
2) Surely it's older voters who are most likely to not have a valid passport/driving licence? Even with the trend for not drinking/driving, most younger people have ID to get into concerts etc
3) lots of countries that we admire have ID requirements (and monarchies ). Sweden, for example.
The main thing it will do is cause massive queues, lots of angst and general ill feeling.
Of developed world democracies without ID cards - New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and Japan - two don't require ID to vote at all (NZ and Japan), while two (Australia and Canada) do.
However, in both cases, there are contingencies for people who arrive without ID*: if another voter attests to your identity, then you can vote; and if you don't have another voter who can attest, then you can cast a provisional ballot that can be cured later in the event that the result is sufficiently close.
* And their list of acceptable IDs is longer
How many personations prevented justifies depriving millions of their right to vote?
In courts we don't presume guilt, and accept that in the absence of evidence the accused goes free, yet here we reverse the burden of proof.
When I vote tomorrow I will take my ID, but also forcefully complain to the officials about having to do so.
They’ve not been deprived of their right to vote. They just need to prove their identity
Certainly no point in staying up late. Getting up early might yield a reasonably slice of news, but the story of the elections will mostly emerge during Friday and we won’t have the full picture until later on that day. A story, if there is one, for Saturday’s news.
Poor Leon, is there any subject he's never right on?
Nato suspects that Russia has planted explosives on critical European undersea infrastructure, based on intelligence from the companies that run oil and gas rigs, pipelines, electricity connectors and telecoms cables.
In mid-February the alliance set up a “critical undersea infrastructure co-ordination cell” led by Lieutenant General Hans-Werner Wiermann, a retired German military officer.
Amid reports of Russian espionage operations, his main mission is to find out what Russia has been up to since last autumn’s sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines shocked the alliance and panicked governments.
The unit will report to a summit of Nato leaders in July and is building an intelligence picture of the critical infrastructure. “Why is there this Russian focus on undersea offshore infrastructure? The answer is obvious,” said a Nato official involved in the work.
“If Russia attacks one of our power plants on land, that is war. If the Russians can sabotage one of our undersea pipelines or cables then — look at Nord Stream, we still do not know who did that — they can attack deniably.”
While investigations into the Nord Stream bombing continue and several theories have been suggested, there is growing evidence that links the Russian navy to the attack.
Is there any logical reason Russia would attack its OWN infrastructure (it paid and campaigned for Nordstream) thus ending any chance of exerting leverage via that pipeline? No
We now know who did for Nordstream, and it was the Ukrainians.
They do actually have the strongest strategic rationale. The purpose of Nordstream was to bypass Ukraine so Russia could switch off gas to them without impacting its income from Western Europe
It is known that local elections and by elections are limited predictors of general elections, what I don't know historically is how good local by elections are at predicting local elections.
The Tories sit only 4 points behind Labour on a prior NEV plus vote share change in the last 3 months local by elections. The numbers are a bit swingy and the last few months include bigger proportions from London, Scotland and Wales than from the shires where LEs are taking place.
But as a left leaning worrier, I am taking very seriously the possibility that the Tories might suffer very few losses, even as everyone and his dog knows otherwise. Call it practice for the GE.
Truth be told, I expect Labour to do better than a 4 point NEV lead, but not so much better.
The LE VI surveys all have Labour a bit better. I think the doubt here is on the turnout filters. Opinium recorded very high turnout intention in giving Labour a healthy vote lead in the areas voting, but their write up was sceptical of their own results. Btw, I think this year's pattern means a Lab NEV lead would be around 5 points more than their raw vote lead.
So, the element of doubt against this measure is simply that the turnout filters might be less developed in these surveys, and the pollsters are less experienced in local VI polling by simple fact that they do it less.
In summary, I'm not taking a shellacking for granted, and I think the counter possibility is worth bearing in mind for betting purposes.
I'm expecting differential turnout to favour Labour - a lot of Lab voters are really keen to vote, and I've only met a few Tories who feel like that.
Thanks Foxy - am booked for lunch at SALT a 1 star restaurant in Stratford. Take the view that not much more I can do here! At postal vote opening comment was that less interest than usual - not as many calls to the office and fewer postal votes returned as a proportion of those issued - but suppose could be because post not so good these days!
Deliver a good morning leaflet, check on telling, and then start knocking up?
Sorry not a complete canvass - no tellers - with 6 polling stations for 2,400 voters is just not practical. I have delivered a postal voter letter, main address and last minute "Its so close/ The Conservative candidate doesn't live in the ward" leaflet compared to the Conservative's 1 address - a couple of weeks ago, Labour and Green nothing. As any fule kno it is the number and weight of leaflets that counts!!
It is known that local elections and by elections are limited predictors of general elections, what I don't know historically is how good local by elections are at predicting local elections.
The Tories sit only 4 points behind Labour on a prior NEV plus vote share change in the last 3 months local by elections. The numbers are a bit swingy and the last few months include bigger proportions from London, Scotland and Wales than from the shires where LEs are taking place.
But as a left leaning worrier, I am taking very seriously the possibility that the Tories might suffer very few losses, even as everyone and his dog knows otherwise. Call it practice for the GE.
Truth be told, I expect Labour to do better than a 4 point NEV lead, but not so much better.
The LE VI surveys all have Labour a bit better. I think the doubt here is on the turnout filters. Opinium recorded very high turnout intention in giving Labour a healthy vote lead in the areas voting, but their write up was sceptical of their own results. Btw, I think this year's pattern means a Lab NEV lead would be around 5 points more than their raw vote lead.
So, the element of doubt against this measure is simply that the turnout filters might be less developed in these surveys, and the pollsters are less experienced in local VI polling by simple fact that they do it less.
In summary, I'm not taking a shellacking for granted, and I think the counter possibility is worth bearing in mind for betting purposes.
I'm expecting differential turnout to favour Labour - a lot of Lab voters are really keen to vote, and I've only met a few Tories who feel like that.
Thanks Foxy - am booked for lunch at SALT a 1 star restaurant in Stratford. Take the view that not much more I can do here! At postal vote opening comment was that less interest than usual - not as many calls to the office and fewer postal votes returned as a proportion of those issued - but suppose could be because post not so good these days!
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You can hardly take the moral high ground here if you jump from 'malign' to 'evil demons' and almost a fascist dictator. Is that constructive?
Similarly criticising the use of the word "hag" would carry more weight if you didn't bring the poster's mother into it.
Certainly no point in staying up late. Getting up early might yield a reasonably slice of news, but the story of the elections will mostly emerge during Friday and we won’t have the full picture until later on that day. A story, if there is one, for Saturday’s news.
Which will be all about the coronation
Well, let’s be realistic - we’re looking at the results to see what they might tell us, not for what impact they will have on politics going forward. I suppose the only caveat is if the Tory wipeout were so bad that manoeveres start against Sunak, but I don’t think that they will be or that they will. With Johnson increasingly discredited in history - as I always said he would be - and with no credible alternatives other than the blank canvas of Badenoch onto which people paint whatever they would like to see in a few years time, Sunak is safe.
Indeed the more doomed the Tories look, the less likely anyone will step forward to relieve him of the punishment.
“Canadians are very much split on their opinions when it comes to the monarchy in Canada. Roughly half (54%) agree (20% strongly/33% somewhat) that now that Queen Elizabeth II’s reign has ended, Canada should end its formal ties to the British monarchy. This sentiment is down 5 points from 2021, but up from 44% in 2011. Conversely, 46% disagree (19% strongly/27% somewhat) that Canada should sever ties, up 5 points.”
Only 20% are strong republicans (bet they’re mostly in Quebec). You need way more than that to go through the enormous arse-ache of massive constitutional turmoil. It’s not gonna happen. Canada is a safe, stable, prosperous country, looked on with envy by many. Why change what works?
Also, the monarchy sets Canada apart from the USA and, in my experience, Canadians love ANYTHING that does that
It's in the Guardian, so you can properly ChatGPT the whole article from here: "write me an article in the style of the Guardian as to why the monarchy is unpopular in Canada"
In fact, I just did - here is what it said: "As a Commonwealth country with a constitutional monarchy, Canada has long been associated with the British royal family. However, recent years have seen a decline in support for the monarchy in Canada, with polls indicating that a growing number of Canadians now believe that the country should become a republic.
The reasons for this shift in opinion are multifaceted. Firstly, many Canadians see the monarchy as an anachronism that is out of step with modern values. The monarchy is seen by some as a relic of the past, with its focus on tradition and ceremony seen as at odds with Canada's progressive, diverse and egalitarian society.
Additionally, many Canadians object to the idea of a hereditary head of state. The fact that the position of monarch is passed down through a single family, with no democratic input, is seen by many as fundamentally undemocratic. In a country that values meritocracy and equal opportunity, the idea of a person holding a position of power simply because of their birthright is unpalatable to many.
Another factor contributing to the unpopularity of the monarchy in Canada is the cost of maintaining the royal family. Despite the fact that Canada is a constitutional monarchy, the royal family does not actually reside in the country, meaning that Canadian taxpayers foot the bill for their security when they visit. This has led to criticism that the money spent on the monarchy could be better used to fund public services or support vulnerable communities.
Moreover, recent controversies surrounding the royal family have also played a role in eroding support for the institution. The revelations of racism and colonialism made by Prince Harry and Meghan Markle in their interview with Oprah Winfrey, as well as the scandals surrounding Prince Andrew, have called into question the values and behaviour of the royal family.
Despite these challenges, supporters of the monarchy argue that it provides a link to Canada's history and tradition, and that the cost of maintaining the royal family is minimal compared to the economic benefits that they bring to the country. However, with support for the monarchy declining and calls for a republic growing louder, it remains to be seen whether the institution will continue to have a place in Canadian society.
Regenerate response"
That’s a pretty good response to brief. Probably would get a B+ at A level
It is but it's not sensationalist enough for the Guardian - you've got to touch left-wing erogenous zones for that, and stir the pot - and it tries to deliver too much balance with the final paragraph.
Other than that, not bad.
Do Guardian articles generally end with the cryptic comment "Regenerate response"?
More Coronation displays than election posters round here; including this It does make Camilla look as if she has been on the gin and can barely stand up.
I still don't know why so many young men sport (bad) beards that cover their faces during what are the best looking years of their lives.
This must be accepted, and even liked, by young men and women today, such is its fashion and ubiquity, but it hides unique personal facial features that are important as well as making you look older and more scratchy to kiss.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
That's to suggest that the arguments about the lack of efficacy and negative effects of these measures haven't already been discussed ad nauseam, and the arguments ignored completely by the government.
So yes, in this case, undemocratic, immoral Tories.
You make a case. You fail to convince. There people who disagree with you are immoral.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You snowflakes have a real thing about criticism = almost being labelled a fascist and therefore should not be allowed. There is a whole spectrum of malign. The Boris and post Boris version of the Tories is more malign than any UK government of my lifetime by a distance. That does not make them the worst political party in the world ever or anywhere remotely close, but they are still problematic and should be challenged loudly and clearly.
I was exaggerating for effect.
The point is criticise a governments actions. Don’t smear them as being somehow evil. The left lives to do that.
It is known that local elections and by elections are limited predictors of general elections, what I don't know historically is how good local by elections are at predicting local elections.
The Tories sit only 4 points behind Labour on a prior NEV plus vote share change in the last 3 months local by elections. The numbers are a bit swingy and the last few months include bigger proportions from London, Scotland and Wales than from the shires where LEs are taking place.
But as a left leaning worrier, I am taking very seriously the possibility that the Tories might suffer very few losses, even as everyone and his dog knows otherwise. Call it practice for the GE.
Truth be told, I expect Labour to do better than a 4 point NEV lead, but not so much better.
The LE VI surveys all have Labour a bit better. I think the doubt here is on the turnout filters. Opinium recorded very high turnout intention in giving Labour a healthy vote lead in the areas voting, but their write up was sceptical of their own results. Btw, I think this year's pattern means a Lab NEV lead would be around 5 points more than their raw vote lead.
So, the element of doubt against this measure is simply that the turnout filters might be less developed in these surveys, and the pollsters are less experienced in local VI polling by simple fact that they do it less.
In summary, I'm not taking a shellacking for granted, and I think the counter possibility is worth bearing in mind for betting purposes.
I'm expecting differential turnout to favour Labour - a lot of Lab voters are really keen to vote, and I've only met a few Tories who feel like that.
Thanks Foxy - am booked for lunch at SALT a 1 star restaurant in Stratford. Take the view that not much more I can do here! At postal vote opening comment was that less interest than usual - not as many calls to the office and fewer postal votes returned as a proportion of those issued - but suppose could be because post not so good these days!
Voter/activist: "how is it going?" Candidate: *considers seat profile, canvassing returns, and telling numbers so far; ignore all to deliver standard answer regardless* "It's too close to call. Every vote counts."
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You can hardly take the moral high ground here if you jump from 'malign' to 'evil demons' and almost a fascist dictator. Is that constructive?
Similarly criticising the use of the word "hag" would carry more weight if you didn't bring the poster's mother into it.
You know that malign means “evil in nature or effect; malevolent”? It’s actually an incredibly strong attack on someone. It’s not “who’s a naughty boy then”.
And pointing out that - I assume - Sunil’s mother would disapprove of him insulting a woman in her 70s in such personalised terms doesn’t undermine the criticism at all
It is known that local elections and by elections are limited predictors of general elections, what I don't know historically is how good local by elections are at predicting local elections.
The Tories sit only 4 points behind Labour on a prior NEV plus vote share change in the last 3 months local by elections. The numbers are a bit swingy and the last few months include bigger proportions from London, Scotland and Wales than from the shires where LEs are taking place.
But as a left leaning worrier, I am taking very seriously the possibility that the Tories might suffer very few losses, even as everyone and his dog knows otherwise. Call it practice for the GE.
Truth be told, I expect Labour to do better than a 4 point NEV lead, but not so much better.
The LE VI surveys all have Labour a bit better. I think the doubt here is on the turnout filters. Opinium recorded very high turnout intention in giving Labour a healthy vote lead in the areas voting, but their write up was sceptical of their own results. Btw, I think this year's pattern means a Lab NEV lead would be around 5 points more than their raw vote lead.
So, the element of doubt against this measure is simply that the turnout filters might be less developed in these surveys, and the pollsters are less experienced in local VI polling by simple fact that they do it less.
In summary, I'm not taking a shellacking for granted, and I think the counter possibility is worth bearing in mind for betting purposes.
I'm expecting differential turnout to favour Labour - a lot of Lab voters are really keen to vote, and I've only met a few Tories who feel like that.
Thanks Foxy - am booked for lunch at SALT a 1 star restaurant in Stratford. Take the view that not much more I can do here! At postal vote opening comment was that less interest than usual - not as many calls to the office and fewer postal votes returned as a proportion of those issued - but suppose could be because post not so good these days!
Sorry, but I am on holiday!
Could have taken some airmail with you. Lazy.
I know I’m going at a pretty good pace, but I’m not quite flying (and came by boat!)
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You snowflakes have a real thing about criticism = almost being labelled a fascist and therefore should not be allowed. There is a whole spectrum of malign. The Boris and post Boris version of the Tories is more malign than any UK government of my lifetime by a distance. That does not make them the worst political party in the world ever or anywhere remotely close, but they are still problematic and should be challenged loudly and clearly.
I was exaggerating for effect.
The point is criticise a governments actions. Don’t smear them as being somehow evil. The left lives to do that.
Again there is a whole spectrum of malign. Intentions behind actions matter. This was malign. Not evil, but malign. Still not evil. Nor terrible 1930s fascism. Malign.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
That's to suggest that the arguments about the lack of efficacy and negative effects of these measures haven't already been discussed ad nauseam, and the arguments ignored completely by the government.
So yes, in this case, undemocratic, immoral Tories.
You make a case. You fail to convince. There people who disagree with you are immoral.
I see.
One reason Labour could lose: they hate the Tories too much and assume everyone else feels the same way. We see this time and time again on here with some properly hyperbolic posts by certain posters.
Yes, the Conservative brand is tarnished - and they are unpopular- but most people don't share this seething hatred and would view it as unhinged.
It is known that local elections and by elections are limited predictors of general elections, what I don't know historically is how good local by elections are at predicting local elections.
The Tories sit only 4 points behind Labour on a prior NEV plus vote share change in the last 3 months local by elections. The numbers are a bit swingy and the last few months include bigger proportions from London, Scotland and Wales than from the shires where LEs are taking place.
But as a left leaning worrier, I am taking very seriously the possibility that the Tories might suffer very few losses, even as everyone and his dog knows otherwise. Call it practice for the GE.
Truth be told, I expect Labour to do better than a 4 point NEV lead, but not so much better.
The LE VI surveys all have Labour a bit better. I think the doubt here is on the turnout filters. Opinium recorded very high turnout intention in giving Labour a healthy vote lead in the areas voting, but their write up was sceptical of their own results. Btw, I think this year's pattern means a Lab NEV lead would be around 5 points more than their raw vote lead.
So, the element of doubt against this measure is simply that the turnout filters might be less developed in these surveys, and the pollsters are less experienced in local VI polling by simple fact that they do it less.
In summary, I'm not taking a shellacking for granted, and I think the counter possibility is worth bearing in mind for betting purposes.
I'm expecting differential turnout to favour Labour - a lot of Lab voters are really keen to vote, and I've only met a few Tories who feel like that.
Thanks Foxy - am booked for lunch at SALT a 1 star restaurant in Stratford. Take the view that not much more I can do here! At postal vote opening comment was that less interest than usual - not as many calls to the office and fewer postal votes returned as a proportion of those issued - but suppose could be because post not so good these days!
Sorry, but I am on holiday!
Could have taken some airmail with you. Lazy.
I know I’m going at a pretty good pace, but I’m not quite flying (and came by boat!)
Ah, ok. Large parcels. Should have taken some large parcels.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You snowflakes have a real thing about criticism = almost being labelled a fascist and therefore should not be allowed. There is a whole spectrum of malign. The Boris and post Boris version of the Tories is more malign than any UK government of my lifetime by a distance. That does not make them the worst political party in the world ever or anywhere remotely close, but they are still problematic and should be challenged loudly and clearly.
I was exaggerating for effect.
The point is criticise a governments actions. Don’t smear them as being somehow evil. The left lives to do that.
Again there is a whole spectrum of malign. Intentions behind actions matter. This was malign. Not evil, but malign. Still not evil. Nor terrible 1930s fascism. Malign.
Not in this post but in previous threads there have been comparisons of this government to 1930s Germany…
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You snowflakes have a real thing about criticism = almost being labelled a fascist and therefore should not be allowed. There is a whole spectrum of malign. The Boris and post Boris version of the Tories is more malign than any UK government of my lifetime by a distance. That does not make them the worst political party in the world ever or anywhere remotely close, but they are still problematic and should be challenged loudly and clearly.
I was exaggerating for effect.
The point is criticise a governments actions. Don’t smear them as being somehow evil. The left lives to do that.
Again there is a whole spectrum of malign. Intentions behind actions matter. This was malign. Not evil, but malign. Still not evil. Nor terrible 1930s fascism. Malign.
Not in this post but in previous threads there have been comparisons of this government to 1930s Germany…
And malign is a much stronger word than you think
Well if it happened unfairly on a previous thread, complain about it on that thread, don't snowflake your way to try and stop criticism on this thread!
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You snowflakes have a real thing about criticism = almost being labelled a fascist and therefore should not be allowed. There is a whole spectrum of malign. The Boris and post Boris version of the Tories is more malign than any UK government of my lifetime by a distance. That does not make them the worst political party in the world ever or anywhere remotely close, but they are still problematic and should be challenged loudly and clearly.
I was exaggerating for effect.
The point is criticise a governments actions. Don’t smear them as being somehow evil. The left lives to do that.
Again there is a whole spectrum of malign. Intentions behind actions matter. This was malign. Not evil, but malign. Still not evil. Nor terrible 1930s fascism. Malign.
Not in this post but in previous threads there have been comparisons of this government to 1930s Germany…
And malign is a much stronger word than you think
We are not far off the "everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler" phase of debate on social media.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You know as well as I do the programme has been put in place not to reduce fraud but to suppress specific voter profiles. We do have a problem with postal voting,, but have they addressed that? No.
Now voting using ID may have its merits particularly amongst a nation that carries national ID cards. If the procedure has been implemented using due process, it hasn't. It is not the principle I object too it is the reason it has been implemented, namely to cynically suppress votes for party political gain. That is malign. And you might counter, well they're all at it anyway, but that doesn't make it right.
It is known that local elections and by elections are limited predictors of general elections, what I don't know historically is how good local by elections are at predicting local elections.
The Tories sit only 4 points behind Labour on a prior NEV plus vote share change in the last 3 months local by elections. The numbers are a bit swingy and the last few months include bigger proportions from London, Scotland and Wales than from the shires where LEs are taking place.
But as a left leaning worrier, I am taking very seriously the possibility that the Tories might suffer very few losses, even as everyone and his dog knows otherwise. Call it practice for the GE.
Truth be told, I expect Labour to do better than a 4 point NEV lead, but not so much better.
The LE VI surveys all have Labour a bit better. I think the doubt here is on the turnout filters. Opinium recorded very high turnout intention in giving Labour a healthy vote lead in the areas voting, but their write up was sceptical of their own results. Btw, I think this year's pattern means a Lab NEV lead would be around 5 points more than their raw vote lead.
So, the element of doubt against this measure is simply that the turnout filters might be less developed in these surveys, and the pollsters are less experienced in local VI polling by simple fact that they do it less.
In summary, I'm not taking a shellacking for granted, and I think the counter possibility is worth bearing in mind for betting purposes.
I'm expecting differential turnout to favour Labour - a lot of Lab voters are really keen to vote, and I've only met a few Tories who feel like that.
Thanks Foxy - am booked for lunch at SALT a 1 star restaurant in Stratford. Take the view that not much more I can do here! At postal vote opening comment was that less interest than usual - not as many calls to the office and fewer postal votes returned as a proportion of those issued - but suppose could be because post not so good these days!
Sorry, but I am on holiday!
Could have taken some airmail with you. Lazy.
I know I’m going at a pretty good pace, but I’m not quite flying (and came by boat!)
Could've followed the example of the postman in Under Milk Wood, who even delivers post in his sleep:
'Willy Nilly, asleep up the street, walks fourteen miles to deliver the post as he does every day of the night, and rat-a-tats hard on Mrs Willy Nilly'
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
Perhaps as a punishment I should be barred from voting.
Done my duty. Can confirm that polling numbers round here at 7am were unprecedented.
This might mean we can expect a record turnout or it might be because my wife and I are out tonight and we had to go first thing.
I can beat that; there were three including me at 6.59.
Out of this family everyone who is going to vote has voted mainly because only 1 of us hasn't got a postal vote and we are off out tonight as we ended up with tickets for Duran Duran.
At £70 a (cheapest) ticket I couldn't be bothered, at £25 it was a different decision.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You know as well as I do the programme has been put in place not to reduce fraud but to suppress specific voter profiles. We do have a problem with postal voting,, but have they addressed that? No.
Now voting using ID may have its merits particularly amongst a nation that carries national ID cards. If the procedure has been implemented using due process, it hasn't. It is not the principle I object too it is the reason it has been implemented, namely to cynically suppress votes for party political gain. That is malign. And you might counter, well they're all at it anyway, but that doesn't make it right.
Done my duty. Can confirm that polling numbers round here at 7am were unprecedented.
This might mean we can expect a record turnout or it might be because my wife and I are out tonight and we had to go first thing.
I can beat that; there were three including me at 6.59.
Out of this family everyone who is going to vote has voted mainly because only 1 of us hasn't got a postal vote and we are off out tonight as we ended up with tickets for Duran Duran.
At £70 a (cheapest) ticket I couldn't be bothered, at £25 it was a different decision.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You snowflakes have a real thing about criticism = almost being labelled a fascist and therefore should not be allowed. There is a whole spectrum of malign. The Boris and post Boris version of the Tories is more malign than any UK government of my lifetime by a distance. That does not make them the worst political party in the world ever or anywhere remotely close, but they are still problematic and should be challenged loudly and clearly.
I was exaggerating for effect.
The point is criticise a governments actions. Don’t smear them as being somehow evil. The left lives to do that.
So, saying "the left lives to smear" is OK, paraphrasing by introducing the word "fascist" is OK, but describing a government as malign isn't.
Help me out, because I'm a provincial Science master and words aren't really my thing. What exactly is the boundary here?
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
That's to suggest that the arguments about the lack of efficacy and negative effects of these measures haven't already been discussed ad nauseam, and the arguments ignored completely by the government.
So yes, in this case, undemocratic, immoral Tories.
You make a case. You fail to convince. There people who disagree with you are immoral.
I see.
You don't, sadly.
Everyone and their dog has made the case, many times over. Suggestions to address the problem in ways that don't depress voting have been made. It's been pointed out that the significantly greater demonstrable problem is with postal voting.
I haven't said you're immoral; those that have unilaterally altered the electoral rules, without taking any of that into account, are immoral in doing so.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You snowflakes have a real thing about criticism = almost being labelled a fascist and therefore should not be allowed. There is a whole spectrum of malign. The Boris and post Boris version of the Tories is more malign than any UK government of my lifetime by a distance. That does not make them the worst political party in the world ever or anywhere remotely close, but they are still problematic and should be challenged loudly and clearly.
I was exaggerating for effect.
The point is criticise a governments actions. Don’t smear them as being somehow evil. The left lives to do that.
Again there is a whole spectrum of malign. Intentions behind actions matter. This was malign. Not evil, but malign. Still not evil. Nor terrible 1930s fascism. Malign.
Not in this post but in previous threads there have been comparisons of this government to 1930s Germany…
And malign is a much stronger word than you think
Well if it happened unfairly on a previous thread, complain about it on that thread, don't snowflake your way to try and stop criticism on this thread!
It’s happened on multiple occasions.
My point is that the language used and demonisation of opponents is not conducive to a healthy society.
It makes me feel detached from it all, as if the vote is being held in a different country.
Our local primary school had a big sign on the entrance yesterday saying "No elections here." Whether it was aimed at confused would-be voters, or children hoping to scam yet another day off, I don't know.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You snowflakes have a real thing about criticism = almost being labelled a fascist and therefore should not be allowed. There is a whole spectrum of malign. The Boris and post Boris version of the Tories is more malign than any UK government of my lifetime by a distance. That does not make them the worst political party in the world ever or anywhere remotely close, but they are still problematic and should be challenged loudly and clearly.
I was exaggerating for effect.
The point is criticise a governments actions. Don’t smear them as being somehow evil. The left lives to do that.
So, saying "the left lives to smear" is OK, paraphrasing by introducing the word "fascist" is OK, but describing a government as malign isn't.
Help me out, because I'm a provincial Science master and words aren't really my thing. What exactly is the boundary here?
You are right - some on the left do but by no means all. But, even worse, it’s a cliche.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
Perhaps as a punishment I should be barred from voting.
Your punishment is having SKS to put your faith in...
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You snowflakes have a real thing about criticism = almost being labelled a fascist and therefore should not be allowed. There is a whole spectrum of malign. The Boris and post Boris version of the Tories is more malign than any UK government of my lifetime by a distance. That does not make them the worst political party in the world ever or anywhere remotely close, but they are still problematic and should be challenged loudly and clearly.
I was exaggerating for effect.
The point is criticise a governments actions. Don’t smear them as being somehow evil. The left lives to do that.
Again there is a whole spectrum of malign. Intentions behind actions matter. This was malign. Not evil, but malign. Still not evil. Nor terrible 1930s fascism. Malign.
Not in this post but in previous threads there have been comparisons of this government to 1930s Germany…
And malign is a much stronger word than you think
Well if it happened unfairly on a previous thread, complain about it on that thread, don't snowflake your way to try and stop criticism on this thread!
It’s happened on multiple occasions.
My point is that the language used and demonisation of opponents is not conducive to a healthy society.
I’m stunned that anyone actually disputes that!
Mere snowflakery to deflect criticism. Not to mention the hypocrisy when we get into the language of the government on immigration or even their own civil servants and judges.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
That's to suggest that the arguments about the lack of efficacy and negative effects of these measures haven't already been discussed ad nauseam, and the arguments ignored completely by the government.
So yes, in this case, undemocratic, immoral Tories.
You make a case. You fail to convince. There people who disagree with you are immoral.
I see.
One reason Labour could lose: they hate the Tories too much and assume everyone else feels the same way. We see this time and time again on here with some properly hyperbolic posts by certain posters.
Yes, the Conservative brand is tarnished - and they are unpopular- but most people don't share this seething hatred and would view it as unhinged.
Very true. And I get it - if you set aside the screaming corruption and inhumanity of the current iteration, the Conservative Party is decent. Everyone in politics knows good people in other parties and the Tories are no different.
The challenge though is simple - if you tolerate this, then your children will be next. An example. Teesside's Tories are out campaigning that voting Tory is the "last chance to save your airport". That the airport is receiving oceans of public money with zero scrutiny is the problem, not that the airport exists. Same with Teesworks where at the very least it looks wrong that £450m of public money has been poured in and all of the revenue has been handed to mates of the mayor for £0 and no scrutiny at all is allowed.
Where do we draw the line? On Teesside I know far better than most just how useless some of the Labour politicians are. But they don't seek to avoid scrutiny whilst handing over a fortune of our money to certain individuals. There is bad, and there is *bad*...
The Stand’s cancellation of an event with SNP MP Joanna Cherry is almost certainly unlawful discrimination.
The comedy club called off the event after staff refused to provide service to her. In a statement, the venue said: “Some of our staff have expressed their concerns about Ms Cherry's views and said that they do not wish to be involved in promoting or staging this show.”
The Stand has chosen to permit this and as a result now claims that the event cannot go ahead.
The Equality Act protects people from discrimination on the basis of a list of personal characteristics. These include race, sex, sexual orientation, religion or belief, gender reassignment, disability, marriage and civil partnerships, and age.
If you are a duty-bearer under the Act – for example a service provider such as The Stand – you cannot treat someone less favourably than you would treat others on the basis of a protected characteristic.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue 's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
That's to suggest that the arguments about the lack of efficacy and negative effects of these measures haven't already been discussed ad nauseam, and the arguments ignored completely by the government.
So yes, in this case, undemocratic, immoral Tories.
You make a case. You fail to convince. There people who disagree with you are immoral.
I see.
One reason Labour could lose: they hate the Tories too much and assume everyone else feels the same way. We see this time and time again on here with some properly hyperbolic posts by certain posters.
Yes, the Conservative brand is tarnished - and they are unpopular- but most people don't share this seething hatred and would view it as unhinged.
Very true. And I get it - if you set aside the screaming corruption and inhumanity of the current iteration, the Conservative Party is decent. Everyone in politics knows good people in other parties and the Tories are no different.
The challenge though is simple - if you tolerate this, then your children will be next. An example. Teesside's Tories are out campaigning that voting Tory is the "last chance to save your airport". That the airport is receiving oceans of public money with zero scrutiny is the problem, not that the airport exists. Same with Teesworks where at the very least it looks wrong that £450m of public money has been poured in and all of the revenue has been handed to mates of the mayor for £0 and no scrutiny at all is allowed.
Where do we draw the line? On Teesside I know far better than most just how useless some of the Labour politicians are. But they don't seek to avoid scrutiny whilst handing over a fortune of our money to certain individuals. There is bad, and there is *bad*...
I think if you're campaigning on performance in office, or lack thereof, then you're fine.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
That's to suggest that the arguments about the lack of efficacy and negative effects of these measures haven't already been discussed ad nauseam, and the arguments ignored completely by the government.
So yes, in this case, undemocratic, immoral Tories.
You make a case. You fail to convince. There people who disagree with you are immoral.
I see.
One reason Labour could lose: they hate the Tories too much and assume everyone else feels the same way. We see this time and time again on here with some properly hyperbolic posts by certain posters.
Yes, the Conservative brand is tarnished - and they are unpopular- but most people don't share this seething hatred and would view it as unhinged.
Very true. And I get it - if you set aside the screaming corruption and inhumanity of the current iteration, the Conservative Party is decent. Everyone in politics knows good people in other parties and the Tories are no different.
The challenge though is simple - if you tolerate this, then your children will be next. An example. Teesside's Tories are out campaigning that voting Tory is the "last chance to save your airport". That the airport is receiving oceans of public money with zero scrutiny is the problem, not that the airport exists. Same with Teesworks where at the very least it looks wrong that £450m of public money has been poured in and all of the revenue has been handed to mates of the mayor for £0 and no scrutiny at all is allowed.
Where do we draw the line? On Teesside I know far better than most just how useless some of the Labour politicians are. But they don't seek to avoid scrutiny whilst handing over a fortune of our money to certain individuals. There is bad, and there is *bad*...
Interestingly BP have added some very interesting clauses to their Teesworks investment because they believe Private Eye more than Ben
And it's strange that none of the people involved have reacted to Private Eye's reporting - you would have thought that they would be suing yet they aren't.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You can hardly take the moral high ground here if you jump from 'malign' to 'evil demons' and almost a fascist dictator. Is that constructive?
Similarly criticising the use of the word "hag" would carry more weight if you didn't bring the poster's mother into it.
You know that malign means “evil in nature or effect; malevolent”? It’s actually an incredibly strong attack on someone. It’s not “who’s a naughty boy then”.
And pointing out that - I assume - Sunil’s mother would disapprove of him insulting a woman in her 70s in such personalised terms doesn’t undermine the criticism at all
Why his mother? Seems both bizarre and sexist.
Malign isn't really the same as evil demons, is it?
"Definition of 'malign':
If something is malign, it causes harm.
[formal]
...the malign influence jealousy had on their lives.
Reliance on sponsorship can have a malign effect on theatre groups.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You snowflakes have a real thing about criticism = almost being labelled a fascist and therefore should not be allowed. There is a whole spectrum of malign. The Boris and post Boris version of the Tories is more malign than any UK government of my lifetime by a distance. That does not make them the worst political party in the world ever or anywhere remotely close, but they are still problematic and should be challenged loudly and clearly.
I was exaggerating for effect.
The point is criticise a governments actions. Don’t smear them as being somehow evil. The left lives to do that.
Again there is a whole spectrum of malign. Intentions behind actions matter. This was malign. Not evil, but malign. Still not evil. Nor terrible 1930s fascism. Malign.
Not in this post but in previous threads there have been comparisons of this government to 1930s Germany…
And malign is a much stronger word than you think
Well if it happened unfairly on a previous thread, complain about it on that thread, don't snowflake your way to try and stop criticism on this thread!
It’s happened on multiple occasions.
My point is that the language used and demonisation of opponents is not conducive to a healthy society.
I’m stunned that anyone actually disputes that!
Mere snowflakery to deflect criticism. Not to mention the hypocrisy when we get into the language of the government on immigration or even their own civil servants and judges.
Is it snowflakery to point out that all but one of all EU countries require ID? Is it snowflakery to point out that the objection to this very reasonable and sensible measure is actually a cynical ploy by Labour and other opposition parties to try and paint the government as "malign" and evil and therefore create division in society and mistrust in politics?
I have always loathed Johnson and his populist politics of division, but the reality is that many on the left in this country are equal if not far worse.
Voted by post a week or so ago. Mrs C. will go on her way to the market later. Only one leaflet, as previously reported but a spectacular spat on the community Facebook page between a former Independent councillor and his successor, another Independent.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You snowflakes have a real thing about criticism = almost being labelled a fascist and therefore should not be allowed. There is a whole spectrum of malign. The Boris and post Boris version of the Tories is more malign than any UK government of my lifetime by a distance. That does not make them the worst political party in the world ever or anywhere remotely close, but they are still problematic and should be challenged loudly and clearly.
I was exaggerating for effect.
The point is criticise a governments actions. Don’t smear them as being somehow evil. The left lives to do that.
Again there is a whole spectrum of malign. Intentions behind actions matter. This was malign. Not evil, but malign. Still not evil. Nor terrible 1930s fascism. Malign.
Not in this post but in previous threads there have been comparisons of this government to 1930s Germany…
And malign is a much stronger word than you think
Well if it happened unfairly on a previous thread, complain about it on that thread, don't snowflake your way to try and stop criticism on this thread!
It’s happened on multiple occasions.
My point is that the language used and demonisation of opponents is not conducive to a healthy society.
I’m stunned that anyone actually disputes that!
Mere snowflakery to deflect criticism. Not to mention the hypocrisy when we get into the language of the government on immigration or even their own civil servants and judges.
Is it snowflakery to point out that all but one of all EU countries require ID? Is it snowflakery to point out that the objection to this very reasonable and sensible measure is actually a cynical ploy by Labour and other opposition parties to try and paint the government as "malign" and evil and therefore create division in society and mistrust in politics?
I have always loathed Johnson and his populist politics of division, but the reality is that many on the left in this country are equal if not far worse.
And all those countries that require ID to be shown also have National ID cards and probably a legal requirement to carry it at all times.
We don't have a national ID card and it's almost like this is designed to correct demand for it by stealth.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
That's to suggest that the arguments about the lack of efficacy and negative effects of these measures haven't already been discussed ad nauseam, and the arguments ignored completely by the government.
So yes, in this case, undemocratic, immoral Tories.
You make a case. You fail to convince. There people who disagree with you are immoral.
I see.
One reason Labour could lose: they hate the Tories too much and assume everyone else feels the same way. We see this time and time again on here with some properly hyperbolic posts by certain posters.
Yes, the Conservative brand is tarnished - and they are unpopular- but most people don't share this seething hatred and would view it as unhinged.
Very true. And I get it - if you set aside the screaming corruption and inhumanity of the current iteration, the Conservative Party is decent. Everyone in politics knows good people in other parties and the Tories are no different.
The challenge though is simple - if you tolerate this, then your children will be next. An example. Teesside's Tories are out campaigning that voting Tory is the "last chance to save your airport". That the airport is receiving oceans of public money with zero scrutiny is the problem, not that the airport exists. Same with Teesworks where at the very least it looks wrong that £450m of public money has been poured in and all of the revenue has been handed to mates of the mayor for £0 and no scrutiny at all is allowed.
Where do we draw the line? On Teesside I know far better than most just how useless some of the Labour politicians are. But they don't seek to avoid scrutiny whilst handing over a fortune of our money to certain individuals. There is bad, and there is *bad*...
I wouldn't condone it, but it is surely on a much lower scale than the hackneyed "24 hours to save the NHS" baloney that we will no doubt get again.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You can hardly take the moral high ground here if you jump from 'malign' to 'evil demons' and almost a fascist dictator. Is that constructive?
Similarly criticising the use of the word "hag" would carry more weight if you didn't bring the poster's mother into it.
You know that malign means “evil in nature or effect; malevolent”? It’s actually an incredibly strong attack on someone. It’s not “who’s a naughty boy then”.
And pointing out that - I assume - Sunil’s mother would disapprove of him insulting a woman in her 70s in such personalised terms doesn’t undermine the criticism at all
Why his mother? Seems both bizarre and sexist.
Malign isn't really the same as evil demons, is it?
"Definition of 'malign':
If something is malign, it causes harm.
[formal]
...the malign influence jealousy had on their lives.
Reliance on sponsorship can have a malign effect on theatre groups.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue 's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
That's to suggest that the arguments about the lack of efficacy and negative effects of these measures haven't already been discussed ad nauseam, and the arguments ignored completely by the government.
So yes, in this case, undemocratic, immoral Tories.
You make a case. You fail to convince. There people who disagree with you are immoral.
I see.
One reason Labour could lose: they hate the Tories too much and assume everyone else feels the same way. We see this time and time again on here with some properly hyperbolic posts by certain posters.
Yes, the Conservative brand is tarnished - and they are unpopular- but most people don't share this seething hatred and would view it as unhinged.
Very true. And I get it - if you set aside the screaming corruption and inhumanity of the current iteration, the Conservative Party is decent. Everyone in politics knows good people in other parties and the Tories are no different.
The challenge though is simple - if you tolerate this, then your children will be next. An example. Teesside's Tories are out campaigning that voting Tory is the "last chance to save your airport". That the airport is receiving oceans of public money with zero scrutiny is the problem, not that the airport exists. Same with Teesworks where at the very least it looks wrong that £450m of public money has been poured in and all of the revenue has been handed to mates of the mayor for £0 and no scrutiny at all is allowed.
Where do we draw the line? On Teesside I know far better than most just how useless some of the Labour politicians are. But they don't seek to avoid scrutiny whilst handing over a fortune of our money to certain individuals. There is bad, and there is *bad*...
I think if you're campaigning on performance in office, or lack thereof, then you're fine.
Sure! But that is what we are doing. I don't have anything personal against someone like Braverman, just her crayon policies. I *like* Sunak. But the party is bringing the whole of British politics into disrepute. As I keep saying to anti-Starmer foamers, even if all he does is end the corruption and be human that would be a big improvement.
My friends running on Teesside don't deserve to win because they have any answers - they don't. But Teesside Tories are toxic - expelling anyone from their ranks who dissents - and corrupt. In Stockton-on-Tees they have campaigned against the renovation of the high street and against the council restoring and running the theatre and against the council opening a hotel and against the council bulldozing a tatty empty shopping mall to build a riverside park. Never an alternative plan, just saying its a waste of money. yet when it comes to money for their mates, here you go and how dare anyone ask questions.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You snowflakes have a real thing about criticism = almost being labelled a fascist and therefore should not be allowed. There is a whole spectrum of malign. The Boris and post Boris version of the Tories is more malign than any UK government of my lifetime by a distance. That does not make them the worst political party in the world ever or anywhere remotely close, but they are still problematic and should be challenged loudly and clearly.
I was exaggerating for effect.
The point is criticise a governments actions. Don’t smear them as being somehow evil. The left lives to do that.
Again there is a whole spectrum of malign. Intentions behind actions matter. This was malign. Not evil, but malign. Still not evil. Nor terrible 1930s fascism. Malign.
Not in this post but in previous threads there have been comparisons of this government to 1930s Germany…
And malign is a much stronger word than you think
Well if it happened unfairly on a previous thread, complain about it on that thread, don't snowflake your way to try and stop criticism on this thread!
It’s happened on multiple occasions.
My point is that the language used and demonisation of opponents is not conducive to a healthy society.
I’m stunned that anyone actually disputes that!
Mere snowflakery to deflect criticism. Not to mention the hypocrisy when we get into the language of the government on immigration or even their own civil servants and judges.
Is it snowflakery to point out that all but one of all EU countries require ID? Is it snowflakery to point out that the objection to this very reasonable and sensible measure is actually a cynical ploy by Labour and other opposition parties to try and paint the government as "malign" and evil and therefore create division in society and mistrust in politics?
I have always loathed Johnson and his populist politics of division, but the reality is that many on the left in this country are equal if not far worse.
And all those countries that require ID to be shown also have National ID cards and probably a legal requirement to carry it at all times.
We don't have a national ID card and it's almost like this is designed to correct demand for it by stealth.
IIRC only 15 have mandatory ID cards. Your next desperate point?
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
Perhaps as a punishment I should be barred from voting.
Your punishment is having SKS to put your faith in...
I saw PMQs on YouTube at midnight. I thought for a plodding donkey Sir Softie was rather articulate. Sunak on the other hand was as smooth as silk. A sleek, polished presentation of pre- prepared sound bites and a real dose of electioneering. He made no attempt to answer any one of Starmer's questions. And where I was mildly impressed with Starmer was his final question in which in the light of the Coronation he asked Sunak to join with him in celebrating the late Queen. Sunak could barely agree with that, and instead remained on script, banging on about voting Tory in tomorrow's election. As you know, I am a snowflake, so it wouldn't surprise you to learn I felt that was very disrespectful.
Starmer has no polished finish and really is a bit of a donkey, but beyond the slick delivery and the elocution Sunak really has nothing to offer. Enough, it would seem for many on this board, but where did running a country on crisp soundbites (for just 45 days) once get us?
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You snowflakes have a real thing about criticism = almost being labelled a fascist and therefore should not be allowed. There is a whole spectrum of malign. The Boris and post Boris version of the Tories is more malign than any UK government of my lifetime by a distance. That does not make them the worst political party in the world ever or anywhere remotely close, but they are still problematic and should be challenged loudly and clearly.
I was exaggerating for effect.
The point is criticise a governments actions. Don’t smear them as being somehow evil. The left lives to do that.
Again there is a whole spectrum of malign. Intentions behind actions matter. This was malign. Not evil, but malign. Still not evil. Nor terrible 1930s fascism. Malign.
Not in this post but in previous threads there have been comparisons of this government to 1930s Germany…
And malign is a much stronger word than you think
Well if it happened unfairly on a previous thread, complain about it on that thread, don't snowflake your way to try and stop criticism on this thread!
It’s happened on multiple occasions.
My point is that the language used and demonisation of opponents is not conducive to a healthy society.
I’m stunned that anyone actually disputes that!
Mere snowflakery to deflect criticism. Not to mention the hypocrisy when we get into the language of the government on immigration or even their own civil servants and judges.
Is it snowflakery to point out that all but one of all EU countries require ID? Is it snowflakery to point out that the objection to this very reasonable and sensible measure is actually a cynical ploy by Labour and other opposition parties to try and paint the government as "malign" and evil and therefore create division in society and mistrust in politics?
I have always loathed Johnson and his populist politics of division, but the reality is that many on the left in this country are equal if not far worse.
I support ID cards so I don't have a problem with the principle. My problem is the implementation. The Electoral Commission suggested ID for voting once suitable rules had been implemented and accepted. They do not support using ID this election. Yet Tories hide behind the EC and say its their idea. It is not!
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You snowflakes have a real thing about criticism = almost being labelled a fascist and therefore should not be allowed. There is a whole spectrum of malign. The Boris and post Boris version of the Tories is more malign than any UK government of my lifetime by a distance. That does not make them the worst political party in the world ever or anywhere remotely close, but they are still problematic and should be challenged loudly and clearly.
I was exaggerating for effect.
The point is criticise a governments actions. Don’t smear them as being somehow evil. The left lives to do that.
Again there is a whole spectrum of malign. Intentions behind actions matter. This was malign. Not evil, but malign. Still not evil. Nor terrible 1930s fascism. Malign.
Not in this post but in previous threads there have been comparisons of this government to 1930s Germany…
And malign is a much stronger word than you think
Well if it happened unfairly on a previous thread, complain about it on that thread, don't snowflake your way to try and stop criticism on this thread!
It’s happened on multiple occasions.
My point is that the language used and demonisation of opponents is not conducive to a healthy society.
I’m stunned that anyone actually disputes that!
Mere snowflakery to deflect criticism. Not to mention the hypocrisy when we get into the language of the government on immigration or even their own civil servants and judges.
Is it snowflakery to point out that all but one of all EU countries require ID? Is it snowflakery to point out that the objection to this very reasonable and sensible measure is actually a cynical ploy by Labour and other opposition parties to try and paint the government as "malign" and evil and therefore create division in society and mistrust in politics?
I have always loathed Johnson and his populist politics of division, but the reality is that many on the left in this country are equal if not far worse.
And all those countries that require ID to be shown also have National ID cards and probably a legal requirement to carry it at all times.
We don't have a national ID card and it's almost like this is designed to correct demand for it by stealth.
IIRC only 15 have mandatory ID cards. Your next desperate point?
Japan and New Zealand require no ID to vote. Canada and Australia require ID to vote, but in the event you don't have any on you, you can either have another voter attest to your identity or cast a provisional ballot.
As far as I can tell, the UK is unique in (a) not having ID cards, and (b) not offering any kind of on the day alternative for people without ID.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
That's to suggest that the arguments about the lack of efficacy and negative effects of these measures haven't already been discussed ad nauseam, and the arguments ignored completely by the government.
So yes, in this case, undemocratic, immoral Tories.
You make a case. You fail to convince. There people who disagree with you are immoral.
I see.
One reason Labour could lose: they hate the Tories too much and assume everyone else feels the same way. We see this time and time again on here with some properly hyperbolic posts by certain posters.
Yes, the Conservative brand is tarnished - and they are unpopular- but most people don't share this seething hatred and would view it as unhinged.
Very true. And I get it - if you set aside the screaming corruption and inhumanity of the current iteration, the Conservative Party is decent. Everyone in politics knows good people in other parties and the Tories are no different.
The challenge though is simple - if you tolerate this, then your children will be next. An example. Teesside's Tories are out campaigning that voting Tory is the "last chance to save your airport". That the airport is receiving oceans of public money with zero scrutiny is the problem, not that the airport exists. Same with Teesworks where at the very least it looks wrong that £450m of public money has been poured in and all of the revenue has been handed to mates of the mayor for £0 and no scrutiny at all is allowed.
Where do we draw the line? On Teesside I know far better than most just how useless some of the Labour politicians are. But they don't seek to avoid scrutiny whilst handing over a fortune of our money to certain individuals. There is bad, and there is *bad*...
I wouldn't condone it, but it is surely on a much lower scale than the hackneyed "24 hours to save the NHS" baloney that we will no doubt get again.
Yep! Though NHS funding is usually open to inspection. And is for something that people use. Ben Houchen International Airport doesn't have a business plan and no scrutiny of anything is allowed Surely if all is above board scrutiny would not cause any issues...?
Cat Steven's ex. She is in the Remember the days of the old school yard video and chalked on the playground is "Steve loves Linda". A very beautiful lady.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You snowflakes have a real thing about criticism = almost being labelled a fascist and therefore should not be allowed. There is a whole spectrum of malign. The Boris and post Boris version of the Tories is more malign than any UK government of my lifetime by a distance. That does not make them the worst political party in the world ever or anywhere remotely close, but they are still problematic and should be challenged loudly and clearly.
I was exaggerating for effect.
The point is criticise a governments actions. Don’t smear them as being somehow evil. The left lives to do that.
Again there is a whole spectrum of malign. Intentions behind actions matter. This was malign. Not evil, but malign. Still not evil. Nor terrible 1930s fascism. Malign.
Not in this post but in previous threads there have been comparisons of this government to 1930s Germany…
And malign is a much stronger word than you think
Well if it happened unfairly on a previous thread, complain about it on that thread, don't snowflake your way to try and stop criticism on this thread!
It’s happened on multiple occasions.
My point is that the language used and demonisation of opponents is not conducive to a healthy society.
I’m stunned that anyone actually disputes that!
Mere snowflakery to deflect criticism. Not to mention the hypocrisy when we get into the language of the government on immigration or even their own civil servants and judges.
Is it snowflakery to point out that all but one of all EU countries require ID? Is it snowflakery to point out that the objection to this very reasonable and sensible measure is actually a cynical ploy by Labour and other opposition parties to try and paint the government as "malign" and evil and therefore create division in society and mistrust in politics?
I have always loathed Johnson and his populist politics of division, but the reality is that many on the left in this country are equal if not far worse.
And all those countries that require ID to be shown also have National ID cards and probably a legal requirement to carry it at all times.
We don't have a national ID card and it's almost like this is designed to correct demand for it by stealth.
IIRC only 15 have mandatory ID cards. Your next desperate point?
Japan and New Zealand require no ID to vote. Canada and Australia require ID to vote, but in the event you don't have any on you, you can either have another voter attest to your identity or cast a provisional ballot.
As far as I can tell, the UK is unique in (a) not having ID cards, and (b) not offering any kind of on the day alternative for people without ID.
And had all those examples to consider when it formulated the new rules. Can any Conservatives take a break from complaining about how hard done by they are, and explain why we opted for such uniqueness ?
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You snowflakes have a real thing about criticism = almost being labelled a fascist and therefore should not be allowed. There is a whole spectrum of malign. The Boris and post Boris version of the Tories is more malign than any UK government of my lifetime by a distance. That does not make them the worst political party in the world ever or anywhere remotely close, but they are still problematic and should be challenged loudly and clearly.
I was exaggerating for effect.
The point is criticise a governments actions. Don’t smear them as being somehow evil. The left lives to do that.
Again there is a whole spectrum of malign. Intentions behind actions matter. This was malign. Not evil, but malign. Still not evil. Nor terrible 1930s fascism. Malign.
Not in this post but in previous threads there have been comparisons of this government to 1930s Germany…
And malign is a much stronger word than you think
Well if it happened unfairly on a previous thread, complain about it on that thread, don't snowflake your way to try and stop criticism on this thread!
It’s happened on multiple occasions.
My point is that the language used and demonisation of opponents is not conducive to a healthy society.
I’m stunned that anyone actually disputes that!
Mere snowflakery to deflect criticism. Not to mention the hypocrisy when we get into the language of the government on immigration or even their own civil servants and judges.
Is it snowflakery to point out that all but one of all EU countries require ID? Is it snowflakery to point out that the objection to this very reasonable and sensible measure is actually a cynical ploy by Labour and other opposition parties to try and paint the government as "malign" and evil and therefore create division in society and mistrust in politics?
I have always loathed Johnson and his populist politics of division, but the reality is that many on the left in this country are equal if not far worse.
And all those countries that require ID to be shown also have National ID cards and probably a legal requirement to carry it at all times.
We don't have a national ID card and it's almost like this is designed to correct demand for it by stealth.
IIRC only 15 have mandatory ID cards. Your next desperate point?
Japan and New Zealand require no ID to vote. Canada and Australia require ID to vote, but in the event you don't have any on you, you can either have another voter attest to your identity or cast a provisional ballot.
As far as I can tell, the UK is unique in (a) not having ID cards, and (b) not offering any kind of on the day alternative for people without ID.
I would just like to add that the Australian government has proposed a Voter ID Law, but it has not yet been enacted. (Albeit - like Canada - it contains provisions for those unable to produce ID on voting day: a voter unable to produce ID can still vote if their identity can be verified by another voter, or by casting a declaration vote, which requires further details such as date of birth and a signature.)
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You snowflakes have a real thing about criticism = almost being labelled a fascist and therefore should not be allowed. There is a whole spectrum of malign. The Boris and post Boris version of the Tories is more malign than any UK government of my lifetime by a distance. That does not make them the worst political party in the world ever or anywhere remotely close, but they are still problematic and should be challenged loudly and clearly.
I was exaggerating for effect.
The point is criticise a governments actions. Don’t smear them as being somehow evil. The left lives to do that.
Again there is a whole spectrum of malign. Intentions behind actions matter. This was malign. Not evil, but malign. Still not evil. Nor terrible 1930s fascism. Malign.
Not in this post but in previous threads there have been comparisons of this government to 1930s Germany…
And malign is a much stronger word than you think
Well if it happened unfairly on a previous thread, complain about it on that thread, don't snowflake your way to try and stop criticism on this thread!
It’s happened on multiple occasions.
My point is that the language used and demonisation of opponents is not conducive to a healthy society.
I’m stunned that anyone actually disputes that!
Mere snowflakery to deflect criticism. Not to mention the hypocrisy when we get into the language of the government on immigration or even their own civil servants and judges.
Is it snowflakery to point out that all but one of all EU countries require ID? Is it snowflakery to point out that the objection to this very reasonable and sensible measure is actually a cynical ploy by Labour and other opposition parties to try and paint the government as "malign" and evil and therefore create division in society and mistrust in politics?
I have always loathed Johnson and his populist politics of division, but the reality is that many on the left in this country are equal if not far worse.
I support ID cards so I don't have a problem with the principle. My problem is the implementation. The Electoral Commission suggested ID for voting once suitable rules had been implemented and accepted. They do not support using ID this election. Yet Tories hide behind the EC and say its their idea. It is not!
I don't recall any Tories using that argument. I have simply pointed it out. As you may recall I have regularly been accused of being a "Europhile" by some right wingers on here because I happen to understand how Europe actually works. The implementation of this could no doubt be better, but arguing against it is irrational in the light of what other democratic countries require. The morality of it has a flip side - maybe Labour voters are happy with a small level of fraud that they guess is probably going on. Maybe they know that it is going on but believe that the evidence is not there so therefore it is best to keep quiet. Perhaps they will find some excuse to oppose future measures to tackle postal fraud for their own purposes.
Maybe, as I believe, it is a cynical ploy by Labour to defy logic because they think it creates division and their supporters are succoured into that support even though it is completely irrational.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You snowflakes have a real thing about criticism = almost being labelled a fascist and therefore should not be allowed. There is a whole spectrum of malign. The Boris and post Boris version of the Tories is more malign than any UK government of my lifetime by a distance. That does not make them the worst political party in the world ever or anywhere remotely close, but they are still problematic and should be challenged loudly and clearly.
I was exaggerating for effect.
The point is criticise a governments actions. Don’t smear them as being somehow evil. The left lives to do that.
Again there is a whole spectrum of malign. Intentions behind actions matter. This was malign. Not evil, but malign. Still not evil. Nor terrible 1930s fascism. Malign.
Not in this post but in previous threads there have been comparisons of this government to 1930s Germany…
And malign is a much stronger word than you think
Well if it happened unfairly on a previous thread, complain about it on that thread, don't snowflake your way to try and stop criticism on this thread!
It’s happened on multiple occasions.
My point is that the language used and demonisation of opponents is not conducive to a healthy society.
I’m stunned that anyone actually disputes that!
Mere snowflakery to deflect criticism. Not to mention the hypocrisy when we get into the language of the government on immigration or even their own civil servants and judges.
Is it snowflakery to point out that all but one of all EU countries require ID? Is it snowflakery to point out that the objection to this very reasonable and sensible measure is actually a cynical ploy by Labour and other opposition parties to try and paint the government as "malign" and evil and therefore create division in society and mistrust in politics?
I have always loathed Johnson and his populist politics of division, but the reality is that many on the left in this country are equal if not far worse.
And all those countries that require ID to be shown also have National ID cards and probably a legal requirement to carry it at all times.
We don't have a national ID card and it's almost like this is designed to correct demand for it by stealth.
IIRC only 15 have mandatory ID cards. Your next desperate point?
Japan and New Zealand require no ID to vote. Canada and Australia require ID to vote, but in the event you don't have any on you, you can either have another voter attest to your identity or cast a provisional ballot.
As far as I can tell, the UK is unique in (a) not having ID cards, and (b) not offering any kind of on the day alternative for people without ID.
(b) is the issue here. Anyone without ID on them should be entitled to cast a provisional ballot, valid on proof of ID being produced. It would, of course, delay final results of elections for the grace period.
genuine question - how do they physically count votes where you can vote for more than one candidate ? Its easy in a GE to count as FPTP but how is it physically done ?
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You snowflakes have a real thing about criticism = almost being labelled a fascist and therefore should not be allowed. There is a whole spectrum of malign. The Boris and post Boris version of the Tories is more malign than any UK government of my lifetime by a distance. That does not make them the worst political party in the world ever or anywhere remotely close, but they are still problematic and should be challenged loudly and clearly.
I was exaggerating for effect.
The point is criticise a governments actions. Don’t smear them as being somehow evil. The left lives to do that.
Again there is a whole spectrum of malign. Intentions behind actions matter. This was malign. Not evil, but malign. Still not evil. Nor terrible 1930s fascism. Malign.
Not in this post but in previous threads there have been comparisons of this government to 1930s Germany…
And malign is a much stronger word than you think
Well if it happened unfairly on a previous thread, complain about it on that thread, don't snowflake your way to try and stop criticism on this thread!
It’s happened on multiple occasions.
My point is that the language used and demonisation of opponents is not conducive to a healthy society.
I’m stunned that anyone actually disputes that!
Mere snowflakery to deflect criticism. Not to mention the hypocrisy when we get into the language of the government on immigration or even their own civil servants and judges.
Is it snowflakery to point out that all but one of all EU countries require ID? Is it snowflakery to point out that the objection to this very reasonable and sensible measure is actually a cynical ploy by Labour and other opposition parties to try and paint the government as "malign" and evil and therefore create division in society and mistrust in politics?
I have always loathed Johnson and his populist politics of division, but the reality is that many on the left in this country are equal if not far worse.
And all those countries that require ID to be shown also have National ID cards and probably a legal requirement to carry it at all times.
We don't have a national ID card and it's almost like this is designed to correct demand for it by stealth.
IIRC only 15 have mandatory ID cards. Your next desperate point?
Japan and New Zealand require no ID to vote. Canada and Australia require ID to vote, but in the event you don't have any on you, you can either have another voter attest to your identity or cast a provisional ballot.
As far as I can tell, the UK is unique in (a) not having ID cards, and (b) not offering any kind of on the day alternative for people without ID.
(b) is the issue here. Anyone without ID on them should be entitled to cast a provisional ballot, valid on proof of ID being produced. It would, of course, delay final results of elections for the grace period.
It would only do so in the event that the result was sufficiently close that the provisional ballots would tip the result.
Furthermore, allowing existing voters to vouch for those without photo ID on them is an excellent idea. (And, interestingly, is the case in some countries with compulsory ID, such as Sweden.)
It's intriguing how wedded the majority seem to be to nation states, most of which have only existed in their current form for a few hundred years at most.
Nationalism has been in the ascendancy in in recent centuries but is it 'forever'? I doubt it.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You snowflakes have a real thing about criticism = almost being labelled a fascist and therefore should not be allowed. There is a whole spectrum of malign. The Boris and post Boris version of the Tories is more malign than any UK government of my lifetime by a distance. That does not make them the worst political party in the world ever or anywhere remotely close, but they are still problematic and should be challenged loudly and clearly.
I was exaggerating for effect.
The point is criticise a governments actions. Don’t smear them as being somehow evil. The left lives to do that.
Again there is a whole spectrum of malign. Intentions behind actions matter. This was malign. Not evil, but malign. Still not evil. Nor terrible 1930s fascism. Malign.
Not in this post but in previous threads there have been comparisons of this government to 1930s Germany…
And malign is a much stronger word than you think
Well if it happened unfairly on a previous thread, complain about it on that thread, don't snowflake your way to try and stop criticism on this thread!
It’s happened on multiple occasions.
My point is that the language used and demonisation of opponents is not conducive to a healthy society.
I’m stunned that anyone actually disputes that!
Mere snowflakery to deflect criticism. Not to mention the hypocrisy when we get into the language of the government on immigration or even their own civil servants and judges.
Is it snowflakery to point out that all but one of all EU countries require ID? Is it snowflakery to point out that the objection to this very reasonable and sensible measure is actually a cynical ploy by Labour and other opposition parties to try and paint the government as "malign" and evil and therefore create division in society and mistrust in politics?
I have always loathed Johnson and his populist politics of division, but the reality is that many on the left in this country are equal if not far worse.
And all those countries that require ID to be shown also have National ID cards and probably a legal requirement to carry it at all times.
We don't have a national ID card and it's almost like this is designed to correct demand for it by stealth.
IIRC only 15 have mandatory ID cards. Your next desperate point?
Japan and New Zealand require no ID to vote. Canada and Australia require ID to vote, but in the event you don't have any on you, you can either have another voter attest to your identity or cast a provisional ballot.
As far as I can tell, the UK is unique in (a) not having ID cards, and (b) not offering any kind of on the day alternative for people without ID.
I don't know where you got that from. I was referring to Europe. Only 15 member countries have mandatory ID cards. All but one require voter ID.
So sorry your research, for what it is worth (Wiki) appears to be very wrong
Anyway, enough of this dancing on pinheads about people who care so little about democracy that they think that voting is about the only important activity that should not require ID, I need to do some work. Have a nice day everyone
Comments
Other than that, not bad.
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
But you called Camilla a “hag” last night. That’s just deeply deeply unpleasant and personal. WTF did she ever do to you?
You should be ashamed of yourself. I know your mother would be ashamed of you.
https://theconversation.com/good-riddance-the-costs-of-morrisons-voter-id-plan-outweighed-any-benefit-172874
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/VoterID
So yes, in this case, undemocratic, immoral Tories.
Slowly slowly catchee monkey.
This might mean we can expect a record turnout or it might be because my wife and I are out tonight and we had to go first thing.
Similarly criticising the use of the word "hag" would carry more weight if you didn't bring the poster's mother into it.
Indeed the more doomed the Tories look, the less likely anyone will step forward to relieve him of the punishment.
It does make Camilla look as if she has been on the gin and can barely stand up.
This must be accepted, and even liked, by young men and women today, such is its fashion and ubiquity, but it hides unique personal facial features that are important as well as making you look older and more scratchy to kiss.
I see.
So, I expect the Conservative NEV to be depressed by WNVs that will turn up in a GE.
The point is criticise a governments actions. Don’t smear them as being somehow evil. The left lives to do that.
Candidate: *considers seat profile, canvassing returns, and telling numbers so far; ignore all to deliver standard answer regardless* "It's too close to call. Every vote counts."
And pointing out that - I assume - Sunil’s mother would disapprove of him insulting a woman in her 70s in such personalised terms doesn’t undermine the criticism at all
Yes, the Conservative brand is tarnished - and they are unpopular- but most people don't share this seething hatred and would view it as unhinged.
And malign is a much stronger word than you think
Now voting using ID may have its merits particularly amongst a nation that carries national ID cards. If the procedure has been implemented using due process, it hasn't. It is not the principle I object too it is the reason it has been implemented, namely to cynically suppress votes for party political gain. That is malign. And you might counter, well they're all at it anyway, but that doesn't make it right.
'Willy Nilly, asleep up the street, walks fourteen miles to deliver the post as he does every day of the night, and rat-a-tats hard on Mrs Willy Nilly'
At £70 a (cheapest) ticket I couldn't be bothered, at £25 it was a different decision.
It makes me feel detached from it all, as if the vote is being held in a different country.
Help me out, because I'm a provincial Science master and words aren't really my thing. What exactly is the boundary here?
Everyone and their dog has made the case, many times over.
Suggestions to address the problem in ways that don't depress voting have been made. It's been pointed out that the significantly greater demonstrable problem is with postal voting.
I haven't said you're immoral; those that have unilaterally altered the electoral rules, without taking any of that into account, are immoral in doing so.
My point is that the language used and demonisation of opponents is not conducive to a healthy society.
I’m stunned that anyone actually disputes that!
The challenge though is simple - if you tolerate this, then your children will be next. An example. Teesside's Tories are out campaigning that voting Tory is the "last chance to save your airport". That the airport is receiving oceans of public money with zero scrutiny is the problem, not that the airport exists. Same with Teesworks where at the very least it looks wrong that £450m of public money has been poured in and all of the revenue has been handed to mates of the mayor for £0 and no scrutiny at all is allowed.
Where do we draw the line? On Teesside I know far better than most just how useless some of the Labour politicians are. But they don't seek to avoid scrutiny whilst handing over a fortune of our money to certain individuals. There is bad, and there is *bad*...
The comedy club called off the event after staff refused to provide service to her. In a statement, the venue said: “Some of our staff have expressed their concerns about Ms Cherry's views and said that they do not wish to be involved in promoting or staging this show.”
The Stand has chosen to permit this and as a result now claims that the event cannot go ahead.
The Equality Act protects people from discrimination on the basis of a list of personal characteristics. These include race, sex, sexual orientation, religion or belief, gender reassignment, disability, marriage and civil partnerships, and age.
If you are a duty-bearer under the Act – for example a service provider such as The Stand – you cannot treat someone less favourably than you would treat others on the basis of a protected characteristic.
https://www.holyrood.com/comment/view,comedy-club-cancellation-of-joanna-cherry-event-is-almost-certainly-unlawful-discrimination
And it's strange that none of the people involved have reacted to Private Eye's reporting - you would have thought that they would be suing yet they aren't.
Malign isn't really the same as evil demons, is it?
"Definition of 'malign':
If something is malign, it causes harm.
[formal]
...the malign influence jealousy had on their lives.
Reliance on sponsorship can have a malign effect on theatre groups.
Synonyms: evil, bad, destructive, harmful"
I have always loathed Johnson and his populist politics of division, but the reality is that many on the left in this country are equal if not far worse.
We don't have a national ID card and it's almost like this is designed to correct demand for it by stealth.
My friends running on Teesside don't deserve to win because they have any answers - they don't. But Teesside Tories are toxic - expelling anyone from their ranks who dissents - and corrupt. In Stockton-on-Tees they have campaigned against the renovation of the high street and against the council restoring and running the theatre and against the council opening a hotel and against the council bulldozing a tatty empty shopping mall to build a riverside park. Never an alternative plan, just saying its a waste of money. yet when it comes to money for their mates, here you go and how dare anyone ask questions.
I love her 1972 debut album Lark. I’ll be listening to it today
https://youtu.be/Y6WBcNuvkPI
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65478310
Votes cast. Steady at about 7:15 this morning; the ID requirement meant it took a bit longer than usual.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/2628616#Comment_2628616
Starmer has no polished finish and really is a bit of a donkey, but beyond the slick delivery and the elocution Sunak really has nothing to offer. Enough, it would seem for many on this board, but where did running a country on crisp soundbites (for just 45 days) once get us?
- Australia
- Canada
- Japan
- New Zealand
Japan and New Zealand require no ID to vote. Canada and Australia require ID to vote, but in the event you don't have any on you, you can either have another voter attest to your identity or cast a provisional ballot.
As far as I can tell, the UK is unique in (a) not having ID cards, and (b) not offering any kind of on the day alternative for people without ID.
Can any Conservatives take a break from complaining about how hard done by they are, and explain why we opted for such uniqueness ?
Maybe, as I believe, it is a cynical ploy by Labour to defy logic because they think it creates division and their supporters are succoured into that support even though it is completely irrational.
would tip the result.
Furthermore, allowing existing voters to vouch for those without photo ID on them is an excellent idea. (And, interestingly, is the case in some countries with compulsory ID, such as Sweden.)
It's intriguing how wedded the majority seem to be to nation states, most of which have only existed in their current form for a few hundred years at most.
Nationalism has been in the ascendancy in in recent centuries but is it 'forever'? I doubt it.
So sorry your research, for what it is worth (Wiki) appears to be very wrong